As the replacement Moderation page has developed the old bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, so here is yet another page for continuing discussion on moderating issues. The Rules can be found there so anyone with an issue should check that they are familiar with them.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
It’s not so much me. I’m a big boy I can take it.
It’s the other outsiders that I feel get a raw deal here.
Here is what a typical interaction in the comment section looks like from my perspective
A theist posts something tame and timid and he is immediately swarmed with unreasonable demands and nasty abuse from multiple directions . If he attempts to respond the abuse gets worse till he abandons the effort all together and moves on to other pastures or slips up with a comment that is a tad over the top.
At that point he is immediately sent to guano. It’s like certain admins are hovering just waiting to spring at the slightest little offense from those on the other side.
At the same time it seems that the aggressive anti- theist posters are only sent to guano after they repeatedly and blatantly cross the line and then they often go immediately back to doing what they were before with no repercussions what soever.
Once again I’ll readily concede that this might be just my own bias showing through but the impression is there.
IMO this appearance of impropriety could be easily addressed by simply adding a robust confident theist or two to the admin staff.
I think you would get a much more diverse group of participants and more interesting conversations if you did this.
Just my two cents
peace
You got any evidence to support this accusation against me?
You got any evidence to support this “90 percent” claim? You actually counted some set of pages? Do you know how to use statistical tests to ensure that you’ve grabbed a representative set?
Hmm, I wonder if we need to set up controls for number of words compared to merely number of comments. Naw, let that pass for now.
Interesting question: are there not-in-your-face theist commenters who might be mistakenly counted on the “atheist side”? Is the only way we can tell who’s a theist around here is by who’s rude enough to bash atheists? Specifically, if you’re testing potential “bad” moderation against theists, then you need to know who the moderators think is on the “theist list”.
You asked any of them who’s on the list, phoodoo?
No, that doesn’t matter, because you theists are collectively the boys who cried wolf, with a lifelong pattern of complaining about how the big bad atheists are being mean and big and bad (again).
Now, it might just happen to be true that this time, of all the times you’ve cried wolf, there really are wolves – or bad moderators – attacking the innocent theist sheep.
Balance of probability though is that you’re as mistaken now as you always have been.
You and your ilk with your wounded screams about War On Christmas!!! and about “how can I go to heaven if I can’t hate on the gays like I think the bible tells me to” and about “takes more faith to believe in evolution than god’s design and creation” have blown your credibility long ago.
So, no, I’m completely sincere in being open to the truth, and completely reasonable not to kowtow to the theist statement that moderation here is “bad” (no matter if a majority or ALL theists agree) since we have to account for the probability of your previous-demonstrated anti-atheist bias in action yet again.
Oops. That’s my non-functional sense of humor, then. 🙁
10th anniversary!!!
And a birthday in our family.
And only two nights until the days start getting longer again.
And only 13 days to the BBC Sherlock special.
I’ve got a lot to celebrate about now.
Perfectly all right. 🙂
You got the holing people in authority accountable one.
keiths:
Mung:
Between the level of OldMung’s recent humiliation and the intelligence of his comments? I’m well aware of that inverse relationship.
It’s why I say wholeheartedly:
P.S. Speaking of humiliation, have you given up on your claim that “The ‘power of cumulative selection’ is an artifact of the design of the [Weasel] program”?
I absolutely agree that having my recent thread censored is humiliating. So far I’ve been able to ascertain that it wasn’t due to the title of the OP.
Your thoughts?
Private emails are being published.
Threads are being censored.
These issues pose far more danger to open and honest discussion here at TSZ than any Weasel program.
And you thought I didn’t care.
Say whatever you want, dear fellow guest. If you’re not happy here, you can leave whenever you wish.
Trolls care enough to troll.
Comments were closed on a couple of threads. But there was no censoring.
Preventing that would require censoring.
You’re a censor Neil.
any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
ETA: You just failed in the case of Salvador because you lack the requisite moral compass.
That’s a polite request, not a rule.
There is no rule that comments regarding moderation must be posted in moderation issues and we have Elizabeth’s word that no one is being forced to post in moderation issues.
Neil Rickert,
But you do admit you censor. Personally I think publishing someone’s private emails is more obscene than publishing pornography.
Neil doesn’t get it. He wants to deny that he is a censor, but he is a censor. That’s his role as an admin/moderator.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/butthurt
In case you hadn’t noticed, the world is full of pornography venues and there are millions of places you can get together with your fellow porn fans to exchange photos etc.
I’m sure you would be much happier there than hanging around here, a site you think is genuinely “obscene”.
Do yourself a favor and go. Don’t hurry back.
Yes. Yes. Adapa.
Anti-gay bigotry is not restricted to anti-gay bigots.
Hell, I’d vote for hotshoe_ for admin over Patrick and Neil.
Since no one’s speech has been suppressed, that’s a pointless link. Well, not pointless to demonstrate that Mung is wrong:
A rational person has to wonder why you’d get so upset about rules intended to foster the flow of discussion while not suppressing anyone (like me) who occasionally needs to break the rules to fulfill the need to call Gregory a fucking pervert.
My speech here isn’t censored: it isn’t suppressed, it’s not vanished or partly blacked out or changed without warning by the loudspeaker in the ceiling.
It’s more than a little pointless to cry “censorship” when my entire comment is still visible – not exactly where I left it but completely intact and visible – for everyone to see, comment on, pass along to their friends … with no shame and no repercussions.
I don’t think you’re including Sal there, are you?
Thanks, I think.
I’ll vote for me, too.
But I’m certainly bossier than Patrick who is pretty laissez-faire. Might be a case of “careful what you wish for”.
Why do any of your comments end up in Guano?
Please post your objections to the publishing of private email communications in this thread.
You should know. You’re the one backslapping and supporting all the disgusting homophobia that gets posted at UD.
Adapa, how about you quit that fucking stupid “butthurt” shit. It was stupid the first time you used it and it hasn’t improved any since.
At least if you have to be tedious, be tedious with a different insult for a change.
Well gee, hotshoe_,
You can always email your comments to your congressperson.
Therefore, you are not censored here at TSZ.
But it fits Mung and the situation so perfectly. I’ll consider synonyms if some are suggested. 🙂
🙂
Sal will become whatever he needs to be to be accepted. Now this is actually a testable hypothesis, is it not?
Sorry, Mung.
You really have missed the point on this one.
I’m not restricting “censorship” to government interference with speech. I’m willing to go with the expanded definition in the wiki link you provided: “suppression of speech by … other groups or institutions.”
Except by that expanded definition, there still is no censorship here.
I’m sorry you can’t see this more neutrally and I honestly cannot imagine a reason why you want to push the term “censorship” where it clearly doesn’t fit.
You’re not suppressed. Your speech is not suppressed. Fer chrissakes, here you are ranting about it for hours and days. That’s the exact opposite of suppressed!
Is that a rhetorical question?
I cannot post in a thread I started. I don’t know what to call that other than censorship.
Others cannot post in a thread I started. I don’t know what to call that other than censorship.
What should I call it?
Yes. 🙂
Yet here you are still starting threads open to all and still posting the same bullshit.
What should we call that?
Call it “sensible”.
Call it “appropriate direction”
Call it “fire marshall is closing this room for code violations, but there’s a great big free building across the street which everyone can fit into, and y’all can party all night”
Call it whatever your heart desires. But if your heart insists on calling it “censorship” there are not too many people who are gonna take you seriously.
Mung,
The notion that the Weasel program might endanger “open and honest discussion” is as goofy as your claim that “the ‘power of cumulative selection’ is an artifact of the design of the program.”
Is the concern thingy sort of like the integrity thingy?
keiths,
Who was just opining on ‘moral compasses’?
OldMung’s moral compass.
I’m sure you’ll manage to manufacture a bigoted or misogynist response.
LOL! Like the ones you cheered on at UD?
Do you support equal rights including marriage rights for LGBT people? Do you support no religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws?
Your refusal to answer every time is all the evidence anyone needs
This does not concern me.
After all, how many people here at TSZ joined with me in the condemnation of the posting of private email correspondence? How many people here at TSZ joined me in the condemnation of the admins who encouraged it?
Not me, because I disagreed with you.
You should call it being deprived of the facility to express your comments in one part of the site and being given a less restrictive venue as an alternative.
Allan Miller wrote
Now this is really funny. If so many people have a problem with the moderation here, the best thing to do is to stop letting people talk about the moderation! That is much better than acknowledging the problem!
Ai Ai Captain! The Queen has spoken. There will not be dissent on her UD bashing pirate ship!
This was guanoed??:
“I nominate this comment for the TSZ hall of fame.” WTF? Alan already told me it is Ok to criticize the post not the poster. That interpretation didn’t last long did it? Moderators are hypocrites, oh heavens no!
Queen Elizabeth, I beg you, please spare the head of Mung, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Alan,
NOW will you admit that what you said about the rules was bullshit??
Its still ok to call someone’s post scurrilous, right? But I can’t call the actions of the site scurrilous right? What about trying to censor Mung when he didn’t break any rules? Can I call that scurrilous?
Freedom of speech is a tough thing to allow, isn’t it Queen?
Can you say precisely how you think your freedom of speech is being compromised by my actions, phoodoo?
phoodoo,
No, clearly if you have a problem with moderation here, the best thing is to talk about it incessantly for Week. After Week. After Fucking Week. To the exclusion of all else. It’s beginning to look a lot like spamming.
You think the moderation here is biased. Got it. Theists’ stupid insults get moved more than atheists’. Whether it’s true or not, I give even less of a fuck about it than I did 2 weeks ago.