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."
No, it wasn’t a direct attack on you at all. So there never was a reason for you to react as if it were a direct attack, and there never was a reason for admins to move it, and especially now since it’s days-and-pages-ago, there’s certainly no reason to still be carping about it.
Do feel free to ruin your own christmas by concentrating on the wrongs you feel have been done to you (oh the injustices!!) rather than counting your blessings, which I’m sure are plentiful — even if you need to take a break from this site to notice them.
My ability to feel sympathy for you has been stretched too thin by your recent flood of tears on your own behalf. Maybe if you weren’t quite so eager to cry wolf, and quite so unwilling to listen when people point out why it’s not exactly a wolf after all …
Oh, of course, “endless posts” has absolutely nothing to do with the goddamn whiny brats who won’t stop themselves from making endless posts about moderation. Juvenile delinquents. But no, it’s always someone else’s fault, never phoodoo’s, never Mung’s. Always Lizzie’s fault that you were forced against your will to show off your bad manners and worse logic.
Let’s try this again, Alan, since you appear to have some spare time on your hands.
How did this OP not have a genuine point to make?
Lizzie, your idealistic goals for TSZ are ultimately futile and unworkable. No amount of clarification will prevent a sufficiently motivated troll from doing their level best to irritate, derail, misinterpret, and outright lie… and at least two or three of the resident trolls hereabouts are, very much, more than sufficiently motivated.
I would wager that you would see a massive drop-off in what you call trolling by the “resident trolls” if we got rid of Guano and the silly NOT A RULE that “moderation issues” can only be raised in one dedicated thread.
But Elizabeth refuses (so far). But sure, blame a few others. And god forbid that anyone try to hold the admins accountable.
Heck, just today we had Alan tell one poster that a post of theirs was against the rules, yet Alan did not send the post to Guano. If he thought the post violated the rules why didn’t he send it to Guano?
Even after being warned, the same poster went on to make further statements that violate the rules. Post not in Guano.
Elizabeth gets the site she wants. Contrary to your claims she can do something about it.
Commenters who are new to TSZ get more leeway as they may not be as aware of the rules. Commenters whose comment is overwhelmingly content-rich but include a few words of exasperation get more leeway. Commenters who seem to be having their buttons pushed by inveterate button-pushers get more leeway. The comment you refer to benefits from all these factors.
Most commenters here can stay within the guidelines and respond to a reminder. Like Lizzie, I prefer to lean towards not moving rather than moving borderline comments. It’s called discretion.
If TSZ’s commentariat consisted entirely of people who genuinely are interested in intellectual discourse, with no trolls whatsoever, Lizzie’s rules would work admirably.
Of course, if TSZ’s commentariat did consist entirely of people who genuinely are interested in intellectual discourse, with no trolls whatsoever, those rules would be superfluous and unnecessary. Because people who genuinely are interested in intellectual discourse tend, just because, to behave in a manner which follows those rules.
Trolls, contrariwise, don’t give a flying fuck about—hah!—”intellectual discourse”. And likewise, a troll’s only concern about any rules a forum has, is to let those rules inform them how to post in a manner which stays just within the technically-accurate letter of said rules, while at the same time, shitting all over the intended purpose for which said rules may have been instituted in the first place.
Rules, no matter how clearly constructed, will not—cannot—prevent trolls from being trolls.
Cubist,
Here is a quick chronology of events regarding moderation:
-A number (all really) of the non-athesit posters here mention that they don’t feel their posts are getting treated fairly, namely that others are allowed to insult them at will, but when they respond, their posts are the ones that invariably get guanoed.
-This happens a number of times, even in discussions with Lizzie, where the reply to Lizzie’s criticism is soon sent to guano, so that the context is lost.
-Lizzie replies that she thinks the moderation is fair, and that it is our imagination. Willam, Mung and myself then post numerous examples of posts which directly attack the poster and do not get sent to guano, whilst we also give numerous examples of posts of ours that were not treated fairly.
-Lizzie continues to ignore the evidence and say that her moderators are great.
-Richard declares his role is to tweak the noses of others posters with vacuous crap designed to derail threads. Patrick says Richard is a great poster.
-Lizzie approves of publishing private email correspondence from Barry, because she doesn’t like Barry, and that’s basically why she started this forum.
-Several posts are started to discuss even further the obvious bias in moderation. In response Lizzie closes those posts and says we have enough talk about moderation. And by the way, she still feels her moderators are great.
-Alan suggests we need even more rules to curb speech, and keep people from mentioning the moderation.
-The atheists declare they hate all the talk about moderation, that they love the moderation the way it is, and BTW, even if it is biased, so what, just follow the rules. It is pointed out to them, that many here could not follow the rules at UD. They all declare that the moderation at UD must be biased against them.
-A feature is added to allow posters to ignore others they don’t like. Its still not enough, Lizzie says she needs more rules.
-A poster suggests instead of guano, you simply hide posts you think are against the rules, but allow anyone to see the original post in context if they like, so they can decide for themselves-thus making guano unnecessary. This suggestion is declared worthwhile, and ignored.
-Patrick and Alan call posters scurrilous trolls, and reiterate what a great job they are doing. Patrick goes to war removing posts, and claiming he is not going to war.
-Lizzie is allowed to make posts admonishing posters about the quality of their posts, and the reply to these admonishments is more posts sent to guano.
-Lizzie request questions about moderation only be asked in moderation, and tells posters to please post their questions their. Lizzie then ignores the posts there, and continues to disagree that the moderation is bad.
-Patrick and Allan make all kinds of excuses for why posts that are clearly against the rules, are not really against the rules.
-Lizzie, Patrick and Alan continue to show complete surprise about why anyone would think there is a problem with moderation.
If rules were enough to make rebels into good people the Bible would have ended after Sinai.
Rules simply illustrate that we are fallen and unable to reform ourselves. Reformation requires a change in inclination. Only God can accomplish that.
peace
Well, you could have a rule like
Trolls will be banned after a couple of warnings and a suspension or two.
But Lizzie doesn’t want to do that. I think it would improve things here immensely myself, but…it’s her ball and bat.
walto,
Yes, she indeed could have that rule. And that is exactly the kind of moderation rules they have at UD. Apparently some of the folks here aren’t very good at following rules, including the fearless leader here, so they got banned there.
I guess her implementing such a rule here would be the same as her admitting Barry was right. I don’t think she is so inclined to do that.
Yes. And then the trolls will go back to UD, where they will triumphantly declare that they were banned at TSZ because they are theists.
phoodoo,
Quick, but highly inaccurate.
I’m not going to fisk your entire comment, but let’s look at a few of your claims:
a) Many of the comments mentioned did not actually violate any rule.
b) Few of the complaints were accompanied by links to the supposedly offending comments, making it difficult to evaluate them in context.
c) Elizabeth has repeatedly explained that moderation is not intended to catch every offense, only to keep threads from being derailed as much as possible.
Please provide a link to where I said that in response to Richard saying what you claim he said or retract your scurrilous accusation.
No, she said to keep the discussion of moderation issues in the thread designated for that topic.
Utterly false. I have not gone “to war removing posts” and, until this comment, have not called any of your accusations scurrilous.
I realize it’s hard to create a narrative of abuse when the facts aren’t on your side, but I wish you luck in your no doubt continued endeavors.
Or, you could start posting substantive comments about interesting topics and the problem would go away.
fifthmonarchyman,
For someone who claims to want to talk about science, you inject your superstitions into discussions far more than you do evidence and reason.
You have yet to provide any evidence to support your claim that a god or gods exist. Until you do, any assertions about that alleged entity are vacuous.
My prediction is that you are going to again try to shift the burden of proof by asking questions rather than supporting your claim. Just don’t.
phoodoo,
The only rules at UD are “don’t annoy Barry Arrington” and “don’t make the regulars look bad.” The evidence shows that comments are modified and deleted and people are banned arbitrarily. That is in stark contrast to TSZ.
Eh, so what. Better they should turn this place into a zoo? You make any bannings open, pursuant to explicit due process, etc. They complain about this place now, anyhow.
Exactly. It’s not the banning that’s the problem. It’s the “reasons,” the secrecy, the subsequent lying about it, the arbitrariness, etc.
Anyhow, the excellent suggestion for making Noyau a mandatory (temporary) troll zone after sufficient warnings would eliminate any need for banning.
Will they whine about it? Absolutely. But what are they doing now?
I agree. On both points.
walto,
I think there is a misunderstanding on your part. I think you must believe it is a sort of privilege to be able to post here. As if someone is actually gaining something, and thus they are willing to go through a punishment phase in order to maintain that privilege.
I think that is a very mistaken idea, at least as far as I am concerned. I would describe it more as an obligation to protect some amount of truth. Like for instance exposes the torrent of lies that Patrick espouses here. I think by bringing to others attention, it is easy to for them to notice. This the next time they read other skeptic news, they will know that it is people like Patrick that spread the distorted view of reality.
But do I really need to do this? No, not hardly. I am simply providing a service to the community of truth.
It must absolute kill you (and Richardthughes) that I’ve not been over at UD making a big deal about your censorship here at TSZ Neil. Or about Elizabeth allowing and even encouraging the publishing of private email correspondence on the site,
My history here at TSZ is that if someone tells me I violated the rules I check the rules and if I have indeed violated them I modify my behavior accordingly. The taunts from Richardthughes about death by cop are laughably pathetic.
This is the difference between how I act here at TSZ and how people here who have been banned at UD acted when they were at UD. I am willing to play by the rules or leave.
Are you the wise admin who sent my posts in this thread to Guano after Elizabeth had clearly stated that posts in this thread were not to be sent to Guano?
It’s a sad state of affairs indeed when even the admins don’t know the rules. 🙂
ETA:
So?
Mung,
Plus does anyone really believe Lizzie would ban her own pitbulls?
Been there, done that, problem did not go away. Your move.
Maybe if all the theists just stopped complaining there would be no complaints.
Um. no. We know that’s false too.
I just love the latest offering from Alan Fox.
People are allowed to break the rules if they do it in a certain way or if they are doing so in response to someone else.
The admins continue to insist that it’s “a good thing” that they let things slide here. I think the evidence shows otherwise. Why do they not see it?
Who does?
walto,
The goals of this site are to encourage free and open discussion. This isn’t UD. Banning someone for the content of their comments (aside from porn and outing) is not aligned with those goals.
You’re probably right that we’ll always have to put up with some people who’s primary purpose is to harm the site. We can address that without giving up our principles.
Plus, it’s amusing to watch people complain about how horrible the moderation is here and personally insult the admins without being banned or having their comments deleted. That clearly demonstrates the difference between us and UD.
Mung,
More detail, please. When have you encountered a problem when posting a substantive comment?
Well, Patrick, the most recent case is probably when I was accused of having or being a demon. But according to Alan, that’s ok, because it was in the midst of a whole bunch of other stuff that was not Guano.
Mung,
Can I buy a link, Vanna?
Here’s a post where I was flat-out accused of being a troll.
Mung,
I only see the word “trolling” used once in the comments and not directed at anyone specifically. Am I missing some context that makes it clear that you were the target?
Mung,
I just read the thread and yes, Rumraket accused you of throwing a hissy fit. That should have been moved to Guano.
Posts are ranging from just blatant trolling (it’s a war against irrationality)…
I am the only person who had made a comment about being in a war against irrationality. If you insist, I can find the actual comment I made.
As you probably are already aware, I rarely insist that a comment about me be sent to Guano. That’s not the point here. I’d be fine if we got rid of Guano entirely.
The point is that even if I do try to stay with substance, people are still going to make comments to/about me that are Guano-able.
When have you encountered a problem when posting a substantive comment?
All the time 🙂
Salvador was making substantive comments and was being accused of being delusional.
Well, that’s just reality for ya’. Too bad reality is not as black-and-white as some people wish it were — would make it simpler, I’m sure, but also completely unjust if every time someone stole so much as a crust of bread they were hung as a thief.
Fortunately most of us are more compassionate and nuanced than Mung.
Obviously, a clear problem here is that too many people don’t know what “substantive” means.
What amazes me is that anyone would think that anyone, except I suppose moderators, would read the reams of whining by these people who never have been worth reading in the first place. For all I know, there could even be a case that moderation is unfair, it’s just that I’ve never seen these people to make a good case for anything, so who cares and why bother?
It’s always “this is the same as that,” by people who clearly fail to recognize that this is very much unlike that. The failure to think well is, and always was, the problem.
Glen Davidson
Can’t be certain, but I’m pretty sure my attacks on the admins, such as they have been, have been restricted to the appropriate threads. IOW, I am playing by the rules of THIS SITE. What goes on at UD is irrelevant.
Mung,
Your complaints about those comments are valid and I’d be happy to address them if you wish. What I was asking, though, is if you’ve ever had the experience of a substantive comment of yours being moved to Guano.
My original point to phoodoo was that those kinds of comments do not get moved so s/he might want to consider spending more time crafting those instead of incessantly complaining about moderation.
I’d allow all your comments and all of Gregory’s unless you did something that was a bannable offense. Equal compassion and nuance for all!
LoL.
Yeah, so what.
People make rude comments about be all the time.
So what.
I get away with accidentally or intentionally rude things sometimes. But it’s not because I’m on the “right side” — if that were true, then none of my comments would be guano’d, as they are.
So what.
It’s okay if they do, it’s okay if they don’t. It is what it is.
Grown persons have no excuse for demanding that the world be perfectly fair.
And this site in particular is not run by an omniscient omnibenevolent god who can give each participant the exact justice they deserve.
So, kwicherbichen.
The fact that you’d allow all of Gregory’s comments tells me everything I need to know about you.
Sorry, Mung. I used to accept you.
Andy Taylor: Well, I caught him earlier on a 10-17.
Barney Fife: Hat in a horse trough?
Andy Taylor: Yeah.
Patrick, you might note I drew Rumraket’s attention to the rules and made the judgement that as he was a relatively new poster that would suffice. As I remarked upthread, I used a little discretion, especially considering the amount of substantive material in Rumraket’s comment.
No, hell no. I think I made my point, and I’d like the admins to be able to enjoy the site too, lol.
Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying if people made substantive comments that other people would behave themselves.
Clearly. Let’s pass a rule that posts must be substantive and that as long as they are substantive people can add in any other comment that they wish.
I can’t argue with that reasoning.
Yes, well, I also believe in forgiveness and redemption. So while that may be your last word on the subject I will continue as if it isn’t.
But that is not what Alan said. And I suppose that is why you did not provide a link.
He did throw in a whole bunch of provisos I’d never heard of before.
It’s not that I think he’s wrong. All of those exceptions make sense to me: it’s stuff like that that shows the problem with Lizzie’s “statutory” approach to rules. If you apply them as written, almost everything goes to Guano. If you don’t (because you want to act reasonably instead of like a robot) you’re inserting provisos that aren’t actually there and will be justly criticized for making stuff up.