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."
Patrick,
No.
phoodoo,
Then it’s very easy to see who is lying here.
And this is just a red herring, as Elizabeth has already weighed in on this issue. The title of the OP did not violate any site rules. So now what’s your excuse?
Then it’s very easy to see who is lying here.
Phoodoo has a long history of this.
Long observation suggests this technique is an absolute requirement for creationism.
phoodoo,
What utter bollocks. Patrick is on record as not supporting deletion. I have never seen any contrary statement from him on the matter. So how can you say he is lying when he says he does not support it? Somehow, he does?
Another red herring.
Just keep trying to spin it, Mung. Maybe if you repeat falsehoods often enough you’ll get people to believe them. It worked for Goebbels.
There, the discussion has been Godwin’d. Until you bring up some actual evidence, I’m done with you.
If only you’d been done with me before you advocated censoring my thread we’d not be having this conversation at all. Nanny Patrick.
Guano
Please ask Salvador to take his war against Barry elsewhere. This is not the site for it. Thank you.
Guano
Please remind Alan Fox that this site is not a peanut gallery.
*guffaws*
Mung is very uncomfortable having his hypocrisy front and center. He would like the topic to go away.
Posters who wish to attack others should do so in Noyau. That’s what it’s there for. This thread is for Moderation Issues.
Just sayin’.
With all the featured threads, is there anyway to make the front page a little bigger to allow the lesser authors to have their posts noticed?
The unfeatured discussions are drawing a good share of the comment traffic, especially Frankie and Mung (Obpropirium thread) and Keiths (Varieties of Religious Language). The unfeatured part of TSZ is actually the most featured part in a sense.
I understand the featured threads are a little less draw for drama but are important topics and hence featured. I was just suggesting the front page display more threads than it does right now.
The Feature threads were invoked to cover up the censorship that was talking place. I think they’ve served their purpose and can be returned to normal status.
Can we do a reset and see which threads really deserve Feature status?
Outing is against the rules here at TSZ and can result in banning.
How is it that this post is not outing?
It’s only outing if it’s true. Frankie has not said he is a sock of a banned member, has he?
I’d have thought it only outing if it identified an individual, rather than linking (by the crafty tactic of not-linking) two pseudonyms.
Allan Miller,
Indeed.
So if I claim that walto is NOT [insert walto’s true identity here] my claim would be false, and therefore it would not be outing. Got it.
Seems moronic. Just think of what you’re handing to people who want to engage in outing.
It’s not like anyone is being as preposterous as to claim that Frankie is Virgil Cain.
Joe doesn’t even know who he is half the time. Is he Joe, or Jim, or John Paul? He forgets he’s YEC then thinks he’s a Muslim. Forgets where he lives and hangs out in the parking lot. Probably PTSD from his hero days. Probably Toaster Suffered Defects.
Well, that’s not what happens when someone notices a similarity of style between a banned member posting under the pseudonym “JoeG” and a current member posting under the pseudonym “Frankie”. No personal information about the person or persons using these pseudonyms is being divulged here.
I have to disagree. Saying that someone is like JoeG is implying some serious mental pathologies that need profession intervention.
Not sure if that’s right. To infer that, one would have to be familiar with the blogosphere contributions of JoeG and there surely can’t be many such sad souls!
Alan Fox,
People in glass houses and all…
Hi Alan, I’m just wondering how far you’re willing to take this line of excuse.
So if some other site has a rule against outing the same as the rule here, say atbc, and you were an admin that site and there was someone there posting under the name Febble, and I started referring to that person as “Febble/Elizabeth” that would be ok, because Elizabeth is a name she uses on another site?
Why don’t you just swing that door open as wide as you can Alan.
Mung,
Mung, It’s OK that they expose their own hypocrisy. It wouldn’t be TSZ without that.
Lizzie’s rule on outing is quite clear. Here’s the relevant bit: “…it is not OK to use that person’s RL name…”. JoeG is not a RL name.
Don’t see why not. It’s keeping one’s private blogging activity separate from one’s professional life that Lizzie is concerned with. Knowing Lizzie posts elsewhere as Febble gives away no personal information, neither does knowing JoeG and Virgil Caine are pseudonyms of the same person.
The rule is that we don’t publish personal details of members, such as their real names, except if they supply that information themselves by providing links etc.
This forum needs moderators from the ID side. That way the posts that evos deem as guano can at least be joined by the posts that provoked the response.
Frankie,
Whatever happened to IDGuy Jim? He’d be a good choice..
I disagree, I think this forum needs less of JoeG and Phoodoo and Gregory and Mung.
I’ve been Guanoed ZERO times (as far as I know). My position may not be liked here, but I get better treatment here that UD. This forum is run with respect for published policies. I suspect JohnnyB and Cornelius Hunter or VJTorley (if they ever showed up) or Mike Gene would never get Guanoed either. WJM got guanoed a few times, I thought the trigger was a little to quick, but he’s been able to say his peace for the most part.
I’ve never been shut down as long as I don’t say some of the vulgar stuff you say Frankie.
I had an ID moderator by the name of Barry Arrington. That didn’t exactly help the ID case in my humble opinion. BS a plenty was aloud to go unchecked, and reasonable dissent of mainstream ID was suffocated.
I shouldn’t have to worry about getting tossed for agreeing with Mathgrrl/Patrick on CSI, agreeing with TSZ on the 2nd law, saying “ID should not be promoted as science”, pointing out the shallowness of “principles of right reason” and StephenB’s First Cause defense of ID, etc. etc….. But I did at UD. Here, I’ve been free to say what I feel needs to be said in a civil venue.
EL, Niel, Alan, Patrick …. I’ve had no problem with as far as my treatment here.
God bless TSZ.
Or maybe even Virgil Cain. But stay away from Joe G. He is a freaking pathological moron.
Acartia,
Its hard to hide when all you can do is durp.
Frankie, you are starting to sound like Joey.
Someone disagreeing with you is not a provocation. And even if you are being unjustly provoked (haven’t seen it yet), resorting to name calling is something that most of us grow out of as we mature. Maybe when you grow up, you will as well.
In the mean time, maybe you should take the zen approach and simply repeat a mantra when you feel provoked. Might I suggest “Wavelength equals frequency”. I have been told that the best and most effective mantras are meaningless phrases. This should work well.
Cute performance art.
“Why do you have to resort to name calling, you spastic dufus.”
Hey Phoodoo, did you ever take me up on my “comparable / corresponding narrative” offer?
Sal,
Amen.
Do you have something against spastic dufuses?
It is very telling that I write a post on having ID MODERATORS and Sal responds with complaints about ID commenters.
That is why they like you Sal-> you are a clueless tool
It is very telling….
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com+%22It+is+very+telling%22
sure is.
It is very telling that you think his comment about ID moderators (ie, the moronic Banny Arrogant) is a comment about ID commenters. It is obvious that with your reading comprehension skills, you will never be allowed to moderate anything other than your own bowel movements. At least, with that authority, you can only soil yourself. What’s that smell?
Acartia,
And to think he’s somebodysdad
Uncle Daddy.
Not aboit moderation.
I made a NEW THREAD but its been days saying its still PENDING.
I don’t know how to contact TSZ bosses.
Anyone know this or whether I must just wait for my thread to be approved. ??
Robert Byers,
It’s published now. Feel free to post in this thread or message an admin directly to get future posts published more quickly,
Why did Alan guano my post calling dazz dishonest and leave dazz’s post that called me dishonest alone?
Why the two-faced hypocrisy of the moderators?
And why is Alan allowed to berate me for stating the facts but my responses get guano’d? Why the blatant cowardice?
Your comments are held for moderation before being approved as I’m still waiting for a confirmation from you that you will try and observe the rules. So unfortunately your rule-breaking comments are less likely to be overlooked. It’s actually a pain to do this so I’d really prefer to lift this restriction. Can you give an undertaking to try and stick to the rules from now on? If so, I’ll lift the moderation restriction.
I’ll try harder! 🙂
I didn’t just call him dishonest. I presented him with a way to settle our disagreement and suggested we checked who was right and who was wrong by objective means. He refused and insisted he was right by pure assertion, so I think I was justified at calling him out for intellectual dishonesty.
Just want to know for future reference, if it breaks the rules to call out someone for arguing in bad faith when there’s proof they are indeed doing so