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."
Alan,
There is no continuity rule, and it is not your place to establish one.
Not only is it a bad idea, as Patrick points out, but it isn’t even a frikkin’ rule.
How many times do you have to be reminded? Guano is only for posts that actually violate the rules, and even then, guanoing is optional.
Alan,
There is nothing in my exchange with Mung that violates the rules. That includes Mung’s comments, too, which are stupid but not rule-violating:
Mung:
keiths:
Mung:
Mung:
keiths:
Your first mistake was to guano a non-rule-violating comment by Mung, creating a discontinuity.
Then you tried to fix the discontinuity by enforcing an imaginary rule and moving the rest of the exchange to Guano.
The whole thing should have been left alone.
phoodoo,
I have never deleted a post or comment.
You mean you have no control over WEIT? Shocking! The moderation whine (this place is bad like UD) has evolved into (other evolution websites are bad).
Sure. Here at TSZ get rid of Guano and get rid of Noyau. UD has neither. TSZ wants to not be like UD in that it wants to allow people to act like assholes and get away with it? Site owner decides who gets banned or not. Simple.
My stance here has been the same for a long time. Let the admins be admins and stop trying to moderate.
I bet keiths agrees with me on this and it’s pretty much the attitude that Patrick has, though at times his attitude comes into conflict with the role he has to play as moderator.
And now that this site has an “Ignore Commenter” feature there is even less need for moderators.
Pathetic Alan. 😉
MUST.MAKE.TSZ.AS.CRAP.AS.UD…..
Alan’s first mistake was creating the “Whine Cellar” and moving posts to it. Then Elizabeth thought it was all a “good idea” and encouraged Alan in thinking he could make up his own rules and take actions where no rules allowed such actions.
This is what you get when you have an absentee landlord and out of control proxies who don’t need written rules to tell them what to do. The rules are a living document!
Elizabeth’s First Rule should have been to bind the admins.
Alan’s second mistake was to lie about his first mistake.
Meanwhile, there is the small matter of whether a rule exists which requires that “Moderation Issues” MUST BE raised in the “Moderation Issues” thread, and if this rules exists, WHERE does it exist?
I can no longer create an OP here without “special permission” for allegedly violating a rule that allegedly exists somewhere.
Right Alan?
Yes. Yes. We know you have a fixation on intestinal effluvium. Please seek help.
ETA: It can’t possibly be healthy.
Wow. Mung made it though almost a whole day without bawling like a little baby about how he’s such a mistreated victim. That’s gotta be a record.
The permission is not special and, unless it is yet another OP on moderation it will be published as soon as an admin is aware of it. If you’d confirm you’ll, in future, post moderation complaints and queries in this dedicated thread, I’ll restore your ability to publish your own OP’s
My judgement was the comment was outside the rules, so the rest follows.
I take exception to this. Explain how you think I have lied.
Ah, perhaps you are referring to this. It was “wine cellar”. The play on words was intended to be humorous. I thought it was a good idea and still do.
I’ll go through a couple of points again. This is the personal website of Dr Elizabeth Liddle. She is the sole arbiter of what happens regarding moderation on this website. I happen to agree strongly with her declared aims in enabling and encouraging free (especially from rancour) and open dialogue across widely varying viewpoints. This is why, when Lizzie asked me to help with the housekeeping, I was happy to do so.
As far as I am concerned the rules regarding what passes for acceptable dialogue are necessary only insofar as they contribute to those stated aims that I support. I personally doubt that any popular site receiving comments from anyone motivated to do so can operate without at least some oversight but I strongly oppose any censorship such as deletion or editing of comments (other than spam, porn, defamation and outing). There is I hope a happy medium between an echo chamber and a free-for-all.
So my attitude to moderation is it is a necessary evil. Until Lizzie decides she no longer needs my help or I’m no longer able to find time, I’ll continue to act as an admin as Lizzie’s representative in the way I’ve been doing.
I also think the wine cellar is a good idea. Particularly on this site with so much talk and meta-talk about moderation, it’s a good idea to have a dedicated place for such talk.
The criticism of moderation on this site is largely unjustified. It’s particularly unjustified considering that the base of most of the critics of SZ is UD, an outrageously censored website. UD periodically purges its membership not by the tone and content of the posts of the dissenters, but by the mood of the main mod. And he is in a bad mood most of the time, while at other times enflamed with the spirit of a crusade. Nothing commendable in either case.
In comparison, this place is rather safe. The worst problem here that sticks in the eye is the disproportionate talk about rules and moderation compared to every other forum on the internet.
I appreciate the sentiments, Eric.
Can’t argue with that. 🙂
Alan Fox,
Yea, you think they would get the hint, huh?
Mung,
How do you propose to handle comments that violate the rules without a place like Guano? Are you suggesting that they simply be deleted? That’s against the spirit of open discussion and far too much like UD’s arbitrary comment deletion and manipulation.
Noyau isn’t necessary, but it does serve the purpose of allowing people to vent when they want to make comments that fall outside the rules. Do you really want to disallow that outlet? If so, why?
Mung,
I don’t disagree with you, but this is Lizzie’s site so we abide by Lizzie’s rules. It’s an interesting experiment — I’m curious to see where it goes.
Mung,
In a different thread you ask some moderation questions:
Lizzie said:
Now, you are correct that this hasn’t made it into the published site rules. There is also no rule that allows an admin to move a comment to any other thread than Guano. I am therefore constrained to gentle persuasion and leading by example.
Patrick,
Patrick,
Do you think Ming seeks to ‘fix’ TSZ or to ‘break’ it?
Richardthughes,
I’m assuming good faith. In Lizzie’s name. 😉
Maybe it would be against the rules to answer that.
Or, maybe, he sees “fix” and “break” as equivalent.
Alan,
How did you get my jpg image (of the spliceosome) to post in a comment? I can do that in an OP using the img tags, but when I use that same exact syntax in a comment, it doesn’t work.
What’s the magic secret you’ve figured out?
Sal
stcordova,
You need to copy the file to your own computer and use the “upload” button in the comment box. It works for my test sock with contributor status.
Alan,
Hey thanks. Hope you’re not offended if I say, God bless you!
stcordova,
I’m not that PC. Have you tried it yet?
Yes, over in sandbox. It works well, that’s why I was so elated. You made my day. 🙂
Maybe he’s just trying to make an omelette
keiths:
Alan:
Mung’s comment wasn’t outside the rules, and the rest wouldn’t follow even if it had been. There is no continuity rule, and therefore no justification for moving my comments to Guano.
You fucked up yet again, Alan. How many times does this have to happen before you get the fucking memo?
It is not your place to invent and enforce new rules.
Lizzie didn’t. She overruled you and had to clean up the mess you made. (In fact, that’s why this thread has the nonsensical URL that it does.)
So why do you act as if it were your personal fiefdom? Why do you repeatedly ignore Lizzie’s rules and create your own?
keiths,
I am not a big fan of the moderators here, but I have to say this post is a little bit harsh. The moderators have to do somethings.
I don’t think what Alan did was necessarily so wrong here.
Mung,
Mung, In order to do what Richie said, ie “MUST.MAKE.TSZ.AS.CRAP.AS.UD…..”, TSZ would have to move up a few levels. 😎
phoodoo writes:
The one time phoodoo agrees with an admin action and it’s one that isn’t supported by the rules.
I do not use the private message facility often, but it would be nice if we could see sent messages to confirm they were sent.
First you created the Whine Cellar thread. Then you moved posts into it, without any rule authorizing such action. Later you claimed that admins could only move posts to Guano, a statement you had to know to be false. Ergo, Liar.
I managed to behave myself here for quite some time before certain admins started acting badly. I’m basically advocating for the same thing keiths is advocating for, and he seems to think that was better.
I’d love to start an OP on suggestions for the rules here at TSZ, but that’s [apparently] against the rules. LoL.
But at least the threads don’t get deleted!
Discussion of the rules is on topic in the Moderation Issues thread. Lizzie has explicitly requested that all meta discussion take place here. Is there any reason you can’t post your suggestions here?
There is no reason that I CANNOT. But then, there is also no rule that I MUST.
What narrative are you asking me to adopt? Are you asking me to act as if a rule exists that does not exist when you admit that no such rule exists? Yet Alan acts as if there is an actual rule that I have violated.
Rule #1: Admins ought to all be on the same page. If admins are at odds no wonder the moderation here seems arbitrary.
I’ve already voiced my objections to being required to post in this thread and stated the reasons for them. I’d be more amenable to discussing “moderation issues” in this thread if Elizabeth took my objections seriously. She doesn’t, so I take her suggestion that I post here in this thread in the same spirit.
It is simply idiotic to claim that discussion of rules is off-topic in a thread created for the purpose of discussing the existing rules or in a thread proposing new rules.
Now if you want to claim that it is against the rules to post an OP to discuss the existing rules or to post an OP to propose new rules, just say so.
OP’s discussing the rules were allowed in the past. If they are no longer allowed, post the new rule forbidding them.
It really is that simple.
And from my perspective it is utterly revealing that while actions have been taken to enforce this new rule that is not a rule, the rule itself has yet to make an appearance in the site Rules.
And that’s how I took Lizzie’s comments. A request, not a new rule. If she wanted to make it a rule and have it enforced as a rule she could have posted it in Rules or asked her admins to do so. She did not do so.
So while I could be persuaded to post “Moderation Issues” in this thread, coercion and force were instead employed. Some admin took Lizzie’s “not a rule” and turned it into a rule and implemented an enforcement policy based on her “not a rule.”
Is this how TSZ is run? Making up the rules on the fly, enforcing rules that do not exist? Apparently so.
It’s a request, not a rule. And no one but Elizabeth knows what she means by a “meta discussion.” Post which topics are to be considered “meta discussions” and which topics are not to be considered “meta discussions.” Post the rule that “meta discussions” must be posted here in “Moderation Issues.” Post the rule stating which actions admins are to take if the rule about “meta discussions” is violated.
This isn’t rocket science.
Problem: There are no such rules.
Solution: Post the rules.
Or we could go on pretending that Elizabeth has stated new rules and how they are to be enforced in spite of the lack of evidence to support that narrative.
Mung,
OMG, North Korea!!!
OMG, The Skeptical Zone!!!
Thanks for the laughs. I needed that.
Mung,
Elizabeth addressed this in the Meta-threads topic:
I take that last sentence as a very clear expression of her intent for this site.
However, you are right. It is not in the published rules and there are no instructions for the admins on how to deal with such comments outside the Moderation Issues thread. I personally favor moving them to Moderation Issues, but Elizabeth decided against that. It doesn’t seem right to move them to Guano, because they don’t violate the posted rules. We’re in limbo until she has the time to address the issue directly.
That’s a good goal. I disagree with some of Alan’s decisions, but I’m not going to start an admin war over it unless comments are actually deleted. I would like Elizabeth to clarify the “continuity” issue as well.
I remember you raising some objections, but I’ve forgotten the details. Could you please explain again why you object to keeping discussion of moderation issues and site rules in this thread?
Not sure what you’re finding is a problem, here. You should see a green message flash saying “message has been sent” and also your message box shows “read” or “unread” against each sent message.
It’s a matter of dates. I set up the wine cellar during one of Lizzie’s absences. On her return, she decided that Wine Cellar ==>Noyau would be voluntary and subsequent to that decision, I haven’t moved any comments to Noyau. So no lying there.
I did move a comment of yours to the moderation issues thread (overlooking that it was also a rule/guideline not to move comments there either, though I still think it makes sense to move mod issues complaints and queries to the appropriate thread and deal with them there) but I reversed that and apologised.
I’m convinced that Lizzie is perfectly serious about that.
Apparently I did something wrong the last time. Now it shows up as read immediately. Not sure if enough time elapsed for the recipient to read it.