Moderation Issues (2)

cropped-adelie-penguin-antarctica_89655_990x7421.jpgAs 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.

2,308 Replies to “Moderation Issues (2)”

  1. William J. Murray says:

    This site is basically an anti-UD, anti-ID, anti-Arrington echo-chamber where anyone not with the home team, more or less, gets personally attacked. If you’d really like civil debates/discussions with those you disagree with (which I doubt), letting OMagain, RHughes, Flint, Dazz and Adapa run around throwing feces at visitors like poorly-trained pet monkeys isn’t a good way of going about it. Having moderators that feel free to personally insult and stalk visitors isnt a good way to go about it.

    But, this site is what it is. The only problem is when one mistakes this site for something other than what it is.

  2. Patrick Patrick says:

    William J Murray,

    Translation: “Don’t you think I can personally attack you in Noyau and treat you fairly on other threads?”

    A more accurate translation, not that one is needed, would be “Don’t you think I can respond to your name calling on Noyau and still treat you fairly on other threads?”

    Answer: What we’d prefer is a moderator who doesn’t personally attack anyone, ever, regardless of their views, and who, after it was clear that they weren’t going to get the kind of answer they wanted, didn’t stalk other commenters.

    That’s not an answer, that’s a thinly veiled criticism of behavior you don’t happen to agree with. I’ll ask you the same question I asked phoodoo:

    Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible to responsibly and fairly fulfill an admin role while still participating actively in discussion like any other commenter without taking advantage of those privileges?

  3. William J. Murray says:

    GlenDavidson: You miss the irony, do you?

    Like so much…

    Glen Davidson

    I know what RB thinks was the irony in my comment – it wasn’t irony. As soon as IDists start posting, civility goes out the door and they’re attacked and ridiculed. I wasn’t being humorous by saying opposite. He just didn’t exactly understand the implication I was making. You guys are civil enough with each other, for the most part (outside of when keiths is involved).

    I also know what he thinks the “meta-irony” is — but, that’s RB utterly ignoring my several years-long record of about 99% civil posting (in the face of continuous, uncivil personal attack) to score a cheap, quick “gotcha” point. Which means there’s no real meta-irony there. Just RB being a dick.

    Oh, and BTW, I’ve decided that since there’s no benefit here for being civil (nor any points in having established a long history of being civil), I’ve decided to change my behavior here. It’s a pit. No sense pretending otherwise.

  4. Reciprocating Bill Reciprocating Bill says:

    William J. Murray: That wasn’t irony, moron.

    Further unintentional irony courtesy William “go fuck yourself” Murray.

  5. William J. Murray says:

    Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible to responsibly and fairly fulfill an admin role while still participating actively in discussion like any other commenter without taking advantage of those privileges?

    It’s also possible that 500 fairly tossed coins can all lands heads up. So? Whether or not a thing is possible is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion.

  6. Flint says:

    William J. Murray: That wasn’t irony, moron.

    William, you might consider your pattern of posts just recently in this thread. You have accused the moderators of bias, you have accused a list of posters of being feces-throwing monkeys, you have dismissed civility in all but one thread as irrelevant, and here you call someone a moron. And you describe yourself as “99% civil” while responses to you are characterized as “continuous uncivil personal attack.”

    And you can’t see any irony in this vitriolic name-calling while complaining that it is everyone else engaged in this name-calling, but not you?

  7. GlenDavidson says:

    William J. Murray: I know what RB thinks was the irony in my comment – it wasn’t irony.As soon as IDists start posting, civility goes out the door and they’re attacked and ridiculed.

    How about you make a reasoned case for something for once, instead of insisting that your idiotic beliefs be accepted because you say so?

    I wasn’t being humorous by saying opposite.

    Of course you were, you uncivil jackass. You’re just too self-unaware to realize what an a-hole you are and always have been.

    He just didn’t exactly understand the implication I was making.

    Of course he did, you’re just a boor who blithers on without catching on to the irony of a ranting fool like yourself whining about civility.

    You guys are civil enough with each other, for the most part (outside of when keiths is involved).

    Not necessarily, but at least we typically follow the basics of reason. That helps greatly, as you wouldn’t know.

    I also know what he thinks the “meta-irony” is — but, that’s RB utterly ignoring my several years-long record of about 99% civil posting (in the face of continuous, uncivil personal attack) to score a cheap, quick “gotcha” point. Which means there’s no real meta-irony there.Just RB being a dick.

    Look, you come in anywhere and everywhere claiming that “Darwinists” or whatever name-calling you have for those who accept science are uncivil and evil and what-not, and you think people are supposed to accept your “truth.” You’ve never had any acquaintance with truth.

    Oh, and BTW, I’ve decided that since there’s no benefit here for being civil

    How would you know?

    (nor any points in having established a long history of being civil),

    How would you know?

    I’ve decided to change my behavior here.

    How would we know?

    I have yet to see you treat anyone you disagree with properly, or to back up your endless bullshit claims.

    It’s a pit.No sense pretending otherwise.

    Oh, poor you, you shit in the nest and whine about nest sanitation.

    Glen Davidson

  8. William J. Murray says:

    GlenDavidson said:

    How about you make a reasoned case for something for once, instead of insisting that your idiotic beliefs be accepted because you say so?

    ROFL! I don’t know who you have me confused with, dumbass, but I’ve never even claimed my beliefs represent anything true or real, much less have I ‘insisted” anyone accept them.

  9. William J. Murray says:

    How would we know?

    Er … I just told you in an earlier post, dumbass.

  10. GlenDavidson says:

    William J. Murray:
    GlenDavidson said:

    ROFL! I don’t know who you have me confused with, dumbass, but I’ve never even claimed my beliefs represent anything true or real, much less have I ‘insisted” anyone accept them.

    Oh, except for all of the truth claims you make.

    But you’re not even honest about that, are you, fuckwit?

    Glen Davidson

  11. William J. Murray says:

    What a great site! Everyone stays on Noyau and Moderation-Noyau hurling insults, and the few participants in “moderated” threads hurl more subtle insults. Well, what do you expect from The Shit Zone?

  12. GlenDavidson says:

    William J. Murray: Er … I just told you in an earlier post, dumbass.

    Another ironic comment from the honesty-impaired?

    Anyway, asshole, you didn’t, because you don’t acknowledge your hateful bigotry and continual incivility.

    Glen Davidson

  13. Reciprocating Bill Reciprocating Bill says:

    William J. Murray: Just RB being a dick.

    I prefer “fucking tool,” like you said.

  14. GlenDavidson says:

    William J. Murray:
    What a great site! Everyone stays on Noyau and Moderation-Noyau hurling insults, and the few participants in “moderated” threads hurl more subtle insults. Well, what do you expect from The Shit Zone?

    It’s what you wanted to make it.

    Wallow in your filth. It’s within your capabilities, unlike almost everything else.

    Glen Davidson

  15. William J. Murray says:

    GlenDavidson: Oh, except for all of the truth claims you make.

    But you’re not even honest about that, are you, fuckwit?

    Glen Davidson

    This from the guy who thinks that bare quotes on a website represents “quote-mining”. ROFL!! What belief do I have, Glen, that I have insisted that others accept? Quote and link, please.

  16. William J. Murray says:

    GlenDavidson: It’s what you wanted to make it.

    Wallow in your filth.It’s within your capabilities, unlike almost everything else.

    Glen Davidson

    And you’re not wallowing in it? ROFL!

  17. GlenDavidson says:

    William J. Murray: This from the guy who thinks that bare quotes on a website represents “quote-mining”.ROFL!! What belief do I have, Glen, that I have insisted that others accept?Quote and link, please.

    It’s been done, and I’m not taking orders from a pig wallowing in his own shit.

    So you’re too stupid to recognize why bare quotes are clipped by creationists as they are? Or too dishonest?

    More likely, both.

    But you can sit in your excrement, content in your ability to soil conversations. I’m out of this thread for now.

    Glen Davidson

  18. William J. Murray says:

    GlenDavidson: Another ironic comment from the honesty-impaired?

    Anyway, asshole, you didn’t, because you don’t acknowledge your hateful bigotry and continual incivility.

    Glen Davidson

    I acknowledge you’re projecting.

  19. William J. Murray says:

    GlenDavidson said:

    So you’re too stupid to recognize why bare quotes are clipped by creationists as they are? Or too dishonest?

    Even if one assumes why, the motivations of those who post the quotes don’t make them quote-mines, dumbass. Perhaps your inability to understand this simple fact also you projecting and being blinded by bias.

  20. William J. Murray says:

    So, Gen makes an assertion about something I’ve supposedly done here and bitches about me supposedly not backing up my supposed claims, and when I challenge him to back up his assertion, he declines to do so.

    Hypocrite much, Glen? By golly, I think you are projecting. Dumbass.

  21. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    Bad week for ID, ladies?

  22. Adapa says:

    William J. Murray:
    So, Gen makes an assertion about something I’ve supposedly done here and bitches about me supposedly not backing up my supposed claims, and when I challenge him to back up his assertion, he declines to do so.

    Hypocrite much, Glen?By golly, I think you are projecting. Dumbass.

    WJM, another member in good standings of the Butthurt Christians Club.

  23. Flint says:

    William J. Murray:
    Even if one assumes why, the motivations of those who post the quotes don’t make them quote-mines, dumbass.

    Technically, this is true. If you should happen to trip me when I walk by, this might be an accident. When you attempt to trip me every time I go by, sooner or later I begin to suspect that this is intentional.

    And so, if someone’s words are clipped out of context, and inserted into a different context with the EFFECT of creating a false impression, this might be a simple misunderstanding the first time. After many thousands of times, almost without exception, and always without correction or apology, one suspects a motivation.

  24. keiths keiths says:

    William,

    I think your self-image needs some adjustments.

    From December:

    Pointing out immoral behavior and hypocrisy is not the same thing as being outraged by it. This is why I can keep my cool and continue contributing here in a calm and collected manner no matter how often I’m ridiculed by OMagain or RichardHughes, or how often my contributions are quote-mined and mischaracterized by you. [Emphasis added]

  25. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    keiths,

    Walking previous thoughts back is standard for WJM, as evidenced by his books. One wonders why, with such a hilarious history of failure, he feels comfortable telling folks what’s what and continues to do so?

  26. OMagain says:

    William J. Murray: throwing feces at visitors like poorly-trained pet monkeys

    Actually that aligns chakras and can restore youth and health to the vigours!

  27. OMagain says:

    William J. Murray: your inability to understand this simple fact

    Oh, there are facts now are there?

  28. keiths keiths says:

    Mung:

    Make the thread about Moderation Issues. Right now it’s about anything anyone wants to make it about, including allowing people to abuse anyone who posts here to their hearts content because this thread is as much a free-for-all thread as Noyau.

    Make thus thread on-topic for moderation issues and disallow the off-topic and abusive comments. Make rules for this thread.

    There’s no motivation for me to adopt any suggestion that I post here when in doing so I must agree to subject myself to abuse. That is just utterly insane.

    Alan, to Mung:

    I’ll agree you have a point here. Lizzie has said that it would be difficult to discuss individual issues about moderation while at the same time applying those moderation rules. But this thread seems to have evolved somewhat convergently towards another noyau. I think insisting that moderation issues should only be raised here should be balanced by insisting that it is only for moderation issues. Commentary that is not about moderation can be made in the sandbox thread (somewhat neglected these days) which is intended for anything that would be off-topic elsewhere, and there’s noyau for flaming and ranting.

    Patrick, to Mung:

    That’s a convincing argument. I agree with you completely. This thread should be solely about Moderation Issues, with the rules relaxed only enough to allow that discussion. It should not be a second Noyau.

    I’ll send a message to Elizabeth asking her to consider your position and modify the rules accordingly.

    Patrick, to Alan:

    I agree completely. I just sent Elizabeth a message requesting such a rule change.

    Alan,

    Patrick has set a good example for you here. Please study it.

    Note that he didn’t unilaterally invent a new rule and impose it on everyone else. He didn’t make excuses by pointing to his agreement with Lizzie’s aims. Instead, he asked Lizzie herself to consider a rule change, and he did so publicly so that others could weigh in on the proposal. In the meantime, he is honoring the existing rules.

    By exercising self-control and restraint, he has shown far more respect for Lizzie’s project than you have with your repeated autocratic interventions.

  29. William J. Murray says:

    Flint: Technically, this is true. If you should happen to trip me when I walk by, this might be an accident. When you attempt to trip me every time I go by, sooner or later I begin to suspect that this is intentional.

    And so, if someone’s words are clipped out of context, and inserted into a different context with the EFFECT of creating a false impression, this might be a simple misunderstanding the first time. After many thousands of times, almost without exception, and always without correction or apology, one suspects a motivation.

    No matter how many times creationists actually quote mine, a page of quotes bereft of all context one way or another is still not a page of quote mines. That’s not a “technical” truth; it’s a definitional fact.

  30. petrushka says:

    William J. Murray: it’s a definitional fact.

    Any fact that can be made by definition can be rejected by definition.

  31. Acartia Acartia says:

    William J. Murray:
    Patrick said;

    Translation: “Don’t you think I can personally attack you in Noyau and treat you fairly on other threads?”

    Answer: What we’d prefer is a moderator who doesn’t personally attack anyone, ever, regardless of their views, and who, after it was clear that they weren’t going to get the kind of answer they wanted, didn’t stalk other commenters.

    I agree. Have you ever suggested this to Barry?

  32. William J. Murray says:

    petrushka: Any fact that can be made by definition can be rejected by definition.

    Sure, if you just make up your own definition, which I guess is how you came by the definition of quote-mine you employ.

  33. petrushka says:

    William J. Murray: Sure, if you just make up your own definition, which I guess is how you came by the definition of quote-mine you employ.

    I’m not hung up on labels. If you don’t want to call it quote mining, I’ll revert back to my second choice.

    The practice you describe is degenerate, dishonest, shit-sucking, mother whoring and generally unpleasant.

    Fell better?

  34. William J. Murray says:

    keiths:
    William,

    I think your self-image needs some adjustments.

    From December:

    And here’s keiths, the worst a bona-fide quote miner here, who defends his quote-mining by insisting that he knows what the author meant in contradiction even to the author attempting to correct him.

    What’s creepy about it that keiths apparently has some list of quotes of mine somewhere on his hard drive, probably annotated and indexed, just waiting for me to utter some phrase he can use them on. I wonder if such a list would be, ipso facto, a list of quote mines, under Glen Davidson’s or petrushka’s definition?

    You spend far too much time imagining what goes on in my head, keiths, and imagining what my emotions are. Icky.

  35. Flint says:

    William J. Murray: No matter how many times creationists actually quote mine, a page of quotes bereft of all context one way or another is still not a page of quote mines. That’s not a “technical” truth; it’s a definitional fact.

    If any of those context-eliminated quotes are USED, then you have to wonder. Since whoever uses them has NO IDEA what context they were extracted from, wouldn’t you say the risk of misrepresenting them is high?

    Let’s go one baby step further. Let’s say the quotes in this list are all from evolutionary biologists, and are all USED by creationists making creationist arguments. Would you suspect a motivation there?

    Now, one last baby step. Let’s say these quotes were mined by dedicated creationists, extracted from their context, and put into a list for creationists to use any way they saw fit. Would you suspect any motivation there at all?

    In general usage, we say that quotes extracted from their context, and presented without context, have been mined. Mining is the very process of combing through the literature looking for sentences or phrases which can be misrepresented by anyone with the motivation to be dishonest. Why ELSE omit the contexts?

  36. Flint says:

    William J. Murray: And here’s keiths, the worst a bona-fide quote miner here, who defends his quote-mining by insisting that he knows what the author meant in contradiction even to the author attempting to correct him.

    But of course you cannot possibly know his motivation, by your own argument.

  37. William J. Murray says:

    Flint:

    Do you not know the difference between (1) what an argument is about, and (2) what an argument is not about? I was arguing about what the term “quote-mining” meant. That’s it. That’s all I was arguing about. Those qoutes, where they are, are not quote mines on that page. Period. Even if every time anyone uses a quote after finding it on that page uses it as a quote mine, that doesn’t make those quotes, on that page, quote mines.

    Glen thinks it does. Glen is wrong. Petrushka at least thought it did. Petrushka was wrong.

    IMO, the reason you and others keep trying to make that argument about something other than what I was arguing is because I was right, and Glen and Petrushka were wrong. You can’t just say, “Okay, you’re right, they’re wrong.” … without adding a “but ….” and then going off into something I’m not even arguing about.

  38. William J. Murray says:

    Flint: But of course you cannot possibly know his motivation, by your own argument.

    His motivation doesn’t matter, dumbass. When keith uses a quote of mine and asserts that it means X, and I correct him about what it means, and he insists that no, it means X. then keith is an unrepentant quote-miner.

  39. petrushka says:

    No, since you are fond of definition, the definition of a quote mine includes misrepresentation.

  40. keiths keiths says:

    William,

    And here’s keiths, the worst a bona-fide quote miner here, who defends his quote-mining by insisting that he knows what the author meant in contradiction even to the author attempting to correct him.

    Seriously? You’re arguing that this is a quote mine?

    Pointing out immoral behavior and hypocrisy is not the same thing as being outraged by it. This is why I can keep my cool and continue contributing here in a calm and collected manner no matter how often I’m ridiculed by OMagain or RichardHughes, or how often my contributions are quote-mined and mischaracterized by you. [Emphasis added]

    It isn’t quotemining to point out that your statement is at odds with reality.

    What’s creepy about it that keiths apparently has some list of quotes of mine somewhere on his hard drive, probably annotated and indexed, just waiting for me to utter some phrase he can use them on.

    Jesus, William. That’s paranoid.

    I simply remember the more ridiculous things that you’ve written, and then I Google them when I want to quote them. Don’t assume that my memory, or my skills, are as limited as yours.

    You spend far too much time imagining what goes on in my head, keiths, and imagining what my emotions are. Icky.

    No, I simply read what you write. Anyone reading the quote above can see how sharply your “calm and collected” self-image diverges from the reality illustrated by your behavior in this thread.

  41. Richardthughes Richardthughes says:

    keiths,

    Ironic that he’s started threads on ‘quote mining’. Open up wider WJM, you can fit your other foot in!

  42. Flint says:

    William J. Murray:
    Flint:

    Do you not know the difference between (1) what an argument is about, and (2) what an argument is not about? I was arguing about what the term “quote-mining” meant. That’s it. That’s all I was arguing about. Those qoutes, where they are, are not quote mines on that page. Period.

    Nonsense. They are quotes. They were all mined. They were clearly mined for the PURPOSE of misusing them.

    L Even if every time anyone uses a quote after finding it on that page uses it as a quote mine, that doesn’t make those quotes, on that page, quote mines.

    They are mined quotes. I asked you WHY they had been removed from their context. What good are they without the context they were extracted from? This is an important question, and you ignore it.

    Glen thinks it does. Glen is wrong.Petrushka at least thought it did.Petrushka was wrong.

    They are mined quotes, taken from their context. I suppose that, purely by accident, someone using those quotes could guess the actual context, since it wasn’t provided. Which of course simply ignores the fact that they were extracted for the PURPOSE of misrepresentation.

    IMO, thereason you and others keep trying to make that argument about something other than what I was arguing is because I was right, and Glen and Petrushka were wrong.You can’t just say, “Okay, you’re right, they’re wrong.” … without adding a “but ….” and then going off into something I’m not even arguing about.

    To be as charitable as possible, you were talking about how they MIGHT be used, and Glen and Petrushka were talking about how they ALWAYS ARE used. Glen and Petrushka are also aware (as is any sapient person) of WHY those particular quotes were removed from their context.

    And I notice you are yourself sensitive when someone extracts a quote from one of your posts to make an argument you don’t like.

  43. Patrick Patrick says:

    William J Murray,

    Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible to responsibly and fairly fulfill an admin role while still participating actively in discussion like any other commenter without taking advantage of those privileges?

    It’s also possible that 500 fairly tossed coins can all lands heads up. So? Whether or not a thing is possible is irrelevant to any meaningful discussion.

    If you feel that I’ve abused my admin privileges in any way, please present the evidence here. If you just wish to cast vague aspersions, do carry on as you are.

  44. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    I see the idea that moderation issues thread is to raise issues about moderation is blossoming! 🙁

  45. Adapa says:

    William J. Murray:
    Flint:

    Do you not know the difference between (1) what an argument is about, and (2) what an argument is not about? I was arguing about what the term “quote-mining” meant. That’s it. That’s all I was arguing about. Those qoutes, where they are, are not quote mines on that page. Period.

    They were all examples of quotes that had been dishonestly used by Creationists to misrepresent actual scientific work. Squirm and wordsmith all you want but that fact won’t change

    Can you imagine what would happen in a murder trial if the defense attorney argued “that gun is not a murder weapon Sure the ballistic marks match the deadly bullet and the gun had my client’s fingerprints all over it but it’s not actively murdering someone now!

    That’s exactly how stupid your argument is WJM.

  46. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    I see the idea that moderation issues thread is to raise issues about moderation is blossoming! 🙁

    Yes, despite your outrageous attempt to prevent me from doing so during the Wine Cellar debacle.

    Also, don’t miss this.

  47. Patrick Patrick says:

    keiths,

    Note that he didn’t unilaterally invent a new rule and impose it on everyone else. He didn’t make excuses by pointing to his agreement with Lizzie’s aims. Instead, he asked Lizzie herself to consider a rule change, and he did so publicly so that others could weigh in on the proposal. In the meantime, he is honoring the existing rules.

    Leaving aside your disagreements with Alan, I’d like to go a step further than respecting the existing rules. As Mung noted, the Moderation Issues thread has become a Noyau clone. That makes it unfit for its purpose of addressing questions and objections to moderation decisions and for discussing the site rules. Even over just the course of today it’s getting worse.

    As the resident anarchist, I’d like to show that we don’t need no stinkin’ rules. Accordingly, I will no longer treat Moderation Issues as if all rules have been suspended. I will use it only to discuss moderation issues and the rules. I will address the content of the comments and the ideas rather than the commenter. I will assume that everyone is commenting in good faith.

    Under the current rules, the admins do not have the option to move comments out of this thread. I hope that at least some of you will also choose to voluntarily constrain your behavior in order to make Moderation Issues usable for its intended purpose.

  48. Alan Fox Alan Fox says:

    Seconding Patrick, there would be no need for moderators, rules, moderation threads etc if members could just manage to exchange views without rancour.

  49. Patrick Patrick says:

    Alan Fox,

    Seconding Patrick, there would be no need for moderators, rules, moderation threads etc if members could just manage to exchange views without rancor.

    And when you can’t, Noyau is right over there ————>.

  50. keiths keiths says:

    Alan,

    Seconding Patrick, there would be no need for moderators, rules, moderation threads etc if members could just manage to exchange views without rancour.

    Yet when controversial issues are discussed, rancor tends to follow, because people are people. That includes you, Alan.

    Don’t forget that your own ethical lapses — including the false accusations you made against me several months ago, which were followed by your admission that you have a lying problem — are often fueled by rancor.

    Lizzie wants real, imperfect people, including you, to be able to comment here, so she doesn’t demand rancor-free discussions or pretend that they are a realistic expectation.

    You tend to project your wishes onto Lizzie rather than listening to her. She has stated more than once that she doesn’t want TSZ to be a particularly polite place. The rules aren’t intended to eliminate rancor (nor could they). They are intended to keep substantive discussions from degrading into substanceless flamefests.

    When you volunteered for moderator duty, you agreed to moderate within the boundaries set by Lizzie’s rules. You are acting as a proxy for her. This is her website, not yours. Try to keep your own unhelpful wishes and desires out of your moderation decisions and things will go much more smoothly.

    Stick to Lizzie’s rules instead of inventing your own.

Comments are closed.