As the original Moderation page has developed a bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, I thought I’d put up a 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.
26th June 2015: the bug has now affected this page so there is now a new Moderation Issues page here.
We should apply this “no exceptions” rule to our regular commenters in the (very frequent) cases where they “out” the UD regular Kairosfocus. Kairosfocus has loudly complained about all such outing.
It seems to me that “no exceptions” does not mean “except for people who behave badly enough at UD”. And you’ve made clear in the case of KN that it does not mean “except for people who provide clues about their identity even though they do not outrightly state it.”
Joe Felsenstein,
Seems fair to me.
I’m all for simple and fair. “They don’t deserve consideration because their moderation stinks” is not an excuse.to not apply the rules fairly to all.
Absolutely. That, and porn/malware are the only things that will be deleted, and will result in banning.
Links to posts made at TSZ self-outing are not allowed?
Gregory,
Greg, your obsession is as sad as Phoodoos.
No, they are not, Gregory.
I don’t care where on the internet anybody has revealed information that links their internet ID to their real life ID. It is a rule here that other people do not reveal, or link to, that information.
Sure the information may be relatively easy to find, but the more links to it, the easier it is, given the way that search engines work. So don’t do it.
Don’t even hint at it. Are you clear?
Yes indeed.
Elizabeth,
Not clear.
So you’re saying one cannot link to a previous TSZ post in a TSZ thread?!
History is dead at TSZ?
It seems like you’re trying to defend a philosophical/worldview coward who doesn’t know who he is (and teaches that view to USA youth).
It’s not a matter of ‘hinting’ at it. A thread at TSZ was made that confirmed it publically (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=5121).
And what do *you* seem like, Greg?
What I am doing, Gregory, is making it clear to you that on TSZ you do not reveal the real life identities of people known to us by their internet names.
OK? I am, right now, trying to decide whether to ban you now, as I have become aware that you have done this repeatedly in the past, and my investigations into the record on Guano appear to bear this out.
However, as I do not know the details, unless or until I do, I will leave you with this clear warning: if you attempt to reveal the RL identity of anyone known to us by their internet name, at TSZ, you will be banned.
OK?
And yes, the applies to everyone, not just Gregory, and it applies to anyone who is “outed” whether or not they are active posters at TSZ. In other words it also applies to UD regulars as well. You can call Barry Arrington Barry Arrington, and you can call Denyse O’Leary Denyse O’Leary, and you can call William Dembski William Dembski.
BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE NAMES WE KNOW THEM AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.
But if someone uses some different name in these discussion, than that is the name you use.
Then ban me, Elizabeth. You are being foolish. It’s written on your blog!!
I did not reveal it; he did it himself. Understood?
There’s no problem calling him ‘KN’ (and me Gregory, not ‘Greg’). The problem is hiding from reality. Please find the better balance.
Just ban yourself Greg. Although please let us know if you have a follow up to your TedX talk.
The ‘us’ implied is 98% atheist/agnostic and anti-theist. You are willingly providing a voice for that at TSZ, Elizabeth. KN’s pagan book is simply one example.
You are at liberty to discuss KN’s book.
I don’t have a problem with Gregory alluding to the fact that he knows my real name and place of employment. As he notes, I’ve been quite open with that information. (As has Kairosfocus at UD.)
I do have a problem with what I perceive as Gregory’s tendency to use that knowledge to make personal attacks about my character (e.g. “coward”), my intentions, or — for that matter — my pedagogy. To the best of my knowledge, Gregory knows nothing about what I teach, or how I teach, or for that matter, why I teach. He seems to believe that I’m some sort of Trojan Horse — covertly indoctrinating my students in naturalism at a Catholic institution. But unless Gregory has been coming to my classes, I don’t see how he has any rational basis for this belief.
I also have a bit of a problem with his tone. If he had said, “Hey, KN, you just appealed to King Jr in the ethics thread, but he was a theist! How do you reconcile your appeal to King with naturalism?” I would have been happy to engage. (It’s actually quite a good question.) However, Gregory often adopts a rather hostile tone that makes me rather reluctant to engage with him.
I certainly don’t think that Gregory should be banned, though I recognize that it’s not my place to make that judgment.
My “pagan” book, no less!
And here I thought I was just arguing for why normative functionalist semantics needs to be supplemented with a richer account of lived embodiment. Had no idea my views were “pagan”. Huh. Shows what I know.
“I’ve been quite open with that information.”
Well, to be honest, it took quite a while for you to reveal this. Alan and Elizabeth are now kicking me for it. But thanks for acknowledging it.
I believe you’re wrong about Kairosfocus. KF provided more than enough clues about KF’s identity, but when people use KF’s real name or a nickname derived from it, KF is upset in a major way and complains about “outing”. This is fairly far from being “quite open about that information”.
KF of course goes farther than that and imagines conspiracies and threats to KF’s family. However much people enjoy irritating KF, use of KF’s real name should not be allowed here.
In that case, it seems that I broke that rule myself when I provided information here that links up my real-life identity. I hadn’t realized that was a rule we had. Obviously the damage is done in my case, but I won’t make the situation any worse by repeating the offense.
You are not the only person affected, KN, and it’s something I feel very strongly about. I have had some horrible experiences as a result of people connecting my online identity with my work identity, and I know other people who have too.
In any case, what you don’t want is for people to google your real life name and find themselves in some comment where you are being disparaged in your internet persona.
And it’s not something I am prepared to argue about. The good thing about a site like this is that we don’t have to. It’s my blog. Gregory knows what I expect, and if he demonstrates that he doesn’t, then I’m simply not going to take the risk of letting him continue to post here.
There is no rule about that.
It seems simple to me. Address the argument. Don’t discuss the people. Discuss the topic and the arguments made on that topic.
That’s not at all relevant, as far as I can see. Discuss the topic and the argument, not the people.
Agreed!
Definitely!
I emailed Gregory after the last incident making it clear the comments I moved to guano with names redacted were unacceptable. I asked for an undertaking as to future conduct which I didn’t receive. I would have suspended his account in your absence, following this repetition. It’s your blog but I’d support Gregory’s suspension pending an agreement from him to accept the rules as they apply here.
FWIW, I was outed here too. First by Gregory and then by keiths.
walto,
I never outed you. You’re making things up again.
I’m sorry that admins overlooked that.
Which may explain why it was overlooked.
I guess you’ve forgotten the book of mine you said you read. (And in something like eight minutes, IIRC.)
ETA: I think I remember you not putting the inscription you found in it up on the web though.
I should add however, that, A. I’d already been outed by Gregory, and B. I didn’t care that much anyhow.
walto:
You mean the one that you brought to our attention?
walto:
Another fabrication.
Care to retract your false claims, walto?
Sure. I’m sorry about my error. I don’t think I’m wrong about having been first outed here by Gregory, however. And accusing me of a ‘fabrication’ is violative of the rules here, I believe. I misremembered, and am happy to admit my error.
walto:
Thank you, walto.
While you’re at it, would you like to withdraw your other false accusations against me, including these?
Good for you, walto.
Anyway, no outing.
And maybe some clarification:
While saying someone is lying is indeed against the rules (“assume the other poster is posting in good faith”), it’s not a banning offence, it just means your post may be moved to Guano.
However, making such an accusation in a post in which you refer to them by their real life ID is absolutely not on, even if they have previously identified themselves (by linking to some material that makes it clear who they are). Google is smart enough without giving it extra help.
If you must break the “good faith” rule, use the name they use here please.
And don’t break the good faith rule.
penguin logic ftw.
As should be clear from my above post (as well as any number of others), I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong. It’s a lesson others here could learn, IMHO.
As to keiths’ latest hyperlink, I’ve had my (quite lengthy) say on that subject, and the posse here indicated that they thought I overreacted (although they forgot to notice that there was something there to react to). Maybe they would have reacted differently to that assault, and I was sorry that no verdict was ever rendered on my allegation, only on my reaction to your remarks.
Anyhow, that’s old business. I had my day in court, and have accepted the determination of the judges here (and appreciate them taking the time to slog through that stuff).
But those episodes have led me to find this site inhospitable, and so I left and will do so again now. It’s nice to finally interact with Lizzie, however. I had often wondered whether she was related to Godot.
W
walto,
If a ‘hospitable’ site is one where you can repeatedly make false accusations with no pushback, then good luck finding one.
heh.
My son is huge Beckett fan, I must tell him.
walto,
davehooke rendered a verdict on your allegation:
So did DNA_Jock, in that same thread:
My (and my son’s) favorite quote from Waiting for Godot:
walto:
It’s good that you did. Now you know that your conjecture was way off base:
You made the same mistake as Phoodoo.
Here on earth, keiths, the hearing comes before the verdicts. Dave’s quote was, as I’m guessing you know, uttered BEFORE the cases were made, not afterward. And I’ve already commented on DNA_Jock’s decision above. Anyhow I see you haven’t changed. Same crapola. Long may it give all your buddies here pleasure.
ETA: And, FWIW, it was no criticism of Lizzie to think she might have gotten sick of antics like yours and found more congenial territory elsewhere. I have never looked back to the early days here at SZ, but my guess is that it wasn’t as obno as it became over the last couple of years. She wanted a site without that kind of crap, because she’d seen so much of it around elsewhere. What have you made the place into in her absence?
walto,
You asked for a verdict…
…and you got one, from davehooke and DNA_Jock. Of course you didn’t like the verdict, so now you’re claiming that Walto’s Rules of Order were violated.
Hugs?
Oh, shush guys.
This was never intended to be a particularly polite site, but the rules are designed try to keep people focused on arguments not personalities.
So take a re-read and Be The Change You Want To See.
Lizzie,
I reserve the right to respond to false accusations, just as you do.
When the false accusations cease, the problem goes away.
What false accusation?
Do you mean when I’ve called you a goof, a liar, a dissembler, a masterbaiter, a weasel, pompous, or regularly full of shit? That you tried to imply that I was an anti-semite by making a sarcastic remark? That you are dipshit?
I stand by every one of those. Not one is false.