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.
I also accept the verdict of your peers that I overreacted to your nonsense. That’s why I left and I’m leaving again.
And I have already accepted the verdict of our peers that I overreact to your nonsense. I’ve even thanked them for it. That’s why I left and will do so again now.
Sorry for the double post. I won’t try to delete one of them for fear of being charged a liar.
You can still have fun here Walton. Just limit your interactions with KeithS.
Thanks Richard. Maybe some day.
And thanks to you too, Neil. (I’m sorry if I was snarky at Analytic the other day. I tend to get that way when people make what seem to me to be blanket categorical remarks on issues that strike me as wildly complicated.)
Elizabeth,
This was never intended to be a particular polite site….but DON”T ask Lizzie why she preferred discussions at talkrational…That is WAY TOO personal of an invasion!
You seem to have some of the thinnest skin on this site Lizzie, so I don’t know why you want such an impolite site.
But you wonder why you were banned at UD? Maybe because they DID want a polite site?
BTW, does anyone know if they have rules of conduct at talkrational? What are they?
Or is this too personal a question for Lizzie?
phoodoo,
Go and ask them.
I was going to invite walto to stick around, but then I remembered that he’s already had an imaginary conversation with me about this:
Suit yourself, walto.
Shush your mouth, stalker.
How dare you try to invade in my personal decisions! Why should I have to give you an explanation about why I don’t want to go there and ask them? Who are you that I need to explain my personal reasons for going there or not going there?
I have my reasons. Its not the reasons you think. Its MY reasons. So why don’t you just drop it? But I am going to answer you anyway. I don’t want to go there because I have other things to do. I have started other things. Why should my reasons concern you anyway?
But I have answered you now, so let’s put an end to this incessant prying.
Think!
Not a problem. I’m used to your style of posting. Hmm, I need to get back there and answer a couple of responses.
I’m sure you were very pleased with your response when you typed it. Unfortunately, had you been just a bit brighter you’d have realized *I* didn’t ask *you* for anything. You asked a question, and I proffered a resource.
Whoops. Still, nice watch, eh?
Now for a guy that can’t answer any questions put to him, how does that make you look and how does that make ID look?
Richardthughes,
How dare you ask me how that makes me look!! Why should I have to explain to you how it makes me look?
But fine, I am going to answer you anyway, even though really I shouldn’t have to. I am very busy. I don’t have time to see how it makes me look. Why are you so concerned about how it makes me look anyway?
Now that I have answered you, I hope you are finally through with this topic! I have made it very clear how it makes me look. The bigger question is why you are stalking me to find out how I look? I have already answered at least three times now, so that should be that!
*Yawn*. Sub Gallien butthurt from Phoodoo, the guy who ‘reviews’ papers by their overviews only.
But keep going – you’re doing the best you can I suppose.
No, it’s not too personal question, phoodoo, and you can find the extraordinary answer here
phoodoo, can I ask what all this is about? Why does where I post matter to you?
Get help. Seriously.
It matters because phoodoo spent months promoting his fantasy version of your absence. Rather than admit he lied, he wants you to buy into it.
Well, for purposes of discussion I will assume he made a mistake.
Basically I’m a flake.
I don’t have a reason other than that I was adminning at TR so TR shiny things caught my fancy. I wasn’t here so TSZ things didn’t, and, moreover would have required *effort* to reverse. Also time, which I didn’t have.
Elizabeth,
My interpretation is that phoodoo is so disappointed by the shoddy quality of argumentation here that he constructed a fantasy in which you abandoned TSZ because we embarrassed you.
heh. I’m not easily embarassed. I mean, I was a TR admin….
It’s hard to believe that phoodoo is disappointed in the quality of argumentation here, when all he ever does is degrade said argumentation.
He does seem to be disappointed that his tactics aren’t praised as meaningful and brilliant critiques.
Glen Davidson
Yeah, he floated that one a few times.
I personally think he knows UD isn’t very good and so wants to degrade TSZ. He’s the first to attack an idea but he won’t expose his own views to scrutiny. YEC battshittery would be my guess.
@ Piotr
Have white-listed your IP. Should be OK now. 🙂
We can be charitable, but when one asserts derogatory facts in the absence of any source for those facts, it isn’t a mistake.
The main thing is that Lizzie is back. Now, back to skepticizing and sciencing!
How odd. When I type a comment, the year in the preview is 5749, the time 2:30 pm. Where did the last 3734 years go? Not to mention lunchtime? 🙂
It is part of the founding philosophy of TSZ that no-one “deserves” to be banned. People are banned for one reason only: to ensure that we don’t get posts containing the very narrow range of material that is not allowed here, namely porn/malware (or links to); and material that gives the RL identity of people known to us by their internet names, without their permission (also known, I understand, as “doxxing”).
There are a couple of grey areas regarding that last one but I think I have made the boundaries clear, and will try to make them clearer still:
Firstly: If someone has made it clear who they are in RL, e.g. by linking to their publications, that is fine, and it is still fine for others to acknowledge the identity if their publications are being discussed. However, it is not OK to use that person’s RL name in personal attacks, which are against the game-rules anyway (“assume the other person is posting in good faith”; “address the argument, not the person”) but are not in themselves things I would ever ban anyone for. Such posts just get moved to guano, just as pieces get moved off a chess board. But if in breaking those rules, you invoke someone’s personal ID, that is not on, the reason being that I don’t want such personal attacks here to come up in a google search of that person’s RL name, as such things happen, as I know to my cost.
Secondly, if the person in here is not a regular poster here, but is nonetheless effectively party to the conversations we often have by loud-hailer as it were, at another site, then membership protections apply. In any case, in the case of kairosfocus, I think he is, or was, a registered member here, and you easily can’t tell in any case. So if in doubt, assume membership, either actual or virtual, and don’t link identity with internet handle. In other words, do not post the RL identities of people with whom our personal relations, as it were, are in their internet identities.
Creodont: if you undertake to keep to this rule, I am happy to lift the ban. But if you don’t, I won’t, because we just don’t have the staff to remove such posts, so it’s easier to stop them appearing by banning you!
Not because you “deserve” it, but because life’s too short to spend redacting stuff that I don’t want to have here.
I wrote it before the ban, thinking of UD, not TSZ. After Creodont’s post was taken off, it was no longer clear who was referring to what.
oops, missed that!
Anyway, I’m happy to lift Creodont’s ban here if s/he gives the above assurance. Creodont, if you are reading this, and can’t use the PM system, I’m sure you can find my email somewhere on the internet 🙂
The time is due to the timezone of the server. The year – I have no idea what’s going wrong there, but at least it isn’t showing up in the final post.
Alan, this is probably the 5th or 6th time you’ve deleted an entire post simply b/c you don’t like one point. It’s a waste of my time to contribute here. This is bullshit partisan ‘moderation’!
If Piotr can’t defend his ideological evolutionism, then he shouldn’t spew it as ‘linguistic’ gospel. My points are against his ideology. This should be obvious. That I’ve used his own words against him, and sometimes asked him for clarification when his words aren’t clear, is not ‘ad hominem.’ It is open communication.
The main point is that Dr. Piotr Gasiorowski can’t defend his personal ideology of (linguistic) evolutionism based on naturalism and anti-theism. Your ‘skepticism’ wants to defend him from someone who sees right through his sophistry. Ban this, of course, again for speaking directly to the point, but justice that is not.
Gregory,
Gregory,
Other commenters can usually manage to stay within the rules. I am not prepared to edit out rule-breaking elements. You are free to do that yourself. Your comment is in guano, so you can copy, paste the substantive items into a new comment.
I hope I make myself clear.
I’ve looked again at the now Guano’d post. 97+% is legitimate and clearly not ‘ad hominem’. Piotr naively called me out for a ‘straw man fallacy’ – code for someone who might have taken a first year course in philosophy, but really has no argument. I responded that Piotr himself is the straw man and gave significant reasons for this. What else in that post is considered ‘ad hominem’ according to Alan Fox other than his personal desire to censor it? The post should be reinstated because it challenges the ideological naturalism and evolutionism of the only qualified professional in the field of linguistics in this thread: Piotr.
Gregory,
See my comment above yours. My suggestion. Read your own comments before posting. If they are assigning motives to people or otherwise making assumptions, they may be moved elsewhere. I think you are clear enough now not to need further explanations. If you want to pursue this I again suggest you take it to a PM.
Alan, who do you think you are here? You censor me because you can’t face legitimate questions. Why should I dialogue with you after you censor me? You are an amateur on this question and Piotr should have the courage or intelligence to answer himself. He has already admitted a big crack in ideological linguistic evolutionism; not all linguists agree!!!!!
Will you reinstate the post or 97% of it after edited or do you want to punish me simply for accurately diagnosing the errors in Piotr’s linguistic evolutionistic ‘logic’?
Millennium Development Goals, not Millennium Evolution Goals.
You talk as if you don’t acknowledge counter-positions to your own obvious evolutionist ideology, Alan. Why not? Are you blind or just partisan?
A fellow commenter who also handles moderation issues
You’re not being censored. You’re being asked to abide by the rules.
This site is about the free exchange of ideas. The aim is to achieve this without rancour. Nobody is under any obligation to respond to you. You can comment (within the rules) or not as you wish.
No. I’ve told you, you can copy substantive points from a guano’ed comment and repost if you wish. Bear in mind that rule-breaking comments move wholesale. I will not edit other people’s comments except by request.
I’m half-blind but, not to worry, it only bothers me when pouring wine. And I strongly believe in the evolutionary development of language. If you think it is wrong, you are welcome to try and convince me otherwise.
I haven’t checked percentages. The parts that are not guano are mostly bullshit.
The word “evolution” in ordinary language does not imply biological evolution. You are right that “evolution” is not the same as “change”. But you are mostly wrong about what “evolution” means. In ordinary usage, that term does not exclude the involvement of intentional agents in the process.
You accuse us of imposing naturalist ideology (and I don’t even subscribe to naturalism). But you are the one attempting to impose an ideology — I suppose we should call it Gregorian ideology.
This.
We do not edit posts at TSZ, except for personal info and porn/malware links. Nor do we delete posts. All that happens is that they are moved. They remain publicly visible and you can link to them, and you can copy the non-rule-breaking parts into new posts if you wish.
The rules are also pretty clear, I have to say, although we try not to be too draconian in enforcing them.
I may be nurturing my inner dragon, though, as we speak….
@ Erik
Sorry if you’re still caught in the spam filter. I’ve white-listed your IP. You should be OK now.
Easy on the Guano there folks, or you’ll have to borrow KFs pearls.
+1
How the fuck did I get Guanoed but not the prior comment? Pointing out Phoodoo is wrong and dodges questions is simply journalistic.
You didn’t get guano’d, Richard, your post did, because for me:
crossed the “assume the other poster is posting in good faith” line.
Not to get all Barry but, do you understand the difference between a statement and a question and the baggage that comes with each?
Well, as I said in my post in thread, Richard, I try to draw a fine line. I’m sure I often get it wrong. tbh I’d have moved phoodoo’s too, but I am always a bit uncomfortable about moving posts that contain an implied criticism of myself.
So I may have got this one wrong. If so, apologies. But I’m not going to revert it! Random misjudgement is just one of the risks of the site I’m afraid.
I’ve adjusted the parameters of the spam blocking plugin to, I hope, make false positives less likely. Thanks to those making useful comments via the spam message system and apologies for any inconvenience.
I had Lunch with Jerry Coyne a couple of months ago. He lamented that liberalism is caught between ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘multiculturality / plurality’ of views. We both agreed that how things are (facts) should trump peoples emotional response to those facts.
Phoodoo asks questions pertaining to origins but does not answer them. He also is incorrect (no crime in itself) very frequently. These are facts. I find the intersection of these two things fascinating. I imagine Phoodoo may find these facts uncomfortable, but I don’t feel obligated to spare his feelings because they are outcomes of his actions, he is not a victim of their circumstance.
How would you have me proceed?
@ Brother Daniel
I’ve white-listed your IP so you should be OK to comment now.
@ Zachriel
Just white-listed your IP. Apologies for the aggressiveness of the spam filter.