Moderation Issues (1)

cropped-adelie-penguin-antarctica_89655_990x7421.jpgAs 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.

1,099 thoughts on “Moderation Issues (1)

  1. Alan Fox:
    walto,

    I’m sure Patrick will back up that claim or withdraw and apologize if he finds he has misunderstood something you have written.

    Tee hee.

  2. keiths,

    keiths:
    walto,

    I see a lot of boomerang bruises on your forehead, but not on mine.

    Right, on yours there are nothing but halo marks. You’re just so damned GOOD–I mean as well as always right!

  3. petrushka:
    I personally find it tiresome trying to keep track of who said what. I prefer to forget such details and concentrate on the contents of the current post. I only remember the person if he threatens me or is extraordinarily eccentric.

    I wish I were more like that, petrushka. It’s a good way to be.

  4. Alan Fox:
    walto,

    I’m sure Patrick will back up that claim or withdraw and apologize if he finds he has misunderstood something you have written.

    I hope so, but based on my experience here, you’ll forgive me if I kind of doubt it.

    And maybe keiths will offer his services to Patrick. I’m definitely doomed then!! He’s probably got a link to a quote in which I said Arkansans suck and should all be killed.

    Oh-uh, now he’s got this post where I say that very thing!

    Shit!–my wife is from Little Rock!!!!!

    I am so dead.

  5. keiths:
    Evidence, walto.

    Unsubstantiated accusations are a dime a dozen.

    So are your chest-puffings, halo markings and about 90% of your links. (I loved the one where you took a quote from the OP of the walto v. keiths thread and twice pretended it was a conclusion.) Anyhow, we both know what you are and do. I just hope that others here will catch on at some point.

  6. walto,

    We both know what you are and do. I just hope that others here will catch on at some point.

    Not unless you provide some evidence for your accusations.

  7. I see you edited this into your comment:

    (I loved the one where you took a quote from the OP of the walto v. keiths thread and twice pretended it was a conclusion.)

    Link, please. (You know — evidence for your claim.)

  8. We appear to be stuck in a loop. Can I suggest implore blog members who have personal animosity to one another curb it and move on. It’s not pretty to watch and I suspect many find it a turn-off.

  9. Honestly, keiths and walto, what boring whiners.

    Either or both of you could shut up about the other, forever, and nothing would change except that everyone else on the planet would be happier.

    Yeah, yeah, free speech to say whatever you want, and of course I don’t think there should be any consequences on either of you for talking like stupid fratboys, but just as a public service announcement, in case you couldn’t deduce it for yourself: No. One. Cares. Who. Wins. Your. Feud.

    No one besides you cares if either of you are right or both are wrong or both are right in some context if … whatever.

    Don’t listen to me, for chrissake, I’m just another nobody who’s dumb enough to waste time reading threads on this forum while having to scroll past your mutual stupidity — just proves how stupid I am that I don’t leave altogether, doesn’t it!

    But maybe one or both of you should start listening to the little voice inside your own head that tells you to quit with the pointless slagging.

    Because even if you “win” you still lose because you look like a spitwad doing it.

  10. OK, I promise. But just this one last thing.

    keiths:
    I see you edited this into your comment:

    Link, please.(You know — evidence for your claim.)

    Why the hell would I need to provide a link for you? You know where you got that quote from, and you know it wasn’t from the conclusion of the thread, but the OP, when whoever it was said why he was creating it. Why do you bother with that kind of bullshit?

    OK. Now I’m done. And I’m sorry for shitting up the site so much. Like Jon, I should just realize what I’m dealing with here and leave. Or as Alan, petrushka and hotshoe suggest, fuggedabottit. I shall try to do one or the other.

  11. Alan,

    I have a better suggestion, which is that commenters should refrain from making categorical statements (and particularly accusations) that they are unable to support.

    Imagine if everyone here did that!

  12. keiths: I have a better suggestion, which is that commenters should refrain from making categorical statements (and particularly accusations) that they are unable to support.

    Better than dropping the seemingly endless bickering with walto? And the suggestion about whether the rules cover the case where a commenter is challenged to support a claim (especially in the particular case where A says B claims X and B says no I don’t, yet A then repeats B claims X) is still on the table for Lizzie to consider. I know Lizzie is swamped with work at the moment and she could do without this but I’m sure she will find time trying to come up with a solution that continues to encourage dialogue across widely differing viewpoints.

  13. walto: OK. Now I’m done. And I’m sorry for shitting up the site so much. Like Jon, I should just realize what I’m dealing with here and leave. Or as Alan, petrushka and hotshoe suggest, fuggedabottit. I shall try to do one or the other.

    If you like, shoot me an email: leslieshhh at that yahoo thingy.

  14. Alan,

    Everyone, including you and hotshoe, should be free to respond to accusations — especially when they are false. I don’t scold people for defending themselves, and neither should you.

    I’ve noticed that you and hotshoe (along with everyone else here) don’t hesitate to respond to attacks and criticisms. You’ve both been doing so in this very thread. If you reserve that right for yourselves and exercise it freely, why shouldn’t I do the same?

    Don’t be hypocritical.

    And for God’s sake (so to speak), take some responsibility for yourselves. If you don’t like reading the back-and-forth between walto and me, then don’t read it.

    This should be the takeaway point of this entire discussion:

    Take responsibility for your own actions. That includes both what you choose to write and what you choose to read at TSZ. Don’t try to control what others read or write here.

  15. I am all for uncensored political speech, but I do find bickering on sites like this to be unproductive and offensive.

  16. keiths: Take responsibility for your own actions. That includes both what you choose to write and what you choose to read at TSZ. Don’t try to control what others read or write here.

    I’m offended by that, Keith. I try to do the opposite.

  17. Alan Fox: And the suggestion about whether the rules cover the case where a commenter is challenged to support a claim (especially in the particular case where A says B claims X and B says no I don’t, yet A then repeats B claims X) is still on the table for Lizzie to consider.

    I have a question about this, Alan. As you will recall the item that set me off originally here wasn’t so much somebody saying “Walto believes X” but was more along the lines of “Sure Walto, Why should Pollacks be given any rights as long as you have yours?” Then, I said, something like “Hey, who you calling a Pole-hater!?” To which I received the response “I never called you anything of the sort. Please provide a link or other evidence that shows I called you that.”

    Now I’ve got a similar kerfluffle with Patrick. He says I’ve endorsed the use of force to produce ends of my liking. What I’m guessing he’s talking about was a post of mine in which I suggested that, if I had my own site, instead of trying to create a perfect web of moderation rules, if I noticed somebody repeatedly acting like a dick and I asked him/her to stop it a couple of times and he/she still wouldn’t, I think I’d ban them. I take it that my indication of my preference of how I’d run my own site is what Patrick is talking about when he mentions the “use of force.” It’s similar to what nearly anybody might be inclined do if he or she found a stranger in his/her house — ask them to leave and then if they won’t, try to force them to go– or get a policeman to do so. (As Patrick is gun supporter, I’m guessing you’d really be in trouble in his house.)

    What I’m trying to say here is that I think you’ve put the misrepresentation rule too narrowly. And, to repeat what has been a theme of mine with respect to moderation, I really don’t think it’s possible to “polish” these kinds of rules into a state of perfection or near perfection. Civility is more of a “we all kind of know when it’s broken down” thing. Almost all of Lizzie’s rules could be scrapped (and, of course, the one about not addressing the poster really has to be–conversation often calls for that), and replaced by one principle. But instead of the one about your grandmother, maybe something like “Don’t be a shmuck, because we’ll only put up with so much of that here.”

  18. Alan,

    You’re “imploring” me not to defend myself against walto’s false accusations here, yet you’re defending yourself against William’s accusations.

    Don’t ask of me what you are unwilling to ask of yourself.

  19. walto: We both know what you are and do. I just hope that others here will catch on at some point.

    I think you all need to take lessons from me. I said keiths was born a liar and would die a liar and my post didn’t get sent to guano. Probably because I was right.

    keiths: Not unless you provide some evidence for your accusations.

    walto: You do it all for me with your very own silly links. So thanks!

    Yup. lol. He boasts about it. Look, here’s where l lied about you and got away with it! And here’s the link!

    And yes, we do catch on.

  20. petrushka,

    I am all for uncensored political speech, but I do find bickering on sites like this to be unproductive and offensive.

    And of course everyone agrees on what constitutes free speech vs. mere bickering, right?

    When Alan defends himself against William’s accusations, he doesn’t seem to regard that as bickering. When I defend myself against walto’s accusations, that is bickering.

    It’s a nice illustration of why we don’t want moderators (or anyone else) deciding what is and isn’t worthy of appearing in comments here.

  21. walto,

    Walto, I’m not the big cheese around here. I support Lizzie’s ideals and try to emulate them as best I can. But it’s Lizzie’s blog and she will decide what changes she needs to make when she has chance. I’m sure she’ll take on board all that has been said on the issue.

    And I’m sure Patrick will pick up on his claim when he gets a chance.

  22. Mung: I think you all need to take lessons from me. I said keiths was born a liar and would die a liar and my post didn’t get sent to guano. Probably because I was right.

    More likely because it was missed! 🙂

  23. keiths:
    petrushka,

    And of course everyone agrees on what constitutes free speech vs. mere bickering, right?

    When Alan defends himself against William’s accusations, he doesn’t seem to regard that as bickering.When I defend myself against walto’s accusations, that is bickering.

    Not entirely sure but I’m guessing stuff like your “I don’t see any boomerang marks on MY forehead” and my “Right, they’re halo burns” are pretty clearly bickering. I’m guessing they’re not really what Patrick’s enlightenment darlings thought were necessary for a decent world.”

  24. keiths: You’re “imploring” me not to defend myself against walto’s false accusations here, yet you’re defending yourself against William’s accusations.

    Don’t ask of me what you are unwilling to ask of yourself.

    I can ask, Keith. And you can refuse. Do you think there can be a resolution where you and walto metaphorically shake hands and move on? Neither do I.

    I think it would be a magnificent gesture on your part to magnanimously agree to forget all the slights that walto has heaped on you and agree to start afresh. I would applaud you and I’m sure others would.

    Is it not worth considering?

  25. Alan,

    I think it would be a magnificent gesture on your part to magnanimously agree to forget all the slights that walto has heaped on you and agree to start afresh. I would applaud you and I’m sure others would.

    I’m happy to do so, as long as walto refrains from making false accusations.

  26. keiths,

    Jesus, Keith. Did you need to qualify that? Anyway, let’s be thankful for small mercies.

    Now, if walto agrees, will you let him tack a similar qualification on?

    Please, let that be an end to it!

    Walto?

  27. Back to the point though, I think Greg has a legitimate complaint. But I can’t say what ought to be done. I’m not going to say “the management” is right or wrong whatever they do. It’s the internet. It’s a blog. The Justice League is comic book fiction.

    But I want to be a member of The Quote Mine Police. Where do I apply? Will we get special training? Badges and uniforms? Special recognition and promotions?

    Will someone set up repositories for Properly Mined Quotes and for Improperly Mined Quotes? Will disclaimers be allowed when posting some quotes but not for others? Will we have rules for allowable disclaimers?

    I guess my point is, I have people where I work who all the time come up with a great idea, but they always want someone else to have to figure out how to implement the idea or otherwise demonstrate why it’s not such a great idea.

  28. walto,

    Yes, you’ve made it clear before that you are willing to use force against other people to attain your own ends.

    Really, Patrick? When have I done that?

    Here, for one place:

    I want to force him to pay for lots of things, actually. Roads, schools, mutual defense, pollution clean-up, etc. Many more things than decent insurance for his employees. I want to make you pay for them too–just as I have to.

    I believe you mentioned that you work for the government, do you not? If so, that is further support for my statement.

  29. keiths, pay attention:

    You’re BORING.

    If you’re happy being a boring commenter, well, that makes you and god both happy, doesn’t it, and to hell with any person who might have a different reaction. Hmm, is that about right?

    Just because you can’t tell — and I don’t expect you to care, but I’m interested in telling the truth here — I DO “hesitate to respond to attacks and criticisms”:
    a) I agonize over every word and every bit of punctuation in my comments, trying to get my point as clear as I can, so if I’m misunderstood or disagreed with or criticized, I don’t usually figure I can do better with a second or third go ’round.
    b) In the relatively rare instances where I’m motivated to respond a second or third time, I never re-quote something I’ve already quoted from the same commenter once before; if I don’t think their reply is satisfactory, too bad, I drop it anyways instead of repeat it. Repetition is for teaching babies, not for reaching adults in conversation.
    c) I have literally never, anywhere on the internet, been so repetitive and perseverant that another thread reader (much less 3 separate readers) felt it was time to step in and tell me to let it go.

    The problem is not and never has been about your “right” to “respond to attacks and criticism”. Of course you have that right. The question is: why are you unwise enough to pointlessly persist in exercising it instead of wisely choosing to desist after predictable repetitions.

    So. NO, I’m not hypocritical to “scold” you for defending yourself. I’m telling you to stop being stupidly BORING, because you shouldn’t be satisfied with just being boring. You’re setting the bar way too low for yourself. (And non-hypocritically I would accept such advice, and shut up myself, if someone did tell me that.)

    This should be the takeaway point of this entire discussion:

    Take responsibility for your own actions.

    Exactly, keiths. YOU should take responsibility for acting like a stupid spitwad in your fratboy feud with Walto. YOU should take responsibility for becoming a better, wiser, more interesting person and move on to something else that might contribute to the general happiness instead of your spitwad desire to “win” at all costs.

    I’m done. You win. You win unconditionally. Happy now? I sincerely hope!

  30. Alan Fox,

    I’m sure Patrick will back up that claim or withdraw and apologize if he finds he has misunderstood something you have written.

    Indeed I will. The comment I just posted seems to support what I remembered, though.

  31. Alan,

    Jesus, Keith. Did you need to qualify that?

    Absolutely.

    Now, if walto agrees, will you let him tack a similar qualification on?

    Of course.

    Think, Alan. It won’t work if it isn’t mutual. That’s just as true of you and William as it is of walto and me.

  32. Mung,

    Back to the point though, I think Greg has a legitimate complaint. But I can’t say what ought to be done.

    I agree with both those sentences. This is where I think Lizzie’s rule of assuming good faith might break down. The only option within the rules is to document the difference between the dishonest participant’s claims and reality while maintaining the fiction that the error is not deliberate. The offended party will have to rely on others recognizing the bad behavior.

    That may actually be the optimal way to handle disagreements online, but I can empathize with how it grates.

  33. Oh boy. Politics. My favorite topic. Keeps my scrolling finger in shape. Same for personal flame wars.

  34. Patrick,

    Re-reading the thread, I get no sense that walto is seriously suggesting force in any other than a political sense of enforcing the payment of due taxes.

  35. hotshoe,

    keiths, pay attention:

    You’re BORING.

    Then skip over my comments. Take some responsibility for yourself, hotshoe.

    I accept responsibility for what I read and write here. Your harangues will not persuade me to stop defending myself from false accusations.

    Deal with it.

  36. Patrick: walto,

    Yes, you’ve made it clear before that you are willing to use force against other people to attain your own ends.

    Really, Patrick? When have I done that?

    Here, for one place:

    I want to force him to pay for lots of things, actually. Roads, schools, mutual defense, pollution clean-up, etc. Many more things than decent insurance for his employees. I want to make you pay for them too–just as I have to.

    I believe you mentioned that you work for the government, do you not? If so, that is further support for my statement.

    Aw, fuck. Because wanting a democratic society to collectively decide that rich thieves should pay a proportionate share of expenses which allow a first-world infrastructure, education, and clean environment for everyone equally is exactly the same thing as FORCE. And wanting the rich thieves to NOT be given a special exemption from their share of expenses because they claim “religion” while they have enough money to buy legal decisions in their favor is exactly the same thing as wanting to boot-stomp their face with FORCE forever.

    Only in the batshit looney world where all taxes are FORCE. Even those taxes we (collectively) agree to pay because we prefer to support our mutual society rather than attempt to live in the ultimate selfish fuck-you-Jack-I’ve-got-mine society. (Hello, Somalia.)

    And of course, anyone who voluntarily works for the government – in any capacity, no matter how useful or even life-saving — is either a leech or a jackbooted thug. Or both. In loony world, that is.

    Fuck, Patrick, do you have any idea how regressive you sound?

  37. Alan Fox,

    Re-reading the thread, I get no sense that walto is seriously suggesting force in any other than a political sense of enforcing the payment of due taxes.

    How do you think taxes are enforced?

    Walt made it clear that he supports the use of government force to achieve goals that he supports, even if those against whom the force is used do not agree with those goals.

  38. Patrick: The offended party will have to rely on others recognizing the bad behavior.

    In my experience, that usually works pretty well. But some folk seem unable to try that method.

  39. walto,

    Again, patrick, I don’t think you really understand democracy. Those aren’t MY ends. I would use force to produce democratically chosen ends. I might hope that all on my list will be so chosen, but I certainly would not support the use of force to produce any that are not. I might support the use of force to produce a society that allows more people to have more realistic choices–in the sense of more democracy..

    I hope that’s clearer. I can see where you were coming from with your claim, though.

  40. hotshoe_,

    Aw, fuck. Because wanting a democratic society to collectively decide that rich thieves….

    Your bias is showing.

    If you want to use euphemisms to hide the plain, ugly fact that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” then feel free. I prefer to be brutally honest about it. If more people were willing to do so, we might be able to have a better conversation about how to restrict it.

  41. Good grief, hotshoe. “Force” is exactly the word walto chose:

    I want to force him to pay for lots of things, actually. Roads, schools, mutual defense, pollution clean-up, etc. Many more things than decent insurance for his employees. I want to make you pay for them too–just as I have to.

    How do you “force him to pay”, or “make him pay”, without forcing him to pay or making him pay?

    And no, that isn’t the same as saying that “all taxes are FORCE.” I pay my taxes voluntarily and willingly. If I decide I’d rather not, then the government will step in and force me to.

  42. Patrick,

    Patrick: Walt made it clear that he supports the use of government force to achieve goals that he supports, even if those against whom the force is used do not agree with those goals.

    OK. But if I don’t pay my taxes on time, i get a 10% penalty slapped on and if I continue to ignore demands, the government can apply to lift the money straight out of my bank account. I live in a police state, to be sure. On the other hand if nobody paid their taxes, I’d live in a bankrupt state with rather more downsides. I’d like to insist that my taxes were spent wisely and not just to keep a huge underemployed army of fonctionnaires off the streets. But that’s politics.

Comments are closed.