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.
Actually, I only really came across this “debate” concept since spending time on US sites. The idea that you can argue over a testable phenomenon like a point of law still seems bizarre and pointless.
Can I take responsibility?
Alan,
I didn’t ask for an apology.
I explained it already. More than once.
It was just a mistake, Alan. Why are you fighting so hard to deny it?
Gralgrathor,
Sure. Fire away.
Thanks!
Alan,
Arguing over testable phenomena is what science does, all around the world.
You link doesn’t elucidate what you think my mistake was. Try just starting a sentence with “Your mistake was…” and go from there. I’d appreciate it if you’d do it in the appropriate thread.
Once I’m clear what it is you think my mistake was, I’ll agree, withdraw and apologize or I’ll disagree and stand by whatever this mistake is.
I’m interested in not making factual errors and I’m interested in correcting any that are pointed out. I can hardly be accused of fighting over something when I don’t even know what the issue is, as far as you are concerned.
You don’t think the list that Rich Hughes posted on another thread is more accurate? And I said “arguing over testable phenomena like a point of law”. There’s nuance there.
petrushka,
But whining about comments is okay?
The ones who make discussion personal… You mean like this guy?
And yet here you are, discussing moderation with the rest of us.
Alan,
Link?
Still sounds like science to me. It’s just that the points are points of physical law.
here
Oh, Jeez!
I must start a campaign for getting rid of “physical laws” and starting to call them “observed regularities” or something.
Keith
I’m stopping commenting for a while. I have stuff to do. Assume, if you wish, my tail is tucked in.
keiths:
Alan:
Rich’s list includes “adversarial review”.
Alan,
I won’t, because unlike William, you don’t tend to avoid the questions that people put to you.
We all have other things to do, but most of us don’t use that as an excuse to avoid difficult questions. William tends to become “satisfied with the debate” just at the point when he runs out of answers.
The latest fracas is a beautiful illustration of why less is better when it comes to moderation, and why Alan’s suggestion of leaving it up to the “injured party” to complain was such a good idea, if he had just stuck to it.
In this case the “injured party” doesn’t even care about the comment in question.
This entire discussion wouldn’t have happened if Alan had simply left it up to William to decide whether he wanted to complain.
Your long argument with petrushka;
Your long argument with Walto;
Your long argument with Alan Fox.
Yet the example you give is not the same thing at all. Sure, there was a disagreement. But I did not repeatedly demand that you agree with my understanding of the issues. Instead, I just dropped out of that talking-past-one-another incident.
Alright, I have a proposal. Answer the next question:
What is the 23d word on page 101 of the second edition of Hartl and Clark’s Principles of Population Genetics?
Whomever gives the correct answer gets to be right. About everything.
It’s also ironic that petrushka, the bystander who objected to this characterization of William…
…is nevertheless fine with describing some of William’s views as “mental masturbation” — a phrase I have also used, and for the same reasons.
Now, petrushka’s comment satisfies the letter of the law because it is technically about William’s views, not about William himself. But the comment has a direct and inescapable logical consequence: that William is a mental masturbator.
If the rule is applied for its own sake, then
a) William’s view amounts to mental masturbation.
…is fine, while
b) William is a mental masturbator.
…is not.
If the point of the rule, as Alan says, is to
…would anyone argue that (a) is “welcoming enough”, while (b) is not?
Positions and ideas are fair game at TSZ, even when criticism of those ideas directly implies something unpalatable about the person holding them. The rule isn’t supposed to protect commenters’ egos or to shield them from criticism. I think Lizzie’s intention was to promote discussion while discouraging Gregory-like name-calling.
Gralgrathor,
It’s ‘whoever’, not ‘whomever’. 🙂
Do I at least get to be right about grammar?
Yes, that’s correct.
For the purpose of this post, I will stipulate that I am treating “William” as an abstraction, and not as any particular person.
It is quite possible for William’s expressed view to amount to mental masturbation, yet for William to have not been proposing or engaging in mental masturbation. For example, William might have chosen his words poorly, so that his expressed view did not actually represent his own view.
Neil:
keiths:
Neil:
I’m looking for specific examples. At what point in those arguments do I “hold people responsible for my misunderstanding of their statements” or exhibit a “blindness to the subtleties of language”? Links, please.
Sure it is. You were applying your own, idiosyncratic definition of ‘computation’, ignoring the fact that it conflicted with the generally accepted usage of the term, even among computer scientists.
Sounds like a “strange literalism” to me.
Neil,
No, because William has expressed the same view many times in different comments, different threads, and at different times, using different phrasing.
This was not a one-off misunderstanding.
Alan,
It does.
See this comment.
keiths,
Responses here on
How’s your Dutch, Keith?
I’m sticking to the point that the injured party does not necessarily have to be the person addressed. You could write a comment insulting my mother. My mother will not object – I guarantee it. I reserve the right to object on her behalf.
Of course not.
Now I am unavailable till after the weekend. Have a good weekend, everyone.
Alan,
And petrushka was the injured party, for undergoing the terrible trauma of reading a comment about William’s tail tucked between his legs? Please.
You do read things in an incredibly literalistic manner. An injured party is someone offended by a comment. I’m not the only one to point out your comments can be quite offensive. I also accept that you may not be aware of how obnoxious you sometimes appear to others. If your goal is to persuade others to your point of view, you might look at whether some of your comments are counter-productive. Silence does not always mean consent. It can mean people have walked away.
Alan,
And you believe that petrushka, who describes William’s views as “mental masturbation”, was offended by the following comment, and required protection from the moderators?
It doesn’t matter whether whether I am offended. I don’t consider being offended worthy of note.
What I do consider important is that the single minded pursuit of being smarter than everyone else is unseemly. I don’t think I am capable of judging my effect on others; I depend on others to nudge me back into line.
So if I found myself being nudged by half a dozen people I normally agree with, I’d go home and rethink my life.
petrushka,
Alan does. That was his only reason for Guano’ing my comment.
I agree. That’s why I cheerfully acknowledge my mistakes when I make them. Things would be a lot more pleasant around here if you, Alan and Neil would do the same.
You don’t have to raise your hackles merely because someone points out an error. It’s not a crisis demanding an aggressive response. You can calmly assess the situation and decide if the person is right. If they are, you can acknowledge your mistake and move on. You will still be a man, and your children (and pets) will still respect you.
On the other hand, if you think that the other person is wrong, then you can present an argument to that effect.
A third option is to just let it drop. It’s all about taking responsibility for your actions, whatever you choose to do.
No one should assume that I am right about Y simply because I agree with them about X, and vice-versa. The fact that I agree broadly with you, Alan and Neil about science and ID doesn’t by any stretch guarantee that we will agree on other issues. Nor should it.
In particular, I find your collective inability to admit mistakes very off-putting, and I have no desire to emulate it. The fact that the four of us agree about other things doesn’t change that.
So for example, when you and Neil accuse me of being “hyper-literal” and of “refusing to consider the intended meaning of statements”, I consider the possibility that you might be right, and that I might have overlooked instances where I have behaved that way. I also consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and that you are making an unjust accusation for purely emotional reasons.
Both are possible, and the way to answer the question is to examine the evidence. Neither of you has come up with any. If you guys can’t come up with any evidence, and if I can’t think of any instances in which I’ve been “hyper-literal”, then why should I take your accusation seriously?
And why should I accept interpersonal advice from a person who makes false accusations, who regards the admission of mistakes as “groveling”, and who explodes when someone points out a mistake of his?
“I cheerfully acknowledge my mistakes”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
[Walto eventually becomes able to breathe again and gets up off the floor]
Actually, you do not acknowlege your mistakes, cheerfully or otherwise. Examples? You suggested that I was an anti-semite who doesn’t think Jews (and/or socialists) should have the same rights “as the rest of us.” When both hotshoe and I explained to you that my remarks were simply a matter of quoting Hitchens and pointing out that his argument was no good, instead of apologizing and saying something like, ‘Ah, I now see what you mean,’ you just kept on with your absurd bullshit (as you will no doubt do again now). Again, when I and others have said repeatedly that we don’t want increased moderation, you have continued to insist that we do (as, of course, you would know better than we what our views are). What people DO want is simply for you to stop acting like a dick on every thread in whIch someone has the audacity not to agree with every jot and tittle that you post.
That you can’t do that is increasingly obvious, however. You’re not interested in communicating: you obviously want only to always be right (and please Snoopy me no more Snoopies) and, maybe, impress somebody. Anyhow, this is a waste of time. You’re doing all you can to make this place unpleasant. Not the moderation rules. YOU. Got it now?
Hey, Walt! Welcome back!
walto,
I think the moderation failed you, walto. It’s a learning curve. Hope you find time to participate . I appreciated your wry humour. I still chuckle over this.
Alan,
I agree. Neil should never have imposed that absurd “cooling-off” period.
As I’ve mentioned several times before, it’s my belief that, if anything, there are too many moderation rules. The failure is not one of moderation. Hotshoe put very eloquently what is required–a willingness by participants to restrain from assholishness. Without that, you fail, regardless of rules; with it, no moderation is needed. In particular, as I’ve discussed at length already, I would lose the rules against addressing the poster. Rational conversation often requires that.
Walt,
I see that your imagination is still as active as it was when you left.
No, I didn’t.
You did call for more moderation.
When I’m wrong, I admit my errors. Meanwhile, you continue to insist, against all evidence, that Plantinga could not possibly have made the mistake I attribute to him.
A couple of other false accusations you’ve made: That I claimed to be smarter than Plantinga, and that I misrepresented your comment about Oliver Wendell Holmes.
I think a little introspection might in order, Walt.
Just as I predicted. Same utter bullshit. Selective quoting, disregard for amendments, no matter how many times they’re repeated, and, generally, a weird, obnoxious reluctance to admit you’re ever wrong about anything. I’d repeat that you’re a sophomoric dick, except that I think you might be crazy. It’s a fine line. See Trollope’s_He Knew He was Right_.
ETA: in case anybody is wondering what I mean by ‘amendments’–I did indeed call in one post, for additional moderation (after I’d written 3 or more times that I didn’t actually want that). When that was brought to my attention, I acknowledged that error of mine and corrected it. However, dickwad here continued (and continues to insist that I want more moderation and keeps on linking the post which he knows perfectly well I subsequently corrected. Did the same thing to hotshoe — and to me on other issues on other threads. He’s either an unrepentent asshole, nuts or some particularly unpleasant combo. I leave to others to decide which.
Walt,
You crack me up.
By the way, did you see this comment before you left?
We finally agree on something. You are indeed cracking up.
Continuing a moderation discussion that started here on the “Counterintuitive Evolutionary Truths” thread.
Aardvark, Gralgrathor,
The only power that phoodoo has over you is the power you grant him by allowing him to get your goat. Why grant him that power?
The rules at TSZ don’t permit censorship (and wisely so, as Neil’s censorship fiasco so vividly demonstrated). That means that at most, some of phoodoo’s comments could be moved to Guano if they were found to violate the rules. What would be the point? It would just give him an excuse to complain about moderation.
I think DNA_Jock’s approach is right:
Maybe we should start a thread in which people share their tips for dealing with folks like phoodoo and Gregory. 🙂
keiths,
I have an idea how to deal with someone like phoodoo.
Why don’t you try actually addressing some of the many legitimate objections he has raised to your evolutionary theory? I realize of course that these objections scare your worldview, but hey, facts are facts.
Evo-devo is a fact, that you can’t just brush away and say, I think Jerry Coyne has already got that figured out, so please don’t mention it, because you are being a troll. The selfish gene concept has failed I am afraid, sorry for having to be the one to point it out to you all.
phoodoo,
I couldn’t find any legitimate objections, but I did address the illegitimate ones.
keiths,
Let me just address the notion that you addressed the issues, in a similar fashion to you if I may.
You are wrong. Go read a book. Would an education kill you?
It didn’t take ten paragraphs.
I wonder if phoodoo is the dimly-remembered ‘Farmer John’ from talk.origins. Similar “if a simple farmer like me … ” schtick.
I’d recommend people who know someone’s razzing them not to oblige by being razzed. When a thread rapidly approaches the 500 mark, it’s pretty obvious what’s going to be found within. It’s not always easy, but don’t take inability to get a point through the flailing personally. If he doesn’t want to understand, why should you care? I find his point-scoring attempts against me simply lame. His howlers are pretty amusing though.
This post on LinkedIn has some applicability to the quality of discourse issues we’re seeing here.
Quick summary of the “Six Toxic Behaviors”:
1) Taking everything personally
2) Obsessing about negative thoughts
3) Treating yourself like a victim
4) Cruelty – lacking in empathy or putting yourself in others shoes
5) Excessive reactivity
6) Needing constant validation
I would like to suggest a new moderation rule: All comments start in Guano. If any moderator deems them suitable, they can be moved to an appropriate thread.