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.
Simpler to change the name of the site to “Guano”, no?
I’m still experimenting with waiting for objections to a comment before moving it. Frankly, I thought it seemed to be working quite well with no comments moved to guano for over two weeks.
We could still have separate divisions like “Personal Attacks”, “Random Scientifically Illiterate Spew”, “Gratuitous Insults”, and “Content-Free Trolling.”
My suggestion was, I hope obviously, tongue in cheek. What I would seriously like to see is personal kill files. If I have time this weekend I’ll see what’s available for WordPress. If there’s anything free, I’ll send a note to Lizzie. Thoughts?
Patrick,
The only thing I could find is this. Strange that such a feature should not be standard with most boards. Even stranger that there isn’t a dearth of plugins for this function, given the feature lacking in WP.
I’m not sure if reinstalling “Penguin Colony” is an option that appeals to others. I think the phpBB software has gone following the server switch and a new installation would require a database location, something only Lizzie could arrange for this site.
It appeals to me, as an old Usenet enthusiast, but I think I might be in the minority. I also prefer to code in Lisp and write papers in LaTeX, using Emacs. I’m such a dinosaur I’ve become a hipster.
“Penguin Colony” never worked very well, and few used it.
A complete switch to using forum software, rather than blog software — that I would favor (but I think it would have to be up to Lizzie). But using a plugin to simulate a forum environment just isn’t the same.
Actually, Penguin Colony was standard phpBB software; the plugin was meant to link the forum and blog “seamlessly”, which perhaps it didn’t do well but it didn’t get much of a chance before the old site crashed.
Dunno what I’m doing wrong but I can’t see a way to enter a new OP. Yeah, I did once before; can’t remember what I did then. Okay, maybe it’s a sign I’m too much of an idiot to write for this site. Or maybe it’s something an admin needs to fix/re-fix behind the scenes?
Please let me know … Thanks.
When I’m reading the site, there’s a dark strip along the top, with the wordpress logo to the left, and the word “New” part way in. If I hold my mouse of “New”, the drop down include “post”. Just click that.
Nope. Have a top dark strip, don’t have a wordpress logo; have a box outline where the logo probably is supposed to show — and no “new” menu choice at all.
I’m using a truly ancient computer and can’t update my browser, so if wordpress has now quit working with my old version I’m just plain out of luck. Darn.
Well, it wasn’t an important post that I had in mind … and I am going to be forced to get a new(er) computer within a month or two … I’ll see if I’m still angry enough at BA to post later …
Thanks for the help, Neil. Not anyone’s fault if I can’t follow your instructions.
I was given author status a while back, but now the “new” button seems to be missing for me as well.
Yep, it’s gone.
Hmm. I may need to create a second account for myself, where I can experiment to find out what you are seeing.
If you click the box outline, does that give comments or dashboard or similar?
I don’t see a “new post” button on my account either, but I assumed that was because I surrendered my author privileges after my last flare-up.
I created a new account for myself, and gave it author privileges. I don’t see a way of doing a new post. Something is broken. Maybe Alan F. can look at it.
(Here, I am making a comment, which might go to moderation. I’ll see if that changes anything, though I doubt it.
I have changed hotshoe to the role of contributor. My experiments shows that she should now have a “New” and be able to create a new post. She might not be able to publish it, but in that case any Admin who sees a pending post can publish.
trying it now, give me a few minutes
Wrote what I wanted, previewed it: blockquote and emphasis didn’t show up correctly in preview, but otherwise I’m okay with publishing it. Does it show as pending in admin-land?
hotshoe,
Published. And I fixed the blockquote and the emphasis (and the strike).
Thanks.
Did I do something wrong that I could fix for myself if I write another OP sometime?
I don’t want you/other people to have to go around fixing my mistakes, sorry.
On the edit window, there’s a “Visual” tab and a “Text” tab. If you want to enter html tags, use the “Text” tab. For the “Visual” tab, select the text that you want to specially format, then click quotes (for quoting), the “B” for bold, etc.
Whoever placed my comments in Guano, please return them to this thread.
They do not qualify for Guano.
Did you not see my earlier warning?
Here
Alan,
As a moderator, you are permitted to move comments to Guano only if they violate the rules.
This is the thread for discussion of moderation issues.
FW(little)I(t’s likely)W, I had no problem with either of the posts by keiths that were just moved. I even agreed with one of them.
But, as I’ve said before, I don’t see what difference it makes whether something is posted on guano or not in the first place.
Alan has moved my comment below, and his reply, to the Moderation Issues thread here.
Once folks start down the road of commenting on the poster rather than the ideas, the whole exchange needs to be deep sixed, even if some of the responses are civil.
petrushka,
What Alan did, oddly enough, was to move two civil responses to Guano while leaving the violating comments in place!
In any case, this is Lizzie’s site. Lizzie’s rules apply, and she has stipulated that only rule-violating comments may be Guanoed.
My comments, which clearly do not violate the rules, should be moved back to the original thread.
I intervened in an effort to forestall another fruitless round of pointless exchanges. I issued a warning. The deal is: address comments to other posters civilly or ignore them. It applies equally to Walto.
I stand by my decision. If Lizzie wants to take back the moderating reins, that would be most welcome. I am very puzzled why she has been absent so long. I’ve contacted her a couple of times saying how she is missed. Maybe you can persuade her to return, Keith.
Thanks for pointing that out. Now please take off-topic matters to the appropriate thread.
I totally understand your desire to put an end to that discussion. But I think keiths’ point is that his moved comments WERE civil. And I suspect many disinterested people would be likely to agree with him about that.
Alan,
I am not asking for you to resign, or for Lizzie to take over as moderator. I’m simply asking you to honor her rule about moving comments to Guano, rather than inventing your own. This is Lizzie’s blog, not yours.
You violated Lizzie’s rule by moving two civil comments to Guano. You have the power to correct your mistake, and it is your responsibility to do so. Please move the comments back to the original thread.
walto,
Thank you, walto. It’s nice to agree with you about this. 🙂
While, as I said, I don’t see any harm from either of your two posts and I think they’re civil, they arguably DO violate one of Lizzie’s rules (as did a number of mine). As petrushka suggests above, they address the poster.
I’ve indicated more than once in the past what I think of that rule (not much), but it IS a rule.
Well, all right.
But any more nonsense from the pair of you and…
I’ll think of something!
I’m reinstating Keith’s comments but I’m asking can you both please desist from provoking each other from now on. Think of the lurkers! I’ll move the off-topic comments here.
Thank you, Alan. It’s the right thing to do.
That remains to be demonstrated. I hope you play your part in making it so. 🙂
Alan,
It is the right thing, because Lizzie’s rules should apply on Lizzie’s blog. I hope we can at least agree on that.
Well, the sacred texts are open to interpretation. We shall have to await the second coming of the beloved Lizzie to find out.
Whether a comment violates the rules, is a value judgment. And, as keiths keeps telling us, value judgments are subjective.
Alan,
Lizzie’s statements on the subject have been unambiguous.
For example:
Neil,
No. It’s a judgment, but not a value judgment.
Judgments can be more or less objective depending on how well-supported they are by evidence and reason.
Again, this is a rule:
In my view, it’s a really bad rule, but, nevertheless, there it is, right there among the sacred writ.
A bunch of my posts violated it, and the two posts that Alan moved seem to me to have violated it too. So, while I had no problem with those posts, and don’t care that they were moved back out of guano, the claim that Alan was clearly out of line seems wrong to me. Alan was well within his rights, I think.
I mistakenly posted in the Moderation forum instead of here and I’m hoping someone will move it over for me.
Thanks.
walto,
No, because the “address the post, not the poster” rule was clearly not meant to be taken as literally as you are taking it. Lizzie was not trying to discourage people from addressing each other via civil comments. As you and I agree, my Guanoed comments were civil.
She wouldn’t have Guanoed a comment that began
or
on the grounds that the poster was being addressed. Nor would she have Guanoed a comment that contained a compliment, even if the poster, and not the post, was being addressed.
Alan clearly overstepped his bounds by Guano’ing two comments that did not violate the rules. It was appropriate for him to correct his mistake by moving them back to the original thread.
Well, maybe. But once you have to start splitting hairs like that, calling it a judgment call seems pretty accurate to me. I take that to be one good reason for dumping this rule entirely, And, as I’ve said before, I think there are a number of good reasons others, too.
I see I need to clarify a couple of points. Keith’s comments were outside the “address the commenter” rule and it was Walto’s intercession that persuaded me to relent. My mention of “right” was to do with Keith maybe taking a hint over his unwavering ability to rub people up the wrong way. I’ve no time to comment further as I’m travelling.
I can’t speak for her, but for me TSZ has nearly ceased being worth reading, as it has become a blog for people who like to argue about philosophy. There is rarely any discussion here about objections to evolution or analysis of ID arguments about evolution, Instead it typically features questions like “Do you accept Schnorfel’s causuationist approach to confusion? Or do you prefer Fember’s?” where these are two philosophers I never heard of and where I have no idea what the issue is. Except that I can sense that whatever the issue is, it has nothing to do with any argument about evolution.
Of course some of it is in response to postings at UD. Except those are the postings (Barry on why believing that evolution happened leads you to be immoral and engage in mass murders) that are recognizable red herrings because they commit the fallacy of the Argument From Consequences.