Is a full time job.
At which the current batch of admins has dismally failed.
But then, it was never their job in the first place. They’re admins not baby sitters.
So why don’t they restrict themselves to administration and stop pretending to be moderators?
Not Guano:
Sorry petrushka, don’t mean to pick on you.
Maybe the “mods” need to restrict themselves to obviously egregious violations of the rules.
mung, I’ve written here many times that I don’t think those kinds of ad homs are a big deal. “You’re stupid!” “Oh yeah?–we’ll you’re stupider!!” It’s just blowing off steam, mostly, and has no effect on anybody’s lives. People (especially hotheads like me) get annoyed and then maybe a bit obno, and then, probably, boring.
What the mods SHOULD be doing, IMO, is getting rid of the kind of crap I’ve recently mentioned a couple of times on another active thread. A couple of those posts were actually by our fearless leader herself, so I doubt any of the other mods will move (or better–delete) them. But I think it would be a nice gesture on her part to shit-can them–and possibly ban the offenders (I mean, not herself!–intentional, repeat offenders).
I personally find the misrepresentations, elisions, quote mines, and that kind of thing much worse than the “you’re full of shit” stuff. They too can be used in a way that being called a dumbfuck cannot. Unfortunately, those offenses tend to be judgment calls.
(BTW, I think keiths caught you in an intentional misquote the other day, but, you know, who’s counting? And keiths is no angel himself.) Anyhow, the important stuff is the stuff that can affect one’s non-internet life, and an apparent buddy of yours knows that quite well and, at a minimum, tries to scare people with that–sometimes people that he has outed himself.
Mung, could I ask a question and get a serious and honest answer?
Do you prefer the moderation at TSZ, even though it is not perfect, or that at UD?
The reason I ask is that many of us have been rewarded at UD by abuse and banning for our attempts at discussion. Abuse I can deal with. Sadly, we have all been guilty of this on occasion. But claiming victory in a discussion by silently banning any opposing view is simply dishonest.
Acartia, I have no preference.
When at UD I operate under one set of rules and when at TSZ I operate under a different set of rules. I am absolutely free to depart either domain and have done so in both cases.
If UD doesn’t pretend to be fair then I cannot accuse them of being arbitrary [well, i could, lol, but what would be the point].
Sure it pissed me off to no end that Salvador was allowed to change my posts to make it appear as if I had said something I had not said, and that Salvador was allowed to delete my posts under the pretense that I was trolling, and it pissed me off that “the management” didn’t seem to give a shit, but eventually I decided to change myself.
And guess what, for whatever reason, Salvador no longer starts threads at UD.
otoh, if TSZ wishes to maintain any pretense of fairness they have some work to do. And here we are not talking about who to ban, but how posts ought to be treated. So I also don’t think the cases are comparable. A dissenter is probably more likely to be banned at UD than at TSZ. But then, TSZ, as the anti-UD, needs dissenters to justify it’s existence. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
You’ve got your rules for who gets banned and why, and you have rules for what gets sent to guano. Well, what’s the point if those rules are not going to be enforced in any manner that could be deemed consistent?
I Agree.
I don’t think he did. Besides, he’s on vacation and nothing he says can be trusted.
I try not to intentionally misquote anyone, and I also try to repent of wrongdoing. If you come across an instance please do speak up.
Haha. Are you calling Gregory a buddy of mine? That is so sweet!
When I first read Gregory’s post I did not think he was trying to out anyone. On reading some comments I do think it could have been perceived as a threat to out someone. Is an implied threat against the rules?
Not Guano:
mung, I didn’t mean to suggest that he was outing KN there. He’s already done that. Me too. Here, he was just making a veiled threat, I think. You know, “I know who you are and where you work, and I wonder if your employer knows this or that about you.” He’s made similar posts in my direction.
As to him being your buddy, I don’t know. I just said that because you’ve been so quick to defend him the last few days.
Don’t mistake my objection for how he is treated for acceptance of his actions. Under my rules he would be banned. But here at TSZ we are under more fair rules, rules unlike the rules at UD.
Pigeons. Roost.
Whatever the rules are, apply them equally.
If you either do not know how to apply the rules equally or lack the power to enforce the rules equally, well, that’s blogging.
Time to stop and evaluate?
Hard to argue with any of that.
And as nobody but KN and I seem to have been made uncomfortable by the hootch talk, I’ll chalk it up to us being delicate flowers.
Rules:
Address the post, not the poster.
this means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic
But accusations of bigotry are to be condoned.
As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
Or otherwise mentally impaired?
My take is that accusing a specific person of bigotry is not allowed. But saying that bigotry is the reason for much of the opposition to SSM (yet not identifying particular persons) probably counts as criticizing the argument rather than the poster. My preference would be to avoid the word “bigotry”, but that’s unrealistic given how widely that word has been used in public debates on the topic.
Neil, it’s not like I’ve ever accused you of being fair. Or accused you of bigotry. It’s not like you’re a bigot like all those other bigots.
Why on earth would you avoid the word bigotry?
?
Ayep.
Not Guano:
Because the use of that word does not contribute to a thoughtful discussion.
Fakasesele.
Neil, if you’re still looking at this thread please guano adapa’s comment and then, I guess to be consistent with other threads, Mung’s quote of it.
Then, shit, we get keiths’ claim that Mung “fabricated” something. Of course the point isn’t whether the claim might be true, or not, it’s that it goes against the first explicit rule:
Damn, guys, you’re making me feel bad. What on earth has gotten into all of us lately? Yeah, I’m sensitive because a post of mine that I really really liked got sent to guano. I swear I’m not trying to spread the blame around just so I can feel better.
Yeah things have been sticky lately. Some topics are inevitably more personal than others.
And it is hard to know quite where to draw the line. Maybe I can just ask everyone to try a little harder to keep to the spirit of the rules.
Including myself.
Sent some comments to guano..
But dear Mung, you *are* part of the problem. You might not consider it that way, you might not understand it but nonetheless to some of us that is perfectly true and accurate.
The world is the way the world is in large part because of people like you and William. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true.
That particular comment was made on the “Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial” thread. That paper is talking about people like you and William.
You might not like it, but them’s the breaks. Suck it up or change.
There’s only been one person posting here who’s sole objective is to shit-stir. The same one who started a thread whining about how everyone else gets to talk so meanly to him. If you want things to go back to rational discussion you need to deal with the root cause, not the symptoms.
No, to get back to rational discussion, we have to discuss rationally.
But it’s not always easy.
Mung, my statement about you and William is true. Do you not see yourselves as denialists on the Internet?
Half the stuff the regulars here say, and virtually everything a couple of regulars say, should be shoveled to guano because it is explicitly and only about the poster. There’s no use complaining about it because that’s an essential tool of the ideological narrative – it ostracizes, marginalizes, and attacks the character and motivations of those you disagree with. The admins let it slide mostly when their own team does it because they agree with the narrative it supports.
What’s going on has long since left the purview of rational discourse. It’s all about rhetoric and appealing to emotions to further political/ideological narratives.
William J. Murray,
Says the man who doesn’t care if his beliefs are true 😉
I have repeatedly stated that I’m not a denialist. I do not know if humans are significantly contributing to global warming – I have no means by which to form what I would consider an informed opinion on the matter. But, that apparently doesn’t matter to anyone here – all anyone cares about is the narrative; you either all in with AGW, or you’re a “denialist”. It’s a clever rhetorical propaganda technique, like calling people racists and bigots for virtually any view that doesn’t toe the ideological line.
But, that’s the game we have at hand. This is the way the world is.
Because of people like you, yes.
There you are correct.
Recently you provided some quotes that you claimed showed one thing. When those quotes were put into their proper context you had no response to that, in fact you ran away.
So it appears you are correct. Due to your own choices you have no means by which to form an informed opinion on the matter.
“You ran away.” = guanoable comment. Can we expect any guanoing? Probably not.
Please provide the quotes an links where I offered quotes and made claims about them.
Guano?
Guano?
You have a point, William. However, as I’ve often said, I prefer to err on the non-interventionist side. What I would like is for people to take a read of the rules from time to time, and exercise a bit of self-censorship.
There’s too much sniping. Maybe I should start a thread on some nice non-contentious topic….
…so I’ll save the one I was planning on abortion and euthanasia for a bit I think.
William J. Murray,
I have I misstated, William? Is that not your sentiment?
What facts and evidence are you basing that on exactly?
William J. Murray,
Evolution, William?
I mean, let’s face it. Shoveling guano on TSZ would be an all day, 3-shift full time job. So, most of it goes un-shoveled and the shovelers know it, and the shovelers know they can expect extra leniency if they’re on the right side of the narrative.
Again, that’s just the way it is. It’s fine with me. I can either post here or not.
What difference does that make? Was the comment about the poster, or about the post?
Moved a post to Noyau. Probably should move some more, but I’m trying to mind a program that keeps crashing.
William, I don’t honestly think this:
is true. Certain posters do over populate Guano, but I don’t think more of them are on one side of the “narrative” than the other. And of the people I’ve banned, one was on one “side” and on on the “other”. Not that there’s a single narrative here, even though there’s a strong correlation between sets of views.
William, you’ve taken umbrage to some of my comments based on your previous musings. Would you like to
1 change your mind
2 show my misunderstanding or misrepresentation
3 clutch your pearls some more
??
William J. Murray,
If you bring an ‘I don’t care about truth’ epistemology to the table, it permeates all your posts.
A very accurate description of UD. I thank you for your honesty.
I’ve said numerous times, I agree that the “address the post not the poster” rule is absolutely unworkable, and its existence will always be likely to cause imbalances of the sort William is lamenting. That rule should be dumped. Or everyone will have to learn a manner of conversing that is completely contrary to how anybody talks in real life. Furthermore, as indicated previously, it is not impossible for ad hominem arguments to be sound, and there seems to me no good reason for throwing out those babies with the bath water.
I know keiths will soon advocate for the dropping of all or nearly all moderation rules; I wouldn’t go that far, and I don’t think progressive discipline leading to banning is a bad thing for problematic posters. But you can’t actually have a site with both Noyau and an ad hom rule in any case. Something has to give.
EL said:
What you would like and what has been the case ever since you opened the site are two entirely different things. If I and mung and Erik and 5th acted like a few of your regulars, you would have nothing on this site but thread after thread hijacked by unrelenting back-and-forth posts of personal attacks, innuendo, motive-mongering and other guano.
That would what this site would become and would probably drive away a few others who genuinely seem interested in serious debate. Your site relies on the good graces of the handful of opponents that are here who generally don’t sink to the same level as some of your regulars. If we did, you’d have to start banning people. Or suspending them. Or, you’d have a free for all site.
Your site is only made somewhat palatable because of the restraint of most of the visiting team. And without us here to distract, I’ve seen the home team here turn on itself in long fits of rancor – or, at best, make the same kind of snide, insulting, personal attack commentary about personalities at UD.
But, thats what you get with progressive social experiments.
Guano?
Guano?
guano?
The “address the post not the poster” rule and the “good faith” rule apply to main discussion threads, and I don’t ban for violations.
The outing, porn and malware rules apply everywhere, and I do ban for violations.
I’m not a fan of “progressive discipline” for adults. I’m not in the business of discipline at all. There are things I don’t want to host, that’s all, and if I can’t be sure someone won’t try to post them, then I ban them.
I’m not sure that the “address the post not the poster” rule is viable either. But I thought we might be able to make it work on a fairly small site.
I’m willing to give it a bit longer.
Not sure, William. It is your view, is it not, and it’s true that it permeates your posts, right? In fact, you get quite annoyed if we forget it!
And when I’m not sure, I don’t move.
Yes.
As I said, there do appear to be several posters on the home team here who seem genuinely interested in in debate/discussion. But, you’ve got a handful here that are primarily interested in goading/insulting/personal attacks. We all know it.
And could people just try to grow the fuck up?