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?
Elizabeth,
What difference does it make? Does it have to be untrue in order for it to be about the poster, not the post?
William J. Murray,
Probably. But it’s still good advice for you.
“Mom! The big boys are hurting me with their facts”
walto,
I’m not really lamenting it. I’m sticking my finger in the eye of what I think is a self-deception. EL thinks her guano rules have worked pretty good; yeah, sure they have, if you’re on the home team they’ve worked great. The only reason this site isn’t 99% personal attack chaos is the willingness of the visiting team to take guano comment after guano comment and not complain and not return fire.
Guano?
That is true of all message boards, William. But what I’ve discovered, from experience vaster than I care to admit to, is that trying to draw a line is very difficult, because while “address the post, not the poster” is a great principle, as walto implies, posts are made by posters, and where an attack stops being aimed at the post and starts being aimed at the poster is tricky.
And what seems like self-evident rational argument to one person can seem like pig-headed intellectually dishonest logic-violation to another.
That’s why the “good faith” rule was my first. It’s key, I think. Assume that other people are saying what they believe to be true, and addressing the topic in a conscientious manner, and not being deliberately dishonest or evasive.
It won’t BE the case, of course, it’s just the assumption that I’d like us to try to make.
That’s interesting, Lizzie. I hadn’t thought much about your good faith rule. I do think that its application would reduce the volume of bilge. OTOH, it makes both sarcasm and responding to it nearly impossible. Not sure that’s an unvarnished good.
Every time I made a reply to one of the Oh-god-world-is-ending-gay-marriage comments in that Supreme thread, I had to bite back some kind of “Now that we’ve finally got that under our belts, we can turn our energy to ensuring that no woman in enslaved in a pregnancy she doesn’t want”.
Then I would shake my head and type something else, instead.
I didn’t think of mentioning euthanasia.
Elizabeth,
You’ve got a handful of people that do not care about your rules, EL. Gregory is one. The others are on the home team. This is the way many real people behave in real life – if they realize the rules are not going to be enforced and there is no downside – really, whatsoever – to breaking the rules, they will ignore the rules. Even if they are on “your” side, and even if you ask them play nice.
Even buying your assumption that there is a “home team” (which I guess there is, because I’m it, and I chose three people with whom I am in broad philosophical agreement to be my admins), I’d point out, firstly, that permissions to post OPs is granted to anyone, whatever their philosophical viewpoint.
Secondly, I’d point out that in my view at least, plenty of “guano” comments come from those I’d broadly categorise as on a different philosophical “side” to myself. I’m not talking about sweary posts. I’m talking about posts in which the poster violates the “good faith” rule – accuses other posters of dishonesty or lack of integrity, or whatever.
But I do appreciate all efforts not to “return fire” and I see plenty of posters on both philosophical “sides” (I’m sure there are more than two, actually) who display commendable restraint.
And I’d like to see more of that.
Well, it tends to come up at the same time, so I thought I’d bite both bullets.
Not sure what post you were quoting – what does “it” refer to here?
If you wanted to have an actual debate William, you’d be having one. Instead because you are on the “outnumbered” side you can pick and choose from any number of posts to address, or none at all, as it best suits you.
You would lose a debate by acting the way I perceive you to act here. The point about the quotes for example. Everybody who had read all the recent threads will know what that is a reference to I’m sure. And your careful phrasing in your reply to me now belies the context at the time where those quotes were posted by you.
That you then chose not to address substantive responses to that post is what I’m talking about. That would mean you lost in anything like a formal debate.
I suggest you have one. In a thread have a 1 on 1 debate. No other posters allowed. I’m sure many people here would be up for it. Then I believe we’d see what was really what.
OMagain,
Guano?
Elizabeth,
I think any OP on euthanasia or abortion would be highly contentious and end in ugly acrimony. In a paper I recently finished and have sent to a journal, I made a few tentative comments on what I think might be a new approach to such issues, but I wouldn’t think of bringing that kind of stuff here. I think I’d take it hard from both sides, and I don’t have either the energy or thick enough skin.
One thing I have concluded (provisionally, obvs) from my experience on discussion boards is that what matters more than formal rules is the culture. People pick up styles of interaction.
And one reason I don’t like too much in the way of formal moderation is that people substitute notionally “polite” versions of being just as rude as they otherwise would be, often ruder.
So let’s try and clean up our act here. Assume that others are posting in good faith. I do think it’s a good rule, and it’s one I genuinely try to observe in life. And it’s served me pretty well. Even when I think it’s unlikely to be true, it sometimes turns out it is, and mostly the consequences of erring on the side of trust are, in my experience, less bad than erring on the side of suspicion. I’ve always liked the fable of the Sun and the Wind.
Yes. Which is why it’s not going to be the next thing I post 🙂
It’s definitely difficult being on the “outnumbered” side. I’ve been there lots of times.
I’d like to be able to set up a 1 on 1 – the blog software doesn’t lend itself all that easily to it, but it could probably be done all the same.
EL: The guanoable post in question was where Richardthughes said:
What difference does it make if what he says about me is true or not? His post is about me, not the content of my post.
But you can’t say why.
I think it’s absolutely reasonable to point out that the tactics you use here would cause you to lose in anything approaching a formal debate. You provide some quotes, quotes stolen via an illegal act by the way, they are rebutted in any case and you ignore that rebuttal.
I’d score you quite low for that. If you think pointing that out is guano, then you’ll win few debates I think!
Liz, when I point out that Mung and William are denialists and the William by his own admission doesn’t care if his views are true, I’m not assuming they are posting in bad faith or are being disingenuous. I’m simply pointing out what they are.
It’s meta-commentary that gets automatically added. You know, like how when you state something you don’t also add a disclaimer about how you don’t think that it’s true, you just believe it. So when you write something, anything, we have to add that meta-commentary in. And sometimes it gets added by writing it too.
The fact is that you cannot provide the evidence to back up your claim, and you are saying that I word things the way I do deceptively so that you cannot actually quote me in order to make your case. That is a violation of the good faith rule.
Well, that’s why I didn’t send the one about not caring if his views were true to guano. But William and Mung have said they are not denialists, so insisting they are is pointless.
Indeed it would be incompatible with what you have said about William.
Yes it is. However, I think this thread is serving a useful purpose in thrashing these issues out, so moving stuff to guano would be pointless – the guano-ables aren’t actually off topic, they are pertinent exhibits.
Elizabeth,
Aren’t they both evolution deniers?
I don’t think it’s useful to categorise people in that way. It’s one of the things that gets my goat about Gregory. Maybe it’s sociology thing.
It’s not even a meaningful category.
Oh, right. Well, I think pointing out inconsistencies is absolutely fine.
So maybe the rule needs rephrasing. Not sure how though.
What are you talking about? What “inconsistency” do you think is being pointed out?
FWIW, my view is that it’s actually impossible to consistently hold to a “I don’t care about truth, but believe this or that only because of the beliefs’ effects on me” theory while conversing with other people in the world. It’s roughly equivalent to holding an entirely skeptical position regarding the external world while continuing to live and act in it. Those sorts of claims result in the same kind of paradox as Moore’s “It’s raining, but I don’t believe it.”
It’s a fact that people’s comments are getting moved to guano regardless of which “side” they’re on.
Just count ’em.
No shame or blame meant to attach to listing ‘nyms. It wouldn’t be accurate to just list “side A” “side B” etc. There’s guano for slagging off folks on the “same side” and for slagging off the “other side”, and trying to separate those out would be completely pointless.
I counted/listed different days/episodes separately.
In REVERSE order, from most recent:
RIchardhughes — 1, 1
keiths — 1, 2, 1, 1
Adapa — 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Mung — (2 don’t count, dragged in because quoting someone else’s guano comment), 1
Gregory — 4, 8**, 1, 5, 1
walto — 1, 1, 3, 2
KN — 1
hotshoe — (1 don’t count, dragged in because quoting someone else’s guano comment), 1, 2
erik — (1 don’t count, dragged in because quoting someone else’s guano comment)
GlenDavidson — 1
OMagain — 1, 1, 1
JonF — 1
cubist — 1
Creodont2 — 6, 1
Acarta — 1
phoodoo — 1
Mung — 1
Alan Fox — (1 don’t count, dragged in because quoting someone else’s guano comment)
… and that gets us back two pages, to the end of May, so it’s not just some recent changes (except for, possibly, Gregory’s particular meltdown recently)
** I’m inclined to say this 8 only counts as ONE, because Gregory was on a tear all day, but (I think) it was just one particular comment which alarmed the witnesses and got the whole sequence swept up.
hotshoe_,
In my experience on another Internet forum, a thread on the gay would derail faster than a thread on abortion.
But okay, I’ll grant that euthenasia and infanticide would probably go off the rails even faster.
I don’t hold beliefs that directly contradict my actual experience. But, I will agree, I think it is pretty much impossible for most people to be reasonably skeptical about everything (excluding “I experience”). However, unlike most people I have met, I believe (act as if true) most things I believe because I choose to, not because I think they are aspects of reality.
When I debate other people, it a practical impossibility to qualify every statement with some kind of disclaimer. What I’m willing to do is from time to time make clear my epistemological and ontological foundation.
When I make statements that assert or imply a certain state of the world – like “we all know it” that there are certain posters here that generally only serve to agitate – I’m not making a claim about reality, but I’m stating what I think all parties here would reasonably agree to.
However, it may not be the case that EL would agree that there are a handful of regulars here that, generally, only attempt to agitate and flaunt the rules. My statement isn’t a assertion about reality, but rather reflects my confidence that she and others here will agree to the statement and not challenge it.
I’m not always right when I assume others will not challenge statements concerning what I thought would be agreed upon.
Why not give WJM administrative/moderation privileges, if he’ll have them?
Well, I think it’s fine, in principle, to point out what you think is an inconsistency in someone’s view point.
Whether there was in this case, I don’t know, but that’s not the point. There’s no rule at TSZ against being wrong.
Well, it’s a thought, but I’m not sure I really want to step up the rate at which stuff is moved. I don’t think William is saying that the moving isn’t even-handed, just that the bar is too low.
I could be wrong.
I think you need a meeting of a Rules Committee. Maybe one of keiths’ threads on moderation would be a good place for that.
And if the position of Committee Jester is available, I’d like to nominate myself.
Well, he certainly has fussed about the “sides” being treated differently.
[my insertion because unsure who the second “shovelers” refers to, and my bold]
although you responded as if it weren’t meant to be about “sides” (or “teams” as he put it in another comment) but rather about the “narrative” — I’m pretty sure “narrative” misses where WJM cleaves the joints here.
Lizzie,
Hear, hear. I see the “assume good faith” rule as the distinguishing feature of this site. I’m very curious to see how it works out.
In the past I’ve tried to err on the side of not Guano’ing comments unless they were egregious violations of the rules. Given the recent dust up, I’m going to swallow hard and interpret that particular one a bit more strictly (the fact that comments are never deleted is another key feature here). Brace yourself for complaints.
Mung,
I see this site as an experiment by Lizzie. If I were making the rules it would be much closer to the delightful anarchy of Usenet. I find Lizzie’s ideas interesting, though, so I choose to help to see what will happen. Even with the spike in rich organic matter being posted in the past couple of days, I am cautiously optimistic.
Are you suggesting that all rules be eliminated?
Why continue to patronise an establishment whose clientele and policy one so thoroughly despises?
Cute girls, maybe?
WJM, yes, it was said sarcastically but I don’t think that it qualifies as guano. Your personal philosophy (and mine) obviously has a bearing on the arguments we make.
Sal is routinely criticized for his YEC arguments. But this is because they are so easy to pick apart. As are your arguments on objective morality. But this doesn’t mean that I think you are both lying. In fact, I think you both believe in your respective arguments. Criticism is legitimate, even productive, but personal attacks aren’t. The problem is, there is a huge grey area and how each is classified is often dependent on the perspective you bring to the table.
Lizzie:
His recent complaints include:
His complaint is that the moderation is not even handed vis “sides/teams.” So, in addition to balancing the site by inviting participants of all views to participate, why not also invite moderators with diverse views?
Are you up for it, William?
That’s surely a mistake.
When I first started using usenet, it did not extend far beyond academia. And “delightful anarchy” was perhaps a reasonable description. But when the Internet opened up to the world, usenet was quickly overrun by trolls.
walto,
Only a click away!
Let’s leave William out of it as irrelevant. What am I in denial of?
🙂
What she said.
I think I already mentioned I weigh in on the side of generally letting people have at it. You soon find out who is worth talking to. I’m not asking for more moderation.
I think it’s an impossible task (and thankless).
That said, here’s a thank you to the moderators.
It would make a better case that your post is not guano worthy if you actually provided some evidence to substantiate your claims. As it is, you just assume everyone else agrees with you. Then your post becomes part of the record and then it becomes part of the narrative then it because the accepted truth at TSZ even if it isn’t true.
It then feeds back in to the whole mindset that William and Mung can be treated with disdain and produces even more posts that belong in guano. 🙂