I offer some polls for those who wish to express a view without having to post a comment in the Squawk Box thread. The first two are single-choice, the third is multiple choice. They are open to registered members. There is an option to add another answer.I wondered whether to leave comments open and will do so. Please just use it for technical suggestions, questions to add, wording to change to avoid loaded questions. Use Squawk Box for other comments.
First, what do you think of Lizzie’s original idea?
My motivation for starting the site has been the experience of trying to discuss religion, politics, evolution, the Mind/Brain problem, creationism, ethics, exit polls, probability, intelligent design, and many other topics in venues where positions are strongly held and feelings run high. In most venues, one view dominates, and there is a kind of “resident prior” about the integrity, intelligence and motivation of those who differ from the majority view.
[From here]
There are plenty of blogs and forums where people with like priors can hang out and scoff at those who do not share them. There’s nothing wrong with those sites, and I’ve learned a lot from them. But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie. In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties 🙂
[From here][AF added in edit 08.18 am CET,18/08/2018]
[democracy id=”4″]
Second, do the rules support the aims?
[democracy id=”5″]
Third, does moderation policy and execution fit with the aims and rules? [ETA] This poll is multi-choice. You can pick more than one answer.
[democracy id=”6″]
There are around three hundred registered members currently but I suspect there are around forty to fifty currently active. I look forward to your input. And I’m sure Lizzie will find it informative.
[AF added in edit 09.00 am CET 18/08/2018]
As member, Patrick, has suggested some questions, here they are. This is multi-choice and you can add your own answer.
[democracy id=”7″]
I think moderators do a great job. i only say too strick because i was warned off on a false reason. wrongly disciplined. my comment was fair and square and within free speech ideals.
it doesn’t matter. i think moderators do a great job and too many posters here unjustly/dumbly have negativity and its irritating to see them whine on.
not sure of the evo/creo ratio relative to those numbers here ratio.
Well whose scoring.
Modrrators, on my behalf, rightly keep a eye and rightly can say they do a damn good job.
I vote against complainers. Sheeesh isn’t anyone married, worked in places, or dribve on the roads???!!! its pretty good here.
I don’t like that we can only pick one. I’d say too light, too erratic, and too biased.–Put me down for all three please.
walto,
That one is multiple choice. You can click “revote” and have another go!
ETA
I added an edit to mention again that the third poll is multi-choice. You can add your own answer in all three.
I think the site does a pretty good job of what it wanted to accomplish. (And I am a devout theist). I think the moderation if anything is too light. I’d like to see any snarkiness and impoliteness stricken – from any contributor…if it were up to me.
Alan Fox,
Not getting multiple choice possibility. So I just put my own answer in: too light, too erratic, too biased.
walto,
Oops! Thought I’d ticked the box. Should be OK now.
Lizzie started this site because she got banned from UD. She railed about how unfair it was that Barry could try to suppress her ability to spread her version of guerilla skepticism.
Then she does the same thing she complained about Barry doing, sometimes in the guise of “Guanoing is not a punishment”, and then eventually semi-admitting she would like to ban some people but then she would look like the ultimate hypocrite, so she just let’s Alan and Neil do it for her, and says, well, I just don’t have time to look at my own website.
That’s a very good synopsis of the events phoodoo…
The worlds of thought are colliding…
Clamp down on obscenities even more, keep keithprickaddicts out, this blog has a chance of survival as long as you don’t succumb to the pressure of the birdie loves…again….
Great! Would you like to become a moderator? Not a “Modrrator” or a hitman, such as murderertor…..
I’d consider voting for you…
You are not a hitman, Byers, are you?
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Alan,
This is pitiful. Do you think there’s anyone (besides Byers) who can’t see through you and what you’re trying to do here?
First, your moderation abuses have been exposed at length in the Squawk Box thread. You can’t defend yourself, so you’re eager to change the subject to something far more generic, via this poll, in hopes of escaping the continued scrutiny your actions deserve.
Second, you’re distraught that people aren’t coming to your defense in the Squawk Box thread. But why would they, when your behavior has been so appalling? For instance, you abused your moderation privileges and invaded the privacy of commenters in the service of a personal grudge. Who is going to stand up and say “Yay, Alan! I support that. It’s exactly what a moderator should do.”? No one is stupid enough to do that.
Since you can’t get people to stand up for you in the Squawk Box thread to defend your moderation abuses, you’re hoping that if you provide them some cover — an anonymous poll — they might come to your aid, even if they’re afraid to do so publicly:
And of course your poll questions were selected by the very last person who could be trusted to do so impartially: you yourself, a corrupt moderator trying to hang onto power. No mention of moderator abuses, and no mention of the alternate moderation schemes that have been proposed in the Squawk Box thread. Why? Because you don’t want those to be discussed, since it’s not in your personal interests. You’re abusing your power yet again to promote your own interests at the expense of Lizzie and TSZ. Just as you did by trying to censor me.
You’re shameless, Alan.
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Jackson Knepp:
Lizzie has stated that TSZ was never intended to be a particularly polite site. Her aim has been to promote open discussion, not to coddle the sensitive.
I think her instincts are right. You’d lose far more than you’d gain if you let the moderators — and particularly these moderators — run around deleting or guanoing comments they felt were impolite. Imagine the massive moderation disputes that would generate!
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Let me point out something that should be obvious at a science-minded blog like TSZ: If you want to learn whether something will work, then you need to test it, not to take a poll. What will work in reality is what matters — not what people think will work. That’s why we have science in the first place!
We already know that the current moderation scheme is broken. That’s exactly why we’re having this discussion. The current moderation scheme has led to abuses like the attempted 30-day censorship that is the subject of the current kerfuffle, or Alan’s abuses in the ALurker affair, for which he was forced to issue a humiliating public apology.
The current scheme clearly isn’t working, but in the Squawk Box thread, Patrick and I are proposing a site-wide experiment to test one of the alternatives — the no-guano proposal. There are also two other proposals on the table.
It’s pretty clear that Alan would prefer to maintain the status quo and hang on to his unearned moderation privileges. He doesn’t support the experiment, and — quite revealingly — he hasn’t even commented on it or the other two proposals. After all, what could he say? As I’ve shown, the three proposals meet Lizzie’s stated aims for moderation far better than the current scheme.
TSZ can’t afford to let power-hungry moderators prevent us from gathering the data that Lizzie needs in order to make informed choices about the future of TSZ.
Alan,
I’ve got to agree with keiths that these poll questions, and the idea of a poll itself, give every appearance of being self-serving. If you want real feedback, there are three questions you could ask:
1) Should TSZ admins use techniques like the “loudspeaker in the ceiling” perfected by Barry Arrington and Kairosfocus at Uncommon Descent?
2) Should TSZ admins be constrained by the rules of the site or have carte blanche to use their privileges to settle personal grudges?
3) Should TSZ admins respond directly and forthrightly to concerns about their decisions or should they simply arrogantly ignore such issues?
There are other questions that could be addressed (Should respect for Enlightenment values be subject to polls? Are the current admins behaving in a manner consistent with Elizabeth’s goals for the site? Why are the current admins so resistant to data-driven decisions? Which is worse, an occasional rude comment or constant discussion of moderation issues? Are the current admins really concerned about Elizabeth’s goals or just about maintaining their privileges? Etc.), but those three would be a great start.
PS: I, for one, will not participate in your skewed polls. The information you get from them will no doubt be biased.
OK Thanks. I revoted.
Hilarious. These–according to either keitrick or pats (who can tell the difference anymore?)–would be the non-biased/self-serving questions:
While these are the biased ones:
What’s kind of astonishing is that anybody in the world could honestly believe that anybody else in the world would agree with the incredible line of bullshit that peiths is trying to sell here.
I don’t know what anybody else may think, but to me it’s absolutely amazing –hardly credible at all if you didn’t know the thing you were dealing with here.
An added poll answer:
Fair point. I added another quote of Lizzie’s in edit. One criticism that I think is valid is that amendments and
classificationsclarifications appear in different places. A tidying-up and bringing the aims and rules into one page, perhaps numbered and precis-ed, might avoid some disputes around moderation.Of course that is your privilege, on-one is obliged to participate here, it’s purely voluntary (apart from those with SIWOTI addiction). As Jaq’n remarks to Arya “You have everywhere else to go.”
On the other hand, if you would like to suggest some unbiased questions that you think might work in this poll format, I’ll publish them (legal caveats notwithstanding).
Partly but not entirely.
Where did she rail? A quote supporting that assertion would be good. Bet you a beer you can’t find one! 🙂
Lizzie did not intend that having a comment moved to guano should be seen as punishment, just a blow of the referee’s whistle against a rule infraction.
And just to remind you, you were never banned, however much you’d like to play the victim! 🙂
Added Patrick’s poll questions in edit to the OP.
Two of Patrick’s questions are poorly formulated. What does it mean to vote for an either/or question?
faded_Glory,
Perhaps Patrick will explain.
Gotta stop mucking around with the questions, Alan. Very few people will want to have to vote (or “revote”) daily based on something else that has occurred to you since the day before.
And keitrick’s “questions” are obviously self-serving and ridiculous. Of course It makes no sense to “vote” for or against them. They were clearly written as insults, not actual poll questions. I don’t think they should have been added here–even if they are funny and show so clearly what type of thing it is.
It can make it’s own “poll”/screed any time it wants. Free speech, etc.
How do you know not entirely, are you Lizzie?
If you never read Lizzie complaining about being banned from UD, then you either don’t read this website, or its another one of your convenient lies.
Why don’t you tell us about Lizzie’s history on other guerilla skeptic websites? Or yours?
What’s missing from the poll (but please don’t amend it again) are questions that Bruce and Erik brought up about the costs and benefits of transparency regarding moderation questions/disputes. Presumably, those issues are secondary to questions about whether there should be any rules changes at all. But I personally think it would have been interesting to get a sense of the group on the matter. I would have liked to know where people stand on that: maybe Lizzie would as well.
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Patrick:
I, too, refuse to participate.
This isn’t the first time Alan has abused his privileges in order to set up a biased poll. A prior episode, in 2016, was even more egregious:
keiths:
Alan:
[As if the abuse weren’t obvious, and required validation by the members.]
keiths:
keiths:
Alan:
keiths:
Alan:
keiths:
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
And in the 2016 case, it wasn’t just a poll appearing in an OP. Members actually got a message from Alan, a moderator, in their inboxes, to which they were expected to reply. And the replies were visible only to him.
As I commented later, it was about as fair as a North Korean election.
Alan:
keiths:
keiths:
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
So then and now, we have the spectacle of a desperate moderator abusing his privileges in an attempt to cling to power.
A good moderator — one who actually cared about TSZ and wanted Lizzie to make the best and most informed decisions possible — would be encouraging discussion of the three proposals presented in the Squawk Box thread: “opt-in”, “choose your own moderators”, and “no-guano”. He would also encourage testing as a way of gathering data impartially.
Alan is trying to avoid that. He’s acting out of naked self-interest, with no regard for the good of TSZ. It’s a sorry spectacle.
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
walto,
You’re missing the point. Patrick isn’t saying that there is one objective set of questions that ought to be asked. He’s pointing out how blatantly Alan is avoiding topics that would need to be addressed in any honest poll.
Patrick’s three questions are all on point:
Alan carefully avoided those topics, because they are bad news for him. He is abusing his privileges in order to steer the conversation away from them.
Some other topics that Alan would prefer to avoid:
4) Is it acceptable for moderators to invade the privacy of commenters in an attempt to dig up dirt on those who have criticized them?
5) Is it acceptable for moderators, who know that Lizzie wants them to err on the side of light moderation, to impose draconian 30-day suspensions in response to non-rule-violating OPs?
6) And then to (attempt to) prevent the accused from defending himself?
7) Is it acceptable for a moderator to guano a comment, and then when asked why he did so, to respond “Because I can, keiths”?
…and there are plenty more.
Gee, I wonder why Alan didn’t include those questions in his poll.
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
And of course the larger point is that you don’t need a poll to figure out that those things are shitty and against Lizzie’s stated desires for TSZ.
Despite continually wrapping himself in Lizzie’s skirts and talking about her “prime directive”, Alan shows a remarkable and consistent contempt for her clearly expressed wishes.
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Patrick:
The answer to that one is painfully obvious and can be deduced from the evidence. No poll needed.
If the moderators actually cared about Lizzie’s goals, they’d be encouraging discussion of the three moderation proposals (and participating in that discussion themselves). That sort of discussion is exactly what Lizzie created the Squawk Box thread for.
Funny how they don’t want to discuss proposals that reduce their personal power, despite the fact that these proposals satisfy Lizzie’s aims for moderation far better than the current scheme.
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Alan, to phoodoo:
He was censored. All of his comments were placed in moderation and did not appear until a moderator came along and decided to approve them. That’s censorship.
What you did (and are still doing) to J-Mac is also censorship. Despite having violated no rules with his OPs, you’ve singled out J-Mac for a censorship scheme in which his OPs can actually be suppressed because the moderators don’t think they are interesting enough:
Each of phoodoo and J-Mac was doing something annoying, but neither had violated any rules. The censorship was completely unjustified.
You know that Lizzie disapproves of censorship, and you know that TSZ was founded largely in reaction to the censorship at UD. You could have easily avoided censorship in both cases. In the case of J-Mac, a non-censoring option was discussed at length. You refused to implement it, purely out of pride. (Neil, meanwhile, caved in and went along with your scheme, with no explanation, despite opposing it earlier.)
I summarized:
And of course, you have censored me by placing me under an unprecedented and unjustified 30-day suspension. Patrick is doing the right thing by posting my comments for me, despite the censorship. He shouldn’t have to do that. You should have reversed the suspension long ago — or better still, you should have shown some integrity and impulse control by not imposing it in the first place.
Why are you a moderator, when you are so dead set against Lizzie’s goals for the site, including the prohibition of censorship?
Because you didn’t mention them as questions before. They are added now.
Well, vaccillator that he is, those questions are in there now. Be careful what you dream.
No. I recall her pointing this out to Upright Biped when he made the same suggestion.
I don’t doubt she mentioned being banned at UD and wishing to carry on the conversation. I don’t recall her complaining about it. You owe me a beer.
What do you consider a “guerilla skeptic site”? Pandas Thumb? I’ve seen her post there.
Here, do you mean?
Despite discovering that you are a control freak, Alan, I have never thought you were unintelligent. That leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that, like Neil in the Squawk Box thread, you are being deliberately disingenuous.
This thread and your biased poll is a distraction from the discussion taking place on the Squawk Box thread. Rather, it is an attempt to distract from your utter failure to engage in good faith and answer the questions posed and issues raised there. I summarized those, with links to the original comments, here. Here are the issues again:
1) Neither you nor any other admin has been able to point to any rule that keiths violated.
2) There is no rule that allows admins to suspend any member of TSZ.
3) There is a rule against editing or deleting comments. At least one admin broke that rule.
4) Elizabeth has explicitly asked for information about the situation that you and the other admins created, in this thread. You are not allowing keiths to answer Elizabeth’s questions.
You need to take a step back and look at this from a point of view other than your own. It is only reasonable and fair that you allow keiths to participate fully in this discussion. An apology for the admins breaking the rules would be appropriate, but probably too much to ask for with tensions this high.
Your behavior is appalling, particularly for a site founded to counter the arbitrary censorship at UD. You’ve become what TSZ was created to oppose.
Please stop trying to distract from the actual issues. It’s transparent and unbecoming.
Patrick,
Is this really you, Patrick?
In the OP I wrote:
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
walto:
The guy is a walking disaster. It’s not just the ethical problems, severe though those are. It’s also the incompetence.
Every competent pollster, amateur or pro, knows that you don’t go changing the poll halfway through the canvassing.
And again, you don’t need a poll to figure out whether most of those things are right or wrong, or whether they conform to Lizzie’s wishes. You just need a moral compass, a bit of self-control, and the ability to read.
Q: Is it okay for a moderator to invade the privacy of commenters in the service of a personal grudge?
How a competent, honest moderator would answer, without hesitation:
How Alan would answer:
It’s that missing moral compass.
The response to your response to faded_Glory is mine, not keiths’. If the admins would demonstrate minimal fairness, there wouldn’t be the potential confusion.
That doesn’t make this thread any less of an attempted distraction, particularly when you still haven’t engaged in good faith on Squawk Box.
Address the issues fully, accepting that you might be wrong, and then polls will be unnecessary.
I have indeed. Notwithstanding subsequent comments I still hold to the position declared in my first comment in that thread.
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Patrick:
They’re already unnecessary, because any member can comment publicly in the Squawk Box thread — with the great advantage that they can also give the reasons behind their opinions.
There’s no excuse for this poll. It’s another abuse of privilege by Alan for (what he hopes will be his) personal benefit.
No, you simply have not. A start would be to directly, fully, and forthrightly address the four issues I raised there and here:
1) Neither you nor any other admin has been able to point to any rule that keiths violated.
2) There is no rule that allows admins to suspend any member of TSZ.
3) There is a rule against editing or deleting comments. At least one admin broke that rule.
4) Elizabeth has explicitly asked for information about the situation that you and the other admins created, in this thread. You are not allowing keiths to answer Elizabeth’s questions.
Let’s see you do it.
Patrick,
Shall we move back to Squawk Box?
The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission. I am sharing it because I believe it is pertinent to this thread and nothing in the Rules prohibits doing so.
Alan, to Patrick:
Then you are confirming that the suspension is illegitimate, because in that comment you say that you imposed the suspension to put a stop to the criticism I was leveling at the moderators.
Lizzie wants the moderators to be subject to challenge and criticism. You are openly defying her with this suspension.
Anywhere you choose to address the issues would be a nice change.
Oh you recall do you?
And you are not going to wade through 7 seven of posts to find that which you recall you mean? Like you expected me to do?
I RECALL Lizzie complaining about being banned at UD on numerous occasions. I RECALL her saying that NO posts other than porn will be censored here.
I RECALL you doing many things that Lizzie said won’t be done here.
I RECALL you saying you cared about the libel laws in the UK, and I ALSO RECALL you then walking that back by saying, oh, libel laws are only for the rich in England….
You recall do you?
Would you grow up!!!
It’s Lizzies blog and she sets up the rules, like it or not. Yes. I was mistreated because admins had succumbed to some childish pressure from the holy trinity of Darwinian sandbox… So what? I exposed that and moved on… Why can’t you?
This is supposed be a discussion blog… This is not my life…and it shouldn’t be yours… If it is, you should be seeking help and shouldn’t be blogging…
walto once said that there is one thing that people could learn from me-not being able to hold a grudge… Right walto?
Maybe, just maybe, you can learn that too…life is fricken short…why would you spend the rest of your days trying to prove something that is so trivial my kids couldn’t careless about…