Squawk box

I sense a disturbance in the force.

This thread is for people to tell me what they think is going on, going wrong, and what they think we should do about it.  I’m listening.

Lizzie

[Edit added 18.40 pm CET 20/08/2018 by Alan Fox]

As the comments have ballooned, Lizzie would very much like members to summarize their thoughts and suggestions into one statement and there is now a dedicated thread, “Summaries”, where they can be posted. Please just post one summary and please do not add other comments. You are welcome to comment on other people’s summaries in this thread. The idea of the “Summaries” thread is to make it easier for Lizzie to get your input. Comments judged by admins not to be summaries will move to guano.

Members who would rather keep their thoughts confidential are invited to use the private messaging system. Lizzie’s address is Elizabeth.

1,219 thoughts on “Squawk box

  1. Mung: He was suspended for attempting to circumvent moderation. He didn’t think his post should be moderated, the moderators disagreed, and he tried to get around that.

    Moderated as in delayed? Or as in guanoed? And how did he try to circumvent that?

    On a normal forum this behaviour would be banworthy. But this is not a normal forum, so normal forum rules are inapplicable I guess…

  2. I restored phoodoo’s comment.
    As the target, I requested (to myself) that it NOT be moved. This lowered it’s discrete-choice-modeling score below the threshold.
    Thus it is still unclear which rules apply to this thread.
    Absent an explicit request from the OP author, the default is “Normal Rules apply”.

    phoodoo: I agree with all of that, I fall on the side that ALL uncivil posts should be moved without exception.

    Be the change you want to see.

  3. DNA_Jock: Be the change you want to see.

    Well, in that case, I declare myself to be a moderator!

    Now how does this sending posts to Guano thing work?

  4. Mung: What the hell is objectively wrong with lying.

    You’ll have to get a definition of “objective” out of him before you can really tell where he stands on that. Good luck.

  5. DNA_Jock: it is still unclear which rules apply to this thread.

    I didn’t get that. Not sure why I figured this was free range thread. Cause it’s explicitly on moderation issues, I guess. But maybe I shouldn’t have made that assumption.

  6. Erik: walto: Why should there be ANY restraints? People can always ignore what they don’t want to read. Let a thousand pieces of garbage proliferate! Some people (bad ones) are sooooo censorious!

    The blog (webpage) represents the owner. There have to be some restrictions for esthetic reasons at least. An all-emojis OP would be sheer spam, unless it’s some new year greeting or such.

    I was joshing.

  7. walto: But maybe I shouldn’t have made that assumption.

    It was an eminently reasonable assumption. Until a mod stepped in. LoL.

  8. walto: I remember that. But you said it was directed at Vince, because of the length of his OPs. That’s what I was questioning.

    Since the discussion sprung up soon after Vince became prolific here, I personally made this connection. None of the mods admitted this, but they gave no other reason either as to why the discussion had sprung up.

  9. BruceS: I have not read many of the messages in the exchange on this topic.Is the purpose to re-litigate Kieith’s suspension?Or is it to use that suspension as an example of a problem with the rules or moderation at TSZ?

    For me, it’s the latter. For keiths, I believe it’s both, but you’d have to ask him.

    If the latter, I think it would be helpful to post a summary of the problem with TSZ rules or moderation exhibited in Keith’s suspension and the recommended changes to the rules or moderation to prevent that problem’s recurrence.

    My first comment in this thread gives my understanding of what led to the current situation:

    keiths published a post that arguably violated the rule about using TSZ as a peanut gallery. That rule, as you know, is not enforced often. There are many threads about the antics on Uncommon Descent. His post was not qualitatively different. It did claim that someone was behaving dishonestly, and provided reasons for that claim.

    The response from Neil and the other moderators crossed several lines. First, the post was removed. Then it was restored, but with a disclaimer from the admins added (shades of UD’s loudspeaker in the ceiling). Comments were closed. Then keiths’ posting privileges were revoked. A rewrite from keiths that addressed Neil’s stated concerns was blocked. Neil moved comments from Moderation Issues to Guano. Alan suspended keiths’ account for 30 days. Now here you are.

    Absolutely none of the actions taken by the admins are allowed by the rules. You’ve clearly declared, “it is a principle of this site that comments are not edited, deleted, or hidden.” There is nothing in the rules that allows admins to close comments on a thread. It is understood that comments in Moderation Issues are never moved to Guano.

    (The “you” I’m referring to is Elizabeth.)

    The issues that most concern me are the admins flagrant disregard of the rules and the unavoidable impression that these actions were taken because the admins dislike keiths personally. Anyone else would have gotten a quiet word from one of the admins and the opportunity to discuss his or her choice of presentation. Something stinks here.

    That is compounded by the unfairness of not allowing keiths to participate in this thread. He should be allowed to present his side. My impression is that the admins’ egos are getting in the way of them doing the right thing.

  10. Mung:

    Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    It’s sad, really, that others don’t see my incessant whining in that same light.

    Maybe it’s the difference between a thousand flowers blooming and the same blooming flower a thousand times?

  11. 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.

    A repost from the “TSZ — the future” thread:
    The no-guano proposal has wide benefits:

    1. It benefits Lizzie, who has complained about the difficulty of recruiting moderators. Under the no-guano scheme, she only needs admins, not moderators. Because the duties are far less onerous, admins should be much easier to find.

    2. It benefits commenters, who no longer have to suffer abuses at the hands of Alan and Neil [and now DNA_Jock].

    3. It benefits readers by keeping discussions flowing smoothly and dramatically reducing the amount of moderation meta-discussion, leaving the focus on content, which is what TSZ is about in the first place.

    4. It also benefits them by maintaining the continuity of discussion. Awkward gaps won’t appear in threads, and readers won’t have to go to Guano to get the full story. They also won’t have to guess exactly where each guanoed comment came from.

    5. It even benefits Alan and Neil, who have been endlessly complaining about their workload. Under a no-guano scheme, they’d only need to perform admin duties. No need to read threads, guano comments, and respond to moderation issues and complaints.
    6. It requires no software changes.

    7. And of course it’s in line with Lizzie’s desire to avoid censorship, not controlling what people read or write.

    Given the evidence, I think it’s worth a sitewide trial. All it would take is Lizzie’s approval. As I wrote earlier, to ALurker:

    Just to be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting the elimination of all rules. Just those relating to the guanoing of comments.

    Second, I am not claiming that it’s an “optimal solution.” We don’t know what the optimal solution is.

    What I am claiming is that judging by the evidence to date, it looks far better than the current scheme and is worth a try. Moderation has always evolved at TSZ, and I doubt that anyone thinks that the next scheme we settle on will be the final one.

    If a no-guano approach actually turned out to be worse than the current approach, we could reverse it. If it turned out to be better, but with room for further improvement, we could tweak it.

  12. 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, to Alan:

    It’s bad enough you all overreacted. The fact that you’ve circled the wagons and are refusing to even consider the idea that you might be in the wrong is appalling. Whatever Elizabeth decides about new rules, none of the admins involved in this fiasco can be trusted not to abuse their privileges again. If you win this round with keiths, every other TSZ member who disagrees with you in any way is going to be wondering who’s next. That’s a great way to build an echo chamber.

    [Emphasis added]

    Amen.

  13. 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, to Erik:

    keiths cannot post here. He’s been suspended for . . . reasons (ask a different admin, get a different one).

    And even if you ask the same admin, you’ll get a different answer, depending on when you ask.

    It’s been a Keystone Kops routine, with the moderators tripping all over each other.

    Censor first; then spend days trying (and failing) to come up with a rationalization for the moderation abuse.

  14. 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.

    If you impose an unprecedented 30-day suspension on someone, you ought to be able to justify your action.

    Not a single one of the moderators has been able to connect the dots, starting with what I did and making a rational argument ending with the appropriateness of a 30-day suspension.

    The grudge came first, then the 30-day suspension, and now an increasingly pitiful attempt to find an after-the-fact rationalization for the 30-day suspension.

    I wish the mods would finally get their shit together and settle on a story.

    Was the suspension to protect the mods from criticism, as Alan initially told us? Because you’re worried about libel and legal liability? Because it was a violation of the “peanut gallery” rule? Because my OP accused an erstwhile fellow commenter of dishonesty? Because it amounted to “quasi-doxxing”? (That one still cracks me up).

    The real reason is obvious: Alan was nursing a personal grudge, and he indulged that grudge by abusing his moderation privileges. Neil and Jock share Alan’s grudge, so they supported Alan’s censorship move. Having indulged the grudge, they are now trying — and failing — to concoct a plausible cover story.

    And if Lizzie’s accusation of lying (against Stephen Meyer) was fine — and it obviously was — then why am I subject to a suspension — and a 30-day suspension, no less? No coherent response from the mods, just a blatant double standard.

  15. Patrick: 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.

    Basic decency (normal forum rules) requires that you do not amplify the voice of a banned member. Perhaps it doesn’t occur to you that he was banned for a reason. You are a stinking litterer.

  16. Patrick:
    The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission….

    Patrick, to Alan:

    Amen.

    Patrick: The following is a copy of a private email from keiths, posted with his permission.
    Patrick, to Erik:

    Patrick quoting keiths quoting Patrick and then giving the whole thing his blessing with (a no doubt heartfelt)

    Amen.

    WTF? Maybe what keiths has is catching?

  17. Seems like the basis for an “excessively annoying” whistle is growing almost by the minute.

  18. Alan Fox: Did you read this? J

    This was not meant to question your or the other moderators’ posts on the decision.

    Rather it was a question for Patrick, and perhaps Keith through him, as to the purpose of their posts on this thread, a question which he has now answered.

  19. Patrick: The following is a copy of a private email from keiths

    Patrick quoting keiths quoting Patrick. They must both be right.

    ETA: Ninja’d!

  20. Erik: Basic decency (normal forum rules) requires that you do not amplify the voice of a banned member. Perhaps it doesn’t occur to you that he was banned for a reason. You are a stinking litterer.

    Just shows you do not understand performance art, you heathen.

  21. newton: Just shows you do not understand performance art, you heathen.

    The interpretive dance version was cooler, IMHO.

  22. Patrick-keiths: If you impose an unprecedented 30-day suspension on someone, you ought to be able to justify your action.

    As the new moderator in town, I’ve made a new rule. Moderators have no objective moral obligation (there is no ought about it) to justify their actions and never did.

    Not a single one of the moderators has been able to connect the dots, starting with what I did and making a rational argument ending with the appropriateness of a 30-day suspension.

    As the new moderator in town, I dispute the veracity of the first portion of this claim. As far as the second part of the claim, you are correct. I cannot justify your 30-day suspension. Some people seem to think that repeating things is effective, so how about I double it?

    And if Lizzie’s accusation of lying (against Stephen Meyer) was fine — and it obviously was — then why am I subject to a suspension — and a 30-day suspension, no less?

    Your account wasn’t suspended because you called Swamidass a liar. It doesn’t help your case to continue to argue things that are known to be false.

  23. Patrick-keiths: I wish the mods would finally get their shit together and settle on a story.

    Should we just forget about the fact that Alan has stated that his action was taken unilaterally, or are you saying he is lying?

  24. Patrick:

    The issues that most concern me are the admins flagrant disregard of the rules and the unavoidable impression that these actions were taken because the admins dislike keiths personally. […]

    That is compounded by the unfairness of not allowing keiths to participate in this thread.He should be allowed to present his side.

    Is the following a fair summary of your suggested changes:
    1. Moderators should always follow the rules. Currently, there is too much discretion for them to interpret and action them according to personal biases against a poster.

    2. When more than one moderator is involved in making and then explaining a particular decision, they should agree on a common explanation of why that decision should be made and stick to that in any communications.

    3. Posters who have had posts deleted or who have been suspended should be able to question that decision and present their counter-arguments, with escalation from the single moderator to all of them and if still unsatisfied to EL. Possibly you are also suggesting that the entire TSZ community gets a vote; but I think that may be reading too much into it.

    I agree with all of that (except the vote). For number 1, I think simplifying the rules would help. Possibly also internal meetings of moderators to capture lessons learned from handling hard cases and action plans for change.

    However, I suspect you and I have one big difference. I believe that the best way to accomplish those things while still meeting TSZ’s goals is to force any questioning of moderator decision to be via a private channel while others, possibly including you, think the discussion should be public.

    I’ve given my reasons for a private channel only in previous posts: for example, (1) reduce moral outrage and so make the tone of the forum more aligned with its goals and (2) the experience of other forums which are successful at attracting many posts and discussions which meet TSZ’s goals and which keep moderation discussions private. I value these things more than any transparency that public discussions offer of moderation decisions offer.

  25. walto:
    Seems like the basis for an “excessively annoying” whistle is growing almost by the minute.

    I guess Patrick drinks a lot of coffee.

  26. For the record, not everyone may agree that I am a moderator, but I have declared myself to be one, so there. It’s the new reality.

  27. newton: I guess Patrick drinks a lot of coffee.

    And when he goes to take a piss it gives keiths time to compose a new email. It’s efficient.

  28. BruceS: Is the following a fair summary of your suggested changes:
    1. Moderators should always follow the rules. Currently, there is too much discretion for them to interpret and action them according to personal biases against a poster.

    This cannot be. When Patrick was a moderator here, he openly stated that rules didn’t apply to him, when he thought he was crusading for truth or honesty or such. Surely he is honest and truthful and permits the same liberty to current moderators.

    By the way, in no other forum is it allowed to question moderator decisions in the open. It’s another normal forum rule. It should apply here too. If somebody has a beef with a moderator, let the beefing occur in private messaging. It would spare everyone from a lot of metadiscussion.

  29. BruceS: However, I suspect you and I have one big difference. I believe that the best way to accomplish those things while still meeting TSZ’s goals is to force any questioning of moderator decision to be via a private channel while others, possibly including you, think the discussion should be public.

    What would be the next step if the offended party continued to make his disagreement public?

  30. Mung: And when he goes to take a piss it gives keiths time to compose a new email. It’s efficient.

    You must be excited about get personal messages from keiths in the future discussing moderation.

  31. Mung:
    For the record, not everyone may agree that I am a moderator, but I have declared myself to be one, so there. It’s the new reality.

    It is only official if you message Patrick and he relays it to us. Like the white smoke at the Vatican.

  32. Erik,

    Bruce, what’s the harm of a single moderation forum for beefs of this kind–where all such discussion could be moved? (Or, I guess guanoed if it’s thought it simply must be put there in the first place)? Why do you think even a single place for segregated discussion must be harmful, and trumps transparency benefits? Actionable posts are going to be made anyhow, why not have an appropriate (visible) place for them? The problem here now, it seems to me, is that EVERY thread is seen as an appropriate place for it.

  33. Erik: Basic decency (normal forum rules) requires that you do not amplify the voice of a banned member. Perhaps it doesn’t occur to you that he was banned for a reason. You are a stinking litterer.

    Basic decency would require allowing keiths to participate on this thread in order to present his side of the issue. Since the admins won’t meet that bar, I will.

  34. Erik: When Patrick was a moderator here, he openly stated that rules didn’t apply to him, when he thought he was crusading for truth or honesty or such.

    I am not remembering that.

  35. BruceS: Is the following a fair summary of your suggested changes:
    1.Moderators should always follow the rules.

    Yes, and the rules should be very clear about what the admins can do. If it’s not explicitly allowed, it is forbidden. Admins should be held to a higher standard.

    Currently, there is too much discretion for them to interpret and action them according to personal biases against a poster.

    Currently, they use their privileges without regard to any rules. I point out several instances of this above.

    2. When more than one moderator is involved in making and then explaining a particular decision, they should agree on a common explanation of why that decision should be made and stick to that in any communications.

    No. They should be able to articulate the specific rule they are enforcing before enforcing it, not go looking for justification after the fact.

    3.Posters who have had posts deleted or who have been suspended should be able to question that decision and present their counter-arguments, with escalation from the single moderator to all of them and if still unsatisfied to EL.Possibly you are also suggesting that the entire TSZ community gets a vote; but I think that may be reading too much into it.

    Elizabeth’s site, Elizabeth’s rules. The current rules are that posts and comments are never deleted. That’s been broken in this case. There is nothing in the current rules that allows the admins to suspend anyone. Therefore they shouldn’t.

    However, I suspect you and I have one big difference.I believe that the best way to accomplish those things while still meeting TSZ’s goals is to force any questioning of moderator decision to be via aprivate channel while others, possibly including you, think the discussion should be public.

    Moderation decisions should definitely be public and should be challenged publicly. The admins should respond to those challenges forthrightly.

    The admins have already destroyed any reason to trust that they won’t abuse their privileges. Allowing them to hide from the consequences is a very bad idea.

    I’ve given my reasons for a private channel only in previous posts:for example, (1) reduce moral outrage and so make the tone of the forum more aligned with its goals and(2) the experience of other forums which are successful at attracting many posts and discussions which meet TSZ’s goals and which keep moderation discussions private.I value these things more than any transparency that public discussions offer of moderation decisions offer.

    I value openness and freedom of expression. As I noted before, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need more transparency, not less.

  36. Erik: This cannot be. When Patrick was a moderator here, he openly stated that rules didn’t apply to him . . . .

    Please provide a cite supporting this claim or retract the accusation.

  37. newton: It is only official if you message Patrick and he relays it to us. Like the white smoke at the Vatican.

    If you’d like to join the college of cardinals, message me your email address and I’ll put you in touch with keiths. You’re welcome to share the load. I’d like to see a dozen people resisting this ridiculous, rule-violating, unfair suspension. I’ll even call you Spartacus if you like.

  38. 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 has proposed a sitewide no-guano experiment, lasting until the beginning of November. I second the proposal, as this is exactly the right way to gather the data we need for evaluating longer-term changes in moderation at TSZ.

    What do others think?

  39. Patrick: I’ve been caffeine free for two and a half years now. This is my normal level of energy.

    So you drink a lot of de-caf, then.

  40. Patrick: Patrick has proposed a sitewide no-guano experiment, lasting until the beginning of November. I second the proposal, as this is exactly the right way to gather the data we need for evaluating longer-term changes in moderation at TSZ.

    What do others think?

    Absolutely, you should go for it.
    Knock yourselves out.
    Pop back here in November and tell us how it went.

    Oh, you meant here.
    No, for the reasons I gave back before I was part of the evil censorious conspiracy.

  41. Patrick: Moderation decisions should definitely be public and should be challenged publicly. The admins should respond to those challenges forthrightly.

    The admins have already destroyed any reason to trust that they won’t abuse their privileges. Allowing them to hide from the consequences is a very bad

    Haha. You put me on ignore while you were still a moder(or here. Silence, I take it, is your understanding of a ‘forthright response.’

Leave a Reply