Squawk box

Posted on by

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”

  2. petrushka: I haven’t seen anyone in power proposing solutions to the CO2 increase.

    The Paris Accord addresses the issue of emissions, to keep the increase of global temperature increase below 2c pre- industrial. Each country would reach their goals through their individual policies.

    I reject virtue signalling as a useful public policy

    It is more useful than outright denial. It can be useful as well when corporations use it to appeal to consumers by reinforcing a shared belief .Of course consumers need to be vigilant the promises are kept

    Politicians who avoid taking responsibility for implementing practical and well tested solutions to problems are worse, in my opinion, than politicians who bluster about things that have no consequences.

    Hard to see a difference between the two.

  3. petrushka: I haven’t seen anyone in power proposing solutions to the CO2 increase. I reject virtue signalling as a useful public policy. Politicians who avoid taking responsibility for implementing practical and well tested solutions to problems are worse, in my opinion, than politicians who bluster about things that have no consequences.

    Don’t know why we don’t have a thread on climate change. What a legacy to be leaving our kids!

  5. Alan Fox,

    Alan: I noticed a message upthread from EL* lamenting the number of entries in the thread (or at least I took it as a lament on the volume).

    Would it be helpful to her if the big contributors developed a pdf or email summary of their view of the problems and suggested solutions for the site.

    Besides cutting down on her reading, I think that would also help the posters to make sure EL has the best way to judge their contributions.

    ——————–
    * I suspect it is the Canadian in me, but I find “Lizzie” disrespectful,

  6. BruceS,

    I kind of agree, I think Lizzie is a little disrespectful at times. But not as much as the current moderators like Alan, Neil and Jock…

  7. BruceS: * I suspect it is the Canadian in me, but I find “Lizzie” disrespectful,

    I have the same instincts. However, she has used that herself, so it is actually respectful (in the sense of respecting her own usage).

  9. William J. Murray:
    Patrick,

    It’s a bad idea because without any consequences at all to bad behavior, bad behavior becomes the norm. Anyone with any experience on the internet (and in life, for that matter) knows exactly what this leads to – people with the dominant perspective making relentless, unchecked personal attacks against those they disagree with until it drives out all dissenting opinion.It’s an experiment that has been performed countless times with the same result. If you want to set up a forum that welcomes and encourages dissenting opinion, you have to have rules that keep the forum from becoming a shit-slinging contest.

    William,

    You are ignoring evidence that doesn’t support your view. There have been periods of time where moderation at TSZ was minimal to non-existent. There have also been threads that were declared “no Guano” by the admins. The meltdown you predict did not occur. There are mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups that have been running for decades without moderation that haven’t degenerated as you fear.

    One reason your argument fails, aside from not being supported by the evidence, is that there are consequences to bad behavior at TSZ, even without top down control. The Ignore button, while not as sophisticated as some newsreaders, let’s each member decide who they’ll read. Social opprobrium works, when it’s allowed to. There is also always the option of simply scrolling by what you don’t feel like reading.

    While you worry about the costs of free expression, you ignore the problems with censorship. Most of the noise and acrimony on TSZ comes from discussions of moderation. Eliminate the ability of the admins to censor and you eliminate all of that. We’ve seen that at least three of the admins are willing to abuse their privileges because of personal animosity towards one member. That kind of behavior will drive people away much more surely than the occasional insult. You need to take those costs into account, too.

  10. Alan Fox:
    Patrick,
    Literary criticism. I think this comment suffers from style over content. Be clearer.

    Alan,

    If you really want to do what’s best for TSZ, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.” You have given no indication that you are capable of seeing things from another’s perspective. Your continued refusal to directly address the issues that I’ve raised in the comments linked above demonstrates an arrogance that is unsuitable in an admin here. Your failure to engage forthrightly gives further credence to the impression that you are motivated by a personal grudge.

    If Elizabeth lets your behavior stand, it will have a chilling effect on the participation of anyone who might disagree with you on any topic. Who will Alan decide should be gone next?

    You broke the rules. Worse, you behaved like Barry Arrington. You continue to abuse your admin privileges. I urge you to review, think about, and directly address the issues that have been raised. What you are doing now is not good for TSZ.

  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.

    Patrick,
    First I let Mung pull me in, now Alan. It’s easier to stick the flounce when I’m not reading the responses to keiths.

    I hope you’ll “unstick” whenever you get the urge.

    TSZ needs to be defended against the censors and the authoritarians, and your voice is an important part of that defense.

  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.

    A comment by Tom English, from earlier in the thread, that’s worth reposting:

    J-Mac:

    Is your ‘math’ going to save the world then?
    You have gotta go quantum now pretty boy…or else…

    Tom:

    Or else what? These days, vague threats coming from the likes of you are not to be ignored. Are you going to park outside my home, gun me down with your AR, and sing praises to God Indeterminate?

    Of course, you will say now that you were merely joking. But the problem is that I have good reason to believe that if the online persona you have constructed is not itself an elaborate joke, then the person entering the text is indeed deranged. The notion that I should not say as much, when confronted with a threat, is ludicrous.

    [emphasis added]

    For the record, I think J-Mac’s threat is idle and that he was just spouting off as usual. But the point is that Tom should be able to respond exactly as he did. The rules, if they were applied in this case, would prevent that from happening.

    Tom should be able to speak up against J-Mac. The rules are in serious need of revision.

  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,

    Re the “Respect My Authoritah!!!” bit, that’s Alan in a nutshell. He’s furious because he isn’t getting the (unearned) respect he thinks that he, as a moderator, is entitled to.

    Alan is deeply authoritarian, and he gets angry when he thinks people aren’t showing the proper deference to authority. You can see it quite clearly in his comments. Notice how Lizzie becomes “Dr. Elizabeth Liddle” when Alan is puffing out his chest and asserting his authority as a moderator, for instance. I like and respect Lizzie, but it ain’t because the letters PhD appear after her name.

    Here’s another example from a few years ago. I expressed disagreement with Joe Felsenstein over an issue of terminology. Alan’s response to Joe:

    I just hope you are more amused than offended by Keiths’s chutzpah.

    keiths, incredulously:

    My chutzpah at what, disagreeing with him?

    Alan:

    Well, not exactly that. Joe is an established and universally respected professional geneticist discussing matters within his field of expertise. You are an engineer, I believe.

    How dare an engineer disagree with a “respected professional geneticist”! Such impertinence! Alan won’t stand for it.

    Then there was Alan’s characterization of my OP:

    As yet, I have seen no reflection on whether this was acceptable behaviour, using someone else’s blog as a vehicle to attack a respected academic.

    How dare someone criticize the behavior of a respected academic! Doesn’t keiths understand that one must never criticize those who are respected, or those who have the letters PhD after their names, or those who are in positions of authority? It just isn’t done.

    Alan could not be more hopelessly out of sync with the TSZ ethos.

  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.

    I have several hours of driving ahead of me, so I’ll be offline for a while. I’ll resume commenting later today.

    In the meantime, let me note a delicious irony:

    Every criticism of me that William just leveled is forbidden by the “address the post, not the failings of the poster” rule.

    If the rules were actually being enforced, then William would be punished for expressing those opinions.

    William, I am defending your right to speak your mind and criticize a fellow commenter. You are arguing for a set of rules that would forbid such criticism.

    Think about it.

  15. 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.

    William, regarding the proposed site-wide no-guano experiment:

    It’s a bad idea because without any consequences at all to bad behavior, bad behavior becomes the norm.

    There would still be consequences. Comments would no longer be guanoed, but guanoing is merely one consequence. All of the other consequences would still be in play, including the consequences of social disapproval and pressure. And those are powerful consequences indeed.

    Also, you’re missing another irony. The current rule set imposes no penalties for dishonesty. The only people punished are those who point out the dishonesty. According to your reasoning, then, TSZ is headed for disaster. There are no consequences for dishonesty, and so dishonesty will inevitably become the norm.

    But guess what? It hasn’t become the norm.

    (Don’t get me wrong. There’s plenty of dishonesty here. It’s a problem, as are the rules that encourage it. They should be changed to eliminate that perverse incentive. But dishonesty hasn’t become the norm, so your “no consequences” argument fails.)

    Anyone with any experience on the internet (and in life, for that matter) knows exactly what this leads to – people with the dominant perspective making relentless, unchecked personal attacks against those they disagree with until it drives out all dissenting opinion. It’s an experiment that has been performed countless times with the same result.

    So you’re basically saying “William has spoken. The issue is settled. Do not do the experiment.” That’s pretty bad advice, and it runs counter to the spirit of TSZ.

    You’re also wrong about the supposedly inevitable results of a no-guano policy. We’ve already done a handful of no-guano experiments here at TSZ, both official and unofficial, and the results haven’t been disastrous at all. They’ve been quite promising.

    Since the results have been promising, it makes sense to do a site-wide no-guano trial. Your counterargument, which amounts to

    “William has spoken. Do not do the experiment.”

    …doesn’t cut it.

  16. 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.

    keiths:

    Sure, if you never make an accusation, then you can never make a false one. But that means you can’t make a true one, either. Suppressing the truth is unhelpful and runs counter to the TSZ ethos.

    To take an extreme case, suppose Trump were to abandon his Twitter account and come to TSZ instead. Would you seriously argue that TSZ should allow Trump to lie with impunity while honest members were punished for pointing out the dishonesty?

    Alan:

    Donald arrives and claims he had a larger attendance at his inauguration than Obama. Members point out the clear evidence to the contrary. Do they need to call him a liar? I think it’s as likely he’s deluded. The important point is that the claim is wrong and can be shown to be wrong. How does Donald defend his claim? If he repeats the assertion without supporting it in the face of all the clear evidence against the claim, what should happen next?

    You can’t be serious, Alan. You are actually telling us that if Donald Trump were lying at TSZ, and if an honest member pointed that out, you would punish the honest person? What the hell?

    Punishing honest people and rewarding the dishonest — including Donald Trump — is the wrong thing to do. What could be more frikkin’ obvious?

  17. 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.

    keiths, to DNA_Jock:

    And if the goal is to avoid any possibility of a false accusation, then how about the following rule?

    A commenter may never accuse another of making a bad argument.

    That would prevent false accusations, so it must be a good idea. Right, Jock?

    tomothya:

    Wait a second, a bad argument is not the same as a false accusation (though the former category certainly includes the latter).

    You’re misunderstanding me. I’m not saying that a false accusation is the same as a bad argument; I’m saying that a false accusation of lying and a false accusation of making a bad argument are both false accusations. Jock claimed that the chief benefit of the good faith rule was in preventing false accusations:

    [Benefit 1= avoiding making false accusations.]

    My point in response is that if the goal were to prevent false accusations at all costs, we would simply forbid all accusations — including accusations that an opponent has made a stupid argument. Hence my tongue-in-cheek rule proposal:

    A commenter may never accuse another of making a bad argument.

    What’s wrong with my tongue-in-cheek rule? It prevents false accusations, sure, but at the huge cost of disallowing and punishing true ones.

    Yet that is exactly what the current good faith rule does.

    At TSZ, we’re willing to allow commenters to be accused – truly or falsely – of making stupid arguments. Why do we tolerate the possibility of false accusations in this context? Because we know that open discussion depends on it. If we were to forbid all such accusations, whether true or false, then we’d be shooting ourselves in the feet and defeating our purposes.

    So instead of forbidding such accusations, we allow them and encourage people to discuss them and present the evidence pro and con. It’s a nice, adult way of dealing with disagreements.

    My question is: Why can’t we deal with accusations of lying in exactly the same, adult way? Why stifle discussion and penalize the honest, when there’s a better, established way of dealing with similarly heated disagreements?

  18. 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.

    petrushka:

    False claims are made all the time. Both sides present whatever evidence they have, and that’s the end of it.

    Exactly.

    And the right way to deal with false claims is not to outlaw all claims, but rather to encourage that claims be discussed and challenged openly and publicly, so that it becomes apparent which are true and which are false. Open discussion is a wonderful thing, and it’s the raison d’être of TSZ.

    Open discussion works well in dealing with heated disagreements over controversial issues. We see that every day in the various threads here. Why, then, are some people so convinced that it wouldn’t it work well with heated disagreements over honesty?

  19. 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.

    William,

    I’m not sure what anyone thinks the point is in a debate forum of calling other people dishonest or liars, when it is clearly against the rules.

    Amusingly, you’re arguing against your own position without even realizing it. Remember, you’re the one who wrote this:

    It’s a bad idea because without any consequences at all to bad behavior, bad behavior becomes the norm.

    There are no penalties for dishonesty under the current rules. According to you, that means that dishonesty will soon become the norm if nothing changes. But to be accused of dishonesty is painful for most people. That’s a real consequence, and it discourages dishonesty.

    So by your own logic, we’re better off allowing accusations of dishonesty, since they provide the missing “consequence” you think we need in order to prevent dishonesty from becoming the norm.

    You’ve scored a nice own goal there, William.

  20. 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,

    I repeat my offer that I will lift his suspension immediately if he will give an undertaking to comply with Lizzie’s rules and aims in future.

    Do you really think that people don’t notice your hypocrisy? You claim to be all about “Lizzie’s aims and rules”, but you yourself have shown utter contempt for them, again and again. You trot out Lizzie’s name when you want to justify some asinine thing you’ve done, but you don’t give a rat’s ass about her aims.

    Consider just a couple of your actions during the ALurker fiasco:

    1. Lizzie does not want her moderators to antagonize members. You know that. So what did you do to ALurker and me, when we criticized you? You went on a full-bore campaign to antagonize us. You invented a new rule out of whole cloth, granting yourself the power to convert threads into no-guano zones. You invoked this bogus, self-granted authority to change our threads to no-guano status, over our strong objections. It was an abuse of moderator power and an act of contempt. You did this, knowing that it was exactly counter to Lizzie’s aims. Yet you presume to lecture others on compliance with Lizzie’s aims. What a pious fraud you are.

    (Fortunately, karma slapped you upside the head. The no-guano experiments backfired on you, and they actually support the no-guano experiment that Patrick and I are recommending. Oops.)

    2. In an effort to validate your paranoid theory about ALurker being a sock puppet of Patrick — a paranoid theory that, even if it had been true, would not have been a rule violation — you invaded the privacy of commenters by combing through IP address records, trying to link ALurker to Patrick.

    I wrote afterwards:

    Alan abused his moderator privileges by searching through the IP addresses of commenters, trying to match their IP addresses with ALurker’s addresses. But why? What was the reason for this invasion of privacy? Was TSZ in danger? Was there reason to believe that some heinous violation was underway? No. Alan’s only reason was that he was pissed at someone who had criticized him, and was abusing his powers to try to dig up dirt on that person. Behold your moderator, folks.

    Those are just two examples from a long list of incidents showing the utter contempt you have for Lizzie’s aims, Alan. Spare us the false piety and stop demanding that other people conform to rules and aims that you yourself can’t be bothered with.

  21. 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.

    I summarized the whole sleazy affair in a short series of comments in the Moderation Issues thread. Anyone curious about how low Alan can sink should read them. And that’s just one episode!

  22. BruceS:
    Alan Fox,

    Alan:I noticed a message upthread from EL* lamenting the number of entries in the thread (or at least I took it as a lament on the volume).

    That’s true (in the sense that I agree 🙂 )

    Would it be helpful to her if the big contributors developed a pdf or email summary of their view of the problems and suggested solutions for the site.

    Anything that reduced Lizzie’s workload would be greatly appreciated, I’m sure.

    Besides cutting down on her reading, I think that would also help the posters to make sure EL has the best way to judge their contributions.

    It’s a good suggestion. Not sure of the simplest way to arrange it. People could simply upload a PDF in a comment here or Lizzie could set up a dedicated email address if people preferred confidentiality.
    ——————–

    * I suspect it is the Canadian in me, but I find “Lizzie” disrespectful,

    I was taught to wait to be invited to use first names. Here in France that formality still exists. But it’s how she signs herself so… (I see Neil covered it)

  23. PS
    There’s also the option of using the “Democracy Poll” plug-in. It’s quinze-août today so will have to wait at least till tomorrow. As keiths himself laments, a fair number of members have avoided this thread and maybe there are lurkers who might tick a box.

  24. Patrick [to William]: One reason your argument fails, aside from not being supported by the evidence, is that there are consequences to bad behavior at TSZ, even without top down control. The Ignore button, while not as sophisticated as some newsreaders, let’s each member decide who they’ll read. Social opprobrium works, when it’s allowed to. There is also always the option of simply scrolling by what you don’t feel like reading.

    1) William’s argument is supported by the evidence, which he cited.
    2) The Ignore button as a consequence for bad behavior? Only if people loudly (and preferably repeatedly) proclaim who they have put on Ignore. Which is a) contrary to TSZ’s ethos, and b) only done by commenters attempting the extremely tricky demi-flounce. They rarely stick it.
    3) “Social opprobrium works”. You’ve said this a number of times now. I have previously encouraged you to read up on trolling. I encourage you again. For trolls, “Social opprobrium” is the bloody payoff.

  25. Just a quick return here to laugh at the fact that keitrick is now calling for a poll, in spite of the fact that when I did, the suggestion was denounced.Of course, the difference is the particular question that is to be asked. Mine, it thought it would lose, this one, it apparently thinks it will win. That’s a great way of thinking about democracy.

    So typical of that thing.

    Bye again.

  26. Patrick said:

    You are ignoring evidence that doesn’t support your view.

    What makes you think I’m ignoring it? I’m weighing it against the vast preponderance of evidence that any reasonable, sane person will admit – when there are no punitive consequences to bad behavior, bad behavior becomes the norm. What you are ignoring is basic human nature and what close to 100% of people experience on the internet. I can’t believe you’re even trying to make a counter-argument here, which is like trying to argue that the Earth is flat at this point.

    Most of the noise and acrimony on TSZ comes from discussions of moderation.

    It’s been my experience on TSZ that most noise, bad behavior and acrimony originates with Keiths. I personally think that if the site banned keiths, 95% of the issues here would vanish.

  27. William J. Murray: It’s been my experience on TSZ that most noise, bad behavior and acrimony originates with Keiths. I personally think that if the site banned keiths, 95% of the issues here would vanish.

    Perhaps but being irritating is not a bannable offense.

  28. walto:
    Just a quick return here to laugh at the fact that keitrick is now calling for a poll, in spite of the fact that when I did, the suggestion was denounced.Of course, the difference is the particular question that is to be asked. Mine, it thought it would lose, this one, it apparently thinks it will win. That’s a great way of thinking about democracy.

    So typical of that thing.

    Bye again.

    What?
    I have received a private email from the The American Farmer’s Whining Wives Association who would like me to be their mouthpiece at TSZ like Aaron for Moses…

    I have their permission to post their correspondence here… but I have a distinct feeling it might JoeG or someone else banned at TSZ hiding behind them…

    I think that this blog has become a circus on wheels… as we say it in Russian, so I have decided to chip in to the bag of laughter…
    I thought I was the only one thinking that this OP and 99% of comments here, are total nonsense. Thanks to walto for reassuring me!

  29. DNA_Jock: 1) William’s argument is supported by the evidence, which he cited.

    No, it’s not, and he cited no evidence. His claims are:

    It’s a bad idea because without any consequences at all to bad behavior, bad behavior becomes the norm. Anyone with any experience on the internet (and in life, for that matter) knows exactly what this leads to – people with the dominant perspective making relentless, unchecked personal attacks against those they disagree with until it drives out all dissenting opinion. It’s an experiment that has been performed countless times with the same result. If you want to set up a forum that welcomes and encourages dissenting opinion, you have to have rules that keep the forum from becoming a shit-slinging contest.

    That barely rises to the level of anecdote. Nowhere does he address counterexamples like those I provided. His absolutism is unsupported by the evidence.

    For trolls, “Social opprobrium” is the bloody payoff.

    Then ignore them.

    “. . . it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.”
    — Christopher Hitchens

  30. newton: Perhaps but being irritating is not a bannable offense.

    And therein lies the problem; people that circumvent the spirit of the rules by marginally following the letter of the law in order to do exactly what the rules were created to prevent – embroil us in relentless bullshit arguments about people’s character, states of mind and honesty (or supposed lack thereof).

  31. Patrick

    “For trolls, “Social opprobrium” is the bloody payoff.”

    Then ignore them.

    That is what is happening now, if you want to see the comment you go to guano, if not it is ignored.

    In the no guano version you will have to block the all the person’s speech ,not just the offending comment. Remember what Hitchens said:

    “ And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.”

    Doesn’t it make you less a prisoner of your action by the ignoring/ silencing a single comment rather than reducing your fellow man exercising his free speech into a non-person totally ignored?

    “. . . it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear.
    — Christopher Hitchens

    The use of ignore denies the right of the person to be heard, the use of guano does not.

  33. newton: That is what is happening now, if you want to see the comment you go to guano, if not it is ignored.

    In the no guano version you will have to block the all the person’s speech ,not just the offending comment. Remember what Hitchens said:

    “ And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.”

    Doesn’t it make you less a prisoner of your action by the ignoring/ silencing a single comment rather than reducing your fellow man exercising his free speech into a non-person totally ignored?

    The use of ignore denies the right of the person to be heard, the use of guano does not.

    You have a very simple concept amazingly confused. When an admin moves a comment to Guano, he hides it from everyone who is reading the thread. He takes away everyone’s choice. When you ignore a member, only you are affected. You exercise your own choice.

    What kind of person wants to take away others’ choices?

  34. 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:

    Just a quick return here to laugh at the fact that keitrick is now calling for a poll,

    You’re confused again, walto. Patrick isn’t calling for a poll, and neither am I.

    Alan is the one who — in desperation — is calling for a poll. More on that below.

  35. 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:

    As keiths himself laments, a fair number of members have avoided this thread…

    I’ve said no such thing.

  36. 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,

    Your desperation is showing:

    There’s also the option of using the “Democracy Poll” plug-in.

    First, why bother with a poll, when anyone who chooses can comment right here in the thread?

    Second, Patrick and I have both reminded you of this before, but evidently you need to be reminded again: A moderator’s job is to moderate, not to pander to the membership or to win popularity contests.

    Third, I know you’re desperate and willing to try anything, but do you really think the membership is poised to rally to your side? How many people do you think are out there saying to themselves, “I love the way Alan invaded the privacy of commenters in service of a personal grudge. Yay, Alan! Good for you!”?

    Fourth, suppose by some miracle that lots of people did support your abuses. Do you really think that Lizzie would suddenly make a 180 and say “Alan invaded the privacy of commenters. I used to disapprove of that, but now I see the poll results. If the majority likes it, then Alan must have done a wonderful thing. Atta boy, Alan!”?

    If you think that Lizzie’s goal is to pander to the membership and create an environment where the majority always gets its way, then you have completely misunderstood Lizzie’s aims for TSZ. You might as well be on different planets.

  37. 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.

    William,

    I’ve noticed that when someone out-argues you, you tend to get cranky and lash out at them instead of responding to their argument. That seems to be happening again. Why not take a more constructive approach and make an actual counterargument? And if you can’t, then why not be honest and acknowledge that?

    I showed that your reasoning led you to an own goal. Do you agree? Disagree? If you disagree, then how do you counter my argument?

  38. Patrick,

    What kind of person wants to take away others’ choices?

    Like the bad judge that strikes the attorney’s statement in a court of law 🙂

  39. 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 Jock:

    That barely rises to the level of anecdote. Nowhere does he [William] address counterexamples like those I provided. His absolutism is unsupported by the evidence.

    Here’s the funny part: If William and Jock were as confident as they claim to be, then they would want to run the experiment. It would be a guaranteed vindication for them.

    Odd how their confidence seems to evaporate once we start talking about actually doing the experiment.

  40. keiths:

    What do others think of a site-wide no-guano trial?

    Mung:

    It’s not going to happen. That’s what I think. My honest assessment.

    Keitrick: That’s not very interesting or helpful. Instead, why not tell us whether you think a site-wide no-guano trial is a good idea, and give your reasons pro and con?

    Lizzie created this thread so that we could discuss questions like that.

    Patrick: walto:

    Just a quick return here to laugh at the fact that keitrick is now calling for a poll,

    Keitrick: You’re confused again, walto. Patrick isn’t calling for a poll, and neither am I.

  41. Keitrick,
    Sure I want you to run the experiment. I have told you that I do. I have encouraged you to do so.
    Just. Not. Here.
    Seriously, knock yourselves out. Imagine the awesomeness of your vindication!

  42. So, just to show the evidence of what I’m talking about, here are a few gems from keiths just above:

    “Your desperation is showing.” – violation of the rules – characterizing the mental/emotional state or motives of the other person.

    “Here’s the funny part: If William and Jock were as confident as they claim to be…” … violation of the rules – characterizing the mental/emotional state or motives of the other person.

    “Odd how their confidence seems to evaporate… ” – same as above

    “I’ve noticed that when someone out-argues you, you tend to get cranky and lash out at them …” – same as above

    “And if you can’t, then why not be honest and acknowledge that? ..” – same as above.

    “Alan is the one who — in desperation..” same as above.

    “Third, I know you’re desperate and willing to try anything, …” – same as above.

    “You’re confused again,..” – same as above.

    “Anyone curious about how low Alan can sink should read them.” – same as above.

    We’re all familiar with keiths’ style of “debate”. He cant write 2 sentences without making some sort of disparaging comment or implication about the character, motives or emotional state of the other person.

    I don’t participate enough here for what I say to matter (IMO) in terms of rule changes or bannings, I’m just pointing out what I think the major problem is. AND, I’m pointing out that the whole “we’re being forced to be dishonest when we apply the rule of charitable interpretation” argument is a big pile of inane BS being used to justify a modus operandi of attacking people incessantly.

  43. Patrick: You have a very simple concept amazingly confused.

    Sounds like a good epitaph.

    When an admin moves a comment to Guano, he hides it from everyone who is reading the thread.

    Very cleverly hidden, except for providing the information of the location where the comment now resides.Sometimes even providing a link for those too lazy to move their finger twice.

    He takes away everyone’s choice.

    Seems to me everyone has a choice that allows the post to be read with the most minuscule effort.

    Maybe we should include that question in the poll:

    “Do you know how to read a post in guano?”

    When you ignore a member, only you are affected.You exercise your own choice.

    The only person whose choice is affected is the person who posted the offending comment, he does not have the choice of where his exercise of free speech appears.The person can then choose to modify his comment if he wishes it to appear elsewhere.

    For everyone else ,they have been informed where it is. Everyone can see it if they choose. Tap, tap. There it is.

    As long as someone is required to spend their resources to provide the space for your exercise of free speech , they should be able to set rules for participation. You have a choice to accept or not, that to me is a very simple concept.

    What kind of person wants to take away others’ choices?

    Not their ability to choose, the ability to guarantee the outcome of their choice. You can choose to write a post that does not to follow the rules, and the owner can make her choice.

    Everyone has a choice.

  44. Neil Rickert: I have the same instincts.However, she has used that herself, so it is actually respectful (in the sense of respecting her own usage).

    So what you are saying is that I have been impolite in not using “Lizzie”!
    As a Canadian, all I can say is “I’m sorry … [grits teeth], Lizzie”

  45. Alan Fox:

    Anything that reduced Lizzie’s workload would be greatly appreciated, I’m sure.

    It’s a good suggestion. Not sure of the simplest way to arrange it. People could simply upload a PDF ina comment here or Lizzie could set up a dedicated email address if people preferred confidentiality.

    It might be helpful is she herself requested it in that her posts get noticed by all. She can suggest ways to reach her that work for her.

    I will upload a pdf to this thread in the next few days. Or at least try to.

    Given that pdf, Lizzie (OK that was not so hard) can ignore the other posts I made here.

  46. The summary of this OP is:

    Keiths is a manipulator and deceiver who finally got what he deserves…
    100 new admins can’t change keiths, so why should we be fooling ourselves…

    BTW: This is a synopsis from a personal email from hell….;-)

  47. William J. Murray,

    Nice distillation. I didn’t want to leave again without mentioning that I completely agree with your assessment. Been swimming through that same pool of shit for years here.

  48. I think a synopsis of this thread should be something like this:

    Alan, DNA Jock and Neil claim they are diligently (selectively) concerned about UK libel laws.

    Alan, DNA Jock and Neil think the people who read this website are as stupid as dogshit, and that they will believe absolutely any nonsense they spout however outlandish the lie is.

    Perhaps they are right.

    I don’t know how to make it into a pdf. Is there a giant dogshit emoji that will suffice?

  49. William J. Murray: He cant write 2 sentences without making some sort of disparaging comment or implication about the character, motives or emotional state of the other person.

    This is typical of narcissists…

    “Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one’s own attributes.
    or

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/toxic-relationships/201804/understanding-the-mind-narcissist

    I was thinking of doing an OP on narcissism epidemic but last thing you want to do is feed narcissists with unnecessary attention…
    Look what’s happening with Trump…

  50. phoodoo:
    I think a synopsis of this thread should be something like this:

    Alan, DNA Jock and Neil claim they are diligently (selectively) concerned about UK libel laws.

    Alan, DNA Jock and Neil think the people who read this website are as stupid as dogshit, and that they will believe absolutely any nonsense they spout however outlandish the lie is.

    Perhaps they are right.

    I don’t know how to make it into a pdf.Is there a giant dogshit emoji that will suffice?

    How would you make this place better would be helpful to the owner.

    You feel the rules are unfairly applied, it is proposed to eliminate guano .The rules might still exist as an aspiration but no consequence beyond banning would exist. All comments would be visible as the public face of the site but could be filtered individually by use of ignore.

    Would this satisfy your concerns?

Leave a Reply