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.
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 nice example of why those clamoring for stricter moderation have the wrong idea:
John Harshman to Sal, on another thread:
John’s comment clearly violates the “address the post, not the perceived failings of the poster” rule. Should it be guanoed? Absolutely not. And normally, comments like this aren’t guanoed, precisely because even a bad moderator can see that it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to do so, even when the rule is clearly violated.
John is doing TSZ a service. He has the patience of a saint, and he’s been trying for months to explain basic science to people like Sal, Bill, and Nonlin, who resist it for religious reasons. When John says this…
…he is not only speaking the truth; he has also identified a key reason why the discussion is stalled. He is doing a service to TSZ by pointing that out, and he is trying to get the discussion back on track. There is nothing wrong with that, and there should be no penalty for stating this truth, even if it violates the rule.
The problem is with the rule, not with what John is doing.
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.
Bruce, to walto:
And walto resents you for it. That says a lot about walto.
Also, note that Lizzie wants this conversation to take place, and she established this thread so that conversations of this type could take place. The moderators are opposed and are still actively impeding the discussion by maintaining the illicit suspension. You and I could be engaging in a back-and-forth exchange. Instead, because of the moderators’ intransigence, the discussion stalls for hours at a time until Patrick is available to post my comments.
The moderators know that what they are doing is harmful to TSZ and counter to Lizzie’s intentions for this thread. Still they do it, out of pure ego.
It’s a shameful display.
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.
Bruce,
No. There is no arrangement at all, and there doesn’t need to be. Each personal moderator simply does their normal reading at TSZ, and in the process, if they feel like doing so, they flag comments as guano if those comments meet their personal standards of what constitutes guano. Their standards, not their subscribers’. That’s it. The moderator doesn’t have to take their subscribers’ interests into account, or even be aware of who their subscribers are. (As indicated previously, however, I think they should at least be informed that there are subscribers, so that they know whether they should bother to flag comments as guano.)
No, because being chosen imposes no obligation on them whatsoever. They don’t have to do anything in response. But if they are willing, they can flag comments as guano, as described above.
Yes, and the counter is that Lizzie wants moderation to be done as a housekeeping service for the reader:
keiths:
Lizzie:
keiths:
Lizzie:
It’s for the reader’s benefit in not having to wade through guano. Thus, it makes sense to apply the reader’s notion of what constitutes guano — as reflected by their choice of personal moderators. The control belongs with the readers. It should not be imposed upon them.
keiths has provided some quotes from Elizabeth indicating that her goals are the opposite. That is, control should be in the readers’ hands. The Ignore button is one tool to support that. Choose-your-own-moderators is another.
Hypothetically, if a CYOM plugin were available and used here, and you found two or three volunteer moderators who share your views on appropriate content, would you have any objection to other people using different moderators (or none at all)? Basically, I’m asking if you want to control what you read or if your real goal is to control other people.
I named two registered members. The point is, I might just as well have named Jennifer Lopez (or angels). You’ve obviously found a nice moderator in patrick. He’s available for you 24/7 and shares your unique vision for this site. Good for you. Beg him to come back, become your moderator and maybe even start bullying fmm again. He’ll never guano a post of yours, no matter how obnoxious it is, and all will be right in keithsworld. The site will suck, but that’s not really important.
I don’t believe she has the full story of the abuses perpetrated by three of the current admins. She’d have even less of the full story if they had managed to control the narrative as they intended.
Then don’t. Some of us think that this is a good way to hash out possible solutions. If you don’t enjoy doing so, no one is forcing you to participate.
I will be posting in the summary thread this weekend when I have the time to compose as succinct a reply as possible. In the meantime, there’s nothing wrong with tossing around ideas here.
Feel free. Just don’t try to shut down what other people want to discuss. As I’ve noted a couple of times, the desire to control others is a character flaw.
Quoting myself quoting keiths. Let’s see if the board software can tolerate this.
I’m forwarding keiths’ comments because it’s the right thing to do in the face of the rule breaking, authorization violations, and other abuses of Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock. Some of what he writes I agree with, some I do not.
This comment is particularly important. I wholeheartedly endorse what keiths is saying here. This is a perfect example of where the current rules fail. I hope that Elizabeth will consider it when crafting the new ones.
I have no desire to control other people. My point is simply that posters should control themselves, or risk driving off readers and contributors by their personal attacks. Your moderation proposal addresses the wrong problem. Anyway, I have made my proposal and continuing this conversation doesn’t really interest me.
Interesting,. I have a different understanding. Namely that she does want to differentiate between good contributions to a conversation and bad ones, where ‘good’ is defined by the rules.
With pick your own moderator, or no moderator at at all, it seems to me that she loses the controls she currently has to enforce that differentiation in a consistent and fair way. She can do this now by building a team of moderators she trusts and then encouraging teamwork to ensure consistency and fairness.
Under CYOM, I’m also still unclear on what input a proposed moderator has to the decision to use them. But I guess if no moderator at all is an option, that question is less important.
I think I’ve said all I want to say on this.
You have made and original and constructive suggestion. I don’t see how it would fit Lizzie’s goals for having rules, but that is not up to me.
I hope you will take the time to post it in Summaries, including your responses to the objections I have raised.
One of my favorite things about “CYOM” is the idea of dueling mods. keiths picks Patrick who has nothing against even porn or hate speech. I, after giving up on everybody I want, take whoever is available. I post something rule breaking, and, presumably, my mod does his job and sends it to guano–keiths responds that I’m just embarrassed because I’m lying again, as everyone can see, and Patrick does HIS (non)job and lets it stand. So, my moderator, good fellow though he may be, is nothing but an albatross to me in this discussion Naturally, I dismiss him, and race to the bottom: I ask Patrick, who either ignores my request or responds with “Oho! Go fuck yourself (and adds a picture from Archer and a misquotation of Paine for good measure).
I mean, really. How could anybody take this idea seriously? (And I’m talking to YOU, Bruce.)
Quoting myself:
I’m getting the answer that it’s more selective. Individual comments are rendered invisible to any member who has flagged another member to act as their moderator and that member flags an individual comment.. Prompts me to wonder how is that different from a free-for-all? And none of this happens for visitors or lurkers unless they choose to log in. The core participants diminish seemingly inexorably. Previous time I posted an announcement, there were 50 odd readers. The current announcement has, so far, been read by 23 members.
I think a spec, if detailed enough, would be helpful in deciding if the CYOM scheme has legs. Let’s see it.
.So not exhaustively. Might be worth having another look. Easier to modify a plugin than write one from scratch.
Don’t recall much discussion on forum candidates and their comparative costs/benefits.
And I’m still doubtful. One important issue is that the site layout is not compromised. I know Lizzie was very disappointed that the previous “ignore commenter” plugin “broke the [comment]
boxes”.
Anyway, it’s not me that needs convincing.
BTW there’s no bar to putting links in a summary. The summary might be best thought of as an abstract and the details can be linked to a comment comments here.
ETA or elsewhere. Play with the forum I set up, even. 🙂
walto,
I think you spotted a flaw in CYOM!
Evidence of my censorious instincts
In CYOM, it is the reader who chooses which moderator(s) they will utilize. Comments tagged by the reader‘s chosen moderator(s) will be hidden by the software-to-be-written. I think it is an interesting idea, but the inevitable Balkanization means that it is not consonant with Lizzie’s goals for TSZ. TSZ is not a Free Speech experiment, so much as it is a Reaching Across the Aisles experiment.
Let me illustrate the Balkanization:
I still think it’s a very interesting idea, and I think Patrick should definitely try it out. Just not here.
I don’t think Lizzie would allow posts that break the UK hate laws or that provide porn. That goes without saying (but I did say it originally nonetheless!) ETA: So that does imply that minimal common moderation is required, it is fair to say. And that is a valid limitation to CYOM.
Beyond that, you are assuming a cultural norms for posters that I think Keith and Patrick do not share.
Now, given that one can decide on no moderator, I am not sure why one would have CYOM. Perhaps as a check against emotional outbursts that one regretted after the time limit for editing.
I myself agree with the spirit of the rules of TSZ. Whether that spirit is enforceable fairly and transparently by rules and moderation is an issue I am now willing to leave to the moderators and Lizzie to decide.
I also have the same understanding of Lizzie’s goals that DNA the J expresses in a post after yours. But perhaps we are wrong. There is no harm in K/P posting a summary for LIzzie to review. It may suggest some new options for her as well.
Before I climb down from my high horse, I will say that anyone who thinks their ideas merit Lizzie’s serious consideration owes her the time and effort to post them in the Summaries section.
(And beside that obligation, it is in their best interest to provide a succinct, structured, complete summary).
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.
It’s interesting that Bruce, walto, Alan, and DNA_Jock are all saying the following, each in their own way:
Lizzie (via the quotes I’ve provided) says the opposite.
(In subsequent comments I’ll explain exactly how each of them is trying to assert control over readers, instead of allowing readers to choose for themselves.)
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:
The discussion process is what leads to the spec, obviously. Yet you, Neil, and DNA_Jock are actively trying to prevent that discussion from happening, by censoring me.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you must appear to the people reading this thread?
1. The three of you claim to be representing Lizzie’s interests.
2. Lizzie has set up a thread soliciting input regarding TSZ’s problems and potential solutions for those problems.
3. She has even explicitly stated that she wants my input, in words (from an email) which I have already quoted in this thread:
4. You are actively working against Lizzie’s goal by censoring me. If you’d had your way, we wouldn’t even be discussing CYOM right now.
5. The only reason we are even discussing CYOM is because a former moderator who actually does support open discussion is making it possible, by posting my comments for me.
6. Even worse, you are maintaining my suspension despite the fact that a) my OP violated no rules, as you (Alan) have acknowledges; and b) you don’t have the power to suspend members, as Neil has acknowledged.
7. You are also maintaining the suspension, after more than three weeks, despite the fact that Lizzie has repeatedly asked you to err on the light side of moderation. This suspension is the very opposite of that — an unprecedented and draconian penalty for what you admit was no violation at all.
At a website founded largely in response to the censorship at UD, you guys are spitting in Lizzie’s face by throwing her rules out the window and actively censoring me, all because of ego and personal grudges.
And still the three of you say:
What the hell is wrong with you guys?
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:
keiths:
walto:
You’re stamping your feet and complaining that personal moderators can only moderate if they are here and active. Well, duh. It’s exactly the same with the current moderation scheme. You only get moderation when the moderators are here and active, not when they’re off doing something else.
Under the CYOM scheme, you can choose the current moderators as your personal moderators (although I don’t know why you would, especially since you’ve complained that they are erratic, biased, and break the rules themselves).
Let that sink in: Under CYOM, you could select the current moderators if you wanted to — plus you could select others, if you so chose.
You are complaining about having more choices, as if that were a liability. It makes no sense.
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 faded_Glory:
faded_Glory:
Then you should be fine with CYOM. I’ve already asked, and I’ll ask again:
In what specific way does CYOM fall short, in your opinion, but not in a way that involves controlling what people read and write?
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,
There are no “dueling mods”. Each reader picks the moderators they prefer, and that choice affects the comments they see. No one else’s.
Lizzie has stated that she wants moderation to be seen as a housekeeping service, done for the benefit of the reader. You want to dictate the housekeeping that is done instead of allowing the reader to make his or her own choices.
You are trying to control what people read. Lizzie has clearly stated that she doesn’t want to do that.
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.
Bruce:
That is not a problem for CYOM. I’ve said it several times, but apparently I need to say it again: Under CYOM, the official admins would still deal with bannable offenses and notify Lizzie.
The bannable offenses would be handled no differently under CYOM than they are under the current scheme.
BruceS,
That’s a good clarifying question. After looking at the WordPress developer docs, my initial thought is that choose-your-own-moderator configuration is easiest to implement on the Dashboard page. Each member will see a section where he or she can choose to be a moderator (a simple on/off radio button) and where moderators can be selected. I envision the latter as a pair of lists, side by side, where you can move available moderators to and from your list of chosen moderators.
It may make sense to provide some feedback on how many people are using you as a moderator as well.
The requirements are pretty straightforward. It would take less than a day to write a detailed spec.
If you could be persuaded to continue the exchange briefly, I would appreciate a direct answer to my question. You say you don’t want to control other people, but you don’t seem to favor any proposals that don’t do exactly that. Would CYOM be acceptable to you?
If Elizabeth’s view is that new users and lurkers should be presented with a more strictly curated view of the site, the choose-your-own-moderator system could be set up to have default moderators who censor heavily.
If Elizabeth shows interest, I’ll volunteer a few hours to help write the spec.
That would be a nice change.
In practice, the split would be between a few moderators in Team Idealized Neil and no moderators at all. Sal and Mung could moderate to their hearts’ content, but no one would choose them. Any complaints raised by the unmoderated would be moderated by Team Idealized Neil, so no one who chose them as moderators would see them.
Your balkanization wouldn’t occur and there’s simply no way that TSZ would see the volume of comments dedicated to moderation issues that it sees now. The only people negatively affected are those who want to control others.
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.
DNA_Jock:
Part of “reaching across the aisles” is to refrain from censoring. Lizzie knows that and has made it clear.
You are censoring. Every comment of mine that appears in this thread is despite you, not because of you.
Why are you a moderator, when your goals are so misaligned with Lizzie’s? Why are you subverting her wishes for an open discussion of the problems at TSZ and their potential solutions?
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,
That’s the crux of it.
Lizzie has said that she doesn’t want to control what people read or write. Here’s hoping that she sticks to that principle.
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 Bruce:
I agree, except that I would suggest that the radio button is unnecessary.
Being a personal moderator imposes no obligations whatsoever on the moderator. It simply gives them the option of flagging comments as guano if they so choose. (It’s similar to a “like” button in that respect. Available to every registered user, but with no obligation to actually use it.)
In other words, I think that the default should be that registered users are presented with a “flag as guano” button next to each comment they read. Whether they choose to use it is entirely up to them.
The reason I suggest that is to limit the number of people in the list of choices to those who actually do the housekeeping. I’m not married to the idea.
I agree that every user should have the button. That allows them to easily become a moderator in the future and it also opens up the opportunity for someone to apply some machine learning and create a customized bot for each member. I would not want to do that in PHP, though.
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,
Yes, so that you can decide whether to bother flagging comments as guano.
Agreed.
Ok, briefly then. I see a couple of issues with the CYOM idea.
First and foremeost, it doesn’t solve the problem that many posts contain both valuable contributions as well as personal attacks. Making such posts invisible deprives us of the valuable bits, and so throws out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t really see a way round this, not even if the mods would get the ability to edit posts – which I certainly wouldn’t support, because there would be far too big a risk to alter the intended message.
The other problem is that ‘differential’ moderation results in probably few of us seeing the same threads as anyone else. Some people will see all posts, others fewer, still others fewer too but different ones. I think this will make many threads incoherent and make meaningful discussion extremely difficult. Perhaps not, but I think it is likely.
Another potential problem is that this system may over time create ‘bubbles’, where subsets of posters end up discussing stuff amongst themselves because certain posters would almost always be filtered out by the local mod, for whatever reason.
Finally, if one becomes a mod under this system, one could not put anyone on ignore without wrecking the process.
Far better imo to teach those posters who need it the limits of civil discourse. Like educating children, the best way to make them understand the boundaries is to demonstrate what will happen when they cross them. I think that the tone of the site will improve over time because people will either change their modus operandi or disappear. If they think that trolling and abuse has more value than civilised discourse, good riddance I say. We’ll all benefit in the long run.
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 see what you’re saying. If the number of registered users is large, the list of choices would be, too. It might be a hassle to search through it and select your moderators.
Here’s an idea to deal with that problem: Sort the list by recent activity. That way all the usual suspects would appear near the top of the list, where they could easily be selected.
Here’s what I like about including all registered users in the list, rather than using a radio button. Someone could select you as a moderator, and you would be notified. Having been notified, you might then decide to start moderating, as a service to TSZ.
In other words, you wouldn’t need to be aware of the radio button, and press it, in order to start moderating. Someone could “recruit” you by selecting you as a moderator.
There could be some notification indicating that you have been selected, and that you can flag comments for your “subscribers”, but advising you that you are under no obligation whatsoever to do so.
Thanks for jumping back in.
You’ll always have the option of clicking on the link to expand the comment so you can see it. You might do so if you see a later comment quoting material from the hidden comment.
I get the impression that you think that strict moderation can be used to train people to write in certain ways. That does show a desire, or at least willingness, to control other people. If what you consider the good parts are of more value to you than the cost of reading what you consider the bad parts, read it. Otherwise, don’t. Let others make the choice for themselves.
The current Ignore button runs the same risk. We need to rate solutions on how well they improve the current system, not against some non-existent ideal system.
I will note that this problem did not occur on Usenet newsgroups, despite them having a larger number of people with much better tools for curating their own feeds.
That’s also possible with the Ignore button. A group of people could ignore everyone but the others in their group. I don’t believe that happens. Even if it did, where’s the harm? People are choosing who they wish to interact with.
“Wreck” is a bit of an overstatement. All that would happen is that the people who chose them as a mod would see everything from the ignored person. Choosing multiple mods gets around that issue.
Now we’re back to controlling other people, different values for quality, and the lack of trusted moderators. The current system isn’t working because of abuses by Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock. That’s why we have this thread in the first place.
Compared to the current situation, choose-your-own-moderator has a lot of benefits and no clear drawbacks other than the need for someone to code it. I think it’s well worth a try.
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.
Bruce:
It boils down to whether she wants to control what people read. You think she does. I have quoted her indicating that she doesn’t.
Take this in: cyom makes absolutely no sense at all. When you’ve grasped that, get back to me.
If you need something to compare it with–it’s kind of like this ‘suspension’–utterly ridiculous. I mean, here you are, no?
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.
Bruce,
Both Patrick and I have indicated that we intend to post in the Summaries thread.
I, for one, would have posted the CYOM scheme there long ago, if I could have. The problem is that Alan has arbitrarily limited each of us to one post in that thread. That one post has to include everything we want to say. A much better scheme would have been to allow members to break their summaries into multiple posts, as long as each of those posts was part of a coherent summary.
Given the moderators’ eagerness to censor me, I can’t afford to do a partial summary, thus risking Guano for the remaining parts.
You see how corrosive it is to have bad moderators who are determined to censor?
Here’s why–nobody else is interested. Got it? No Bod EE. (I mean except for your own personal anti-mod Patrick.)
Furthermore, as repeated a bunch of times, the idea makes no sense at all. Those are two pretty serious defects in my book.
It *IS* a clever race-to-the-bottom scheme, though. Gotta give you two credit for that. Nobody’s voting for your idea of what a good site should look like, so maybe trick ’em into getting that anyways! Nice!
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,
Mere assertion, with no accompanying argument. When you have an argument, get back to me.
I’m here only because Patrick saw the moderators’ egregious abuse and stepped in to circumvent it.
Lizzie created this thread so that we could discuss problems at TSZ and their potential solutions. Patrick is doing the right thing by making sure that the discussion actually takes place — despite Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock’s determination to prevent it by censoring me.
The nation clearly owes a huge debt of gratitude to Patrick.
Not true.
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:
Alan:
Absolutely true. After more than three weeks, my account is still disabled. I cannot post. You, Neil, and DNA_Jock are actively censoring me, and the only reason my comments are appearing is because Patrick has stepped in and volunteered to post them.
As someone who is so sensitive to social approval, how does it feel to have your shameful conduct exposed so prominently and publicly? You’ve done quite the number on your reputation, Alan. So have Neil and DNA_Jock.
You thought you could pull an Arrington and get away with it. It backfired on you badly.
This is still not true.
Still not true.
You could have an executive summary post in Summaries with your main points, action plan, and justification, and which had embedded links to posts with details in the squawk box thread. Lizzie could then decide where she wanted more details on your main points.
People have ridiculed Trump for wanting short briefing notes, but Churchill demanded the same thing from the civil service. Over and over. See here..
“I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time” –Pascal
ETA: Just to be clear, I think the main post in the Summary page should say everything you want to say. As Pascal says, that takes time and work. But that work is not a burden. It is a fair demand for brevity and action-orientation on behalf of someone with a lot to read . Any links should be to optional points that can be skipped with little loss to the main ideas.
I can be brief, but no one want to hear what I have to say.
I try to follow the rules, and I have never had a problem with moderation.
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.
Bruce,
You’re misunderstanding. The issue is time, not space. I would have to prepare everything, including the squawk box posts, before posting my summary. You can’t link to posts that haven’t been made yet.
As I said, I would have posted the CYOM stuff long ago if I could have. Alan’s arbitrary restriction — that the summary must be in a single comment — made that impossible. He is eager to censor me, so I can’t risk doing a partial post, thus giving him an excuse to guano the remaining parts when I post them.
Again:
phoodoo,
I laughed. Remind me again why I don’t like you?
You were one of the people I made a point of reading carefully when I was active here. I even agreed with you far more often than not. (Whether you take that as a compliment from the local free-speech-absolutist-anarchocapitalist or not, that is how I intend it.)
It’s the boiling frog syndrome. First it’s small abuses of authority, as with the admins’ treatment of phoodoo and J-Mac. Then more blatant abuses as we see where Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock are settling a personal score with keiths. If Elizabeth doesn’t do something about that, I wouldn’t want to be in Sal’s, Fifthmonarchyman’s, or Nonlin’s shoes.
TSZ used to be better than UD. It can be again.
I disagree with keiths here[*]. I don’t see a problem with a thread allowing one summary comment per registered user, so long as the rules apply equally to everyone. If admins are allowed to change their summaries in order to address points raised by other TSZ members, then everyone should have that ability.
Paranoid or prescient? Only time will tell.
[*] See how that works? Disagreeing with someone but still supporting their right to speak?