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.
I agree…
I essentially said the exact same thing about a year ago. Weird.
I retract my statement that Patrick called Salvador a child molester and apologize to Patrick for saying that he did.
As it stands right now I can only demonstrate that Patrick accused Salvador of child abuse.
For example:
Just to reiterate, at the time of posting this comment, Keiths’s account is suspended. Lizzie, as sole owner of this site, has the sole and absolute right to endorse or reverse my action and I hope she will let her thoughts known soon.
I apologise for the inept way in which I handled the technicalities of the suspension, causing several of Keiths’s comments to end up in the moderation queue rather than preventing him from commenting. So I’ve released them.
Said the quoteminer.
Indeed where is she now. Jock is completely throwing her under the bus.
Under #PatrickRules the following would now be permissible in any thread on the site:
Frankly, I fail to see how allowing things like this advances the goals of the site. And reading though Guano, I have to really wonder why would would want such shit clogging up our threads, and whether allowing such things would lead to more or less of the same. What if the theists started firing back?
Both Patrick and keiths want to be able to say someone is dishonest or a liar. For the life of me I cannot understand why it is impossible to either find a civil way to express that something is not true or to go to Noyau if you simply must break the rules.
“But I don’t want to do that” is so childish.
So I think one of the major disagreements in recent history here is over how to handle when we think others are being dishonest or deceptive and not posting in good faith.
I’d like to hear thoughts on that, if anyone else would care to think about it and share.
If this is a genuine concern here I suggest adding a section to the Rules page explaining what the concerns are, how people ought to act with regard to those concerns, and what actions will be taken by the mods in response to perceived violations.
I have expressed concern numerous times about the enforcement of unwritten rules and at least prior to now they have fallen on deaf ears.
I appreciate and respect Elizabeth’s trust in her admins/mods. But the “rules of the game” ought to be in writing.
Mung,
Nice post.
This is another issue that has come up. How do we treat people who do not post here. In my opinion, we ought to be even more strict regarding comments about people who do not post here, rather than less strict.
Facts would need to be presented to them at this site with their knowledge and acknowledgement.
We recognize the fundamental unfairness of posting when someone else cannot respond. Just see the request by Alan re: keiths.
Thanks man. I’ve been under moderation scrutiny more than once. I’ve always admitted when I was wrong and adjusted my behavior. Lizzie’s site, Lizzie’s rules. I can respect that. If I don’t like it I can leave.
I could be wrong but I don’t think I’e ever asked for a different set of rules, only that they be in writing. I’ve never understood the desire to get rid of them.
I have asked that we restrict the Moderation Issues thread to actual moderation issues. I still think that’s a good idea.
I agree moderation is necessary.
I don’t think we have to use our imagination.
That’s a solid point. If the rules did allow admins to suspend people, it seems that explicitly refusing to participate in good faith might be something they would address.
Thank you, apology accepted.
August 22, Westin Hotel bar, Seattle. Ask for William Goat. First round is on me.
Yes, I stand by that.
Alan,
You can’t fob off the responsibility for your actions to Elizabeth. You have the ability to reverse the suspension. By not doing so, you are indicating that you think it is fair and reasonable that keiths not be able to defend himself in the short time we have Elizabeth here to adjudicate. Is that really your position?
Excellent suggestion. Libel law in the UK changed at the beginning of 2014, with some explicit provisions related to websites. TSZ and Elizabeth are in no legal danger from what keiths posted. Further, the new laws are intended to eliminate libel tourism — the severity of the harm must be significant and at least one of the parties must be in the UK. That doesn’t apply to this situation.
Was your post guanoed?
Why (I’m genuinely curious)? As I noted in my first three comments to Elizabeth, moderation here accounts for a significant amount of noise and no appreciable improvement in signal. TSZ has the Bannable Offenses and the Ignore button. No more is needed except social opprobrium.
I’m not. I take full responsibility for it and I am ready to justify it to Lizzie if and when she asks.
I do. And I will not until Lizzie decides what she wants to do.
Disagree. Lizzie is the sole arbiter here.
Maybe I’m just to harsh and judgmental toward Sal?
PS
By the way, I’m disappointed, let’s say, at your call for Neil to be dismissed as a
moderatoradmin. Noted but not (at all) persuaded.I agree with that.
That’s simply not the case. You set yourself up as arbiter by imposing the suspension. You continue to do so by leaving it in place.
Do you (you personally) believe it is fair and reasonable to deny keiths the opportunity to defend himself in this forum while Elizabeth is here?
I stated my reasons. I stand by them. If Elizabeth chooses a more authoritarian path, Neil’s her huckleberry.
He’s suspended for a reason. Unresponsiveness to admin concerns regarding an arguably libellous OP. It’s new territory. We didn’t see that one coming. If Lizzie wants to take further submissions from him she can ask. At the moment she’s thinking about it. I’ve asked people not to gloat or talk to empty chairs. Keiths will have to wait till Lizzie has come to a decision.
Elizabeth will indeed choose her own path. This is her personal blog. She listens – then she decides.
Why should she take any chance, legal or otherwise from something posted here? I like this site and would hate to see it go, but the cost-benefit analysis seems sketchy. Time is a precious finite resource.
I thought we were going to meet in the parking lot. 😉
Mung,
Funnily enough, I made this suggestion to Lizzie today, a streamlined rules page with the requisite additions regarding privacy, contact and copyright.
Not really. I will not be explicit as to why.
Correct, huge improvement.
Probably correct. This is where malice comes in.
Correct, anti-tourism measure.
Incorrect. Liz is domiciled in the UK, and I believe the server is too. Keiths is outside UK jurisdiction.
I hope keiths is grateful for the free advocacy he’s getting here from
“What Would Tom Paine Do? (I mean that I agree with) LTD”
I can only imagine the whining email that was sent to engender these pleas for leniency from “the child abuse guy.”
Also, no doubt completely coincidentally, this is the first we’ve heard from Richard Hughes in quite awhile too. So, I’m not sure anymore….merry band of mutineers or well-scrubbed bundle of innocent, contrite choristers?
I guess whatever works.
Careful. I believe one of his guns is a sniper thingy.
Transparency. And in the truest sense, I was therefore being truthful about why I was here and posting what I said.
In TSA we trust.
I saw what happened to Darwin’s God when moderation effectively ceased.
To me that that “noise” is the exercise of free speech,much of it may be pointless and whiny but the ability to question the power structure of the website on the website sets this place apart. Even the posting of comments decrying censorship requires an implicit belief that free speech is allowed.
Even without the compounding effect of guano,the existing posts in guano are a glimpse of what the signal would be without moderation. I think what we have is appreciable improvement.
True, but unless the rules for treating others on the site become bannable offenses , those rules may as well not exist. If they do become bannable , the discretionary power of moderation has increased. Guano imperfectly allows the rules and free speech to coexist.
And what about visitors who have nobody ignored, what would the site look like?
Generally ,that is why.
You raise pertinent questions. I don’t think material like that advances the goals of the site. I also don’t think that a lot of what some of the resident creationists post advances the goals of the site. Reading a couple of the high volume threads shows a great deal of willful ignorance, goalpost moving, and PRATTs. What I don’t see is anyone meeting Elizabeth’s aim of “But the idea here is to provide a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover what common ground we share; what misunderstandings of other views we hold; and, having cleared away the straw men, find out where our real differences lie. In my experience, when you reach that point, who is right becomes obvious to both parties.” That never happens. People who have been patiently explaining basic science repeatedly get understandably frustrated. They vent.
That’s actually a good thing. It’s part of the social opprobrium that Reciprocating Bill mentioned. It’s also easy to ignore. Guanoing comments results in a great deal of meta-discussion, that can take over the site (this thread is one example). Freedom of expression isn’t always pretty, but it beats the hell out of the alternative.
The core issue for me (hopefully keiths will be able to speak for himself here soon) is that the existing rules do not take into account people who are dishonest and who are manifestly not posting in good faith. Calling them out on their behavior is an important feedback mechanism.
Turn the free speech dial up to 11. It’s simple, it reduces noise, and it works.
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/downhill-sign-road1.png
Now I’m the one who is disappointed. You’ve twice refused to answer the direct question of what you think is fair and reasonable. I thought you had a higher moral standard.
Reading the whole thing through from the beginning gave me the distinct impression that this is about egos and personalities. There is no new territory. keiths didn’t write anything that hasn’t been written by others. It seems to me that a lot of this is after the fact justification of actions taken out of frustration with someone the admins simply dislike.
The loudspeaker in the ceiling really put it over the line for me. This place is supposed to be better than UD.
Not just malice, but the severity of the harm. A pseudonymous commenter on an obscure blog can’t cause that much damage.
The law requires the website operator to provide contact information for the commenter, or remove the content, after receiving a formal legal notice. Elizabeth is in no legal danger unless she refuses to do either.
You wound me! You’re fairly high up on the list of TSZ people I think I’d enjoy having a drink with. (Fifthmonarchyman is at the top, but only because he indicated once that he doesn’t drink and I’m curious to hear what he has to say three martinis deep.)
DM me. Be the change you want to see.
I think we can make that happen. Too bad you are not here today, it is one of those days that makes people want to live here.
Do you have a link to a particular thread that supports your point? I’ve only visited there when there’s a link from AtBC.
I agree that is the exercise of free speech, but the reason for the exercise is that free speech is being curtailed. If comments weren’t Guano’d in the first place, the volume of “pointless and whiny” responses would drop dramatically.
I don’t think the history of TSZ supports your assessment. When there were periods of low or no moderation, the threads did not degenerate into Guano or Noyau free-for-alls. It is possible for groups to self-police.
Guano does almost nothing except cause more noise. I’m currently limiting my participation to this thread, but when I was active here I always read TSZ by going to the Comments page of the Dashboard and scrolling backwards from my last read comment. I suspect that’s how a majority of participants do it. I never missed a Guano’d comment. 😉
Thanks for the detailed response. I understand your concerns. I don’t share them for TSZ because of the history I mentioned. Lack of moderation did not result in a meltdown. Overreacting admins does tend to, as in this case.
Elizabeth mentioned that she’ll have more time for the site in November, I believe. Adopting the rules I proposed for the next three months would be an interesting experiment that would provide the data needed to decide between our hypotheses.
I’ll send you a message when my plans are firm.
Well, successfully identify the commenter and respond to formal complaint, but close enough.
Like I said already.
“Probably correct. This is where malice comes in. “
Patrick,
I agree with your assessment of the problem, but not with your proposed solution.
Time for some A/B testing perhaps?
Interesting perspective. I don’t see any meltdown by anyone due to “overracting admins,” and the meltdowns I have seen were due to their inaction.
Well, there was that time when Elizabeth closed comments in a thread… I think I had a meltdown then.
🙂
Sun and cider. woot! Going to the store.
Help a dummy out?
What is “the problem” that Patrick has provided an assessment of which you agree with?
This claim that “things ran much better” when the mods were less active!” needs to be fleshed out for it to be assessed.
Those who hold the view mean by “things running better” that “there was less moderator interference” (with their bullshit).
So yeah. Much better! Not a very surprising result either.
I agree to a point. If we limit moderation to all those activities that we can all agree on then complaints would go down. But that sort of misses the point.
What are these “pointless and whiny” responses? Are they whiny because they ask for even-handedness from the moderators? Are they pointless because that’s not going to happen? But isn’t that the freaking point of these pointless and whiny responses, Patrick?
Poster calls me a liar, they get a pass. Poster calls KN a liar, it goes to Guano. Referees are supposed to be impartial. They simply administer the rules to the best of their ability. But that’s not what we see here, and this opinion isn’t mine alone.
We all agree to abide by the rules when we post here. This means that we all agree already. So your premise is simply false. The problem here is people who come here and post who do not agree with the rules.
I don’t believe I am too far off the mark when I say those people can rather easily be identified.