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.
Hey, as long as the government gets shut down, does it matter who gets the credit?
Predictable. Because a gov’t shutdown would obviously be great for the Kochs and their rich, Virginia -school, anti-planet-warming regulation, anti-tax, anti-poor allies.
Boo gubmint! Yay plutocrats! Boo democracy! Yay capital!
https://photo.stackexchange.com/conduct
I would think as a small government kind of guy ,the kind of massive government boondoggle/building project like the wall would drive you nuts. They steal your money but now they want steal more and unless you agree to the theft the government is willing to shut itself down and waste more money to blackmail you.
All this winning is expensive.
So only the name” keiths” is suspended , the person the name represents is not?
Quite a while ago, I used to follow the activities of the late John Davison, an irascible anti-evolutionist who would appear at sites such as Pharyngula, Pandas Thumb and Uncommon descent and inevitably get banned. I felt a bit sorry for him as it seemed he was never able to get his “semiotic meiosis” ideas across and had some interaction with him at the old ARN and ISCID forums.
John made an appearance at “After the Bar Closes”, was banned, tried a few sockpuppets, banned again. He then contacted me, asking to relay a message to AtBC which I did. I soon had a PM from Wesley Elsberry telling me that he considered relaying messages from blocked users was to use Wesley’s phrase “excessively annoying”
“I soon had a PM from Wesley Elsberry telling me that he considered relaying messages from blocked users was to use Wesley’s phrase ‘excessively annoying’”
It’s probably worth noting that the AtBC Board Rules define “excessively annoying” as “The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.”
Fuck off Jock. You are such a kiss ass cheerleader.
You can’t blame keiths for having his opinions about Swamidass, and then make all these bullshit excuses for Lizzie. You might think this is good enough to fool the Omagains of this site, but even a lot of the jaded atheists are going to see right through this double standard horsecrap. Just because they aren’t going to be brave enough to call you out on it, they see the hypocrisy quite clearly. There aren’t that many suckers even here Jock.
I have a few comments to pass on from keiths. I need to get a bit of work done before responding to the subthreads I’m engaged in.
Incoming!
Passing on a comment from keiths. Everything after this line is him.
newton:
newton,
Patrick is a libertarian. Why on earth would you assume that he supports the border wall?
Passing on a comment from keiths. Everything after this line is him.
newton:
The account is suspended due to moderator malfeasance. Patrick is doing the right thing by assuring that the commenter continues to be heard, despite the attempted censorship.
Passing on a comment from keiths. Everything after this line is him.
Some remedial education for the censors (and the censor wannabes) here at TSZ:
Passing on a comment from keiths. Everything after this line is him.
Jock is doing a pretty good job of discrediting himself without outside help, but let me step in nevertheless and highlight some points as time permits.
I’ll do so in a series of comments, starting with this one.
Jock knows perfectly well that Alan’s stated purpose for the suspension was bogus. Alan himself says that he censored me in order to prevent my continued criticism of the moderators.
But criticism of the moderators is perfectly fine with Lizzie. She wants them to be accountable to the members and subject to challenge. She created ‘Moderation Issues’ for a reason.
Alan’s stated rationale for the suspension was therefore illegitimate.
You knew that, Jock. You were witnessing the abuse happening right in front of you. Did you protest Alan’s action? No. Did you take steps to reverse it? No.
What did you do instead? You started looking for excuses to maintain the suspension — and remarkably, you’re still doing so. And some of those excuses were doozies. “Quasi-doxxing”, anyone?
It’s the opposite of a what a good moderator would do. You should be opposing moderator abuses, not trying to concoct after-the-fact rationalizations for them.
That is the power of a personal grudge. Your own behavior serves as a textbook example.
P.S. That “quasi-doxxing” bit still makes me laugh. Pretty desperate, Jock.
Passing on a comment from keiths. Everything after this line is him.
DNA_Jock:
Patrick:
Jock has a personal grudge. I have a cite, however:
walto makes the same goofy mistake as DNA_Jock:
Walto, do you have any idea how ridiculous you look when you describe Patrick’s comment as
…and then it turns out that his comment is the honest one?
Jock and walto. Quite the pair, aren’t they?
Passing on a comment from keiths. Everything after this line is him.
Mung, to Patrick:
Excellent. It’s good that you agree. The moderators will fight to retain their powers, however. If the experiment is to happen, Lizzie will have to impose it from above, I’m afraid.
Yes, and I highly recommend that Hitchens speech for anyone who doubts this.
Probably. And in the end, people will decide that for themselves. But they should do the deciding, not a moderator. And especially not a self-serving moderator.
As demonstrated by many things, including the fact that they are trying to censor me instead of encouraging an open discussion of TSZ, its problems, and its future.
Passing on a comment from keiths. Everything after this line is him.
Alan,
Spin all you’d like. You can’t cover up the fact that you, Neil, and Jock are trying to censor me, and Patrick and I are trying to make sure that my voice remains heard. As it should be at a site that was founded largely in response to the abuses and censorship of UD.
You have become little Arringtons who, when you can’t out-argue an opponent, stoop to censoring him instead.
Take a look at yourselves.
That concludes the keiths show for this morning. Tune in again soon!
I hope it is not seen as presumptuous of me if I interrupt this thread to suggest a rule change for TSZ. Here it is.
All OPs should be limited to a maximum of 300 words.
This thought occurred to me while skimming the various metathreads*. Among the detritus, there are short exchanges on interesting topics. Three I noticed: libertarianism and Trump, the existence of intrinsic human political rights, quantum entropy and time. They would be interesting topics for discussion. Why aren’t they separate threads?
I’m guessing that the fact that almost all OPs are extended arguments for a position discourages people from starting new topics. It is seen as too much work to properly research and write an OP.
The rule is meant to encourage people to start new topics without having to do that work.
Of course, people who have done that work can post it in the thread instead.
I realize nothing prevents people from posting short OPs now. But there is that precedent of all the long OPs. That is the culture at TSZ. So the idea of the rule is to change that culture in order to generate more varied discussion.
———————————
*I think the volume of traffic devoted to the metathreads as opposed to the core discussions provides more evidence for my position that all metathreads should be deleted.
ETA: I believe I saw something similar about limiting post lengths from Mung. But I think he was joking. I am not. Of course, I recognize that for both of us it is often difficult to tell. So I am not joking. Nor is this footnote a metajoke. Nor is … you get the picture.
End-running around the suspension makes a mockery of it. Lizzie is aware of Keiths’s suspension. She could have insisted on an instant reversal. She didn’t. I take that to indicate there are issues to consider. I think it undermines, especially, Patrick’s credibility here.
petrushka,
I’ll pass that link on. Could save Lizzie a lot of work. Thanks.
I don’t think you understand, newton. The immense good of ending regulatory activities and ‘entitlements’–even for a few days–swamps (not to say ‘trumps’) all other considerations. These enlightenment guys are utilitarians sometimes.
Thanks, just curious. Don’t find it particularly annoying. I wonder how long till Patrick does.
Utter bullshit. patrick’s remark was not honest. It was a disgusting, disgraceful lie. Upon request, I posted a ton of links quite clearing indicating several of Trump’s many disqualifications for the office, as you well know. patrick’s response was to point out Hillary Clinton’s defects (although with NO support.)
Shut the hell up, keiths, you have no idea what you’re talking about and assholish behavior is not likely to encourage people to forget that simple fact.
Moved a post to guano.
I actually like having Sandbox (Noyau should be dumped) for posting random thoughts. If you look back to the beginning of Noyau–I put up a couple of poems and jokes. I don’t think the site should be clogged up with OPs like that.
I did think about making my “fundamental human rights” poll an OP, but it somehow seemed like more work. Plus, if nobody had responded (which seemed likely for awhile) I wouldn’t have written anything further. An OP seems more like work, and to be a more “official” (or something) statement. I almost never want to do that, and like having a dumping ground for musings.
But Sandbox is plenty for that, I think.
About a great many things.
See, I thought it was all about not wanting to pay taxes but making the exception for blowing shit up and making sure no one steals your stuff. Everything else will take care of itself through the magic of the marketplace.
Such sacrifice should not go unrewarded.
I would hate to think that Patrick had a specific poster in mind who he wanted to silence. Wasn’t that poster banned at UD? Will TSZ be next?
So next I would like to know if Patrick now thinks teaching “intelligent design creationism” should be allowed in our public schools. Should freedom of speech be curtailed when speaking to children?
Neil Rickert
August 8, 2018 at 2:38 pm
Ignored
Not this one.
You’re losing me man. What on earth does this have to do with the OP?
keiths ought to start his own blog and post his comments there. You could post a link to it. Everyone goes away happy.
I wonder if the moderators got together and asked what they could do to make things better during these trying times.
Which one of you came up with the bright idea to target phoodoo?
What is the difference between this thread and the rules that apply in it and the Moderation Issues thread?
It’s always difficult to tell in online discussions, without eye contact, tone of voice, and facial cues, but I’m quite sincere. My goals here are to explain why I think freedom of expression is both of value and workable at TSZ, and to understand the objections of people who want stricter censorship. To the extent that my communication style causes people to get their hackles up, I’ve failed to do what I can to achieve those goals.
I could easily reply that your accusation of confirmation bias reflects your own projection and bias. That would, at best, lead down a rat hole. I’ll drop that part of the discussion in the interests of aligning with Elizabeth’s goals for the site.
That is not accurate. The “no Guano” threads did not result in any harm you are able to articulate. I also offered examples of Usenet newsgroups and mailing list that have been running for decades without moderation.
That’s incorrect. You rearranged them, I put them back in context. This is another potential rat hole, so I’ll drop it.
Accusations of dishonesty don’t progress the discussion. I appreciate that you recognize that your desire to control the discussion is based on paternalism. That raises two issues. First, the members of TSZ are adults who don’t need you to act in loco parentis. If they don’t like a discussion, they can simply not participate. Second, you have still not articulated a clear harm that comes from robust discussion that may include the occasional flame.
Clutch your pearls all you like, but draw the line at interfering with what others write and read.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. I strongly recommend watching the Hitchens video that keiths linked about. Mill’s discussion of free speech in On Liberty is another valuable resource.
This starts to get to “discover[ing] 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.” For my part, I consider freedom of expression to be of great value. It should only be limited in places like TSZ for very good reasons, backed by data rather than emotion. Free speech is under attack by the alt-right and the regressive left across the US, particularly on college campuses. We should stand up for it wherever we can, both because it matters and because it works.
Leaving aside potential differences of opinion on what restrictions might be necessary, would you agree that maximal freedom of expression is a worthy goal?
I disagree about it being pointless and I hope you’ll reconsider your refusal to engage. Whatever you think of what I value and how I propose to promote that value, Elizabeth’s goals for the TSZ are very clear. What common ground do we share? What misunderstandings of your views do I have? What are our real differences? Let’s both drop the posturing and dick measuring and follow Elizabeth’s vision for a little while.
Bullying is “using superior strength or influence to intimidate someone, typically to force him or her to do what one wants.” Our interaction with Erik doesn’t meet that definition. All we have here is words. All we were doing was attempting to hold Erik to the standards set by Elizabeth. Refusing to support one’s claims on this site is reason for opprobrium. See Reciprocating Bill’s summary of that expectation in the rules.
The issue, of course, is who decides what constitutes trolling. Why not just trust the members to interact with who they wish, use the Ignore button judiciously, and encourage everyone to aspire to Elizabeth’s quality of contribution? The current rules don’t work. They cause far more meta-discussion and acrimony than that they are intended to prevent. Let’s give more freedom a chance.
This is where we need real data, which is why I am interested in your A/B testing. Let’s eliminate the ability of the admins to censor for three months and see what happens. We’ll need to specify the metrics we’re measuring first, of course. I suggest they include overall engagement in terms of number of threads, comments per thread, and unique participants. That’s a little vague, but it can be tightened up with very little work. Exposing the raw data will allow people to generate their own metrics for the follow up discussion.
The current process isn’t working. Let’s try something different and see what happens.
You mentioned at least twice in this comment that you think there is a need to control what other TSZ members write and read. Whatever the reason, you want to do it. I still don’t understand why. I’d very much like to see a detailed list of the harm you think will arise, in enough detail to measure it to see if an experiment in free expression supports your hypothesis.
The reference to Charlottesville is pure well poisoning histrionics. It has nothing to do with discussions on TSZ. To directly answer your question, I think the US constitutional law exceptions to the first amendment for incitement are carefully crafted and generally well applied, if not the only way to address the issue. I cannot see any way for a TSZ post or comment to meet the bar of inciting imminent lawless action.
Protecting the conversation by censoring what people write, moving comments, arbitrarily suspending people because of personal dislike, and editing posts in direct violation of the rules looks a lot like destroying the village to save it.
Even in the “no Guano” threads, people are freely choosing to participate. There doesn’t appear to be any concern among participants in other threads, either, despite moderation being stochastic at best. The conversation will happen without admins interfering.
I hope you’ll accept my invitation to give Elizabeth’s goals a chance to work.
I’m not going to respond for keiths. I will ask you, personally, to please do the reasonable and fair thing: Delay his suspension until Elizabeth makes a decision on the new rules and allow him to participate in this discussion. It’s the right thing to do and you have the privileges to do it.
I will respond to one bit where you referenced me in particular:
That’s definitely making shit up. You clarified on minor point about identifying the original poster. The fact remains that Swamidass would have a very difficult time showing sufficient harm to get a letter issued to Elizabeth about keiths’ post. Even if he were able to, all Elizabeth would need to do is provide keiths’ contact details or remove the post. Her risk of legal liability is zero.
That’s a transparently bad reason for suspending keiths.
Amazing isn’t it? Prime example of what is wrong at this site.
I thought this was a no rules thread. Have they guanoed any of your flames that have appeared here?
W
Everyone with an opinion on moderation at TSZ should watch this. 20 minutes well spent, and it might adjust your priors.
Maybe you can ask keiths to ask Patrick then Patrick can respond to keiths, then keiths respond with Patrick’s response to your question by getting Patrick to relay keiths response of Patrick’s response.
Suprised you did not think of that.
Or you could ask Patrick over drinks.
My response of my response is as follows:
To be accurate, Patrick’s comparison of Sal’s behavior to the child abuse stems from Sal admitting to lying to his students.
It follows if ID is knowingly providing false information with the intent to deceive it should not be taught.
Strangely, it’s almost exactly as annoying as when patrick and keiths were both posting here regularly. I’d put at about a 7.5 out of 10.
It’s important to note that Stackexchange discussions are narrowly focused on specific, often technical topics. TSZ has a broader remit, and often the topics under discussion overlap with some participants’ personal identities. The rules should not prevent challenging those ideas simply because someone’s feelings may be hurt.
Love to hear what the other (better?) ways are.
I am all for that!
It does, and not just because of the waste of stolen money but because I (and other libertarians) support more open immigration. Is there any reason you might think otherwise?
keiths provided a link to my comments on Trump, above, if there’s any confusion.
Keiths can repost his own comments (and everybody else’s) just fine. Do we need you too to keep reading keiths forever?
Can’t you think of something of your own to contribute?
walto,
Of course, Neil just can’t help himself.
I called out Jocks ridiculous defense of Lizzie calling Meyer a liar. Jock’s latest absurd spin is that well, Meyer wouldn’t like to sue Lizzie, because the optics for Meyer would be bad, but Swamidass would have no such issues…therefore…its Ok to call Meyer a liar.
Anyone (looking at you Neil), ANYONE, who could defend that lack of intellectual integrity is just as bad as Jock. “Meyers wouldn’t sue because it would look bad, so its ok.” WTF!
Both of them can piss off.
I don’t understand why any teacher would knowingly lie to his/her students. That seems weird to me. (And I’m a guy who put out milk and cookies for Santa when my kids were little.)
If you think there are too many long OPs, lead by example and post some shorter ones. Be the change you want to see.
Why force your preferences on others?
Well, as long as you didn’t tell them it was Jesus’ birthday, I guess its ok. 🙂
Just think of it as performance art
I find it interesting that you and keiths disagree on why his account was suspended.
Bad news, we don’t know when Jesus’s birthday was. I guess it was not that important to the story
This is a fair comment and one I will take up when the new rules are published, regardless of the outcome.
To your main point, I am not capable for forcing any of my preferences on others. What I can do is offer suggestions to EL on what preferences she should force on posters to her forum to meet the goals she has set for it.
It is possible that you and I differ on whether anyone can justly force their preferences on others. Fair enough. Only EL’s values on that issue matter in the end at TSZ.
phoodoo,
Why we can’t have clear rules, consistently applied (at least generally–there are bound to be screw-ups occasionally) is mysterious* to me.
I think you’re right that part of it is Lizzie-love: not wanting to do anything they feel might harm her–or even that she might not like.
And, as FMM has said, part of it is lack of diversity among mods–along with the fact that each can act on his own. Even with diversity, without a confab, there’d be weirdness.
And part of it is that–as I’ve said from almost the first second I landed here–is that the rules aren’t very good.
Some of those who think these problems are real respond with “See, the solution is to do away with these rules entirely. That would take care of every one of them!” And it would. But….who would want to hang at such a place? What those guys don’t get is that it’s already too uncivil. A bunch of good people have left. I have little doubt that if got any more obno than it already is, KN would leave. I might too. Dunno who else. Maybe Bruce would ditch again?
I guess people with really thick skins could come here for the fun of calling each other liars. Not sure that’s what Lizzie had in mind, though.
ETA: *Maybe not THAT mysterious. I did just give three reasons for it right here.