Squawk box

I sense a disturbance in the force.

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

Lizzie

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

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

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

1,219 thoughts on “Squawk box

  1. phoodoo: Well, as long as you didn’t tell them it was Jesus’ birthday, I guess its ok.

    🙂

    ETA:

    newton: Bad news, we don’t know when Jesus’s birthday is.

    This is true. Better we tell them he never existed.

  2. walto,

    I agree with all of that, I fall on the side that ALL uncivil posts should be moved without exception. The problem is there have always been too many exceptions. Most of those being, well Alan likes him. Or Neil likes him, so…

  3. walto: 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.)

    I think he found lying a more persuasive argument than the truth.

  4. Alan Fox: End-running around the suspension makes a mockery of it.

    Alan,

    Passing on keiths’ comments is both a protest of how the admins have treated him and an attempt to rectify the unfairness of not allowing him to present his side while Elizabeth is available.

    Lizzie is aware of Keiths’s suspension. She could have insisted on an instant reversal. She didn’t.

    As keiths has pointed out, you also have the ability to reverse his suspension. You were happy enough to use your admin privileges to suspend him, but you refuse to use them to be reasonable and fair. Stop hiding behind her and own your continuing decision.

    I take that to indicate there are issues to consider.

    There are issues but without someone forwarding keiths’ comments, Elizabeth will hear only one side of them. Your continued refusal to do the right thing is not aligned with TSZ’s goals.

    I think it undermines, especially, Patrick’s credibility here.

    There is a credibility problem here, certainly. When admins abuse their privileges to attempt to silence a participant they dislike, they lose credibility. When they violate the rules by deleting posts, they lose credibility. When they move comments out of Moderation Issues, they lose credibility. When they act exactly like Barry Arrington by editing someone else’s post, implementing the loudspeaker in the ceiling, they lose all credibility.

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

  5. walto: I actually like having Sandbox (Noyau should be dumped) for posting random thoughts.

    But Sandbox is plenty for that, I think.

    I thought of using Sandbox for topics people want to discuss but not create long OPs for, , but there is no easy way to keep posts to a single topic separate. I agree it is fine for musing about something without looking for a discussion of it.

    If we take the example of other forums, there tend to be many topics. Having the ability to sort topics by latest post might help with a problem of topo many new topics. However, that kind of problem would be a good one for TSZ to have given its current range and volume of topics.

    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.

    That’s an example of my point, although I am not sure you meant it as agreeing with me.

  6. phoodoo:
    walto,

    I agree with all of that, I fall on the side that ALL uncivil posts should be moved without exception.The problem is there have always been too many exceptions.Most of those being, well Alan likes him.Or Neil likes him, so…

    Maybe if you didn’t post so many uncivil comments the moderators would have more time for others. Just saying.

  7. walto: 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.

    I am willing to try the “no rules” route because I honestly don’t think it would get that bad. I think we do have enough people here who are just not like that, they would not get into such pissing contents.

    My tendency of late, especially when accused of lying by one of the resident militant atheists, is to just say, “So, is that bad?” What the hell is objectively wrong with lying.

    If lying is not objectively morally wrong, then accusing someone of lying is like farting. It stinks up the place, but it passes.

  8. newton: Thanks, just curious. Don’t find it particularly annoying. I wonder how long till Patrick does.

    It’s just a little cut-and-paste while drinking my morning coffee. I can do this until the second coming (of Elizabeth).

  9. Patrick,

    Here’s the context that keiths-per-Patrick omitted:

    Patrick:Trump’s policies fit better with the Democrats than the Republicans, but like Sanders he found his niche group of voters. Unlike Sanders, Trump is a consummate businessman and reality TV star. He’s also running against not just Cruz and Kasich but the Republican National Committee and the mainstream media — and he’s winning.

    I find it fascinating that CNN, for example, can blame Trump for the violence at his rallies when those initiating the violence are on camera wearing Bernie Sanders logo.
    [emphasis added]

    I defended Patrick thus:

    With the notable exception of the statement “I find it fascinating that CNN, for example, can blame Trump for the violence at his rallies when those initiating the violence are on camera wearing Bernie Sanders logo.”, I don’t think Patrick has done any whitewashing of Trump.
    His statements have been more along the lines of “the guy’s not all bad”, and importantly “you should confirm that he actually holds the positions you think he holds”.
    In the same vein, it would not be a whitewash to point out that a particular politician as never touched a scrap of meat. A little too ambitious, maybe, but

    He even thanked me.
    😉

    E4link

  10. BruceS: I thought of using Sandbox for topics people want to discuss but not create long OPs for, , but there is no easy way to keep posts to a single topic separate.

    Is that a big deal? I mean, I could see how it might be if (i) it was used for this purpose a lot and (ii) there were more than maybe ten(?) regular posters at this place. But, as it is, I don’t think that’s ever been a problem. Maybe you need to scroll up two or three posts…

  11. Mung,

    Absolutely it is. But it hasn’t stopped the whining at all. It’s like quadruple the pleasure this way. Accuse, pontificate, get around, and whine. What more could anybody ask for.

  12. Mung: 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?

    I already responded to you about that rule upthread. It came from Elizabeth’s comment on Moderation Issues that I linked to. (If you can’t find it, let me know and I’ll dig back.)

    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?

    It’s not science, so it shouldn’t be taught in science class. It is religion, so it shouldn’t be forced on students with other beliefs.

    This isn’t rocket surgery, Mung. Keep prodding, though. I appreciate any inconsistencies you can find.

  13. Patrick: There are issues but without someone forwarding keiths’ comments, Elizabeth will hear only one side of them.

    It is my understand that keiths has Elizabeth’s email address and that only keiths is preventing her from hearing his side of things. That keiths is asking you to post his comments for HER benefit is something I find laughably absurd.

  14. Erik: 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?

    Erik,

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

  15. BruceS:

    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?

    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.

    Allow me to rephrase, then. Why do you advocate for controlling other peoples’ behavior? Why not post as you like and allow others the same freedom?

    Let a thousand flowers bloom.

  16. DNA_Jock:
    Patrick,

    Here’s the context that keiths-per-Patrick omitted:

    I defended Patrick thus:

    He even thanked me.
    😉

    It was pretty clear from the get-go that the only fault patrick would acknowledge about Trump was that he was too much of a statist. Better than the democrats maybe but not by much. To the extent that the Kochs have gotten their way on taxes and regulations, Trump is better for patrick than expected. To the extent they haven’t (yet at least) moved him on free trade and immigration, he’s imperfect.

    But there was never a hint of a problem for patrick with Trump’s corruption, racism, bellicosity, lying, collusion, bankruptcies, contract violations, etc. That stuff never bothered him a bit. Better than Hillary! What about Obama?

    On patrick’s view, not only should that sort of behavior be expected of those unenlightened enough to wish to be involved in the theft and coercion that is government (like our own moderators here), it’s actually kind of a good thing, since it shows that democracy is an evil institution and should be replaced in all aspects of life by the power of “free choice.”

    Voting BOO! Capital YAY!

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

    But that’s a good thing! And if you had not returned, it would be even better.

    But it’s all temporary anyway. Do you promise to vanish when keiths returns?

  18. Patrick:

    Allow me to rephrase, then.Why do you advocate for controlling other peoples’ behavior?Why not post as you like and allow others the same freedom?

    Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    Because I think there are not enough original posts. I think the reason for that is people are intimidated by the work they see as needed to do one. I recognize that there is no rule saying one must do such work. But I believe it has become the cultural norm for posters. The rule is meant to try to change that culture.

    As I mentioned, nothing prevents the person who has done the work from posting it as the initial comment in the thread.

    It would be fair to say rules should not be concerned with cultural change. That would be a valid reason for rejecting it or making it temporary.

    First time I’ve seen you quote Mao (but to be fair, I am far from having read all your posts). Not sure if you share his agenda (or how historians now interpret it).

  19. Patrick: Let a thousand flowers bloom.

    It’s true. Some flowers grow very well in shitholes. Others may not, but whatever.

  20. DNA_Jock:

    He even thanked me.

    I’ll even thank you again. As your links show, I never said anything in support of Trump. While I don’t entirely agree with your characterization of what I said as “the guy’s not all bad” (“the guy’s not bad for some of the reasons people are complaining about” would be more accurate), it would have been churlish to split hairs in that context.

  21. Patrick: Erik,

    (ask a different admin, get a different one).

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

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

  22. Patrick: (“the guy’s not bad for some of the reasons people are complaining about” would be more accurate),

    Right. As I said, it was always clear what problems you had with him: he’s not a libertarian.

    Where Jock is on the guy, I have no idea.

  23. BruceS: All OPs should be limited to a maximum of 300 words.

    I definitely prefer a short OP. I already have enough books I haven’t read that I need to get to.

    They would be interesting topics for discussion. Why aren’t they separate threads?

    Personally I had the impression that the mods were discouraging new OPs using a form of soft censorship that Elizabeth previously endorsed. So I was obliging them by providing none and letting them get a majority of OPs by you know who.

    And more recently, I’m waiting until the keiths situation is resolved. The site is suffering horribly due to his inability to participate and I don’t want to exacerbate the suffering.

  24. BruceS: Because I think there are not enough original posts.I think the reason for that is people are intimidated by the work they see as needed to do one.I recognize that there is no rule saying one must do such work.ButI believe it has become the cultural norm for posters.The ruleis meant to try to change that culture.

    Again, you can change the culture without imposing your preferences through the rules.

    First time I’ve seen you quote Mao (but to be fair, I am far from having read all your posts).Not sure if you share his agenda (or how historians now interpret it).

    I’m just trying to be culturally sensitive and build bridges. You Canadians love you some Mao, I know. 😉

  25. BruceS: Because I think there are not enough original posts.

    When sir Vincent came over here and started his tour-de-force longposts, immediately admins gathered to discuss how to curb creativity to maybe one-two OPs per month per member. That was pretty ridiculous.

    I think pinned OPs are one good technique to keep the front page clean-ish. Another would be to make it an official policy that the OP must be cut with the “Continue reading” link after the first paragraph. But even this OP is not following this.

    Anyway, currently the rate of new OPs is reasonably moderate.

  26. Erik: When sir Vincent came over here and started his tour-de-force longposts, immediately admins gathered to discuss how to curb creativity to maybe one-two OPs per month per member.

    Really? I’ve never heard that. I think Vince’s big posts have been pretty impressive. I mean, I doubt I’ve read a single one all the way through, but I don’t make that HIS problem.

  27. Mung: And more recently, I’m waiting until the keiths situation is resolved. The site is suffering horribly due to his inability to participate and I don’t want to exacerbate the suffering.

    You are already growing into your position of moderator heir apparent. Thinking of your subjects first.

  28. Patrick: Let a thousand flowers bloom.

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

  29. I wonder what patrick and keiths would think about disallowing OPs that are just composed of emojis. Or along the lines of “I hate Xs, Don’t you?” Or maybe daily OPs that are composed of white fonts on white backgrounds. Or in my own made up language!

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

  30. Mung: It is my understand that keiths has Elizabeth’s email address and that only keiths is preventing her from hearing his side of things. That keiths is asking you to post his comments for HER benefit is something I find laughably absurd.

    Perhaps she has him blocked by now.

  31. Mung: keiths ought to start his own blog and post his comments there. You could post a link to it. Everyone goes away happy.

    A point I’ve made many times. Even Patrick agrees.

    If they don’t like a discussion, they can simply not participate.

    Participation at Dr Liddle’s blog implies acceptance of the rules of engagement she has chosen for her blog.

  32. Alan Fox: Mung: keiths ought to start his own blog and post his comments there.

    I imagine that the two or three people who went there would find the Tsar had been replaced by Uncle Joe. We’ve already seen what an enlightened moderator Napolean was here.

  33. Erik,
    I didn’t and still don’t think the suggestion of an arbitrary limit on the number of OPs per person per month would have solved the perceived problem. But I agree that a “more” break after the first paragraph which, ideally should be an abstract, is very desirable.

  34. Patrick: It’s just a little cut-and-paste while drinking my morning coffee.I can do this until the second coming (of Elizabeth).

    I see that ,it is the reading part that is the most annoying.

  35. walto: I imagine that the two or three people who went there would find the Tsar had been replaced by Uncle Joe.

    From Petticoat Junction?

  36. Mung: Then I guess we have her decision.

    Now might be the time for a lowball offer. Why settle for moderator when you can be king?

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

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

    Did you read this? Just to confirm, I suspended Keiths’s account and whilst I take on board what has been said, I’m still convinced I acted correctly. And I did this without reference to other admins. Subsequently, Lizzie has, she tells me, been thinking about it. So far she has not asked me to reverse Keiths’s suspension.

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

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

    By the way, Alan seems to remember the discussion about cutting down on OP density http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/squawk-box/comment-page-9/#comment-230023

  39. Alan Fox,

    PS

    Posting potentially libellous OPs is the problem at issue. There is/was no plan to deal with the problem, mainly because it was not foreseen till it happened.

  40. Erik: Why was keiths banned?

    Here’s my take:

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

  41. Alan Fox:
    Alan Fox,

    PS

    Posting potentially libellous OPs is the problem at issue. There is/was no plan to deal with the problem, mainly because it was not foreseen till it happened.

    Bullshit Alan. Bullshit, bullshit bullshit. You have been shown plenty of other examples of times when posters have attacked other academics, and you never worried about libel then. Now, its has become such a joke, that Jock says, well someone famous like Meyer would never sue, because of the optics of it, so don’t worry about libel in that case, but Swamidass…!

    Smarmy Alan, very smarmy. You have colluded with Jock and Neil to perpetuate bullshit.

  42. Mung: Here’s my take:

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

    Would you guano Phoodoo’s comment after yours?

Leave a Reply