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.
🙂
ETA:
This is true. Better we tell them he never existed.
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…
I think he found lying a more persuasive argument than the truth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s an example of my point, although I am not sure you meant it as agreeing with me.
Maybe if you didn’t post so many uncivil comments the moderators would have more time for others. Just saying.
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.
It’s just a little cut-and-paste while drinking my morning coffee. I can do this until the second coming (of Elizabeth).
newton,
That is a tested and failed experimental theory.
Patrick,
Here’s the context that keiths-per-Patrick omitted:
I defended Patrick thus:
He even thanked me.
😉
E4link
Isn’t that the point?
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…
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Erik,
keiths cannot post here. He’s been suspended for . . . reasons (ask a different admin, get a different one).
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.
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!
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?
I have allergies.
…without use of a cutting and pasting intermediary.
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).
It’s true. Some flowers grow very well in shitholes. Others may not, but whatever.
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.
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.
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.
I definitely prefer a short OP. I already have enough books I haven’t read that I need to get to.
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.
Again, you can change the culture without imposing your preferences through the rules.
I’m just trying to be culturally sensitive and build bridges. You Canadians love you some Mao, I know. 😉
Maybe he’s an alt-libertarian.
We don’t know that either
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.
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.
You are already growing into your position of moderator heir apparent. Thinking of your subjects first.
It’s sad, really, that others don’t see my incessant whining in that same light.
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!
Perhaps she has him blocked by now.
A point I’ve made many times. Even Patrick agrees.
Participation at Dr Liddle’s blog implies acceptance of the rules of engagement she has chosen for her blog.
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.
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.
I see that ,it is the reading part that is the most annoying.
Then I guess we have her decision. 🙂
From Petticoat Junction?
Now might be the time for a lowball offer. Why settle for moderator when you can be king?
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.
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
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.
Alan Fox,
Sorry I slept in. Why was keiths banned? Did he do a libellous act?
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.
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.
Would you guano Phoodoo’s comment after yours?