TSZ – The Future

Dr Elizabeth Liddle conceived, created and grew this website to the success it is today. It was a new idea. Many other sites can be found where a particular worldview is being promoted or a particular sphere of interest draws people of like interest. TSZ was intended to address the problem that Lizzie saw first-hand at other sites I and many others watched her participate in. Her being turfed from one well-known ID blog was partly the catalyst to trigger this venture.

However Lizzie’s inclusiveness, readiness to put all her energy into taking all at face value in an attempt to achieve real understanding must have sapped her enthusiasm and she has been an elusive figure her in recent times. A huge distraction, I believe is that some participants don’t share her optimism that listening can be as effective as talking when promoting ideas. Dialogue has always been Lizzie’s aim; attempting to see and understand a different viewpoint.

To that end she framed a mission statement, supported by rules of engagement to facilitate productive discussion between people of widely differing opinion. She decided to be a benevolent dictator, inviting participation from anyone with an opinion to voice, news to bring for discussion, scientific discoveries to announce and explain, philosophical arguments to popularize, even religion to promote or criticise. Personally, I think this was a brave and worthwhile effort in view of the increasing polarisation that pervades modern politics and that entrains extremism, insult and ad hominem rather than reasoned argument.

During Lizzie’s absence there has been some dilution of these ideals and the signal to noise ratio has declined. I hope that Lizzie returns soon to reaffirm the ideals she set out originally. I suspect that the wrangles over moderation, argument over moderating decisions, enforcement and non-enforcement of rules don’t encourage her return. So I’m proposing a solution.

I invite ideas from anyone who shares Lizzie’s ideals on dialogue (or who doesn’t) to propose in the comments any suggestions that they think would help to improve how TSZ operates. The rules could possibly benefit from being collated in one place, as later amendments are scattered over several threads. What about a competition for the most concise and elegant summary of the aims, rules and guidelines? On her return, Lizzie could pick a winner, or she could cherry-pick from the best efforts and this would also save her time and hassle that she could better spend setting the World to rights.

So, ideas please!

My first plagiaristic attempt at a rules summary:

Attack ideas and not the people who hold them!

Another idea that Neil has suggested is to add a forum format. I also think this would be good to try. In fact I already did set up a forum using the Elkarte template to act as a demonstration. I invite all interested members to play around with the functionality. Anyone wanting to tweak it, just PM me for the permissions.

Edited 26/01/2018 17.41 CET to add an on-line poll:[democracy id=”2″]

380 thoughts on “TSZ – The Future

  1. Waiting for Lizzot.

    Has it occurred to anyone else that blogs might be to the Twenty-Naughts as citizens’ band radio was to the Nineteen-Seventies?

    I believe Alan Fox has observed previously that WordPress is not a good platform for our forum. A better platform would open up a number of alternatives. Here’s the latest of my bad ideas, off the top of my head: Mothball the blog (keep it accessible, but disable further posts and comments), and set up a new The Skeptical Zone on a new platform, with Penguin pictures, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken,” prominent credit of Lizzie as the founder, and a prominent link to the old site. The new forum would stick to Lizzie’s guiding principles, but would handle the particulars differently (and better), exploiting the features of the new platform. Perhaps, under those circumstances, Lizzie would let the owner(s) of the new site have the domain name.

  2. Before I present my three proposals, here’s an evaluation of the current guanoing scheme relative to Lizzie’s aims. The aims are taken from this earlier comment.

    Lizzie aim #1:

    1. You don’t want to control what people write, and moving comments to Guano is not intended to punish or shame them.

    The current scheme falls short of this aim. Guanoing is seen as both punishment and reprimand, including by the moderators, and it does affect what people write. The fact that the thread is essentially titled “Shit” does not help matters.

    Lizzie aim #2:

    2. You don’t want to control what people read, which is why you’re adamant about not deleting comments.

    The current scheme falls short of this aim, too, because although comments aren’t deleted, guanoing impedes the ability of people to read what they wish. Not only do they have to go out of their way to read guanoed comments, but those comments are then difficult to fit back into the context from which they were taken. This is an unfair burden, especially to those who choose to read most or all guanoed comments.

    Lizzie Aim #3:

    3. I do see moving comments to Guano as a housekeeping function that keeps the discussion focussed on content by removing intervening posts that are not.

    The current scheme is also bad at this. First, only rule-violating comments may be guanoed, so any contentless comments that don’t violate the rules remain in place. Second, guanoed comments often contain content, so moving them disrupts the continuity of the thread. This is why Alan invented the bogus “continuity rule”. He will actually move non-rule-violating comments to Guano in an (often failing) attempt to restore the continuity he disrupted by guanoing in the first place. Not the best judgment.

    I’ll present my three proposals tomorrow and evaluate them against the same three aims.

  3. petrushka: Jerry Coyne noticed over the years that creationists stopped trying.

    I think that is pretty much correct.

    There was a window of time when people on my side of the fence thought that it was possible to convince people on the other side with reason and data.

    We have reentered an error of tribalism when folks don’t really try to convince those who disagree with them they just talk to their own tribe and insult or ignore everyone else.

    the internet giveth and the internet taketh away

    In one sense it’s sad. But it’s better to be sad and realistic than to hold false hope.

    peace

  4. phoodoo,

    I hear what you say, phoodoo. I’ve already asked if anyone currently active and interested enough would consider providing some admin help. What about you?

  5. phoodoo? A moderator?

    You have got to be kidding me.

    ETA: Are you trying to sabotage TSZ on your way out, Alan, due to bitterness?

  6. phoodoo: Jerry Coyne noticed that he was completely incapable of defending his views when challenged publicly, so he banned all dissenting voices.

    But Coyne is all out for free speech… as he sees it, which means he doesn’t want his belief system to be criticized in any way.

    He also dislikes bloggers who are critical of his obsessive behaviour with cats…

  7. fifth:

    We have reentered an error of tribalism when folks don’t really try to convince those who disagree with them they just talk to their own tribe and insult or ignore everyone else.

    Feels good to say that, doesn’t it, fifth? Problem is, it isn’t true. People have been engaging you on substance. For example, I have an argument that I’m trying to get you to respond to. You keep refusing.

    It’s your “error [sic] of tribalism”, not ours.

  8. stcordova:
    Alan,

    FWIW, look at what happened to Pandas Thumb.It used to be the rivalry was between PandasThumb and UD, and then became UD against TSZ.

    PT’s raison d’être and hey day was the ID furore culminating in the Kitzmiller-vs-Dover-School-Board saga and aftermath. It’s hardly surprising interest has waned a bit as ID has gone nowhere. Now the political climate has changed, there is much more (I imagine) for US citizens who use the public school system to be worried about. I’d hope that we could avoid a similar decline that by broadening discussion from the sometimes rather narrow and repetitive focus on religion.

    I’m pointing out PandasThumb to highlight the fact, the declining interest in defending evolution is not endemic to TSZ, it’s everywhere.Whatever is going on with TSZ probably has little to do with moderation good or bad.

    TSZ is still very lively. The main issue, I think, is Lizzie’s prolonged absence. Fingers crossed, that may change soon.

    The report of RBH’s passing garnered less than 20 comments.

    I managed to comment but I didn’t find it straightforward. The comments system there is a pain.

    If I may ask, why did you get involved in this topic and blog. Was it that interesting to you?Did you meet people here that gave you things worth reading time and again?

    I’ve told you before. It was entirely your fault! 😉

  9. keiths:
    J-Mac inadvertently suggests that we all commit suicide:

    How can you be sure you’re going to be alive in 20-30 years?
    Do you have a lifespan guarantee?
    You have recently retried, right? I wish you all the best though comments like this, most of your comments, as a matter fact, do not contribute to anything on this blog other than to your narcissistic, overinflated ego…

    Most people have you on ignore… Have you ever wonder why most of your comments remain without responses?

    Well, you would have to care first…

    Well, bye-bye again! Have nice, long life, if you can…

  10. Joe Felsenstein: The main factor in the declining interest in defending evolution is that the quality of attacks on it went way down.Jerry Coyne, for example, had to start filling his blog with cats, food, etc. because otherwise the defenses would get too repetitive.

    I agree, especially with regard to ID. Once the ID movement failed to deliver at Harrisburg, it ceased to have a point. But now there’s no need while the religious right have hitched their wagon to Trump’s train-wreck.

    Also for PT, the move to the Disqus comment machinery has made keeping track of responses harder, which has irritated a lot of participants.This may be fixable with some work in the future.

    What was the reason to change from the old format? Discus seems more suited to social media. I hope the old comments get resurrected at some point. Some good stuff in there.

  11. Alan Fox: I agree, especially with regard to ID. Once the ID movement failed to deliverat Harrisburg, it ceased to have a point. But now there’s no need while the religious right have hitched their wagon to Trump’s train-wreck.

    What was the reason to change from the old format? Discus seems more suited to social media. I hope the old comments get resurrected at some point. Some good stuff in there.

    Your last response to the “attack” on OOL was:
    ” …There is not one piece of evidence for the origins of life. So what?”
    There has to be quality on both sides. Or at least something…
    Pot calling the kettle black ain’t gonna cut it…

  12. walto: I really don’t know, but I think Vince would be allowed to moderate here if he wanted to.

    How about it, Vincent?

  13. Alan Fox: I’d hope that we could avoid a similar decline that by broadening discussion from the sometimes rather narrow and repetitive focus on religion.

    Amen to that one. This site would be lots better if there was less religion and more science.

    peace

  14. phoodoo,

    I did indeed pass on that offer to Lizzie though I had my doubts as to the seriousness. I had no response to that particular email. I can remind her if mung is still interested. Where is mung?

  15. keiths:

    J-Mac inadvertently suggests that we all commit suicide:

    In 20 or 30 years it’s going to be over for most of us and then, only then, we’re all going to be able to relax fully… Why not now???

    J-Mac:

    How can you be sure you’re going to be alive in 20-30 years?

    Read the snippet I quoted, a little more carefully this time. Pretend that someone else wrote it and that you’re reading it for the first time. See anything funny about it?

    ETA: Screw it. He’ll never get it if I don’t spell it out.

    J-Mac, your quote can be read as equivalent to this:
    “Only when we’re dead are we going to be able to relax fully, so why not kill ourselves now?”

  16. Alan Fox: Once the ID movement failed to deliver at Harrisburg, it ceased to have a point.

    I was around then. My impression was that Harrisburg was not about ID as much as it was about political power and who wields it in our country.

    The bumpkins were being uppity and needed to be taught a lesson. They learned it and as a result continue to abandon the public school system.

    Thus facilitating even greater tribalism

    peace

  17. petrushka,

    Once upon a time, PT, Pharyngula, WEIT were all regular reads for me along with PT. Perhaps there’s too few privileged old white guys to go round, these days.

  18. fifth:

    The bumpkins were being uppity and needed to be taught a lesson.

    Is that how you rationalized it? Nothing to do with sneaking religion into a science classroom?

  19. Alan Fox: Once upon a time, PT, Pharyngula, WEIT were all regular reads for me along with PT.

    I for one miss TelicThoughts, Now that was a quality site.

    peace

  20. Alan Fox: What was the reason to change from the old format? Discus seems more suited to social media. I hope the old comments get resurrected at some point. Some good stuff in there.

    The move to Disqus was not my decision, but was made by PT’s owner, out of unhappiness with the previous platform (Movable Type). The chief problem with Disqus is that the order of comments is forced to be threaded, and cannot be made simply reverse-chronological, which makes it hard to find the latest comments as one has to read all the subthreads. There is also no Bathroom Wall anymore, to avoid having everything devolve down into Yes/No/God shouting matches about what it says in the Bible. (The rest of the PT “crew” seems to disagree with me about the need for a Wall).

    PT needs a recent-comments sidebar box, and I would like to create one, and have been told there is a way. First, though, I need to have the time to get enough understanding of GitHub. Which I need to do anyway for other reasons connected with my phylogeny program package,

    The old comments on PT have, I am told, not been lost and with enough effort, they can be restored.

    Mostly, the problem is that real attempts by creationists (and I’m supposed to say “and ID advocates”) to come up with technical arguments that are a problem for evolutionary biology are many fewer these days. And the drama of court rulings is not there right now.

    The latter may change if right-wing justices keep getting appointed at all levels of the U.S. judicial system, and the Religious Right decides that it can now win in the Supreme Court.

    There are still some new arguments, and I think it is important to post about them and comment about them (here and at PT).

  21. Entropy: I’d suggest admins to also relax a bit and use their best judgement rather than being too quick on guano-ing. It’s not that I’ve experienced any guano-ing that wasn’t clear. I’m just saying that, for example, some themes are going to be guano-able all over for their very nature, like the obvious bullshit called presuppositionalism.

    Yeah well, I’m human. But I’d love to have to not intervene at all. The difficulty is in balancing a free-for-all that resulted in, for example, the Pharyngula flame-pit meltdown against a lock-out for dissenting views. I think the concept “good speech drives out bad speech” is a fine and unworkable ideal. Most folks here have shown themselves perfectly capable of contributing here without any moderating action from admins. I try (may not succeed, but I try) to be a facilitator and a de-escalator. Sometimes I think we miss the point of the basic aim and whether providing a venue for people of widely differing view to discuss their differences is worth working for. I think it is.

    Only imbeciles cannot see how stupid it is, and only imbeciles can convince themselves that they’re discussing in honesty when it’s obvious that they aren’t. I have no problem with “noyau-ing” them, meaning that they proceed with noyau-like rules.

    That ignore button is calling!

  22. William J. Murray:
    What is the problem with TSZ that we’re trying to solve, exactly?

    Not yuge problems. When our snowed-under blog owner has time to return, I’m sure the niggly rough edges can be smoothed.

    Lack of participation? Participant discontent? Lack of interesting content? Devolution of threads into veiled flame wars? Inability to have meaningful conversations between opposing views?

    All of those from time to time. Plus admin fatigue!

  23. Alan:

    But I’d love to have to not intervene at all.

    The evidence suggests that you don’t, including the evidence from that illicit experiment you ran in the FMM/Bus thread. The one that you never mentioned again after it failed to give you the results you wanted.

  24. keiths:
    Don’t assume that everyone has read the Moderation Issues (4) thread, newton

    Or any of your previous comments in this thread.

  25. newton:

    Or any of your previous comments in this thread.

    Says the guy who was supposedly chiding me for repeating myself.

  26. Tom English:
    Waiting for Lizzot.

    🙂

    Has it occurred to anyone else that blogs might be to the Twenty-Naughts as citizens’ band radio was to the Nineteen-Seventies?

    Oh sure. We should have twitter and facebook links. Otherwise it’s the way of the dinosaurs!

    I believe Alan Fox has observed previously that WordPress is not a good platform for our forum. A better platform would open up a number of alternatives. Here’s the latest of my bad ideas, off the top of my head: Mothball the blog (keep it accessible, but disable further posts and comments), and set up a new The Skeptical Zone on a new platform, with Penguin pictures, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken,” prominent credit of Lizzie as the founder, and a prominent link to the old site. The new forum would stick to Lizzie’s guiding principles, but would handle the particulars differently (and better), exploiting the features of the new platform. Perhaps, under those circumstances, Lizzie would let the owner(s) of the new site have the domain name.

    I know you’ve been concerned about the archive and I have every confidence Lizzie will preserve the archive whatever happens and I’m still expecting her to take up the reins soon. Additionally, there is a four-hourly save to a separate location so there is no need to worry.

    But I’m broadly in line with your suggestions and, in fact, I put up a forum so anyone interested could poke around and see how it might serve our needs better than WordPress. And it could run in parallel (no reason not too) initially or indefinitely.

  27. fifthmonarchyman: I was around then. My impression was that Harrisburg was not about ID as much as it was about political power and who wields it in our country.

    The bumpkins were being uppity and needed to be taught a lesson. They learned it and as a result continue to abandon the public school system.

    Thus facilitating even greater tribalism

    peace

    Well, political power, who rules and who decides are primary in any human social environment. Another question easy to ask and had to answer.? And even when revelation gives me those answers, nobody listens to me! 🙂

  28. Joe Felsenstein: The move to Disqus was not my decision, but was made by PT’s owner, out of unhappiness with the previous platform (Movable Type).The chief problem with Disqus is that the order of comments is forced to be threaded, and cannot be made simply reverse-chronological, which makes it hard to find the latest comments as one has to read all the subthreads.There is also no Bathroom Wall anymore, to avoid having everything devolve down into Yes/No/God shouting matches about what it says in the Bible.(The rest of the PT “crew” seems to disagree with me about the need for a Wall).

    PT needs a recent-comments sidebar box, and I would like to create one, and have been told there is a way.First, though, I need to have the time to get enough understanding of GitHub.Which I need to do anyway for other reasons connected with my phylogeny program package,

    The old comments on PT have, I am told, not been lost and with enough effort, they can be restored.

    Mostly, the problem is that real attempts by creationists (and I’m supposed to say “and ID advocates”) to come up with technical arguments that are a problem for evolutionary biology are many fewer these days.And the drama of court rulings is not there right now.

    The latter may change if right-wing justices keep getting appointed at all levels of the U.S. judicial system, and the Religious Right decides that it can now win in the Supreme Court.

    There are still some new arguments, and I think it is important to post about them and comment about them (here and at PT).

    Thanks for that, Joe. Would you be up for offering a bit of admin help? Your pa-trolling at PT always seemed very fair and effective.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: I for one miss TelicThoughts, Now that was a quality site.

    I wouldn’t go that far but it was certainly, probably mostly when Mike Gene was around, a big step up from UD. Shame nobody saved the archive. Same with ARN and ISCID – no trace of all those wasted minutes.

  30. keiths:
    newton:

    Says the guy who was supposedly chiding me for repeating myself.

    Correct, but only because I know how much you appreciate constructive suggestions.

  31. Alan Fox,

    Not that I could, but my style would be to move virtually everything that was personal, virtually zero tolerance. Just say what you need to say about a topic, and leave any comments about the person saying it completely out.

    I don’t know how anyone can argue that a freeforall is better, be that as it is…

  32. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox,

    Not that I could, but my style would be to move virtually everything that was personal, virtually zero tolerance.Just say what you need to say about a topic, and leave any comments about the person saying it completely out.

    I don’t know how anyone can argue that a freeforall is better, be that as it is…

    You could do that yourself now if you choose to.Self moderate

  33. phoodoo:

    I don’t know how anyone can argue that a freeforall is better…

    Who’s arguing for a free-for-all? You’re assuming that the cessation of guanoing would inevitably lead to a free-for-all. That isn’t borne out by the evidence.

    If you think otherwise, then tell us why, for example, there wasn’t a free-for-all on the FMM/Bus thread when Alan Noyau-ized it.

  34. “people of widely differing opinion”

    Except the Moderators are all atheists, right? And their ‘moderation’ clearly reflects that.

    What rule changes will help this situation? It’s not a ‘skeptical’ site, it’s a largely atheist and also largely anti-religious crowd that Lizzie ‘attracted’ to this site.

    Apart from Lizzie’s incredibly muddled thinking, it was her ability to at least listen to and sometimes learn from others that made her the ‘only reasonable moderator’ at TSZ. An apostate herself, with a PhD & interests in cognitive studies, she was a predictable foil for Uncommon Descent, which was/is full of theists. Do you think she should waste anymore of her time pushing back against UD, when IDism has already been conveniently ‘retired’ by UD’s founder Dembski?

    This blog TSZ is a generally miserable place that promotes anger at a God that many people here don’t believe exists. STC mocks atheists here openly (with thanks for being so ‘friendly’ for playing along), echoing the ridicule he often receives as a self-centred ideological ‘creationist’. Most of the rest of the few ‘theists’ here are rather unconventional, e.g. WJM, certainly not role models in the evolution(ism) vs. creation(ism) discourse.

    Mung is enough to ruffle all of the atheist & ‘skeptic’ feathers with his playful sarcasm and light cynicism towards evolutionary ethics and moral, but for whatever reason won’t take further steps than dead-end IDism in a quest to learn how to breath better. Such muck comes from Seattle, yet Mung just eats it up like IDist gods dwell there, unable to see beyond the DI.

    Jonathan B, an unusually reasonable IDist was invited to be Moderator at TSZ. No surprise, he didn’t accept. Why would any Christian of faithful character stain themselves pandering to the likes of Alan, keiths, Neil, walto, et al.?

    Joe Felsenstein is a worthy dialogue partner for his biological knowledge. But when more meaningful topics arise, comes across as far too reductionistic and simplistic to explore the depth and breadth of human existence in an appropriate way. With the number of dehumanising biologists that have swamped more important conversations than mere biology it is astonishing people still listen to them.

    “How about it, Vincent?”

    LOL! A writing opportunity. Of course, he’ll do it. Vincent apparently cares more about trying his long winded arguments at converting atheists (despite his record at TSZ so far? Zero converts) than he does about promoting orthodoxy. He has spent much of his extra-English teaching time hours communicating with atheists and anti-theists. Moderating this site, just as being asked by the Discovery Institute for an interview, must be a great honour for him. Good luck, Vincent! 😉

    IDism (the ideology of Intelligent Designism) has been demolished by theists, almost always more politely than by atheists. Yet the religious at UD won’t allow themselves to be convinced of the demolition. So what else is TSZ good for than opposing IDism? There’s no ‘hopeful skepticism’ being pushed here it seems; just dismal opposition.

    There are better places on the internet with more inspiring and educational voices. Shut the miserable TSZ down & go find them.

  35. I like phoodoo, but he’d probably been an even worse moderator than keiths and me. Too much of a firebrand. There are only a half-dozen folks here with the right temperament for the job, IMHO, and most of them would be uninterested, I’m sure.

  36. Gregory:

    There are better places on the internet with more inspiring voices. Shut the miserable TSZ down & go find them.

    Out of curiosity, Gregory, where do you hang out on the internet these days?

  37. walto,

    There are only a half-dozen folks here with the right temperament for the job, IMHO, and most of them would be uninterested, I’m sure.

    Two of my three proposals (which I’ll present later today) don’t require moderators at all — just admins. And the third proposal is likely to make the moderator role less stressful.

  38. Gregory,
    Hi Gregory. I’m glad you appreciate Lizzie’s special qualities. Regarding religious belief, I don’t I think I could imagine what it would be like to have one. It’s inconceivable. On the other hand, I’m (thanks KN) apatheistic. In a country like the US with still a large majority of Christians and other believers, atheists should concentrate on ensuring secularism in its true sense is safeguarded and strengthened. “Live and let live” is the preferred option for me. I’ve no interest in persuading you out of your personal religious belief and only require the reciprocal courtesy from you.

  39. newton: You could do that yourself now if you choose to.Self moderate

    Not a fun endeavor whatsoever when applied so disproportionately.

    That would be a bit like being buried in a cave, with limited food resources. You decide to ration the food, but no one follows the rules and always takes double what they should. Being the only one who doesn’t take double at that point is pretty useless.

  40. Alan Fox: Well, political power, who rules and who decides are primary in any human social environment.

    I agree, hence my user name.

    If you must have some human in charge it’s always best to have power to be as close to the people affected as possible in my opinion.

    Judges (and moderators) can be worst possible wielders of power. The only reason to have them is to protect minorities who aren’t in a position to protect themselves.

    Often times we find it’s the Judges/moderators who act as the enforcers for the majority.

    God help us. “Your kingdom come”

    peace

  41. Alan Fox: Thanks for that, Joe. Would you be up for offering a bit of admin help? Your pa-trolling at PT always seemed very fair and effective.

    No, because

    (1) I am far too busy, including my posts about population genetics, phylogenies, and their relation to arguments about ID and creationism.
    (2) I have offered to the deities at PT to do some work on a recent-comments box and restoring the old comments. (I need a *lot* of help with that).
    (3) In my “pa-trolling” at PT in threads for my own posts, I sent to the Bathroom Wall all followups to trolling. For example if in an argument about No Free Lunch, troll “IDGuy” suddenly made a comment like “So why don’t you believe in God, when the evidence is so obvious?” I did not allow that subthread to happen on that thread but it went to the Wall where Yes/No/God was eternally argued. Here at TSZ a moderator can’t really do that and the resulting forking of the discussion would drive me mad if I had to moderate it.

Leave a Reply