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″]
Right now I’m just trying to collect some data and later I’ll share it. You can flippantly dismiss it at that time if you like. 😉
I’m not trying to be secretive I just don’t want to derail this thread further or spend a lot of time explaining what I will have to explain again when I’m finished.
I’m not a scientist so it’s likely my efforts will not be considered scientific by you. I really don’t think it matters. What I’m doing is useful and repeatable if any one wants to give it a go. that is good enough for me.
My original comment was in response to a question about whether I ever used logic and reason to try and convince atheists.
I was trying to point out that I think there is a time for that kind of interaction but it’s not generally when the topic is God and your counterpart is an atheist.
peace
It’s good to have a purpose 😉
Making someone as accomplished as Tom English laugh somehow makes it all worth it
peace
Rational discussion as per Aluker’s means:
Do not criticise evolution too much because it makes science look bad…
Don’t even mention the origins of life because we have nothing rational to say about that…
Avoid subjects on ID because we just don’t want to hear it…
So, what’s the purpose of TSZ, as per Alurker???
Please tell us what we want to hear, otherwise you hurt our feelings about our belief system…
According to Alurkrer, this comment should be sent guano…
Can’t argue with that… 😉
Remember what the name was of your post was, that could help?
I get that vibe as well.
It’s quite a coincidence that two entirely different people would sound so much alike. It just proves that very improbable things can happen given enough time and opportunity.
peace
what post?? Help with what??
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I wonder if each can choose the other to be their ‘moderator’ under keiths’ scheme.
Is this,detector not an off shoot of the game you worked on, maybe I am confused.
You are not confused. I was
Probably the best post if you want to get an idea of what I’m talking about was entitled
A Practical Exercise in Design Detection
It was the interaction that took place there that inspired me to try and make the whole thing more rigorous and useful and worry less about what implications were drawn from it.
You might want check it out or you could just wait till I’m done
peace
This could alleviate so of the side effects that concerned me , but a couple of questions
And you do foresee any discussion on why certain comments were tagged, would moderation questions outside the moderation thread then be tagged?
Do you see any additional costs incurred for this software change?
So in this system unlike to present one, responses could include tagged comments, would these comments also be tagged since they contain tagged text even if the comment itself was not tagged worthy?
Do you think this system would increase or decrease or not affect the amount of tagged material from guanoed we have now?
I realize this in just in the early stages , just curious about ground level effects.
I remember it just could not remember the name, I can wait for the new version
I think an improvement would be the ability to see all the tags given to a comment by different moderators.
Perhaps each tag color coordinated for different rules violations , not that any actual rule would be need to be violated to tag a comment because that would stifle the free and honest ability to comment by moderation.
Choosing different moderators could radically change the content of the thread so I suggest being able to choose a specific moderator per thread to customize each thread.
And of course ease of switching moderation.
Moderation as an art form,I like it.
With a few tweaks this may make blogs great again.
It’s certainly something Lizzie has championed here as an exercise in clear thinking and as an aid in separating fact from opinion.
newton,
Pretty much all these features are offered in forum software. See here for instance.
Hi Alan Fox,
You mean moderators get paid? Well, I can’t make any promises, but I’d be interested. And by the way, I’d like to propose two rules of my own, which I think we should all adopt from now on:
1. No commenter shall engage in name-calling, whether directly (“You’re an idiot”), adjectivally (“You’re idiotic”) or adverbially (“You write idiotically.”)
2. No commenter shall make derogatory remarks about another commenter (as opposed to his/her views).
I would like to suggest these rules, because frankly, the atmosphere at TSZ is downright toxic, at times.
Comments are still visible on Telic Thoughts and on The Design Matrix (although you have to scroll back to September 2007 to see them – see here for instance).
ISCID posts can be viewed here.
ARN seems to have something like comments too: see this page, for instance. Cheers.
No, sorry!
What I would like most, in a forum, is for participants to go by their real names. Authentication would be by a one-time charge-credit to a credit card at the time of registration.
Alan, to newton:
He was being facetious, Alan.
I’m for something like that, except it should be Internet wide. This anonymity has gotten way out of hand.
Tom:
Why?
I think arguments should stand or fall on their merits or flaws, regardless of the identity of the person making them.
I think pseudonymity is a problem. Very early on [in my internet adventures]*, I decided I would use my own name. (UD is an exception born of necessity). I’m not sure whether it ought to be a requirement though. Web-wide accountability, so that those who publish views are accountable for those views? Subject to caveats, I’d be in favour. There’s a trade off between accountability and free speech where oppressive regimes are involved.
Also not sure about taking payments.
ETA*
keiths,
Oh, well never mind, then.
I think optional anonymity can be a good idea. Some participants may be loath to be publicly identified as wasting time and bandwidth on sites such as these… and may hesitate to express themselves as freely as they would prefer.
For example, public school teachers should not be publicly observed expressing their honestly held views regarding creationism: they could jeopardize their tenure.
That said – any misbehavior would ipso facto require outing… along the crdit card lines suggested by Tom English above.
Such accountability would contribute much to civil discourse IMHO
regarding “moderator issues”: for what it is worth – I have an opinion.
That and a Tooney will get you a small double-double at Tim Horton’s (let’s see how many present are Canadian)
I think there have been personality conflicts in the past and sometimes a moderator was one of the personalities. I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with that.
I remember on one occasion when the moderator was accused of unfair conduct, that the moderator graciously offered to have his behavior scrutinized and evaluated by the community with an online poll. The moderator passed muster and we moved on.
so… in the interests of permitting moderators to participate and contribute: I suggest we continue as is. If others feel aggrieved and think differently; let’s establish a rule whereby participants can challenge a moderators’ conduct via calling for an online poll. This would need to represent the equivalent of a motion according to Robert’s Rules.
A certain threshold would need to be met before a poll was triggered and a valid reason would need to be given.
Just thinking outloud…
TomMueller:
Any misbehavior? Also, do you know what ipso facto means?
So walto loses his cool and accuses another commenter of lying, and you think that this ipso facto requires outing? Why?
Another suggestion:
Three strikes – you’re out: three posts moved to guano would result in cyber-excommunication.
Guilty parties would be disallowed from participation for three months. The privilege of anonymity would be forfeit.
After three months; a probationary period would ensue:
the trigger then would be one post to guano before another excommunication
After three full months of guano-free posting; the guilty party has achieved redemption and enjoys the same three-strike prerogative others enjoy.
Slates are wiped clean on January 1
… or something along those lines.
Same rules apply to moderators: three strikes would constitute three failed polls (explained above)
after three strikes: the moderator could moderate but not participate.
or something along those lines…
Hi Keiths
You reacted too quickly – I had not yet defined “misbehavior”
refer to
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/tsz-the-future/comment-page-6/#comment-210149
ITMT – yes I do know what “ipso facto “means… do you?
Another issue I would like to raise is unbridled quote-mining, where participants spam this forum with volumes of irrelevant cut & pastes without moving the discussion forward.
Suggestions?
TomMueller:
Of course there isn’t anything wrong with that. Moderators are human beings, as are commenters, and personality conflicts can arise between human beings.
The problem at TSZ (or rather, one problem at TSZ) is that the current moderators can’t keep their moderation decisions separate from their personal grudges. The temptation is too great for them; they abuse their moderator privileges in service of those grudges.
If you’re going to have a moderation scheme in which the potential for abuse exists, then you need moderators who are able to resist the temptation. It’s a low bar, but as we’ve seen all too frequently, it’s too high a bar for Alan and Neil to clear.
You really think so? I respect your opinion. However, I do not share your opinion.
Tell you what – ask for an online poll and solicit what others think.
I offered some suggestions on moderator accountability above. Would you agree?
Tom:
You think we should have a poll instead of looking at the actual evidence? Seriously?
Tom,
There’s no way Lizzie would approve your scheme. It runs counter to her explicit wish that guanoing not be seen as a reprimand or a punishment. You’re not only making it both of those things; you’re even outing people as a punishment!
I am inclined to think you are correct
as I mentioned: I was just thinking outloud
Frankly – I have mixed feelings of this site continuing into the future.
There are sophists present who employ spurious reasoning to defend the indefensible.
They fly trial balloons which are immediately shot down with reasoned arguments.
Debate, such as it is, continues until a level is attained which is generally beyond the reach of a layman.
These sophists then misrepresent the rebuttals which destroyed their initial specious sophistry, and lo and behold, refined non sequitors are presented to a gullible church-going public who is bamboozled with ignoratio elenchi, first vetted on this forum
Many of us are acting as co-dependents in this intellectual fraud.
It stinks to high heaven, frankly. Often as not – I have an urgent need for a shower after participating here.
Hell with it all – shut it down for all I care.
TomMueller:
Your recollection is faulty, to put it mildly.
It wasn’t a “gracious offer”. It was yet another abuse of moderator privileges. It wasn’t done for TSZ’s benefit, but for Alan’s. He said so himself:
So we had a moderator, feeling insecure, unilaterally burdening everyone with his insecurity via a “straw poll” that he sent to the entire TSZ readership. He was begging for reassurance. It was utterly inappropriate and childish behavior. We aren’t here to prop up a moderator’s bruised ego, and he had no business asking us to do so.
Besides imposing himself on everyone, the idea of a survey didn’t even make sense. A moderator’s job is to enforce the rules, not to win a popularity contest. Alan’s fellow moderator Patrick had to step in and remind him of this.
As for this:
Where on earth did you get the idea that Alan “passed muster”? He never announced any poll results. Don’t you find that interesting? The guy sets out to vindicate himself via a bogus poll, creates a kerfuffle, and then… silence.
So no, it wasn’t a “gracious offer”. It was an abuse of moderator privileges and a failure that was swept under the rug.
Thanks for mentioning this sorry episode. It bolsters my case regarding moderator abuses, and it offers yet more evidence that we’d be better off with a scheme that sharply limits moderator powers.
On my way out the door, here are the new rules I recommend:
Remove Alan and Neil as moderators.
Hold the new moderators to a higher standard.
Have consequences for not supporting claims.
Have consequences for repeating bullshit after people point out that it’s bullshit.
Encourage participation by high quality commenters.
Discourage participation by low quality commenters.
(If you say you can’t tell the difference or that it’s all subjective, you’re in the low quality group and probably dishonest to boot. See the rule about repeating bullshit.)
Naah. His recollection is a lot more accurate than yours. You complained about the secretive nature of the straw poll, noting
A number of posters supported Alan. Patrick, while being generally positive re Alan, disagreed about the usefulness of a straw poll, but no posters supported keiths, and his deranged assessment. Zero, nada, zlich.
I am disappointed that you quoted from the conversation, yet failed to provide a link.
Here’s one I made earlier.
[/Blue Peter]
Jock,
Heh. What “deranged assessment”? Be specific — this oughta be good.
Also, you mentioned the number of people posting supporting comments as if that were somehow relevant. Do you actually think it’s relevant, and if so, why?
There’s a reason, apparently, that ‘lurker’ is a name for one who doesn’t participate much, but just watches others participating.
“Remove Alan and Neil as moderators.
Hold the new moderators to a higher standard.”
In theory, but not in practise. Alan & Neil are little ‘gods’ to themselves here in Lizzie’s fluffy land of unbelief. They don’t need ‘quality’ reasons for their ‘moderation’. Just ‘reasons.’ And it doesn’t matter if they can explain to you or not.
A ‘higher standard’ here would be excruciating for ‘skeptics.’ Standards themselves are often treated skeptically by skeptics. The skeptics here can’t even come up with a clear image of what they are skeptical about. They turn on each other whenever they’ve stopped feeding on creationists & IDists. Extreme skepticism is of course nonsense, so they slide down whatever measure on that scale of unbelief, as if others should join them.
No thanks, better ways to live full and vibrant human life.
This site is made up largely of dismal atheists carrying on their own personal crusades against religion, rather than a site where people honestly seek answers to questions about life, meaning, human existence, science, philosophy, theology, etc.
For goodness sake, the resident ‘professional philosopher’ on this site is a philosophist that Alan trusts to tell him his own worldview – he is self-admittedly an apathetic human being. This willing personal vacuum of effort places Alan unlike the vast majority of people when it comes to religion and even ‘spirituality’.
TSZ is NOTHING without IDism & creationism to oppose.
Quick type, enter. Move on with day.
I would be okay with that. And I expect that Alan would, too. We would be happy to get our lives back.
ALurker:
Neil:
Yes, it’s clear that both of you have sacrificed your lives to TSZ. Fighting the good guano fight, at all hours of the day and night. No abuses, just noble self-sacrifice.
If you’re serious about this — and why the sudden change? — then how about making it happen, sooner rather than later?
Except for one, the three proposals I’m offering don’t require “official” moderators at all — just admins. Since admin duties are significantly less onerous than moderator duties, it should be easier to find volunteers.
I’ve already presented my “opt-in” and “choose your own moderators” proposals.
Now the “no-guano” proposal. This one is quite simple, as the name suggests.
The “no-guano” proposal:
Next, I’d like to evaluate each of the three proposals against Lizzie’s stated aims for moderation. I’ve already evaluated the current moderation scheme here.
First the “no-guano” proposal.
Lizzie aim #1:
The no-guano scheme achieves this aim completely. Guanoing can’t be construed as punishment or reprimand if it never happens.
Lizzie aim #2:
The no-guano scheme achieves this aim completely, as well. Every comment can be seen in its original location by every reader. Since guanoing doesn’t happen, readers do not have to make an extra effort to read guanoed comments or deduce where they came from.
Lizzie Aim #3:
The no-guano scheme does not achieve this aim. There is no housekeeping; each reader sees all comments and must decide for him or herself which ones are worth reading.
This assessment:
Back then, you ranted:
And walto answered your question:
Other commenter’s reactions:
In addition to walto, petrushka, Neil, Tom English and hotshoe disagreed with you on that page. Check out the following page too – TomMueller told you to stop. Your reaction:
That’s funny, and very revealing; you did the same thing with me – presuming that I had not read the thread just because I wrote “I have seen no evidence…”
Can you really not wrap your brain around the concept that people can understand your argument, and disagree with you? I suspect it happens to you quite a lot. Heh.
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken”
To walto’s answer, I would add: TSZ is a community, albeit a feudal one. The consensus in the community appears to be that keiths is raving. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be if you went and found yourself a different community.
P.S. Mung made fun of you. You may not have noticed.
P.P.S. Your “opt-in” proposal is a good one, the other two, not so much.
phoodoo,
What, like Common Descent, Evolution of Sex, Selection, Drift, Protein Space, computational methods, Species concepts, Christ knows what else? Yeah, if only they’d do that.
No sudden change. In fact, no change at all.
I think the likehood of the plan is pretty low, but if it was implemented I was serious about the options.
As there’s been some discussion regarding my “straw poll”, allow me just to clarify a few facts.
I was prompted to ask the membership their views following Keiths’ stongly worded assertion that I was “unfit to be a moderator”. As DNA_Jock points out, several members expressed disagreement. However, I began to wonder if perhaps others shared Keiths’ assessment and were preferring not to say.
So I used the “announcement” feature on the PM plugin to pose the question, do you agree or disagree with the assertion that I’m not fit to be a moderator? I asked if people could please reply, choosing either yes, no or refuse to answer. At the time I think there were a little fewer than 300 registered members at TSZ, of which the majority no longer post here. I left the announcement in place for a month, allowing time for most active members to catch it. The number of read announcements is displayed so I know that (from memory) 55 people read the announcement during that month and around 35 replied. Among those 35 replies, none agreed with the assertion that “I’m unfit to be a moderator”.
Funnily enough, this is the first time anyone has shown any curiosity about the result and the first time I’ve commented about it.
To bring things back on track, let me try and clarify what I am asking.
There are two questions: “what if?” and “what next?” and the second is contingent upon the first.
Possibilities for what if:
Lizzie returns to participating at TSZ. This is my preferred option.
Lizzie does not return but continues to finance the site. This is how we’ve been operating for some time. The problem is I, and I suspect Neil, can’t continue indefinitely.
Lizzie does not return and does not continue to finance the site (or a problem such as a site crash happens that can only be fixed in contacting the service provider). The site is saved every four hours to the cloud and I don’t expect Lizzie just to abandon the site. It’s unlikely.
Lizzie decides to relinquish the site and invites offers from interested parties. I’ve suggested this to her before and she mentioned she was “not keen” on that idea.
These are all choices for Lizzie alone to make And I would much prefer she take the first option.
How long would it be reasonable to wait? Lizzie indicated that it may be possible towards November. Can we carry on in Limbo till then? I’m finding it difficult to juggle my time now, and come the summer it will be more difficult. I should mention that while we are in Limbo, there can be no major revision of the rules and I* will not take the responsibility of bringing in extra admins. Those must remain decisions for Lizzie.
In the event Lizzie does not choose the option of returning to the site, it seems reasonable to me we can explore how those of us who would like to continue with some kind of venue could proceed. I, for one would be very sorry to lose contact with those here I have encountered, got to know and grown to like.
So, what next?
ETA* Neil may differ with me on this.
Alan Fox,
Thank you for refocusing this discussion:
For reasons already explained
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/tsz-the-future/comment-page-6/#comment-210169
… I think another option should be on the table. Change the format – or just shut down the site.
best regards