RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (40) < ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 >   
  Topic: The Skeptical Zone, with Lizzie< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2018,02:12   

Quote (clamboy @ Sep. 06 2018,17:56)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Sep. 05 2018,17:30)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Sep. 05 2018,17:10)
   
Quote

Welcome a new overlord!
Posted on September 5, 2018 by Elizabeth

I’m very pleased to say that Mung has very kindly agreed to join the admin team.

Thank you so much Mung, and welcome!
...

The descent (IMO) continues.
Link

Now you'll see some serious misuse of moderator powers with Mung the ID-Creationist troll at the helm.

The choice of Mung as a moderator is...interesting (read: kinda weird, IMHO). Most of what I read from Mung at TSZ is, to my mind, worthless mockery and childishness, but hey, I am a lurker. Yet there are times when, in my opinion, Mung shows a  streak of decency. Will that guide his actions, or will it be his usual boring self who pretends to be a trickster?

Well, he offered! TSZ is Lizzie's experiment, after all. I don't think the sky will fall in.

The idea is to offer a venue where people with widely diverging views could discuss their differences. I like to think of it (repetition follows) as a "Field of Dreams". Lizzie built it hoping they would come. All are welcome that would like to play baseball. Those trying to play ice hockey will struggle with baseball rules. Those that want everyone else to play ice hockey...

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2018,02:54   

Alan:
Quote
The idea is to offer a venue where people with widely diverging views could discuss their differences.

You've undermined that goal through your chronic and childish abuse of your moderator privileges.

Quote
I like to think of it (repetition follows) as a "Field of Dreams". Lizzie built it hoping they would come. All are welcome that would like to play baseball. Those trying to play ice hockey will struggle with baseball rules.

And yet anyone who has read this thread (or the Squawk Box thread at TSZ, or the Moderation Issues threads) can see how you've refused to honor Lizzie's aims and how you've violated her rules.  You've even stooped to censoring people.

You're a hypocrite, Alan.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 07 2018,01:02

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Patrick



Posts: 637
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2018,08:12   

Alan claims:
 
Quote
 
Quote
The suspension was intended to stop the unwarranted abuse Neil and DNA-Jock were getting from Keiths for their efforts in trying to solve the problem of the arguably libellous OP.


And let me just point out there were two separate issues. First keiths posted the arguably libellous OP. Then he was impervious to any suggestion that it was unacceptable, meaning TSZ admins had to take action. Keiths is being very selective in spinning his story.

Anyway, keiths is able to comment at TSZ. The only restriction is that his comments are being held in the moderation queue and will be released as soon as practicable. There are no restrictions at all on Patrick's ability to comment at TSZ.

This is the extent of censorship at TSZ.


Let's do this by the numbers.

1.  keiths posted an OP that accused Joshua Swamidass of dishonesty at the blog peacefulscience.org.

2.  The TSZ admins, including at least Alan and Neil, first modified the post (a violation of an explicit TSZ rule) then hid it along with all of the related comments (another violation of an explicit TSZ rule).

3.  When discussing the issue with Elizabeth, she told them to "put him in pre-moderation, and explain why. If the problem recurs, ban."

4.  keiths rewrote his post to address Alan's and Neil's concerns.  Neil refused to allow it to be posted.

5.  Instead of following Elizabeth's instructions, the admins banned keiths for 30 days.  There is no rule that gives them that authority.

6.  I got an email from another TSZ member explaining the situation.  I caught up with the site after my time away and contacted Elizabeth by email to raise my concerns about abuse of admin privileges.

7.  Elizabeth opened the Squawk Box thread to discuss the issues.

8.  Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock all refused to allow keiths to participate on that thread, despite Elizabeth asking for all members' input.  Because of this continued abuse of their privileges and refusal to follow Elizabeth's directions, I volunteered to forward keiths' comments.

9.  Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock spent several days attempting to come up with a justification for banning keiths.  As noted above, Alan first mentioned stopping the "abuse" of moderators, despite the fact that Elizabeth established the Moderation Issues thread explicitly to allow criticism of the admins' decisions.  Alan then tried to argue that keiths' OP fell under the rule of accusing other participants of lying, despite the fact that keiths was addressing an issue at a different blog (that was topical at TSZ) and never tied anyone at that blog to their TSZ accounts.  DNA_Jock then tried to make an accusation of "quasi-doxxing" stick in Moderation Issues.  The fact that none of the admins could identify a specific rule that keiths' broke supports the conclusion that this was an exercise in settling a personal grudge.

10.  When I forwarded one of keiths' comments to the Moderation Issues thread, it and a response to it were moved to Guano.  This is not allowed by TSZ rules -- Moderation Issues operates under no-Guano rules because, again, Elizabeth supports open discussion and criticism of admins' decisions.

11.  When I forwarded another of keiths' comments to Moderation Issues, Alan placed me in pre-moderation, despite my not violating any rule and despite there being no rule that allows any admin to do so.

12.  Even after his banning was lifted, keiths was placed in pre-moderation, despite not breaking any rules and despite there being no rule that allows any admin to do so.

As I noted upthread, the correct way to have handled this issue was how the admins previously handled a racist comment:

 
Quote
A member makes a post that doesn't violate any existing rules, but an admin thinks Elizabeth might not want to publish it.  The admin contacts Elizabeth by email with a link to the actual post and asks for her opinion.  If Elizabeth agrees, the admin makes the post unavailable and has a quiet word with the member to explain the situation.  The admin updates the rules page.  The member has the option to rewrite and resubmit the post within the new rules.


That's how a steward of TSZ who supports Elizabeth's goals for the site would behave.  What we actually saw was arrogance, egotism, personal animosity towards keiths, disdain for Elizabeth's goals, and petty authoritarianism.

The arbitrary abuse of admin privileges does far more to reduce participation in a forum than the occasional rude comment.  Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with those privileges.  They owe keiths an apology for their appalling treatment of him and they owe Elizabeth an apology for turning TSZ into Uncommon Descent, UK Edition.

If Elizabeth wants TSZ to truly be "a venue where people with very different priors can come to discover 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." then she needs admins who respect free speech, tend not to overreact, and have enough humility to admit when they're wrong.  Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock should be thanked for their time and their admin privileges should be immediately revoked.

Edited by Patrick on Sep. 07 2018,09:22

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2018,11:07   

This is getting downright Trumpian.  Alan has doubled down on his lie regarding my supposed "imperviousness".

phoodoo, at TSZ:
Quote
What about keiths situation made you feel that the other moderators couldn’t handle it, other than that you just don’t like keiths, so you wanted to take revenge/ You didn’t trust the others to do the right thing according to the rules, so you decided your judgement is more important than other moderators?

What is it about the other moderators that you don’t trust them so much?

Alan:
Quote
As Neil said, other admins were in other time zones. And the thread author was utterly impervious to suggestions he should modify the OP.

[Emphasis added]

Yet I did modify the OP.  Neil refused to publish it.

Alan knows this.  He witnessed it firsthand, he did nothing about it, and he's been reminded of it repeatedly both here and at TSZ.

He is simply, and brazenly, lying about this.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 07 2018,09:10

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Patrick



Posts: 637
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2018,12:11   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 07 2018,12:07)
. . .

Yet I did modify the OP.  Neil refused to publish it.

Alan knows this.  He witnessed it firsthand, he did nothing about it, and he's been reminded of it repeatedly both here and at TSZ.

He is simply, and brazenly, lying about this.

This is an accurate statement.  The rewritten post, that Elizabeth herself asked for, is viewable here:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/guano-3/comment-page-4/#comment-228722

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,04:50   

Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 07 2018,07:11)
 
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 07 2018,12:07)
. . .

Yet I did modify the OP.  Neil refused to publish it.

Alan knows this.  He witnessed it firsthand, he did nothing about it, and he's been reminded of it repeatedly both here and at TSZ.

He is simply, and brazenly, lying about this.

This is an accurate statement.  The rewritten post, that Elizabeth herself asked for, is viewable here:  http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/guano-3/comment-page-4/#comment-228722

Sure, Patrick, I can see keiths went to great efforts to write an OP more in line with TSZ ethos.  
Quote
This OP is being carefully worded to avoid giving excuses to Neil, who has been trying to censor an earlier post of mine, which can be found here.

Joshua Swamidass has made a large number of false statements and has behaved in a way that does not inspire trust.  I have pointed that out at his website, and I have been banned for a week for doing so.

Since Swamidass has resorted to censorship, the appropriate place to discuss these issues is here at TSZ, despite similar attempts at censorship by the local moderators.


A vast improvement on:

 
Quote
Swamidass caught lying at PeacefulScience.org

If you need some entertainment, here’s a story that follows a familiar Uncommon Descent plot line:

Charlatan lies; charlatan gets caught; charlatan digs the hole deeper; gets caught some more; and charlatan, in desperation, finally bans the messenger.

In this case the charlatan is Joshua Swamidass, the blog is PeacefulScience.org, and the ban is for a week, not permanent. But it’s basically the same old UD story.

It starts here. I hope the comments don’t get deleted. Given the recent censorship kerfuffle there, Swamidass will be feeling pressure not to delete them. But the evidence is pretty damning, and it will be painful for him to leave them in place. We’ll see what happens.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,05:14   

I have time just to deal with the following of Patrick's numbered points for now  
Quote
1.  keiths posted an OP that accused Joshua Swamidass of dishonesty at the blog peacefulscience.org.
It was also defamatory, possibly libellous. Joshua Swamidass contacted TSZ admins expressing concern and it broke an explicit TSZ rule that posts (that is opening posts and comments) do not accuse fellow members of lying.

 
Quote
2.  The TSZ admins, including at least Alan and Neil, first modified the post (a violation of an explicit TSZ rule) then hid it along with all of the related comments (another violation of an explicit TSZ rule).


Incorrect. I live in CET time. I think keiths is in Pacific Time zone. The post appeared Aug 1, 2018 @ 07:35 BST, 08.35 my time, 00.35 Keiths time. As soon as I saw it I engaged in an exchange of comments, starting 8.50 am my time. I wrote "Is this appropriate? “Caught lying”? Seems to me OPs should at least conform to the same aims and rules that Lizzie set out for comments."

The thread continued. Keiths's reaction to my suggestion the thread was inappropriate can be read here

Seeing that keiths was impervious to all reason, and suspecting other admins would be asleep, I took action. I edited in a question mark to the title and commented on the fact I had done it.. Keiths immediately edited back in, so I changed his posting privileges to prevent him being able to edit further. I had my own stuff to deal with and it was later that day that other admins also became involved.


 
Quote
3.  When discussing the issue with Elizabeth, she told them to "put him in pre-moderation, and explain why. If the problem recurs, ban."
That was my decision. I've made my case on that to Lizzie. I'll answer to  her if she wants to take issue. As DNA_Jock pointed out to you, TSZ admins have plenipotentiary powers and she is on record as expecting admins to use their initiative when she is unavailable.

 
Quote
4.  keiths rewrote his post to address Alan's and Neil's concerns.  Neil refused to allow it to be posted.


This is laughable, see above.

ETA

And there has never been any attempt by keiths to support his accusation that Joshua Swamidass lied. What statements were lies? What justification is there to call them lies? Does Patrick know? Does even keiths know? I certainly have no idea what Joshua Swamidass is supposed to have lied about. Keiths should retract those accusations if he cannot support them.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,05:49   

Alan,

You already got caught lying.  Why dig the hole deeper?

You claimed:
Quote
And the thread author was utterly impervious to suggestions he should modify the OP.


That is a lie.  I modified the OP in response to moderator suggestions, even though I thought (and still think) that the original OP violated no rules.

You have just demonstrated to the readers -- once again -- that you will lie in order to cover up your abuses.  Not a smart move when you are trying to defend your fitness as a moderator.

More on this later.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,06:14   

Alan:
Quote
ETA

And there has never been any attempt by keiths to support his accusation that Joshua Swamidass lied.

Another blatant lie.  Jesus, Alan.  How is this supposed to help you?

I supported my accusation in the thread at Peaceful Science, and I provided a link to the relevant part of that thread in my OP at TSZ.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 08 2018,04:22

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,06:23   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 08 2018,00:49)
Alan,

You already got caught lying.  Why dig the hole deeper?

You claimed:
 
Quote
And the thread author was utterly impervious to suggestions he should modify the OP.


That is a lie.  I modified the OP in response to moderator suggestions, even though I thought (and still think) that the original OP violated no rules.

You have just demonstrated to the readers -- once again -- that you will lie in order to cover up your abuses.  Not a smart move when you are trying to defend your fitness as a moderator.

More on this later.

Keiths doesn't appear to understand what the word "lie" means. It is a statement made by someone, when, at the time they make it, they know it is untrue.

You seem very fond of the phrase "caught lying". You seem less keen to support your allegations.

You claim my statement, "And the thread author was utterly impervious to suggestions he should modify the OP" is a lie. But that is what I thought when I wrote it and it is no less true now, as anyone who cares to can see on reading our initial exchange of comments. "Butt out"? Good grief, keiths!

I'm beginning to wonder if there is not some pathology involved.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,06:27   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 08 2018,01:14)
Alan:
   
Quote
ETA

And there has never been any attempt by keiths to support his accusation that Joshua Swamidass lied.

Another blatant lie.  Jesus, Alan.  How is this supposed to help you?

I supported my accusation in the thread at Peaceful Science, and I provided a link to the relevant part of that thread in my OP at TSZ.

And I stand by this. There's no explanation from you justifying accusations of lying against Joshua Swamidass in the original OP or in the later changed version. I followed your link and still have no idea what you think Joshua Swamidass lied about.

Tell me now.

What did Joshua Swamidass lie about?

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,06:45   

You're obviously eager to change the subject away from your own lies, but no such luck.

Tell us, why did you lie, claiming that I was "impervious" to suggestions that I modify my OP?  And why did you repeat that lie after having been corrected more than once?

Likewise, why did you lie just now, claiming this?
Quote
And there has never been any attempt by keiths to support his accusation that Joshua Swamidass lied.


There was an attempt -- a successful one -- and I directed you to it, asking you to follow the link.  For you to claim that "there has never been any attempt" is beyond ridiculous.

It's one lie after another from you.  (Not so surprising when we consider that you've actually admitted, at TSZ, to having a lying problem.)

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,06:53   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 08 2018,01:45)
You're obviously eager to change the subject away from your own lies, but no such luck.

Tell us, why did you lie, claiming that I was "impervious" to suggestions that I modify my OP?  And why did you repeat that lie after having been corrected more than once?

Likewise, why did you lie just now, claiming this?
Quote
And there has never been any attempt by keiths to support his accusation that Joshua Swamidass lied.


There was an attempt -- a successful one -- and I directed you to it, asking you to follow the link.  For you to claim that "there has never been any attempt" is beyond ridiculous.

It's one lie after another from you.  (Not so surprising when we consider that you've actually admitted, at TSZ, to having a lying problem.)

So no explanation from you regarding whether there was any justification at all for accusing Joshua Swamidass of lying.

Come on, keiths, it's the pivotal point. If you can't justify the lying accusation against Joshua Swamidass, all else is moot.

Change of subject, my arse!

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2018,20:11   

Alan:
Quote
So no explanation from you regarding whether there was any justification at all for accusing Joshua Swamidass of lying.

I provided the justification.  It's in the thread at Peaceful Science, to which I linked.  I challenged you to respond, and you refused.  No surprise there.

So here we are:

1) You've admitted, at TSZ, that you have a lying problem.

2) You've reinforced that by lying repeatedly, most recently concerning the two issues we've been discussing:

a) your claim that I was "impervious" to suggestions that I modify my OP; and

b) your claim that I didn't even attempt to support my accusation against Swamidass.

Both of those claims are false, as Patrick and I have shown.

Why are you lying about them?  It's obvious: Your story depends on the lies: "Oh, we tried to get him to modify his OP, but he was impervious to our suggestions.  And when I challenged him on his accusations against Swamidass, he didn't even attempt to support them."

It's a pure fabrication, concocted in an attempt to justify your abuses.

Your dishonesty is bad enough on ethical grounds, but setting that aside:  How does lying help you here,  on purely strategic grounds?

You're supposed to be defending yourself.  Instead you are convicting yourself.

You are making my point for me.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 08 2018,18:30

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,02:05   

Reminder to keiths. The "censorship" issue at TSZ begins with you publishing this text:

 
Quote
Swamidass caught lying at PeacefulScience.org

If you need some entertainment, here’s a story that follows a familiar Uncommon Descent plot line:

Charlatan lies; charlatan gets caught; charlatan digs the hole deeper; gets caught some more; and charlatan, in desperation, finally bans the messenger.

In this case the charlatan is Joshua Swamidass, the blog is PeacefulScience.org, and the ban is for a week, not permanent. But it’s basically the same old UD story.

It starts here. I hope the comments don’t get deleted. Given the recent censorship kerfuffle there, Swamidass will be feeling pressure not to delete them. But the evidence is pretty damning, and it will be painful for him to leave them in place. We’ll see what happens.


As of this moment, these are unwarranted, unsubstantiated and scurrilous allegations.

So can I ask keiths once more to either:

1. Clarify what statements by Joshua Swamidass he claims are lies, and demonstrate that Swamidass knew or believed these statements were untrue when he made them.

2. Withdraw the allegations.

What's the problem, keiths? Copy and paste those statements here and explain why they are lies. ETA and perhaps also explain what entitles you to call Joshua Swamidass a charlatan.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,02:47   

Alan,

The issue here is your brazen abuse of moderator privileges, in service of a personal grudge, as well as your continued lies regarding what happened.

You're desperate to change the subject, but I'm not taking the bait.

1. My OP violated no rules, as Patrick and I have shown, and as you yourself acknowledged.

You are now rather pitifully trying to backtrack and pretend otherwise.

2. I modified my OP to remove the accusation of lying.  Neil refused to publish the modified OP, and you did nothing to intervene.  Now you are lying, claiming that I was "impervious" to requests that I modify the OP.

3. Even if the new OP had been in violation, the rules do not allow you to suspend anyone for any length of time, much less for 30 days.

Which should be frikkin' obvious at a blog where even the deletion of comments is forbidden.

What the hell is wrong with you, that you imposed censorship for 30 days -- the most severe penalty ever imposed at TSZ, apart from banning -- in response to a modified, non-rule-violating OP, knowing full well that Lizzie opposes censorship and wants her moderators to err on the light side of moderation?  You've shown total disrespect for Lizzie's aims and rules, and you're simply indulging your worst tendencies.

Your behavior, and that of your fellow moderators, has been so egregious that Patrick, a former moderator, is calling for your ouster.

How did you manage to sink so low?

You've admitted your lying problem.  It's time to acknowledge another extreme problem of yours: Your inability to control your impulses, and keep your grudges at bay, when making moderation decisions.

You're simply unfit to be a moderator, and you continue to demonstrate that on a daily basis.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,02:58   

Keiths

Can you not tell me what justifies you calling Joshua Swamidass a liar and a charlatan in your OP at TSZ?

Is it because you have no excuse for doing so?

  
Cubist



Posts: 514
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,05:15   

Apparently, keiths feels that supporting one's claims is only for the "little people", not the mighty and august keiths. Or maybe it's only for people keiths has placed on his shit list?

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,08:47   

Cubist,

Quote
Apparently, keiths feels that supporting one's claims is only for the "little people", not the mighty and august keiths.

Perhaps you missed this:
Quote
I supported my accusation in the thread at Peaceful Science, and I provided a link to the relevant part of that thread in my OP at TSZ.


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,08:59   

We enter cloud cuckoo land!

Apparently by quoting himself thus  
Quote
I supported my accusation in the thread at Peaceful Science, and I provided a link to the relevant part of that thread in my OP at TSZ.


Keiths has supported his claim that he has supported his claim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,09:07   

This is the link that keiths claims supports his allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan. I suggest keiths follow it, find the statements that he claims demonstrate Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan, post them here and explain why these statements demonstrate Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan.

  
keiths



Posts: 2090
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,09:52   

Alan, earlier:
Quote
And there has never been any attempt by keiths to support his accusation that Joshua Swamidass lied.

Alan, now:
Quote
This is the link that keiths claims supports his allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan.


Thus confirming that he was lying when he made the first statement.

What can you do, but roll your eyes?

I asked above:
Quote
Why are you lying about them?  It's obvious: Your story depends on the lies: "Oh, we tried to get him to modify his OP, but he was impervious to our suggestions.  And when I challenged him on his accusations against Swamidass, he didn't even attempt to support them."

It's a pure fabrication, concocted in an attempt to justify your abuses.

Your dishonesty is bad enough on ethical grounds, but setting that aside:  How does lying help you here,  on purely strategic grounds?

You're supposed to be defending yourself.  Instead you are convicting yourself.

You are making my point for me.


The answer, I think, is that this isn't a strategy at all.  Alan simply can't help himself.  Look at what he told us a full three years ago:
 
Quote
@ walto

Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.


Interpersonal conflicts are inevitable, but a good moderator -- like Patrick -- will set them aside.  You never saw Patrick abusing his moderator privileges against walto, for instance, despite walto's continued attacks.

Like any good moderator, Patrick was able to separate his personal feelings from his decisions as moderator.  Alan lacks the integrity and self-control to do the same.

He has a serious lying problem, as he has admitted.  He also has a deep problem keeping his personal animosities separate from his moderation decisions.

He simply cannot be trusted with moderation privileges.

Edited by keiths on Sep. 09 2018,07:55

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Patrick



Posts: 637
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,09:59   

Alan,

Quote
Quote
1.  keiths posted an OP that accused Joshua Swamidass of dishonesty at the blog peacefulscience.org.

It was also defamatory, possibly libellous. Joshua Swamidass contacted TSZ admins expressing concern and it broke an explicit TSZ rule that posts (that is opening posts and comments) do not accuse fellow members of lying.


At least you've dropped the red herring about the rules covering both comments and posts.  The post did not violate the rule about accusing fellow members of lying.  keiths wrote about a discussion on another site that was topical on TSZ.  While Swamidass did briefly participate at TSZ, keiths did not link to his TSZ account.

Quote
Quote
2.  The TSZ admins, including at least Alan and Neil, first modified the post (a violation of an explicit TSZ rule) then hid it along with all of the related comments (another violation of an explicit TSZ rule).

Seeing that keiths was impervious to all reason, and suspecting other admins would be asleep, I took action. I edited in a question mark to the title and commented on the fact I had done it.. Keiths immediately edited back in, so I changed his posting privileges to prevent him being able to edit further. I had my own stuff to deal with and it was later that day that other admins also became involved.


In other words, you broke the TSZ rule about editing other members' posts or comments.

Quote
Quote
3.  When discussing the issue with Elizabeth, she told them to "put him in pre-moderation, and explain why. If the problem recurs, ban."

That was my decision.


So you admit to exceeding the authority granted to you by the owner of the site.  You chose to abuse your admin privileges despite explicit instructions about how Elizabeth wanted to handle the situation.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are motivated solely by your personal animosity towards keiths and not by the goals that Elizabeth set out for TSZ.

Quote
As DNA_Jock pointed out to you, TSZ admins have plenipotentiary powers and she is on record as expecting admins to use their initiative when she is unavailable.


That doesn't apply in this case because Elizabeth was available and gave explicit instructions on how to handle the situation.  You ignored those instructions and abused your admin privileges.  Neil and DNA_Jock went along with it.  You all owe keiths an apology and Elizabeth your resignations.

Quote
Quote
4.  keiths rewrote his post to address Alan's and Neil's concerns.  Neil refused to allow it to be posted.

This is laughable, see above.


Here is keiths original post:
Quote
If you need some entertainment, here’s a story that follows a familiar Uncommon Descent plot line:

Quote
Charlatan lies; charlatan gets caught; charlatan digs the hole deeper; gets caught some more; and charlatan, in desperation, finally bans the messenger.


In this case the charlatan is Joshua Swamidass, the blog is PeacefulScience.org, and the ban is for a week, not permanent. But it’s basically the same old UD story.

It starts here. I hope the comments don’t get deleted. Given the recent censorship kerfuffle there, Swamidass will be feeling pressure not to delete them. But the evidence is pretty damning, and it will be painful for him to leave them in place. We’ll see what happens.


Here is the updated version that Neil refused to publish, against Elizabeth's explicit instructions, and moved to Guano:

Quote
This OP is being carefully worded to avoid giving excuses to Neil, who has been trying to censor an earlier post of mine, which can be found here.

Joshua Swamidass has made a large number of false statements and has behaved in a way that does not inspire trust.  I have pointed that out at his website, and I have been banned for a week for doing so.

Since Swamidass has resorted to censorship, the appropriate place to discuss these issues is here at TSZ, despite similar attempts at censorship by the local moderators.


It is your attempted defense of your appalling behavior that is laughable.

  
Patrick



Posts: 637
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:03   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2018,07:53)
Come on, keiths, it's the pivotal point. If you can't justify the lying accusation against Joshua Swamidass, all else is moot.

No, the pivotal point is that you, abetted by Neil and DNA_Jock, abused your admin privileges to settle a personal grudge against keiths, despite Elizabeth's explicit directions on how to handle the situation.

Discussion sites survive occasional rudeness.  Admin abuses are much more of a threat to their long-term health.  You, Neil, and DNA_Jock are acting like Uncommon Descent admins.  You can no longer be trusted to uphold Elizabeth's goals for TSZ.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:16   

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 09 2018,04:52)
Alan, earlier:
Quote
And there has never been any attempt by keiths to support his accusation that Joshua Swamidass lied.

Alan, now:
Quote
This is the link that keiths claims supports his allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan.


Thus confirming that he was lying when he made the first statement.

What can you do, but roll your eyes?

I asked above:
Quote
Why are you lying about them?  It's obvious: Your story depends on the lies: "Oh, we tried to get him to modify his OP, but he was impervious to our suggestions.  And when I challenged him on his accusations against Swamidass, he didn't even attempt to support them."

It's a pure fabrication, concocted in an attempt to justify your abuses.

Your dishonesty is bad enough on ethical grounds, but setting that aside:  How does lying help you here,  on purely strategic grounds?

You're supposed to be defending yourself.  Instead you are convicting yourself.

You are making my point for me.


The answer, I think, is that this isn't a strategy at all.  Alan simply can't help himself.  Look at what he told us a full three years ago:
 
Quote
@ walto

Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.


Interpersonal conflicts are inevitable, but a good moderator -- like Patrick -- will set them aside.  You never saw Patrick abusing his moderator privileges against walto, for instance, despite walto's continued attacks.

Like any good moderator, Patrick was able to separate his personal feelings from his decisions as moderator.  Alan lacks the integrity and self-control to do the same.

He has a serious lying problem, as he has admitted.  He also has a deep problem keeping his personal animosities separate from his moderation decisions.

He simply cannot be trusted with moderation privileges.

Repetition is not an argument! :)

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1997
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:16   

Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 09 2018,10:03)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2018,07:53)
Come on, keiths, it's the pivotal point. If you can't justify the lying accusation against Joshua Swamidass, all else is moot.

No, the pivotal point is that you, abetted by Neil and DNA_Jock, abused your admin privileges to settle a personal grudge against keiths, despite Elizabeth's explicit directions on how to handle the situation.

Discussion sites survive occasional rudeness.  Admin abuses are much more of a threat to their long-term health.  You, Neil, and DNA_Jock are acting like Uncommon Descent admins.  You can no longer be trusted to uphold Elizabeth's goals for TSZ.

This is nonsense. You guys make it sound like the TSZ admins are perpetrating a capital crime. All that is occuring is a difference of opinion on how best to follow Lizzie’s intended wishes.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:19   

Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 09 2018,05:03)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2018,07:53)
Come on, keiths, it's the pivotal point. If you can't justify the lying accusation against Joshua Swamidass, all else is moot.

No, the pivotal point is that you, abetted by Neil and DNA_Jock, abused your admin privileges to settle a personal grudge against keiths, despite Elizabeth's explicit directions on how to handle the situation.

Discussion sites survive occasional rudeness.  Admin abuses are much more of a threat to their long-term health.  You, Neil, and DNA_Jock are acting like Uncommon Descent admins.  You can no longer be trusted to uphold Elizabeth's goals for TSZ.

Really. Keiths makes a totally unsubstantiated allegation that Joshua Swamidass is a liar and a charlatan and that is "occasional rudeness". Your arguments are insurmountable. I bow to your superior powers of reasoning.

Note to keiths - that is irony.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1448
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:28   

[quote=Patrick,Sep. 09 2018,05:03][/quote]
   
Quote
Discussion sites survive occasional rudeness.


Having recovered a little from the shock. Let me ask in all seriousness if I understand Patrick correctly. It is OK that keiths post the following:    
Quote
Swamidass caught lying at PeacefulScience.org

If you need some entertainment, here’s a story that follows a familiar Uncommon Descent plot line:

Charlatan lies; charlatan gets caught; charlatan digs the hole deeper; gets caught some more; and charlatan, in desperation, finally bans the messenger.

In this case the charlatan is Joshua Swamidass, the blog is PeacefulScience.org, and the ban is for a week, not permanent. But it’s basically the same old UD story.

It starts here. I hope the comments don’t get deleted. Given the recent censorship kerfuffle there, Swamidass will be feeling pressure not to delete them. But the evidence is pretty damning, and it will be painful for him to leave them in place. We’ll see what happens.
on Lizzie's personal blog, I remind you, and totally refuse to substantiate his scurrilous allegations? Is that correct, Patrick?

  
Patrick



Posts: 637
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:33   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Sep. 09 2018,11:16)
Quote (Patrick @ Sep. 09 2018,10:03)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 08 2018,07:53)
Come on, keiths, it's the pivotal point. If you can't justify the lying accusation against Joshua Swamidass, all else is moot.

No, the pivotal point is that you, abetted by Neil and DNA_Jock, abused your admin privileges to settle a personal grudge against keiths, despite Elizabeth's explicit directions on how to handle the situation.

Discussion sites survive occasional rudeness.  Admin abuses are much more of a threat to their long-term health.  You, Neil, and DNA_Jock are acting like Uncommon Descent admins.  You can no longer be trusted to uphold Elizabeth's goals for TSZ.

This is nonsense. You guys make it sound like the TSZ admins are perpetrating a capital crime. All that is occuring is a difference of opinion on how best to follow Lizzie’s intended wishes.

It's not a difference of opinion.  Elizabeth explicitly said "put him in pre-moderation, and explain why. If the problem recurs, ban."  Neil refused to allow keiths to update the post, as requested by Elizabeth, and Alan banned keiths for 30 days, in direct violation of Elizabeth's instructions.

Sure, it's just a dustup on a small blog, but TSZ used to be a forum where I could refer people interested in IDCreationist discussions.  It was a place that demonstrated Elizabeth's commitment to free expression.  As she says in the rules, "it is a principle of this site that comments are not edited, deleted, or hidden."

Alan, Neil, and DNA_Jock have ignored Elizabeth's goals and chosen to abuse their privileges because they dislike keiths personally.  They should be ashamed.

  
Patrick



Posts: 637
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2018,10:39   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 09 2018,11:28)
[quote=Patrick,Sep. 09 2018,05:03][/quote]
   
Quote
Discussion sites survive occasional rudeness.


Having recovered a little from the shock. Let me ask in all seriousness if I understand Patrick correctly. It is OK that keiths post the following:    
Quote
Swamidass caught lying at PeacefulScience.org

If you need some entertainment, here’s a story that follows a familiar Uncommon Descent plot line:

Charlatan lies; charlatan gets caught; charlatan digs the hole deeper; gets caught some more; and charlatan, in desperation, finally bans the messenger.

In this case the charlatan is Joshua Swamidass, the blog is PeacefulScience.org, and the ban is for a week, not permanent. But it’s basically the same old UD story.

It starts here. I hope the comments don’t get deleted. Given the recent censorship kerfuffle there, Swamidass will be feeling pressure not to delete them. But the evidence is pretty damning, and it will be painful for him to leave them in place. We’ll see what happens.
on Lizzie's personal blog, I remind you, and totally refuse to substantiate his scurrilous allegations? Is that correct, Patrick?

First, keiths hasn't refused to support his claims.  He has provided links to what he says is that support.  Whether or not you agree that his evidence supports his claims, saying that he hasn't tried is not true.

Second, even if his claims are utterly unsupported, you and at least two other admins handled the situation very poorly.  As I noted above, a reasonable steward of TSZ who is aligned with Elizabeth's goals for the site would have behaved something like this:

Quote
A member makes a post that doesn't violate any existing rules, but an admin thinks Elizabeth might not want to publish it.  The admin contacts Elizabeth by email with a link to the actual post and asks for her opinion.  If Elizabeth agrees, the admin makes the post unavailable and has a quiet word with the member to explain the situation.  The admin updates the rules page.  The member has the option to rewrite and resubmit the post within the new rules.


Interestingly, while catching up on the Moderation Issues thread, I noticed that there was an issue with a racist comment that was handled similarly to how this should have been.  The difference in response provides yet more support for the idea that you abused your admin privileges primarily because of personal animosity towards keiths.

  
  1172 replies since Aug. 15 2011,22:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (40) < ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]