Aspenglow is biased in her moderation based on her political views

From this thread:

Appropriate punishment for Trump? - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board

The OP requested “realistic and practical” answers to his query. Of course, as the OP predicted, some posters proceeded to go off the rails with suggestions such as execution and banishment to Moscow.
Neither of which are realistic or practical.

Those responses are a hijack, or rants, or both, which don’t belong in PE.

Yes, it was reported.

This response to the report was received from Aspenglow:

“For some who feel Trump’s potential crimes include truly traitorous behavior, a death sentence does seem appropriate.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t see anything but politcal bias in that statement.

The U.S. isn’t going to execute a current or former president. Heck, we haven’t even convicted one upon impeachment.

I would appreciate any input from other moderators on this.

The OP said:

You seem to have accidentally left out the part I bolded even though it was in the same sentence you quoted above.

The death penalty as a punishment for treason falls within constitutional guidelines. Aspenglow’s statement is literally accurate. Your own feelings and bias don’t change that.

It’s not realistic, as in it would never happen.

In the interests of keeping this record complete, I’m going to add the entirety of my response to your flag:

I concur wholeheartedly with Aspenglow’s moderation on this subject.

How dare you provide much-needed context.

And even if you do think that the death penalty is “hyperbole and creative” and not “realistic and practical,” the OP explicitly says that such statements are merely not preferred.

If the OP objected to the posts, they are fully capable of reporting them. But, as @Aspenglow’s full DM shows, they clearly were okay with them.

I actually would argue that your summary completely misquotes said DM, misrepresenting what @Aspenglow actually said.

Of course.

I was interested in the opinions of the other PE/GD mods, since the rules about rants in those forums have recently been updated.

I’m just curious why D_Anconia doesn’t realize that even the most hyperbolic anti-Trump/Republican statements are not only allowed in any thread - they are actually preferred.

I’ve read the thread in question and see no violations of board (or sub-forum) rules. This complaint against Aspenglow seems unsupported by evidence, and fails to come across as legitimate.

I would have moderated this the same way.

EHH I dont know the last time I offered a solution for trump and a lot of the current republican party I was told I would not be allowed back in if I mentioned it again …

That’s just completely false.

Here is a hyperbolic anti-Republican rant moved to the Pit immediately.

Another one. (Not even all that hyperbolic, though I don’t disagree with moving it to the Pit either.)

I can dig up more if you want. It happens all the time.

I think that’s his point. Hyperbolic anti-Republican rants are moved to the Pit, more often than not. Just not this one, for some reason. Because Trump.

No current or former President has been convicted, let alone executed. And exile isn’t even amongst the potential penalties. Ranters have to rant, I guess.

If the guidance surrounding rants in PE isn’t going to be enforced consistently, perhaps the guidelines should be changed.

He literally said the opposite.

You are both factually incorrect, extremely so.

@D_Anconia, you wanted to know what other mods thought of this moderation. It appears that the two moderators who have commented so far agree with @Aspenglow, as do I, and as do the other posters here. So if you want a consensus of opinion, so far AFAICT it’s unanimous that your argument here has no merit.

Also, you neglected to point out what specific post in that thread troubles you so much, but if it was the one suggesting (obviously hyperbolically) that Trump is guilty of espionage and perhaps the death penalty should be considered, that post was made by yet another moderator, posting as an ordinary poster.

I’m honestly not sure what you’re on about here. Did you want to see warnings handed out for daring to suggest that Trump might be guilty of espionage? Or did you want to see the whole thread moved to the Pit?

I don’t see any “hijacks” or “rants”. I do see a kind of silly thread that arguably might belong in the Pit. Or not. It’s a judgment call. What I absolutely do NOT see is any kind of “bias” on the part of Aspenglow, who I regard as a very fair-minded and approachable moderator who has been doing a great job.

Allow me, please, to clarify what I was trying to express (I’m the OP in that thread):

I don’t actually believe “treason” (which is punishable by death) can be applied to Trump, BUT

if it were applied, most Dems oppose capital punishment across the board, and so would oppose it (as would most Republicans because we’re talking about Trump here). So: not gunna happen for two separate reasons.

BUT assuming arguendo that it could happen, execution would be the only punishment incapable of being reversed by a pardon, which would be (IMO) a near-certainty if we were to elect a Republican POTUS in Trump’s lifetime (or a Republican Governor in a state where he’s convicted of a state crime). Is this argument sufficient to overcome Dems’ principles about capital punishment? Probably not, but it’s a moot point because treason doesn’t apply, absent a hot war against an enemy state.

In short, I did not advocate execution–I merely addressed some interesting ramifications of it in this unique case.

I agree with the modding, especially as the flag was not of any offending posts but the OP itself which was not a rant in this case.

The rule about rants pretty much applies to OPs, not replies. Calls for exile and death penalty were refuted which tells me the thread is functioning well.

Flags should be of specific posts and not the OP unless the OP is felt to be the issue. Please don’t make our job harder.

Sounds reasonable to me.

In all seriousness, I am much more concerned that DA’s initial post, with the snipping pointed out by @Johnny_Bravo: it seems to me to border on misquoting to make DA’s point, and it’s a very telling snip. I see that @BigT also had similar concerns, and would like a (non-involved) mod to review.

Because that’s a bigger concern to me than the non-issue with DA’s complaint about a post which while highly implausible, was certainly not an impossible punishment. Especially if it turns out that contrary to our actual thoughts, there was a provable exchange of information with foreign powers.