Czarcasm, is it possible for a liberal to draw a warning for insulting a conservative?

Blatant moderator bias strikes again:

You pass out warnings to two posters expressing conservative points of view, while letting liberals slide with only a note. Again.

How can you justify letting Rigamarole slide with a note, but issuing warnings to **JThunder **and Balthisar?

Because the note was a warning to all to stay on topic, which JThunder and Balthisar proceeded to ignore.

I see you forgot to mention that ghardester also only got a warning.

No, not OK. Rigamarole posted his cheap shot after your modly instruction, and only got a note. If you were calling it down the middle, either **JThunder **and Balthisar get notes, too, or **Rigamarole **gets a warning.

Instead, the liberal, who believes as you do that all conservatives are stupid, gets to make his point with minimal sanction, but you drop the hammer on your political opponents. This is not fair.

Get your story straight. Unless I missed something, in post #20, Ghardester was not issued a warning, or even a note. It might be considered a mod instruction, but once again you didn’t do the “Mod hat” thing, so it’s hard to tell. He didn’t do anything that was warnable anyway. All he did was call you out for being a biased moderator, which you clearly are.

  1. I do not believe that all conservatives are stupid.
  2. You have again glossed over the fact that a conservative got “just” a warning also.
  3. Would you not say that breaking the rules after two warnings is worse than breaking the rules after one warning?

You are right on one thing, though. The first two weren’t official Moderator warnings-they were Moderator instructions.

This is all well and good, but you better get your hands off Oak’s Medicare!

Which was off-topic.

Are you intentionally trying to interject confusion by using your terms loosely? Ghardester did not receive a mod warning, or even a note. He made a post, you apparently decided to issue a formal instruction, even though you didn’t bother to identify it as such. Rigamarole almost immediately ignored your instruction, and he only gets a note. Two conservatives later comment on how poorly conservatives are treated here, and you hammer them with a stronger sanction than you gave a liberal, even though the liberal’s offense was one of intentional insult to all conservatives, and the conservative’s post merely pointed out how poorly conservatives are treated by liberals on this board. They did not abuse or insult anybody.

But true. Still, I’m not complaining about how you handled that one. I’m complaining about how you handled the aftermath.

Schoolboy crush or stalker’s obsession? Only an interminable number of these threads will reveal the truth…

I dunno.

I guess i’m one of the liberal “usual suspects” around here, but i think Oakminster has a point in this particular case.

Here’s the chronology:

12:41 p.m.

2:29 p.m.

3:04 p.m.

(A post that effective reiterates his earlier assertion that conservative and intellectual are mutually exclusive terms.)

4:32 p.m.

7:07 a.m.

7:28 a.m.

As far as i can tell, Rigamarole made a direct assertion that conservative and intellectual are incompatible terms, made the same assertion again after a moderator had told everyone to stay on topic, and received a Moderator Note for it.

JThunder made no claims about the intelligence or intellectual capacity of anyone, but did make some off-topic general remarks about the moderation of the board, and received an explicit Moderator Warning, including the words “Infraction issued.”

I’m not arguing that either of these sins was especially heinous. In fact, if they had both passed with nothing more than an admonition to keep on track, then i wouldn’t have cared. But it seems to me that, whether or not they were egregious breaches of the rules, they were both about equally bad, and yet only one received an official warning or infraction.

I have no bone to pick with Rigamarole, and nor do i particularly want him to receive a warning. I feel similarly about JThunder. This isn’t about them. It’s about the fact that we should be able to expect a certain amount of consistency in the way this place is moderated, and it looks rather bad when moderators appear to give more breaks to people who share their political outlook. Czarcasm, even if this wasn’t what you intended, it certainly could appear that way.

I don’t see the inconsistency. Czarcasm gave everyone in the thread two notices to keep on topic. No warnings issued before then – just reminders, with the second one being more sternly stated than the first, since Rigmarole had already ignored one note. When JThunder ignored both instructions, Czarcasm got fed up and finally issued a warning. Makes sense to me. A three-strikes-and-you’re-out sorta deal.

Perhaps he’d have done so to a liberal who’d ignored multiple instructions to shut the hell up or stay on topic. Fortunately for them, none did.

It doesn’t matter in my mind if the people breaking the rules are conservative, liberal or libertarian. I gave two general warnings to stay on topic, then issued infractions to those who refused to do so. If a certain type of poster gets more infractions than another type of poster, perhaps it is because the former type disobeys Moderator instructions more often than the latter. Thus the bias might not be with the Moderator, but with the poster.

By why should it need multiple instructions?

If things have gotten bad enough, in an IMHO thread, that a moderator feels the need to come in and say:

then shouldn’t that be enough? Is there a rule that i missed somewhere that allows you to ignore the first moderator instruction, and not the second one?

Thank you. Made the point better than I did, and analyzed the situation objectively.

To directly answer the thread’s title: It is entirely possible, and probably likely, for a liberal to draw a warning for insulting a conservative if said liberal ignored warnings to knock it off.

“If a certain type of poster”? (Emphasis mine.) The wording struck me as odd.

Are you implying that the conservative posters here garner more infractions?

Or by “type”, do you mean “Troll”?

Posters don’t get to issue warnings. Posters are not officially sanctioned “Board Leaders” who are expected to set an example for others to follow.

I know you hate me. I accept that, even though I’m baffled as to why. Put your personal animosity towards me aside for a minute.

Even if I accept that you honestly believe you are not moderating in accord with your liberal agenda, and you do not intend to discriminate against conservative posters, the outcome of your actions remains the same. Liberals skate while conservatives get hammered for the same or lesser offenses.

Maybe your political views are so strong that you honestly do not see a statement like “All anti-abortion activists are the equivalents of NAMBLA and the KKK” as being objectionable or even mildly controversial. If that is the case, you need to resign as a moderator. You’re not able to call it down the middle.