I’m saying the culture here is to come down hard on differing views. You don’t need to have mod discussions for that to be part of the way things are naturally handled.
I’ve no problem if you want to chalk me up as someone with a persecution complex and paranoia. I was well aware that is what would happen when I posted. But you would think after dozens of other posters make very similar complaints in very similar circumstances the powers that be might reflect on that instead of continually insisting they are right and it is really just all those other people making things up.
I broke the rules and have been admonished for it. The mods did nothing wrong and were well within their rights to do so.
For the last time. You are being given an opportunity to try and understand how your handling of my situation looks from this side, and how it will result in at least 1 more person being unwilling to offer differing opinions. Feel free to stand behind, “You broke the rules! This is your own damn fault! You are just paranoid!” all you want. The result is going to be fewer voices around here.
Did you read the post I linked to by Miller??? Seriously, did you?
“It’s also a very minor, largely technical violation of the rule. There was obviously no intent to deceive, and there was no ambiguity about who had written the editorial text. Consider these two alternative posts:”
Where did I ever argue the punishment wasn’t justifiable under the rules? Seriously Chronos, do you bother reading what I write or do you just jump to what you want my posts to say?
There is no way to prove why the punishments were happening. I have demonstrated that the punishments were uneven. One mod calling that kind of action being an asshole. Another mod who rightly acknowledges slight violations in an emotional discussion needing nothing but a note.
I’m sure you have a better explanation for why my post was handled more sternly than others.
Literally the only other post you’ve compared yours to was one in the Pit. You’ve explicitly refused to look for any other similar posts. I offered you one other comparison–the one for which I received a (rescinded) warning–and explained why they were different, why even my much milder alteration of a quote was considered warning-worthy by a mod at first.
The only thing I wonder why people admit they’ve broken the rules, and then claim they’re being sanctioned because of unpopular opinions.
The only thing I can conclude is that they revel in persecution fantasies and relish the attention, because these people are some of our most energetic and long-lived posters we have. I’m glad we’re able to help you with your hobby!
No they are not. You’ve provided exactly zero evidence that this is the case.
You say that you were warned for altering text in a quote box because you are left leaning (or something), while another poster was not. But the poster who was not warned is one of the most extreme leftists on the board.
Show of hands, here: Does anyone in this thread even know what cmosdes’ differing opinions are? I mean, aside from his opinion that he’s being persecuted.
I was thinking this was a pretty typical conservative soccer-flop, i.e. “DO YOU KNOW WHY PEOPLE DON’T COME HERE? I WILL NOW TELL YOU! IT’S BECAUSE OF WHY I WAS MODERATED”
If not, we may have identified a new species of martyr.
You can mock me, call me paranoid, whatever makes you feel better. If you find this place better without differing opinions, keep doing what you’re doing.
If you feel this place encourages discourse and open discussions with varying opinions, then I am exactly as you say. If you look around and notice how narrow the discussions have become, how limited opposing views are to be found, perhaps you can stop for a moment think maybe, just maybe, some of these people saying these things have a point. Maybe.
You say you are left leaning, but people think you are right leaning. I agree that is…different. So could you explain what exact “differing opinions” you hold? Because I now don’t have the slightest idea of what they are.
Mods sometimes will issue notes for rules violations instead of warnings. You’ve provided zero evidence that any political considerations were involved in making that a note instead of a warning. And you’ve provided zero evidence that your own warnings were due to your politics or opinions, whatever they might be.
There are a couple of issues which I tend to very much differ from the mainstream left platform. Ending the lockdown is one. But in most other areas, I’m very left leaning. Healthcare, gun control, abortion, removal of Trump, etc. are all areas I’m in agreement with the left.
No mod is going to moderate and put, “I’m doing this because I don’t like your stance.” So no, I can’t prove it. I can demonstrate how moding is being handled unevenly.
i just made my first Google Forms multiple-choice quiz (yay online learning!) so here’s how I’d phrase this one.
Reread this thread. Based on the evidence in the thread, what’s the most likely explanation for uneven modding?
a) Different mods have their own unique approaches to moderation and are encouraged to use their best judgment.
b) Different forums have different norms for behavior and are moderated differently.
c) Different posts have different characteristics that result in different moderation, even when they have superficially similar characteristics.
d) Moderators are singling cmosdes out for his views, which are either left-leaning or right-leaning or something else, and are either conspiring to moderate him differently or else are all deciding independently to moderate him differently.
Serious question, cmosdes. Which of these do you choose?