I’ve issued warnings to both pro and anti lockdown posters in the last month for political comments in QZ.
Please show a pattern of issuing warnings to anti-lockdown posters.
Then you don’t have differing opinions, do you?
No, you have entirely failed to demonstrate even that.
This place is better without people who act like jerks. One way people act like jerks to rail against perceived bias in moderation without providing any evidence for it. Up until now I had no idea who you were, let alone what your opinions were. Honestly, after reading this thread I still don’t. I’m not sure why you think the moderation staff cares either.
Is moderation based on political views possible? Sure. Has it ever happened here? I think so, on rare occasions. Did it happen with you? Most assuredly not, based on your posting history.
I believe there is something to your assertion of the SDMB having turned into an echo chamber. Unlike you, I don’t believe the process is completed, but I do think we have less diversity of thought than we used to. I especially miss the more nutty-flavored viewpoints. But unlike you, I think that is poster-driven, and not because of moderation (apart from the bans of complete nutcases, which is of course mod-driven). And the examples you list do not in any way prove or even mildly support any of the assertions you made in your op.
You did things inviting mod action. Mod action occurred. The system works. You then assert that other people, who hold opinions differing from yours, were not or would not be modded because their opinion isn’t as outlier as yours. First off, I doubt that the former is true in any systemic fashion. But even if it were (which it isn’t), it is a tall order to prove, or even argue, that the opinions you hold are the cause for this difference in moderation. And you fail in making that argument. Entirely.
As a general rule, “This was modded differently in the a different forum!” is not a strong argument. The different fora have different standards for what is allowed, and for how strongly rules violations are moderated. GQ and GD tend to have the highest standards for what is allowed. The Pit, by design, has the lowest - as I explained in the post you linked to, the Pit is intended to be a rules-light forum, where there are fewer rules to violate, and where the repercussions for violating the rules we do have are much lighter. It’s very rare that I give a warning to someone in the Pit - I almost always lead with a mod note, and only give warnings if they persist in the behavior they were told to drop. So, that post of mine you linked to is not really relevant to your situation. It’s predicated on what is allowable behavior in the Pit, not what is allowable behavior in GD.
Also, while I certainly do not think Jonathan Chance is an asshole either in general, or in the particulars of this case, “Miller thinks you’re an asshole,” is not an argument for reversing any mod action. Any rules infraction can be subject to a warning. It’s 100% moderator discretion whether an infraction gets a warning, or a mod note. The fact that one moderator might have decided a post deserves a lighter sanction is in no way controlling on any other moderator’s actions.
Here, you must pick one of these:
Remember, you can MUST pick one of these.
Moderator Note
Now, this is definitely insulting and being a jerk. If you continue to post in this fashion, you will be warned and this thread will be closed.
And I still have no idea what your politics are.
Colibri
Yeah, that is where I stand.
I’ve said what I need to say. I can’t prove any mod action taken against me had any particular bias and a single instance isn’t going to convince anyone.
But there is a pattern that has emerged, and each individual case can be dismissed. Over the years, those cases have added up, and it is still ignored that it is happening. So this is just one more case.
A pattern comprising individual meritless cases is a meritless pattern. Thinking otherwise is at the heart of many conspiracy theories.
So far, the only “different opinion” you’ve stated you have is that the lockdown should be ended. Well, I certainly didn’t moderate you for that, because my moderation of you was from long before that was even a topic of discussion.
The only pattern that has emerged is that you have interacted with the moderators on multiple occasions. That’s… not a very interesting pattern. If you think there’s more to the pattern than that, point it out.
To answer the OP: I don’t think you are or have been singled out for unfair treatment by the mods. That being said…
This is in a certain sense true, indeed, it is even official policy:
Now, some of the topics in that above list (such as 9/11 Truthers, climate-change denial, Holocaust denial, etc.) are banned because they are wrong, but some others are banned because they are offensive.
Sounds like this whole thing is about things you feel are obviously objective fact, but they are indeed your feelings.
I’ve been warned (unfairly, of course!), I’ve felt singled out. When I calmed down, I realized that the mods don’t even know who I am… which was quite liberating, and meant I could stop worrying about my feelings and learn to express myself in a less jerkish way. Reread this (I have):
And this (yay for mods being too busy to notice us, so I bolded the important part!):
And my reply to your OP?
“That’s like, your feeling, man…”
This is true. But I have found that banning them hasn’t reduced interesting conversations, any more than a restaurant dooms itself to a bland menu when it refuses to serve dishes containing arsenic, cat shit, rotten shark fin, or durian fruit. There’s a whole world of other dishes out there, and there’s a whole world of other topics out there.
Well, durian fruit is pretty good, although in my opinion overrated. Still, you wouldn’t want to serve it in a restaurant, but in a booth by the road way out in the fresh air.
If you start a thread about uneven modding and proceed to break rules in said thread without receiving warnings is that an example of uneven modding?
CMC fnord!
I’m not following any of this, so this is just a suggestion.
But it’s possible that csmodes’ feeling which he’s failing to articulate well is that he was a strong minority/unpopular opinion in the thread in which he was modded, and feels that the moderation was done on that basis, and not due to any objection to his overall ideological orientation (which indeed the moderators were probably unfamiliar with).
Again, just a suggestion. (I did see a bit of csmodes’ exchange on the women’s sports issue and it seemed to me at the time that there was a lot of talking past each other, so I’m wondering if there’s some communication issue which could be manifesting itself here as well.)
Y’know, there are links in the OP, so you could see what we’re talking about before commenting on it. The OP agreed that that particular warning was merited.
cmosdes wasn’t even participating in the thread in which I warned him. He just popped in to attack another poster, who also wasn’t participating in the thread, for something that poster had said in an entirely different thread. That was his one and only post. It was entirely out of left field, which is why it was so jerkish.
I had clicked on all the links in the OP, and picked up that they were on the women’s sports issue and on opening the economy. I had followed the first thread at the time and he was clearly very much in the minority on that issue, and he himself identified opening the economy as another issue on which he was a minority, so it looks like all 3 moderator actions were is such situations. So I thought it’s not necessarily the case that he’s claiming that bias against him as a poster is influencing moderator action on unrelated matters.
But I didn’t read the entirety of the two covid-related threads, so there might have been more going on. And in any event, I’m not making any claims that he’s right about any of this, only that this might be his position (especially in light of what seems to me to be a history of communication issues), and it might be helpful to know that if indeed such is the case.
I don’t think your particular warning is the issue, since he himself agrees that it was justified, as you note.
Durian ice cream and durian cream puffs are awesome and can be served in restaurants without offending nearly diners who don’t like it.
Mediocre durian is fine but not extraordinary, and in that way I agree that the fruit can be overrated. But when you get a top-quality durian … oh my, it is a fabulous experience. The only thing that comes close, in my book, is a perfect tomato that was just picked and has all the wonderful complexity and acidity of an ideal vine-ripened fruit.
(Snerk. Auto-correct just made that say “an ideal vine-ripened fetus.” I’m slightly sorry I caught that before submitting.)
That’s kinda why I put 'em on the list. Even if you think those are perfectly delicious dishes, do you go to restaurants that won’t serve durian and scold them for making their entire menu bland and echo-chambery just because they won’t use this one ingredient?
No matter how much you like durian ice cream, I bet you don’t do that.
So what you’re saying is that there is a clear moderator bias against people who violate the board rules, as evidenced by the fact that people who don’t break the board rules are almost never given warnings whereas people that do often are? Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!