The OP from septimus inveighs against reducing or eliminating federal funding for the arts, and includes speculation about why conservatives would want to do such a thing:
Among the responses is HurricaneDitka:
Then comes the inevitable:
To the OP’s everlasting honor and credit, he protests:
I’m guessing (hoping) the warning occurred because someone reported the post, which was then read out of context.
Point, Bricker.
Yeah, Bone and I have been kicking this around. I’ll rescind.
The use of -tard is generally considered poor form and best practice is to avoid such in promoting debate and discussion. I truly wish posters would. It may be sanctionable depending on context. In this case, the issue was muddied enough - should all be sanctioned? Some? Some but in different ways? None? That the simplest and most just approach is to rescind and move on.
As for the accusation of bias? I deny it, of course, and take a certain offense at it. If I’m biased it’s in favor of clear and honest discussion and not some political slant.
My feeling too. I don’t think there was any bias shown here, not on this evidence.
Thanks, Jonathan. We knew you’d cut the mus… uh, come through.
No, the bias was not in Jonathan Chance. He responded to a report.
Which was my point here when I suggested that in Dallas, speeding cars with Redskins stickers would get more tickets than cars with Cowboys stickers, even with zealously honest cops:
As far as political bias in the moderation here goes, I see more confirmation bias than I see actual political bias.
Or to use your analogy, every time you see a ticket issued to someone with a Redskins sticker, you just assume it’s because of bias. On the occasion when the ticket was issued in error, that’s even more proof to you that it was issued because of bias.
You refuse to even consider the possibility that the police aren’t even looking at the stickers when they issue the tickets.
But I am also absolutely convinced that anything I say on the subject won’t change your mind, so that will likely be my last comment on the topic in this thread.
You’re the one not listening. I specifically said above that the police aren’t even looking at the stickers. I agree the police aren’t looking at the stickers.
It’s a damn shame your last comment in this thread was so utterly in error.
Bricker, I’ll be perfectly honest with you, here.
I see your complaints - that there’s a subconscious bias here - as a form of gamesmanship. They’re an attempt to influence the referees toward granting leniency toward your side of the great divide we find before us.
If I may be permitted an analogy, it’s not unlike, say, an attorney attempting to sow doubt among a jury about their own bias to convict as a means to confuse and obfuscate, therefore increasing his possibility of a positive outcome for his client.
But that would be nonsense, of course. Silly me.
Like ECG, above, I have never seen any hint on the mod loop of political bias - either subconscious or outright - in moderation. I don’t expect you to believe this and further, I expect you to double down on the argument of ‘subconscious bias’ in the board in general. For that, it’s clear that we’ll be forced to agree to disagree.
Is your point that when right-leaning posters brush up against the rules, they are reported more often than when left-leaning posters do so? If that’s what you’re saying, it’s not clear how to solve that on what’s admittedly a left-leaning board.
Taking what you’re saying as truth (arguendo?), if there are more Cowboys fans on the board than Redskins fans, then Redskins fans will get called out more often by other posters. Since the moderators can’t look at every post, they will focus more on reported posts, more of which will come from Cowboys fans. In that case, it could be the case that Redskins fans are flagged by moderators more often.
Is there a solution you would suggest? Give Redskins fans more leeway? Ask moderators to chase down more Cowboys fans?
I suppose I’m guilty of not reading carefully. My bad.
That said, I still see an awful lot of confirmation bias.
One assumption that you are making is that only Dallas fans will will report Redskins speeders and vice-versa. I don’t think that’s a valid assumption.
In GQ, folks are pretty quick to report any politicizing of an issue, on either side. On top of that, we moderators don’t just respond to post reports. We participate in the forums that we moderate, and while we don’t read every post or even every thread, we read a lot of them and will catch things on our own without them being reported.
As far as overall board bias is concerned, you’re living in Dallas. What exactly are you proposing? You can’t change the board bias.
Some of the moderators have a political bias. You can’t change that, either. Most of the moderator don’t have a bias, though, and the ones that are aren’t all biased in the direction that you think they are. And, most importantly, even the ones that do have a political bias don’t use that bias in their moderation, at least not that I have ever seen.
I don’t know what you are hoping to get out of all of this.
Personally, I think you have some issues that I really wish you would work out. Unfortunately, you seem to be feeding them rather than working towards fixing them. We’re not here to persecute you, and you are more than free to post your opinions on pretty much any topic, so long as you do it in the appropriate forum. People on the board most definitely may not agree with you, but you won’t be moderated just for posting an opinion.
And thus, like ECG above, you refute a claim I’m not making. I agree the mod loop and the mods are genuinely as unbiased as they know how to be.
True.
But I can suggest that “I let a reported violation slide because I thought it wouldn’t cause a hijack,” is a method that accentuates the board bias instead of heterodyning it.
In what way are your last two posts NOT contradicting themselves?
Further, I note that you have not responded constructively to my argument about attending to influence the jury.
Well, if you want to drag up something that was already discussed in another thread, the fact that I wasn’t going to moderate it unless it caused a problem wasn’t the main reason that the post wasn’t moderated. The main reason, as I said in the other thread, was that the post wasn’t entirely off-topic for GQ. The part that was off-topic was relatively minor. As long as it didn’t cause a problem for the thread, then the post by itself did not need to be moderated. Moderating every single post that strays from the rules would lead to excessive moderation that would completely stifle conversation.
Characterizing it as not moderated solely because it wouldn’t cause a hijack is flat out wrong.
You already had a long multi-page thread to discuss this issue. Do you really need to keep bringing it up?
And again, what exactly are you hoping to get out of all of this?
The board has a bias. You’re not going to be able to change that.
(2) is not accurate.
I am arguing that moderator behavior is neutral, but that the neutral rules, applied in this particular biased environment, lead to biased results.
I deny it.
One feature of that thread was a demand for concrete examples.
Here was a concrete example.
No, I accept that. But perhaps the moderators can select another, also neutral, standard that doesn’t depend so much on board reaction, and thus mitigate the unchangeable bias.
So are you suggesting the neutral moderator behavior is leading to bad ( biased) results, and this should be changed somehow?
Yes.
Wait, is this that whole equality-of-opportunity vs. equality-of-outcome divide I’ve heard of between liberals and conservatives? Because it sounds like Bricker is actually arguing the liberal side of the question, here.