How do you feel about the fact that the warning in question has been rescinded, thus rendering moot this particular exemplar of bias that prompted you start this kerfuffle?
My impression from the other thread is that your argument about moderator bias seems to have poked around through various different kinds of rationalization, and as each has been refuted for lack of evidence, it’s finally settled on this vague idea that because there are more liberal-leaning posters on the board, bias occurs unconsciously and invisibly from this fact alone, through a kind of transcendent magic, even though you’re willing to acknowledge that the mods themselves are not biased at all. Such as due to what you presume (without evidence) to be a greater likelihood of conservative posts being reported. IOW, the problem with the board from your point of view is only that there are too many danged liberals on it.
Forgive my long-winded introduction to this question, but if this is the case, just exactly what do you propose should be done about the fact that there are more liberals on this board than you would like? Because the only remedy I can think of is to have conservatives given a lot more free rein to bend and break the rules and say whatever they like, kind of like an affirmative action program for the otherwise beleaguered right-wingers. Is this the remedy you’re after?
When you finally settled on this line of argument in the long thread we had before, you eventually thought it wise to just bow out of it as a lost cause. Any particular reason you thought it would fare better in this thread than it did in the other one?
What about the desire to police one’s own? If I’m a Cowboys fan, and I see a speeder with a Cowboys sticker on his car, I might be more likely to report this because I don’t want Cowboys fans to get a bad reputation. Too, there’s opportunity; if I see a Redskins fan speeding, it might well be that this is the only time he’s in town to speed. Whereas a Cowboy-sticker-speeder is more likely to live here in Dallas, and more likely to make more such errors if not reported - and on a purely selfish basis as a Dallasite I’m more likely to suffer the consequences of their speeding.
You know, if the mods simply banned all the right-wingers here, then none of them would get reported and the problem would be immediately cleared up.
What? It’s as sensible as what Bricker is arguing.
I can say that I try to be scrupulous in reporting political commentary in GQ no matter which side posts it. I hope and trust that Bricker is just as evenhanded.
I’ve lurked on conservative boards where posters are quickly banned for voicing any liberal opinion. I’ve also participated in cannabis/drug boards where any mention of recreational drug use not being a good thing gets shouted down and the poster banned for creating a disturbance/being a narc.
In comparison, the SDMB is extremely fair and balanced.
I report spam and extreme jerkish behavior, but I can’t recall ever reporting a post for its political leanings.
I had an experience yesterday of not reporting a post because I agreed with it. I think it supports Bricker’s thesis.
I saw a powerful. well-written, anti-Trump post regarding one of the issues of the day (Supreme Court, Syria, Russia, who can remember?) All good. About 30 minutes later I was reading a story on CNN.com about the same issue and saw a reader comment that was word for word, the same as the post here. So, there were three possibilities, 1) the poster here went to CNN and cut and paste his clever post there, 2) the SDMB poster copied someone’s post from CNN and claimed it as his own here, or 3) a CNN poster saw the post here and claimed it as his own on CNN. The first two would, if I understand correctly, be violations of Board rules.
If that had been a pro-Trump comment, I have no doubt I would have reported it, given a good chance that it violated a board rule, and fuck Trump, etc. As it was, the existence of option 3 (and the fact I liked what was stated) caused me to shrug my shoulders and conclude “not my problem.”
So, since there are more people who agree with me politically than Bricker on the SDMB, this example tends to support what he’s claiming.
On the other hand, I would be perfectly happy to report a jerkish post, regardless of politics.
There is an assumption here that I’m not sure is supportable. The assumption is that the reporting pattern will follow the leanings of the posters/board, rather than the content of posts. I don’t think that’s true, IME. Sure it happens occasionally that people will report to seek advantage, but I find it to be very rare. YMMV.
I think it’s a mistake to assume that ECG used only one criteria in his evaluation. Evaluating whether to step in and moderate involves a holistic approach, IME.
Moderators are supposed to evaluate the reports and not act merely because something is reported. To suggest a disparate impact as a result of something other than disparate causes is saying that the moderation team is not engaging in a proper evaluation. I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think there is any evidence that is true. Given that, even if there were disparate impact, the simplest explanation is there are disparate causes.
Sorry, Bricker, I too at first thought you were speaking of conscious moderator bias. As for unconscious bias, it’s rather difficult discussing that with the mods because they wouldn’t be aware of it, how could they? Just as in fact you would not be aware of your own unconscious bias. In other words we could all talk the livelong day about this and get nowhere at all.
If that’s happening, I see precious little evidence of it, and when I have asked posters to speak out in GD about weak arguments by their own side, I have received much derision at the idea that it’s required. I grant that this is different than reporting violations, but I believe that the underlying philosophy is similar.
The key question remains, to underscore this point once again, that even if one grants – which I do not – that some kind of de facto bias effect exists due to the number of liberals on this board, what realistic remedy do you propose?
Hey Brick, if you have any useful underlying argument here it would be that the mods should check such threads more carefully and not just rely on a report from a poster. And I’d agree with that, if mods are going to moderate language which is not part of the seven dirty words you can’t call someone on the Dope then they oughta make sure they’re modding the entire thread and not just responding to a report.
I see precious little evidence of the kind of bias you hypothesize. So far as I can tell, you (or anyone else) haven’t provided much in the way of evidence for it, merely the supposition that, given the board has a liberal slant, the Cowboys sticker speeder situation is an analogous theory for what might be going on. I’ve provided alternative explanations which would seem to fit the very limited assumptions so far just as well as yours.
I’d need to see some examples of the kind of thing you mean, here. I can think of a couple of ways that, depending on your examples, this is an inference that hurts your argument.
I agree, but this touches on an entirely different issue that I have concerns about. The “-tard” suffix is poor form IMHO only because it’s gratuitous name-calling that does nothing to move the discussion forward. But there’s no rule against “poor form” unless it’s a specific practice that’s been discussed and prohibited by mod instruction in the past, and if it’s a fairly broad prohibition on style like this one is, I would venture that it should make it into the rules so everyone including new joins is aware of it.
The deeper concern that I have is that one is often inclined, sometimes with a good deal of justification, to have harsh words about certain political groups that would be out of bounds if directed against any individual poster here. If one is vehemently opposed to candidate “x”, one might have some choice adjectives to describe those who voted for him or her. Yet this might be a fairly big group, and might include posters currently participating. The inference could then be drawn that this is warnable because someone is cleverly trying to use this as an indirect method of insult.
The problem that I see is that this stifles robust discussion because we are effectively prohibited from employing the kind of criticism that is in fact widespread in politics, used by major politicians, and found all the time in editorials. If it’s to be understood that “libtard” and “conservatard” and the like are not to be used simply because it’s stupid, I’m fine with that. You won’t find that stuff in intelligent editorials, either. But my fear is that if we can’t be robustly derogatory against “those who voted for ‘x’” or particular ideologies, because it might be construed to insult a fellow poster by inference and so draw a warning, then IMHO we’re severely and unnecessarily limiting the scope of our discussions here. I’m not sure that we’re quite at that stage, but any sort of warning related to how we refer to political opponents as a group creates uncertainties about the permitted forms of such discourse. There are few finer contemporary literary magazines than the New Yorker, for instance, and some of what they’ve had to say about recent political events has been vehemently scathing, absolutely pulling no punches. IMHO that kind of lively discourse should be encouraged, not stifled.
One remedy would be not moderating based on the likelihood of a hijack – if a post violates rules, then it deserves a note, period, not a pass if it is unlikely to develop into a hijack.
