In The Next "Sure, There's No Bias" Segment

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Bricker

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.

So, you want every rule violation to be noted, no matter how minor?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

That warning is being protested now in a current ATMB thread.

The warning is legit. I hesitate to step in to support it out of concern that my own personal bias colors my view of the warning–but it’s not a politically-motivated bias.

Your solution to the problem–that whether a hijack’s gonna occur shouldn’t matter–is ia poor solution IMO, at least concerning whether notes are given. Less moderation is better.

If there is bias such as what you see, and I’m really not convinced it’s real, the solution lies among liberal posters, who would need to be better at policing their own. I know I’ve reported liberals who’ve overstepped the lines. Whether I’ve reported folks equally? Can’t say.

[John_Mace]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The warning is legit. I hesitate to step in to support it out of concern that my own personal bias colors my view of the warning–but it’s not a politically-motivated bias.

Your solution to the problem–that whether a hijack’s gonna occur shouldn’t matter–is ia poor solution IMO, at least concerning whether notes are given. Less moderation is better.

If there is bias such as what you see, and I’m really not convinced it’s real, the solution lies among liberal posters, who would need to be better at policing their own. I know I’ve reported liberals who’ve overstepped the lines. Whether I’ve reported folks equally? Can’t say.

In that case (the GQ thread) how would liberals “police their own” without responding to the post which would result in hijacking the thread? At which point one would ask: Why not just moderate the post in the first place and avoid the hijack?

[Bricker]

@wolfpup

This raises some questions:

1. How do you feel about the fact that the warning in question has been rescinded, thus rendering moot this particular exemplar of bias that prompted you start this kerfuffle?

I’m pleased that the warning was rescinded.

But the moment the warning was issued it illustrated the phenomenon. The subsequent rescinding doesn’t erase the event. If people who have been falsely arrested can appear in court and have the charges dismissed, it doesn’t erase the chilling effect being arrested has.

2. 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.

Except that we’re in a thread discussing a warning that did occur, and it contains a post that describes a poster deciding not to report a potentially violative post on the grounds he agreed with it, politically. That takes the complaints away from “transcendant magic,” and into actual example.

And of course, you knew these specific counter-examples existed, didn’t you, when you typed the word “magic.” Why?

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?

You say that this is the only remedy you can think of, but you probably read my posts in this thread, and the other thread, in which I offered a different remedy. Why couldn’t you think of it?

3. 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?

The event that sparked this thread gave me a concrete example, to refute people like you clinging to, or claiming, the incorrect notion that my concerns were merely theoretical.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@John_Mace

In that case (the GQ thread) how would liberals “police their own” without responding to the post which would result in hijacking the thread? At which point one would ask: Why not just moderate the post in the first place and avoid the hijack?

Policing their own would involve reporting the post and not responding. That’s what should happen if a post is a hijack.

Some of the folks on this forum have got this weird internet tough guy snitches get stitches attitude about reporting posts, thinking they need to deal with it without mods. It’s stupid. Report and move on if it’s a problem, whether it’s on the left or right.

A post that mildly breaks a rule and doesn’t lead to a hijack is not a problem.

[BigT]

You still have not provided any actual evidence of bias. The examples you gave all had other explanations. Until you can provide an actual list of examples, you can’t show there is a problem. And, until you can show there is a problem, you can’t propose solutions.

Plus, well, you’ve been here for years. Haven’t you noticed the mods never agree to fundamentally change how they moderate? They reject the idea that they should just enforce the rules. At best, you can convince them on small things.

[Bricker]

@engineer_comp_geek

So, you want every rule violation to be noted, no matter how minor?

No.

But I’m suggesting, as I have multiple times now, that the standard “will it cause a hijack?” be abandoned as a threshold in deciding not to moderate, because that question saves liberal-leaning violations more often than it saves conservative ones.

Would you be interested to learn how many times I have offered this suggestion in the pair of threads in play here?

And would you be interested in counting the number of responses that wail plaintively, “But… what can be done? Bricker, what are you asking be done?” or some variant of that question?

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A post that mildly breaks a rule and doesn’t lead to a hijack is not a problem.

But a post that equally mildly breaks the rule and DOES lead to a hijack should be reported?

See the difference?

A mild breach of “And of course, Trump sucks,” in GQ, as a codicil to an otherwise responsive post skates, because who would dispute that wisdom?

But an equally responsive post that ends with “And Trump is fantastic, to boot,” would get modded, because of course that’s going to get a boatload of responses.

[Bricker]

@BigT

At best, you can convince them on small things.

I appreciate your insight.

[John_Mace]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Policing their own would involve reporting the post and not responding. That’s what should happen if a post is a hijack.

Some of the folks on this forum have got this weird internet tough guy snitches get stitches attitude about reporting posts, thinking they need to deal with it without mods. It’s stupid. Report and move on if it’s a problem, whether it’s on the left or right.

A post that mildly breaks a rule and doesn’t lead to a hijack is not a problem.

The post in question was not deemed to be a hijack, so your alternate solution still results in no change to the status quo. A solution that preserves the status quo isn’t much of a solution.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Bricker

A mild breach of “And of course, Trump sucks,” in GQ, as a codicil to an otherwise responsive post skates, because who would dispute that wisdom?

But an equally responsive post that ends with “And Trump is fantastic, to boot,” would get modded, because of course that’s going to get a boatload of responses.

Saying “Trump sucks” in GQ will get you moderated.

Saying “Trump is fantastic” will likely also get you moderated.

Both moderation actions would say the same thing - keep the politics out of GQ.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

Did you see post 26?

Yes, I did. It’s a point of data. Are you expecting a single example of a single poster to affect my position on a general statement about the nature of the board?

Speaking of noticing, did you see the part of my post about providing examples of the derision you’d experienced?

[Bricker]

@engineer_comp_geek

Saying “Trump sucks” in GQ will get you moderated.

Saying “Trump is fantastic” will likely also get you moderated.

Both moderation actions would say the same thing - keep the politics out of GQ.

From a GQ thread about Trump being sued for sexual assault:

@pidgeon92

She going to have to get in line behind all of the other people he’s fucked.

[Bone]

@Bricker

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.

Here’s the thing - I do this too to a certain extent. If a comment that is borderline goes unnoticed by me, and not reported, but I happen upon it some time later either by a delayed report or on my own, I’m much more likely to give it a pass and here is why:

I view my role as a moderator is to foster a communicative environment where discussion can occur. I generally try to construe events generously towards the speaker because stepping in at every instance has a chilling effect of its own - I am cautious in the use of moderation as a result. That chilling effect needs to be weighed against the deleterious impact on discussion that rule violations pose. Each time I have stepped in as a moderator I’ve made that evaluation - a potential hijack is only one possible part of the calculus.

The contrary position is that a lack of enforcement of any rule weakens all rules. I am sympathetic to this idea, however I think on balance we’re not in danger of a system wide breakdown.

[wolfpup]

@Bricker: allow me to correct the numerous misconceptions under which you seem to be laboring.

@Bricker

I’m pleased that the warning was rescinded.

But the moment the warning was issued it illustrated the phenomenon.

My reading of the subsequent discussion is that the warning was acknowledged as a flat-out mistake and rescinded as promptly as I’ve ever seen happen. It appears that JC never saw the OP that used the offending word, and if he had, one presumes that either both posters would have been warned or neither. You thought you had found an example of political bias, but it turned out that you got on your soapbox over a total non-issue.

@Bricker

Except that we’re in a thread discussing a warning that did occur, and it contains a post that describes a poster deciding not to report a potentially violative post on the grounds he agreed with it, politically. That takes the complaints away from “transcendant magic,” and into actual example.

And of course, you knew these specific counter-examples existed, didn’t you, when you typed the word “magic.” Why?

What counterexamples? Your OP was started over a non-issue, as noted, and as for the poster who didn’t report something that he agreed with, I’m sure that happens, but so what? – we’re going around in circles here. You still haven’t offered any solution to the fundamental problem that – I say again – may arise from nothing more than the supposed fact of the board being populated by more liberals than conservatives. If this leads, as you claim, to more conservative posts being reported, they would be reported for all manner of alleged violations, not just potential hijacks, so the only real solution to this alleged bias of reportage if you really believe it’s happening is the aforementioned affirmative action type of reverse discrimination giving conservative posters greater leniency. I’m sure you’d love that, and I’m almost surprised you haven’t yet come right out and suggested it!

@Bricker

You say that this is the only remedy you can think of, but you probably read my posts in this thread, and the other thread, in which I offered a different remedy. Why couldn’t you think of it?

As has been amply discussed in the previous thread and again in this one, your solution doesn’t work, and moreover, your original complaint in the other thread is inconsistent with this demand because over there you were complaining that the poster in question was NOT moderated despite introducing a hijack. If your argument now is that the only criterion for moderating should be a strict interpretation of a rules violation, then you appear to advocating heavy-handed micro-moderation for the slightest perceived transgression, and I don’t think I’m the only one who will tell you that that wouldn’t end well. And I can pretty much guarantee that in the ensuing chaos and flood of ATMB complaints, you would figure prominently, complaining that conservatives were being micro-moderated for lesser trivia than liberals!

[voltaire]

@mikecurtis

[QUOTE=Ben Franklin]

For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?

[/QUOTE]
Frankly, Ben, it’s taking much, much longer than you (and we) thought.

[Bricker]

@wolfpup

@BrickerYou thought you had found an example of political bias, but it turned out that you got on your soapbox over a total non-issue.

Wrong.

It’s a total issue.

The issue arose because the post was reported. This illustrates the phenomenon that I’m discussing - Jonathan Chance responded to the report, saw a violation, and issued a warning. Those steps are not biased.

What counterexamples? Your OP was started over a non-issue, as noted, and as for the poster who didn’t report something that he agreed with, I’m sure that happens, but so what? – we’re going around in circles here.

“So what?” So: the phenomenon I am describing happens.

You still haven’t offered any solution to the fundamental problem that – I say again – may arise from nothing more than the supposed fact of the board being populated by more liberals than conservatives.

Going forward in this thread I will no longer reply to any post that claims I have not offered a solution if that post does not quote the solution I have offered multiple times and explain why the author believes my solution is ineffective.

This rule will ensure that either you acknowledge I have offered a solution, or that I no longer need to speak with you on the subject.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Bricker

From a GQ thread about Trump being sued for sexual assault:

That thread started out in Elections and the post you reference was never reported (and I personally never saw it).

Some posts about Trump that have been moderated:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20044407&postcount=3
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20000730&postcount=22
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20077920&postcount=9
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19147670&postcount=4
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19770388&postcount=19

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Here are a bunch of Trump critical posts I’ve moderated.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20066835&postcount=21
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20051905&postcount=11
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20022521&postcount=13
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20022520&postcount=12

[Bricker]

@engineer_comp_geek

That thread started out in Elections and the post you reference was never reported (and I personally never saw it).

Why, if you had to guess, would you suspect it was not reported?

Can you find a single instance of a post that is (a) pro-Trump, and (b) should have been moderated, but (c) was never reported?

My theory predicts that those are very rare creatures.