It did? Who supported the statement? So far as I can tell no person “+1”'d it or the like.
Anyway, this seems like a problematic course of action, in that it provides no real way out. You presumed what the response to your reporting would be, had available a course of action that would have provided at least a data point of evidence, and chose not to take it.
So how many specific examples have you gathered? Adding in Procrustus’ example, too.
So the only person showing bias, then, is you. You’ve decided that mods cannot be fair in the face of a “strong support from the liberal majority”.
You don’t think that bias may color how you interpret events?
Of course that’s possible, as I have previously acknowledged.
Oddly, I am alone in that acknowledgement.
If we move it to its own thread and make it a “I support/I don’t support” poll question, what is your best guess as to the results? Pretty mysterious, no possible guesses?
That’s not true and an unfortunate thing to say.
In all the various threads on the matter, it’s been acknowledged that everyone has biases and as mods we work to minimize any impact on our modding decisions in a variety of ways.
You’ve talked in the past about consistent patterns of mod biases and now about user biases that have a detrimental affect on the boards. That’s what not be acknowledged.
I acknowledge that my perception of a biased result may be mistaken.
Do you acknowledge that your perception of successful prevention of biased results may be mistaken?
The first thing that comes to mind is that you’ve failed to address my objection to your entire line of argument, namely that your proposed remedy to what you see as bias would have had no effect whatsoever on the only two examples of alleged bias that you’ve been able to show, both of which I believe were pretty much shown to not have been biased anyway. So AFAICT, we’re still left with the impression that (a) you have nothing to complain about, and (b) you have no practical solution anyway to the problem that you’re imagining.
That said, to answer your question, if I were passing judgment on your hypothetical comment, I would carefully consider the context in which it was made. Let’s review the actual conversation in question as it actually occurred and see where that takes us:
Poster “A” laid out quite a bit of history and stated, in part:
However, there is no doubt whatsoever that Democrats achieved that result, and carried Alabama and Mississippi as well, only through sickening, brutal, wholesale massacre and intimidation of African American would-be voters.
Democrats of the time were quite open about their methods. “We shall carry the next election,” Democratic candidate for Governor of Louisiana John McEnery promised in 1874, “if we have to ride saddle-deep in blood to do it.”
… modern historians regard the Election of 1876 as only one link, and not at all the most important one, in the depressing sequence by which the United States moved from the promise of biracial democracy and equality after the Civil War to the long night of lynch law and Jim Crow. The important thing about the election wasn’t that Hayes got to spend a relatively uneventful four years in the White House, it was that Republicans agreed, as a condition of his election, to abandon the already-faltering attempt to use the federal government to enforce civil rights in the South.
Poster “B” responded as follows:
I was vaguely aware of some of that FtP, but the details are interesting. Certainly the subsequent history supports what you say. Moreover, depriving blacks of the right to vote is still ongoing and it is no longer confined to the south. That’s what all the voter ID laws are about and note that the parties have traded position.
Now I see that in one sense as a comment on an aspect of modern politics, but it’s one that follows directly from the previous historical account.
Now consider your hypothetical comment. It strikes me as jarringly out of context because it seems to be contriving to defend and justify voter ID laws against an imaginary argument that no one in the thread has actually made. The real Poster “B” is saying, in effect, that “it’s interesting that history has so unfolded that the same prejudices still exist, but in the intervening years they’ve crossed political lines”, while you seem to be saying “hey, let me take this opportunity to tell you why voter ID is a great thing and shouldn’t be criticized like the Dems are doing”. I see a very important difference without even getting into arguments about what is factual and what is opinion – there is a nuanced but important matter of relevance to the discussion.
lol … I’m not nearly as partisan as you think. Quite honestly I’m mostly just in favor of a light touch in moderation and letting reasonable discussions flow, and certainly not interested in thwarting the speech of those I disagree with. Now, I’m sometimes interested in arguing with them quite forcefully, but ISTM that’s what the board is for. 
Hold up–I thought I was clear before, but I guess I wasn’t, and I apologize for that. So let me unequivocally state: I too acknowledge that bias may color how you interpret events.
Snark aside, I’m simply not able to build a credible constellation out of these few stars. There are hundreds of thousands of posts on this board; I’d guess a half-dozen or more are reported for reasons other than spam every day (am I close, mods?) To take a half-dozen or fewer examples of posts, some dating back several years, and try to build a pattern out of them–especially when the evidence for each individual one is weak–just isn’t working for me.
If an individual post is poorly moderated, by all means, raise an issue about that. But making claims of institutional bias based on this meager evidence? Not seeing it.
Somewhere between 15-20 on the weekday by my very fast count. Fewer on weekends. I’d say we tend to waste time at work.
And without telling tales, our most frequent reporter is a conservative-leaning poster. This person has reported almost 300 posts over the last year.
Thanks, and dang. So like 5,500 weekday reports a year.
dammit Bone
Despite numerous threads and discussions, no I have not seen any evidence for systemic bias in board moderation.
I’m surprised it’s that low, honestly. I was thinking a hundred a day, easily.
Is it possible that this is due to selective perception on your part? Or is it only the other side that might be wrong?
Regards,
Shodan
Presumably, it’s the lack of actual evidence of systemic bias, as he said. Bring up some actual evidence, and I’m sure it will be considered. Insinuation and assumptions don’t count.
Not true and very unfortunate, eh?
Of course. Anything is possible. But thread after thread on this topic has demonstrated no compelling evidence that systematic moderator bias is driving moderation decisions. What generally comes up is that different people moderate differently, in general, and some times we read too fast, miss a report, get tied up with something, miss a joke etc.
Systemic moderator bias on this one subject? No.
“Unfortunate” was referring the comment about “you being the only one who acknowledges it”. It’s been discussed and the possibility acknowledged before. That comment had the touch of well poisoning and victimization to it, making discussion difficult.
That’s the unfortunate part.
So, yes, I stand by my interpretation that nothing I’ve read on this issue makes me think there is systemic moderator bias against conservatives going on. It’s not because I don’t think such a thing is possible. It’s because despite looking at evidence presented I don’t see it actually happening.
Theoretical vs the empirical
And yet you state unequivocally
So it might be unfortunate, but it does seem to be true.
Regards,
Shodan
This is my perspective as well. Out of the literally thousands of reported posts over the last few years, Bricker is pulling half a dozen (if that) examples to claim there’s systematic bias. But there are far more than half a dozen problematic moderator decisions in the last few years; I may have participated in a thread or two on the subject ;).
What Bricker is seeing as bias could be bias, but given the paucity of evidence in the mountain of potential evidence, “bias” is not the likeliest explanation; the likeliest explanation is “noise.”
Bricker, if you think the bias is severe enough to worry about, better data collection is gonna be key. Show, over the period of a month (so, like, 500 or so potentially reported posts), a half-dozen examples of bias. Start today, collect your examples. Be sure that you report things you see that are problematic from both left and right, so you can gather sufficient data.
If you can’t meet even this tiny data threshold–six examples over a month–ask yourself why.