It seems to me that someone who refused to believe this bias were even possible would also refuse to entertain the" evidence" presented. If the evidence is reviewed but found lacking, i don’t think the problem is systemic moderator bias.
The possibility has been acknowledged in the past and the fact I’m discussing that I read and consider the evidence, has that possibility embedded within it. The fact that I come to a different conclusion is not evidence it’s not been considered.
His wording was unfortunate, in my opinion. If no one else thinks his wording was unfortunate I can live with that too.
The whole argument is unfortunate, IMHO. This is the only board that I know of that allows moderator actions to be challenged and discussed, and this gives us a pretty good barometer of moderation criteria and board culture. And what we find, objectively, is that complaints are all over the map, much as ITD has indicated, mostly IME around alleging that moderation was overly harsh, or something was misinterpreted, or that some other post was not sanctioned the same way. Rarely are the complaints about bias, and this despite the fact that (per JC’s comment) there appears to be at least one zealous conservative activist among us dedicated to reporting posts.
The two complaints about bias currently at hand are this thread, and this other one that we’ve also discussed here. Both of them, as we’ve seen, have gone nowhere – Bricker as perhaps the most eloquent supporter of the “bias” notion having given up on the first one as a lost cause, and now declaring the same for this one. I actually feel a little bad because I have no doubt that Bricker and probably the other conservatives are arguing in good faith about a bias they genuinely believe exists, and if some of these criticisms of their position sound rather harsh (some of my comments here have come off sounding rather harsher than I really intended) maybe it’s just because plain unvarnished facts can seem harsh if one holds an untenable position.
A claim should have predictive power. I’ve offered a potential prediction (i.e., that in the next month, bias should result in at least half a dozen instances of biased moderation, which can be cited). Certainly there are other predictions that can be made; but without them, we’re reading tea leaves to diagnose history.
There are two objections to moderation currently in ATMB. One involves a warning given to a conservative poster, the other involves a warning given to a liberal poster. Which one was rescinded? It’d be silly of me to conclude that the moderators are biased against liberals based on this tiny sample size. It’s similarly silly to draw the opposite conclusion based on a different tiny sample size.
Of course the moderation here is biased … just consider the rules “don’t be a jerk” and “no trolling” … there’s no objective standard, any and all moderator actions with these two rules is strictly based on opinion …
However, the moderation is consistent … and that’s far more important … we get “fair and equatable”, and that’s always good enough … if we choose to hold certain positions in a debate, then it’s up to us to be very very careful in how we express ourselves … should it be different, I don’t know, it is what it is and it’s up to us to work within the framework given …
The moderators are doing the best they can … and that’s good enough for us … [liberalism] is slippery, so watch your step please …
And none of those six examples will prove anything.
It’s very much like proving bias in the MSM - examples don’t count, and without examples, there is no evidence.
You can lead a horse to water…
Regards,
Shodan
…but if you lead him to a dry creek bed, eventually he’ll wonder off and abandon you.
First, I somehow skipped this forum yesterday. I realize that the conversation has gone ahead but I said I would respond seriously.
The role of moderation on this forum should be the same as all policing everywhere: tread as lightly as possible but ensure that enforcement of the rules is visible as a guide to others’ behavior. That requires a good deal of judgement on the part of the police. I jaywalk all the time but I have never been stopped, e.g. Sometimes I like to play with the notion of using all the modern car’s electronics to record infractions, like changing lanes without signaling, and requiring monthly payments for the total to see what that would do to driving habits.
Here on the Dope I see four levels of mod interaction.
Level 1: group warning against future action: don’t let these comments get out of hand and stick to the topic.
Level 2: group warning against past action: everybody calm down and stop with the insulting.
Level 3: individual mod note: stop it; don’t pursue this line of comments any farther.
Level 4: individual warning.
Collectively, a great number of implied judgement calls are required, thousands per year even if not every reported thread results in mod intervention. We know that judgement can be abused. Back in the real world, court judgement calls became so publicly egregious that mandatory sentencing laws were passed. These began sufficiently long enough ago that a backlash has formed, decrying the inability of judges to apply their discretion when the mandatory sentences themselves appear egregiously unfair.
So we want judgement, but not too much judgement. The issue becomes how to get to that ideal.
To be honest, I noticed that earlier and dismissed it, because I was sure that couldn’t possibly be the remedy that you are putting so much emphasis on. I assumed this was a sidetrack from the larger policy.
Moderating on the basis of a hijack is Level 4, a weak call for courtesy, a reminder to stay on track. Too many of these might become intrusive but that doesn’t seem to be a current issue. A rule violation is more serious, true. It’s not clear to me what rules are being violating. Political commentary in GQ? Historically, that has been handled at Level 3 or Level 2. I’ve reported it many times and I can’t think of an occasion when a mod didn’t come into the thread. You’d have to be more specific about what rules are being violated where. As given, this is a vague notion rather than a followable policy.
Is the moderating here perfect? No. And neither is the policing in my city. Or the court system. Or that of any other large body of people. Or small ones. My wife and I have been married for 43 years and we get along terrifically yet we still find new matters to disagree about. That’s life. I mean that literally.
You should be comforted that we have a much easier method of calling attention to perceived imperfections here. I’m sure the mods don’t like accusations of bias, whether conscious, unconscious, or systemic. That people post them and the mods respond is critical. If they hesitate more often before modding or go into discussions in the mod loop to get a wider spread of opinion is a good thing. They already do that, in my experience, and they also rescind warnings, open closed threads, and allow touchy topics to proceed. Which is exactly what we should want.
If you have a more specific, more workable policy change to suggest I’ll respond to that seriously too. But you are coming across as saying that you want the mods’ judgement to exactly mirror your judgement. That’s not supportable. Not by me, and I think not by anyone.
Who needs it? Once you have your mind made up, its job is done.
Hugz 'n Smooches,
Turnip
This is petulant nonsense. The burden of proof is on you to prove any bias you allege. If you offer ten million examples, but they’re all weak tea, you don’t get to stamp away and say that we’ll never be convinced; instead, it’s incumbent on you to stop offering weak tea for your examples.
Of course, since I’m not alleging systemic moderator bias against conservatives, this bold stand is valueless.
Do you seriously not know what I’m alleging?
Does it matter if you cannot show us specific examples of what you are alleging and/or specific solutions to the problem you allege to exist?
Ok, then.
It matters more that you still are speaking on behalf of everyone.
And that there seems to be a dramatic willingness to misstate what I’m claiming and then attack the misstatement.
“You haven’t offered any solutions!”
“You’re alleging moderator bias!”
-
You’ve failed to establish that what you are alleging actually occurs.
-
You’ve failed to establish that even if it did occur, it would actually be a significant problem.
In my experience, a large majority of political jabs in GQ are reported, regardless of whether they are against the left or the right. My impression is that 95%+ are reported.
For the sake of argument, let’s grant your supposition that, because of the composition of the board, proportionately fewer anti-conservative jabs are reported. But also because of the composition of the board, there are more anti-conservative jabs in general. So a lot more anti-conservative jabs get moderated in absolute numbers.
In a given week, say there are 10 anti-conservative jabs, of which 9 get reported and moderated. In the same week there might be 3 anti-liberal jabs, all of which get reported and moderated. I highly doubt that missing one in 10 anti-conservative jabs creates a “chilling effect,” especially since either no conservative saw the jab, or cared enough about it to report it.
Bricker, you really seem to be grasping at straws to find some bias, any bias, in how the board is moderated (whether due to moderator bias or to the overall climate).
Prolly not if he thinks that what he wants will achieve the goal of greater confidence in the system, right Bricker?
:rolleyes:
I mean, that’s his argument in favor of voter ID laws, even tho for decades now there’s almost no instances of voter fraud that ID laws would thwart.
One of these is not like the other:
So which is it? That there is systemic moderator bias or not? In the absence of systemic moderator bias, why wouldn’t a problematic post not be modded?
I’ve wondered that myself. Using the Cowboys example, is this just another way of wanting the cops to let his side violate rules with less chance of punishment?
As Colibri stated, most of the posts are reported. If there were a problem of under reporting, and conservatives are unhappy about that, then simply report more problems.
This is adorable.
So, I actually get what Bricker’s talking about here - He believes that a major factor in moderator decisions is “will this infraction disrupt the thread/board?” - and since the board is overwhelmingly liberal-leaning, that means that even if the moderators are holy, blameless and bias-free, that their (totally rational and correct) analysis of that question results in liberal infractions getting a pass, and conservative ones getting slapped down.
Unfortunately, there’s no strong evidence that ‘disruption factor’ is a major component of mod decisions.
But even if there were, there is no workable solution here - because what he’s asking is for the mods to ignore their rational, correct analysis and apply an intangible weighting factor to more heavily moderate liberal posts, or less heavily moderate conservative ones.
… which means Bricker is basically proposing Affirmative Action for messageboard posts, which is probably the funniest thing I will see all week.
Sounds like you understand the concept of white privilege pretty well.
It’s that, but it’s also a continuation Bricker’s previously admitted attempt to get more conservative mods on the team.
We had a whole thread a few years back prompted by Bricker and Shodan’s assertions that conservatives are being treated unfairly here -
Should the SDMB have an affirmative action policy for the conservative minority?
I’ll direct your attention to my post #40 in that thread, quoting Bricker saying that he was actively trying to get more conservative mods on the panel.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18755962&postcount=40