It is your responsibility (in my opinion) to present an accurate argument. If you are aware of relevant additional information, what would be your motive for failing to present it?
I think by sidestepping the context the claim you’ve made appears stronger, however when viewed in context it’s entirely unpersuasive. From a distance pyrite may look like gold, but upon examination it’s mostly a worthless nugget. Of course, this is entirely irrelevant to the thread topic.
If you asked me 15 years ago if I believed I was biased I would have probably disagreed. Over time, I’ve come to accept the idea of unconscious bias. I think it’s something to be cognizant of, and I am humble enough to acknowledge it almost certainly exists. In that vein, I think it’s helpful to call attention to situations where this may be in play. Obviously people can disagree, but the conversation is worth having, IMO.
What Bricker is not arguing for is some kind of affirmative action, or different standards, etc. That would be ridiculous. What I understand the argument to be in favor of is methods of moderation that eschew the ability for bias to impact decision making, to the extent possible. That could be more mechanical application and enforcement of rules, etc. I think that approach would cause more problems than it would solve, if any. One of the mainstays of moderation on the board is that things are nearly always context dependent. The main rule against jerkitude is ultimately a judgment call. The moderators are all human (for now) and we make choices using judgment. To date I haven’t seen any evidence of bias that I would object to - we’re collectively a pretty cautious group.
With all that being said, I don’t think there is much to do aside from trying to be as transparent as possible in the rationale for moderation choices, as well as being as clear as possible in communicating them.
I made no such claim.
Why do you suppose that you are able to discern this argument from my words, but it baffles Colibri?
I am not sure I agree, but you certainly addressed the actual point I was making.
I don’t think it baffles Colibri, and I don’t think it’s helpful to go down this path. It’s an unrelated tangent.
This isn’t debate, it’s trying to come to mutual understanding and maybe even agreeing to disagree. There shouldn’t be any gotchas, just folks stating plainly if they think there is a better way, or at a minimum identifying potential issues. That is what can be productive.
I guarantee that should computers take over the modding there will be just as many accusations of bias if not more so than there are now. (‘The code was written by liberals!’) 
And I, speaking Only for myself, am dearly suppine biased [sub]… In more than one sense of the word.[/sub] 
Are there general interest message boards out there that don’t have the problem you seem to perceive exists on this one, Bricker?
I am coming in late to this thread. I have tried to read through all your posts here carefully. This one seems to be the core of your issue - an inappropriately anti-Trump post was not reported, and therefore received no mod attention. Your proposed partial solution (not moderating an inappropriately political post based on whether it is likely to hijack the thread) does not address this issue. As in your football analogy, you are in Dallas. What are the mods supposed to do if an inappropriate post is not reported?
I did not read this prior thread. Why was it necessary, if it already has its own thread, to bring the issue here? It does not seem to be the same issue that is the focus of this thread, which (again back to your football analogy) seems to be that there are too many Dallas fans in Dallas.
From what I can see, you seem to be alleging that the board membership has a general liberal bias which has an effect on moderation based on which posts get reported.
I really don’t see how “methods of moderation that eschew the ability for bias to impact decision making” would encourage liberal posters to report inappropriate posts with which they are in agreement, so that those posts could get moderator attention. Since Bricker is not arguing that moderators are exercising bias in their moderation, I just don’t see how this applies.
Given that in general the board has a liberal bias (to use a broad brush) what can be done about the failure of liberal posters to report their own when a post violates the rules to express a liberal sentiment? Human nature being what it is and all.
So, in conclusion, I agree with Bone’s final statement above. Clarity and transparency are always excellent goals in any exercise of authority. I’m not seeing what else we can get out of this thread.
Exactly. The thread has legs, it’s just not going anywhere with them.
This is also factually not true- board members of all stripes report both conservative and liberal leaning posts. The majority of my relevant moderation activity ends up cautioning people about anti-Trump rhetoric and it’s not the conservative minority who is doing the reporting.
Not exactly.
I suggested that the earlier instance, which involved a post that was reported but not moderated, showed an example of a process that seemed problematic: the decision not to moderate appeared to me to be based at least in part on the judgement that the post wouldn’t cause a hijack.
I suggested that this standard would result in pro-conservative posts being moderated more than pro-liberal posts. Why? Because a pro-liberal post would be less likely to spur hijacky responses.
The moderator involved then averred the reason for the non-moderation wasn’t actually tied to the hijack potential after all.
I think that is faulty logic anyway. A group of people vociferously agreeing with and expanding upon the comment is still a hijack, if the comment is off topic.
I think the point here is that the comment did not merit a mod warning, or even a note, because the comment itself was not a moddable post, in that it was on topic, and its political commentary was at a minimum and was relevant.
The whole sub bit about the hijack is that if a hijack had come about it, the hijack itself would have been noted, with a simple “keep on topic”, but no sanction against any individual poster, including the poster who made the first comment that spawned the hijack. If a hijack had occurred, it would not have spurred a warning or even a note to the poster.
Two completely different responses to two completely different issues, this does not indicate inconsistency.
This is a statement with which I disagree.
In GQ: “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…” (emphasis added)
This post is not fairly characterized as GQ-appropriate. It’s a political claim, not a factual statement, and it favors the political left. It’s NOT “at a minimum.”
You say so. But if it had earned a warning, what recourse would there be? The same people that now piously claim this is at a minimum might equally piously claim that a post which challenged that was a clear violation of the “no political jabs” rule in GQ.
What’s the defense? “I was responding to a post that also violated that rule!”
And of course the answer then would be, “Hey, don’t engage – just report it.”
Here it WAS reported. . . and no action was taken. So the end result is the liberal “statement” remains in a GQ thread, unrebutted.
Moderator Action
That’s enough.
You’ve had two threads now to go on and on at length about how you think that post should have been moderated. Seriously, get over it.
We’re done here.
Thread closed.