(bolding mine)You keep lobbing this “fact” into your posts as if it is a given, and it certainly is not. It doesn’t become a fact by cherry-picking a couple of posts modded by different people in different forums, and it certainly doesn’t become a fact by repeating the claim over and over and over again. “SDMB liberal majority package”? Is that the reason for the number of warnings I’ve received so far?
No, I’d say your warnings were for conduct so egregious that even your liberal leanings couldn’t save you.
But I understand: you need a peer-reviewed study, or some similarly unreachable standard of proof, before you’ll be convinced.
But Cz, ol’ pal, the fact of the matter is: I knew I had no chance whatsoever of convincing you. You’re not my target audience. I’m trying to convince other readers. I’ll just agree to disagree with you. You’re the Rock of Gibraltar on the issue.
Bullshit labeling to disguise the fact that what I said is true. I never asked for a “peer-reviewed study” or any other impossible standard. What you have offered as “evidence” is totally laughable, and the conclusion you have reached from such weak(almost nonexistent) cherry-picked evidence insults my intelligence. You can pretend that I am being the difficult one here all you want, but all the bluster in the world doesn’t hide the fact that you can’t even provide mediocre evidence that supports your claim.
Not I. All I need is two similar posts that are moderated differently by the same moderator. This will begin to make the case. It might not necessarily be convincing, since no two posts are exactly the same, nor are any two circumstances; but it’ll start. If there’s a pattern of disparate modding, then show the posts that lead you to believe the pattern exists. The more posts you show in the same forum that are moderated differently by the same mod, the more convincing your case will be.
AFAICT, that number right now stands at zero. You, and others, keep offering other things to convince us of bias–but nothing else works. It’s as if I point out that you are in favor of same-sex marriage, but another conservative thinks it’s gonna ruin the institution of marriage, and infer some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives based on this disparity.
It’s a pretty difficult standard to meet IMO. One would have to have records of actions (warnings/notes) as well as records of inaction. I love data, but that type of data isn’t readily available. On top of that, warnings for trolling are not that frequent. Of all warnings logged since the new (2009) warning system started tracking, warnings for trolling represent less than 8% of total warnings given (you’ll have to trust me, but I do have the stats). Of that sub 8%, the top 10 moderators by volume have issued 90% of those warnings, and ITD is not among them. As she said in post #22, she’s not one to accuse posters of trolling too often.
And that just represents the available data on warnings. Notes aren’t logged, so to tally those we’d need to do more exhaustive searches. I’ve said before, I accept that each individual may possess their own biases. Being aware of them is useful, to the extent they exist. I strive to not let my biases influence my judgment. Often times that means I delay in acting, looking at things with fresh eyes to test my initial reaction. In moderation we hope to use our best judgment and that’s about all we can do.
Yeah, I think calls of ideological bias are too easily chalked up as observational bias on the part of the caller. There just isn’t any good way to get actual data. If it can’t be proven, you might as well not try and assert it, even if you “know” it’s true.
Anecdotes and incidents can pile up to show a pattern, of course. A poster in GD recently said that a claim made without evidence may be as easily dismissed, and I propose that that poster think on that assertion :).
Incidentally, I’d be interested in your rationale for why you didn’t respond to the report of Lemur’s post–not arguing that you should’ve (although as I said earlier I would’ve), but it might illuminate for you to explain why you didn’t find it actionworthy.
As far as I understand, the issue here is that the comment attacks trans people. That’s why it crosses the line.
An issue where someone uses a disingenuous paraphrase is not the same thing, and happens a lot on this board. It’s actually not an uncommon tactic by Shodan, yet (I believe) he doesn’t have Warnings for it.
I don’t agree that different mods should be moderating situations differently, however. There should be consistency across the board. Sure, different forums have different standards, but, if mods disagree, then they should come together and decide on a consensus of how to moderate going forward.
The board isn’t their personal board with their own personal rules. Every moderating decision they make represents the SDMB, the same way a police officer’s actions represent the law.
Might as well bring in Modbots, then. Don’t they have enough to do without monitoring each other, especially since the rules and standards for each forum are different and are best known by the moderators assigned to each one? Should the standard for trolling in General Questions be the same as the standard for trolling in The BBQ Pit?
I used to think this too. I don’t anymore. It’s not like we are all together, in constant communication, where the SDMB is our #1 priority in life. Often times board activity takes a back seat to other things. Paying jobs, family, friends, leisure, etc. It’s just not a reasonable standard to moderate by consensus. Each moderator is empowered to act with their best judgment and each does so.
Yes to a certain degree we aspire to consistency - and within the same forum we operate with the same rules. But even then in instances where judgment is required it’s expected that different people may come to different conclusions. This applies to board-wide rules as well.
Lots and lots of comments attack a particular group and don’t get modded. If the mods started handing out warnings every time a group was attacked, Great Debates would be not only figuratively devoid of content but actually devoid of content.
That said, while I agree with Bone that perfect consistency isn’t possible and shouldn’t be expected of the mods, I’m at a loss to see why most of the examples cited in this thread have been deemed so kosher that they merit not even a note, while Shodan’s comment deserved not just a note but a warning. We shouldn’t expect the moderation to be perfectly consistent, but neither should it be whimsical.
I’ve called out some lame snark, so full props to the kind of snark that this board needs more of.
This thread has become interminable. I’m closing it with a few observations:
-
On occasion it becomes apparent that a mod has made the wrong call and that said call ought to be revisited. This isn’t one of those times. On the contrary, it’s one of those strikes-and-balls judgments I’m content to let stand.
-
It’s not possible to enforce uniformity of judgment among the SDMB staff. A reasonable degree of consistency is expected; a call should be defensible, not arbitrary or capricious, and within the bounds of the written rules. That standard has been met in this case.
-
As always users are asked to remember that the mods do a thankless task for free, and do it remarkably well. I’m grateful for their efforts; they play an indispensable role in making the board what it is.