Most common reason to be Pitted Appears to be Dishonesty?

For what it is worth I agree about the extremely poor moderating over in the Pit and how conservatives are largely prohibited from striking back, and are essentially allowed to be libeled as racists over virtually any conversation with no response being permitted. But I would also note with the current board software it is very easy to essentially delete the Pit from your view, which I think is a viable option to continue to post–the Pit as it stands is just a place where liberals are allowed to do things to conservatives that would get conservatives modded, but at least you can hide it from your board experience.

That was the reason for him to quit being a mod. AIUI the rest was his reasons for not sticking around as a poster. (And several people in that thread wanted him to.)

Bricker’s just back to complain.

I’m not sure I’d phrase it that way. “Complain,” has an inference of expressing general discontent. The purpose of my post was to clearly and definitively rebut a specific inference made in the conversation between Heffalump and DocCathode, in which Heffalump correctly described my reasons for leaving and DocCathode suggested a lack of genuine evidence in support of that claim.

I suppose, in one sense, it qualifies as a complaint, but I’d say it’s better described as a rebuttal.

I hope that with Trump* gone, maybe you’ll be willing to post again. I always thought you took far more crap that you deserved. As in I thought you were a good poster that contributed to the boards.

Thank you for the kind words.

But (a) I doubt Trump is gone. He’s at least going to explore the possibility of running in 2024, and some of his extra-insane surrogates are still floating the idea that he will be “re-instated,” in August. I speak metaphorically now, of a political death, and not of any actual physical harm, when I say that Trump won’t be gone until the body is buried by the crossroads with garlic and a wooden stake used to ensure he won’t rise again.

More to the point, (b) on this board, purportedly teeming with smart people, it was almost never possible to say, “A is a weak argument against X,” without people hearing “I am in favor of X.” This phenomenon infected all sorts of discussion, pre-Trump, and made it nearly impossible to discuss, say, Trump’s judicial appointments or his deregulation or his choice of steak condiments. Nothing that carried with it the slightest hint that the poster held Trump in anything other than complete and unyielding disesteem was permitted to pass without generating vicious personal attack.

And my objection wasn’t even the personal attack, but the methods by which it was permitted in one direction and moderated severely when attempted in return.

In other words, discussion of Trump was often a catalyst and an exemplar of the problem; it was never the root cause.

Still, I hope you consider returning to the fray.

That’s the Bricker I remember! I hope you come back one day. You were a good contributor, despite our many disagreements.

A few things-

The position of a few posters seems to be (not an exact quote) ‘This board seriously leans to the Left. We Conservatives cannot get a fair shake.’ If we assume for a minute this is true, what has the Pit got to do with it?

Also- it’s good to see you again Bricker!

Because you get ten posters calling you a racist motherfucker in the Pit. Now, it doesn’t personally bother me. I don’t know anyone here and none of you know me, so, really I don’t care.

But I’m sure that most others who would like to come here and post, both for education and entertainment, don’t want to be called names and will just say to hell with it, it’s not worth it.

@bricker I remember you fondly and would enjoy seeing you post more.

I hope that everyone that is enjoying seeing @Bricker post here would take his words to heart. Instead of missing him, the board should quit doing the stuff that drove him and many others like him away.

@Bricker I’m not sure if I ever interacted with you but I always enjoyed reading your posts, especially on legal matters. I was bummed when you left. :frowning:

Either the people calling you a racist have cites and charge is an accurate one, or they are just making hateful stuff up and it falls flat. Unless you are arguing that the SDMB as a whole is so against conservatives that any charge will be allowed to stand unchallenged. If that is true, I ask again why does the Pit matter?

My position is

  1. I am arguing for opinions that 50% or more of Biden-voting registered Democrats agree with, but I’m still subject to the dissent = conservative = bad cycle because the clique here can’t understand that anyone could possibly disagree with them without being basically a Nazi.

  2. The vast majority of people subject to the above do not care that the running parallel threads in which they are denounced as Nazis for supporting opinions that 50% or more of Biden-voting registered Democrats agree with [let alone actual “conservative” positions] are “in the Pit” because, since they are not members of the clique, they don’t know or care what “the Pit” is. All they see is that every time they post they get another reminder of how farcical the idea that we have an “attack the post not the poster” rule that is enforced by impartial moderators is, then there’s another thread where seemingly nothing is out of bounds in attacking their character, and often a third thread calling for them to be banned. Then they stop bothering with the forum.

The existence and rules of “the Pit” or any other subforum are neither some fundamental law of nature, nor are they necessarily obvious or sensible to someone who has not been part of the in-crowd here for 20 years. Whatever arrangement the board has is what the people who run the board choose. Acting like “it’s in the Pit, stop thinking it’s an insane way to treat new posters or people outside an increasingly narrow window of acceptable opinions” is somehow equivalent to “well, stop complaining about things falling when you drop them, it’s just gravity” is nonsense, but it seems to be the attitude of most of the established decision-makers here.

It does not always happen, I admit. But look at the First nations Canada graves thread.


I missed you Bricker. We didn’t always agree, but you were generally honest and adult in your debating.

I don’t want to get sidetracked into bickering about this point, but I feel obliged to say that in my view it is unsupported by facts and therefore has absolutely no merit. To the contrary, Miller is generally recognized as an exceptionally easygoing mod, and of all the forums on the board the Pit is unique in that relatively few mod interventions occur and warnings are very rare.

I would really be interested if you could cite a bona fide example of conservatives being “largely prohibited” from saying things in the Pit that, according to you, liberals can do with complete impunity. I’ve never seen any, and frankly it bothers me to see such a ridiculous claim.

I know you have issues with how you’ve been moderated in the Pit but I respectfully suggest that the issues are with you, not the moderator. Maybe you’re thinking of the incidents about which you started this peculiar ATMB thread. I’ll note that you repeatedly – three times in a row – made extremely disparaging comments about another poster based on his nationality. You were given two mod notes to dial it back, and then finally a warning when you did it a third time. Yes, warnings are very rare in the Pit, but so are attacks like yours.

In another example, you were sanctioned for attacking another poster for their self-acknowledged mental health issues. Your “defense” of this attack was basically that you wouldn’t have attacked them if they had not been mean to you in the first place.

What I’m trying to tell you here, Martin_Hyde, that you don’t seem to be able to see, is that the recurrent pattern is that when you have an argument with someone, you tend to lash back with such venom that you get appropriately sanctioned for it. Your comments in all these cases were way over the top. This is NOT an example of conservatives being discriminated against. It’s an example of the application of the “don’t be a jerk” rule.

You have a difference of opinion, not meaningful to litigate here.

Ah, the false equivalency gambit! I’ll just point out that there is currently an extensive discussion about Hari Seldon’s warning to Pinecone about what seemed to be a partisan right-wing post that most posters disagreed with, but which appeared to be fully within the rules. Essentially everyone agreed that the warning was wrong, and it was withdrawn. So there is objective evidence that most posters here are fair-minded and will support the right to express a disagreeable or contrarian viewpoint, unless it violates community standards.

Cites, please?

As has been said previously, whether something is “racist” or not is such a broad and subjective thing anymore, and it is always someone’s opinion (I suppose unless someone literally advocates for the dictionary definition of racism) then a cite does no good.

This is what I and others complain about. You (the general you on this board) throw up a cite from a post or from a left wing news article, then it must be a fact because you have cited it. It’s not; it is an opinion. It is posted on this board many times something to the effect that facts have a left wing bias. That is why we don’t have quality debates anymore.