# On the topic of moderator bias **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 22, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561 "2009-11-22T20:38:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/21 "2009-11-23T18:31:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If you say so. Or if the facts say so? The original comment that this was about: > [@](#): > > I don’t care how much the gun fetishists want to snivel about their “rights,” and how they don’t have to justify it. Sure you have a right. So what? You have a right to be a neo-nazi too. That doesn’t mean it’s not creepy, and disordered, and socially maladjusted. That’s talking about gun fetishists, whether they post here or not. The link that you provided: > [@](#): > > Some of you folks need a mental readjustment cos you’re just not right in the head. That’s about posters, not about others. Apples and oranges, cheese and chalk, as I said before. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/22 "2009-11-23T21:00:46Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > You are missing the point in a big way. > > First, there are more choices than “love it or leave it”. The third option, of course, is to bring up issues that you feel are detrimental to the board, and thus strive to change things for the better. Since, as you pointed out, the mods are only human, then it stands to reason that posters who are concerned about issues like mod bias are clearly entitled to bring them up instead of treating the mods or rules as perfect and unchanging. > > Secondly, it’s certainly ok to ask that the people in power are held to a higher standard than others. If a judge rules in favor of a party contrary to law, we don’t just shrug and say “well, they’re only human”. The SDMB mods are admittedly not so important as to the functioning of society, but it’s not absurd to think they might have some small duty to overcome their conceits. > > I don’t have much opinion on the warnings in question; it’s too much to read through. But if there is bias, or even an impression of bias, it can’t be bad to bring it to light and discuss it rather than just shrugging and saying “that’s life”. Because unlinke, say, cancer, rules and rulings can be easily modified. I’m not missing any point. First, I agree with what \*\*Stranger \*\*stated (the idea of mod bias in general, I didn’t bother to form an opinion on the current discussion because it’s a waste of time). Second, I’ve been around here long enough to know that something like “mod bias” will never be admitted by the Administrators or Mods on this board. They will not cannabalize their own. To complain about it becomes an exercise in futility and frustration. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree with your second paragraph in its entirety. As an example, \*\*Marley23 \*\* states in this thread that > [@](#): > > Just interjecting here: nobody reported post #198 in that thread, and it might have been worth a warning. I opted to make a note to \*\*Diogenes the Cynic \*\*for comments later in the thread. I think a warning would have also been deserved but I went the lighter route. If that post had been reported I might have gone the other way. Now, I don’t have a personal gripe with **Marley23** , but just read that posting. This is what frustrates people. **Marley23** thought a warning would have been deserved, but decided to go the lighter route and give a warning. Why? Because no one reported the post? That’s just stupid, and makes people who are looking for consistency pull their hair out. How about this idea? \*\*Dio \*\*has been around for what, 40K posts? Can we assume then, that \*\*Dio \*\*knows better? If an official is warranted, issue it, regardless of whether or not someone reported the post. Don’t take the easy way out and say something inane like “since no one reported it, I’m not going to issue a warning.” That’s called **inconsistency** , which can be interpreted as **bias** , and is why people get **upset**. Moderating is important, but on this board, their are certain posters that always get more slack than others. It isn’t right, but that’s the way it is. There are also mods who are more heavy handed than others. So if \*\*Marley23 \*\*decides not to give an official warning, that’s his right as a mod. But it doesn’t stop another mod from issuing a warning under the same or similar circumstances in another thread or forum. If you are looking for consistent Modding, go elsewhere. This isn’t the place. And if you think complaining about this is going to change anything, good luck with that. Ergo, love it or leave it, (as you put it) are your only true options. Changing mod behavior? Don’t make me laugh. But yes, a third option does exist where you can post here and make your points. And in a perfect world, that would work. But we are dealing with the SDMB and TPTB. Let me know when they actually remove a moderator for poor moderating, or actually warn/suspend/ban a poster that has consistently behaved as an ass on these boards (and who is given the benefit of the doubt more often than not), and I will happily change my mind. Just send me a PM when it happens. I’m not going to hold my breath. SFP ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/23 "2009-11-23T21:21:21Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Now, I don’t have a personal gripe with **Marley23** , but just read that posting. This is what frustrates people. **Marley23** thought a warning would have been deserved, but decided to go the lighter route and give a warning. Why? Because no one reported the post? That’s just stupid, and makes people who are looking for consistency pull their hair out. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Thoreau, Emerson, one of those guys, said. I’d much rather have mods exercising their judgment than automatically rubberstamping warnings for every possible infringement, A software program could do that, although God forbid it ever should. Of course you’ll get inconsistencies but in the long run what we lose on the swings we’ll gain on the roundabouts, so it’s all good. And if nobody reports a post it could just be that no one was offended by it, and I see nothing wrong with a moderator taking that fact into account when deciding whether a warning should be issued. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/24 "2009-11-23T21:21:56Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Now, I don’t have a personal gripe with **Marley23** , but just read that posting. This is what frustrates people. **Marley23** thought a warning would have been deserved, but decided to go the lighter route and give a warning. Why? Because no one reported the post? I think we have a missed connection here: I made a note to **Diogenes the Cynic** based on post #309 ([link here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11806821#post11806821)). The post you mentioned in the OP, the insult to **Argent Towers** , was #198 ([link here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11804298&post11804298)). Nobody reported that post, and as a result, I didn’t see it. That post was more insulting on an individual level, and if I’d seen it, I probably would have upgraded to a warning. > [@](#): > > If an official is warranted, issue it, regardless of whether or not someone reported the post. When I’m deciding whether or not to give a warning, it doesn’t matter if the post has been reported. The post either deserves a warning or not. But if there were earlier insults upthread that were not reported, I may not have seen them. Usually I read an entire thread before I hand out any warnings. But that’s not really practical with a five or six (or eight) page thread. So I didn’t see some of the posts that had come before. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/25 "2009-11-23T22:07:11Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as Thoreau, Emerson, one of those guys, said. I’d much rather have mods exercising their judgment than automatically rubberstamping warnings for every possible infringement, A software program could do that, although God forbid it ever should. Dude (or dude-ette), you ain’t Thoreau. Or Emerson. And get back to us when it’s YOU that’s been zapped by mod inconsistency. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/26 "2009-11-23T22:16:30Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think we have a missed connection here: I made a note to **Diogenes the Cynic** based on post #309 ([link here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11806821#post11806821)). The post you mentioned in the OP, the insult to **Argent Towers** , was #198 ([link here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11804298&post11804298)). Nobody reported that post, and as a result, I didn’t see it. That post was more insulting on an individual level, and if I’d seen it, I probably would have upgraded to a warning. > When I’m deciding whether or not to give a warning, it doesn’t matter if the post has been reported. The post either deserves a warning or not. But if there were earlier insults upthread that were not reported, I may not have seen them. Usually I read an entire thread before I hand out any warnings. But that’s not really practical with a five or six (or eight) page thread. So I didn’t see some of the posts that had come before. **Marley23** , Read my post again. I have no problem with you personally or your moderating style. I have no idea what you are trying to defend yourself over. I based my posting on your post, #13 I believe. That’s it. Your explaination is not what you said in that post. Read it again. Maybe it’s not what you meant, but it reads as if it was reported to you, it may have received a warning. Since it wasn’t, you didn’t, and decided to go the easy way with a note. That’s bullshit, in my opinion, but since I’m not a mod, I can’t issue any warnings. Whether you read every posting in your moderation forum is unknown to me. I don’t mod, and I wouldn’t want the responsibility to read every thread and every post. But, you can’t honestly see why people get frustrated? If you are telling us that in a long thread you don’t read all six or eight pages, then your moderation is by definition inconsistent. (not that I can’t actually blame you for not wanting to slog through an 8-page thread). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/27 "2009-11-23T22:34:48Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Your explaination is not what you said in that post. Read it again. Maybe it’s not what you meant, but it reads as if it was reported to you, it may have received a warning. I didn’t see post #198 until **Stranger On A Train** discussed it in the OP. If someone had reported that one, I might have given a warning based on that post (or just warned **Diogenes the Cynic** based on his body of work in that thread). Nobody reported that post, so I didn’t see it. I responded to post #309 alone. (I think a separate post by **Diogenes the Cynic** was also reported, but I didn’t think any rules were broken in that one.) > [@](#): > > Whether you read every posting in your moderation forum is unknown to me. We don’t have the time, or even close to enough time. That’s why we ask people to report posts to us: to call our attention to things we might otherwise miss. We’ve never claimed to read all the posts in any forum. > [@](#): > > If you are telling us that in a long thread you don’t read all six or eight pages, then your moderation is by definition inconsistent. When people complain about inconsistent moderation I think they’re usually talking about warnings being given in some situations but not in others - not when a mod fails to read all 250 posts in a thread before deciding to give a note or a warning. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/28 "2009-11-23T22:56:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > We don’t have the time, or even close to enough time. That’s why we ask people to report posts to us: to call our attention to things we might otherwise miss. We’ve never claimed to read all the posts in any forum. I’m not surprised. It would be a full-time responsibility. > [@Marley23](#): > > When people complain about inconsistent moderation I think they’re usually talking about warnings being given in some situations but not in others - not when a mod fails to read all 250 posts in a thread before deciding to give a note or a warning. I would agree with this assessment. However, by not reading each entry, you cannot, by definition, be consistent. You only get to see what you read, and react to what has been reported to you. Posts that may (or do) cross the line may go unreported for a number of reasons. That’s not your fault, it’s just a fact. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/29 "2009-11-23T22:58:00Z")
Misread header as **On the topic of moderator _bites_.** If a moderator bites, I recommend saying “NO! BAD mod!” in a firm voice, then ignoring hi/r completely for ten minutes. It works with my cat, anyway… ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/30 "2009-11-23T23:01:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I didn’t see post #198 until **Stranger On A Train** discussed it in the OP. If someone had reported that one, I might have given a warning based on that post (or just warned **Diogenes the Cynic** based on his body of work in that thread). Nobody reported that post, so I didn’t see it. I responded to post #309 alone. (I think a separate post by **Diogenes the Cynic** was also reported, but I didn’t think any rules were broken in that one.) Sorry. I didn’t mean to miss this. OK, you didn’t see post #198 until this thread. Fair enough. Now that you did, is a warning not warranted? You say you MIGHT have given a warning on THAT POST alone IF someone had reported it. Or given him a warning based on his body of work in that thread. Fine. Based on what I’ve read, you did NEITHER. You put out a moderator note. See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/31 "2009-11-23T23:08:22Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > However, by not reading each entry, you cannot, by definition, be consistent. You only get to see what you read, and react to what has been reported to you. Posts that may (or do) cross the line may go unreported for a number of reasons. That’s not your fault, it’s just a fact. I didn’t assign any blame. And as far as consistency goes, I think the limitations are obvious: we can only see what we see, either based on the threads we’re reading on our own, on the reports we get. You’re not going to get more consistency than that. In MPSIMS and Cafe Society, my policy was to always read an entire thread before weighing in. In Great Debates I don’t think that’s going to be practical, but when it is, I’ll do it. That said, when you see a thread that asks why a certain post didn’t draw a warning, the answer is usually ‘nobody reported it.’ I think a lot of people do assume we see everything, and we don’t. That doesn’t make it anyone’s fault, but I think it needs to be said. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/32 "2009-11-23T23:18:50Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > OK, you didn’t see post #198 until this thread. Fair enough. Now that you did, is a warning not warranted? We usually don’t go back and make late calls like that, especially since **Diogenes the Cynic** already received mod notes about other comments in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/33 "2009-11-23T23:23:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > We usually don’t go back and make late calls like that, especially since **Diogenes the Cynic** already received mod notes about other comments in the thread. yeah, \*this \*makes sense. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/34 "2009-11-23T23:58:06Z")
The thing about the “personal insults” rules on this board is that they are, if you are committed, quite easy to get around. All you have to do is be just general enough, and use just enough weasel words, to suggest that you’re not offering a direct personal insult aimed at a specific poster. If you can manage to do this, you’ll be able to include a surprising variety of insults in your non-Pit threads. Also, you get a double bonus, because not only do you get away with insulting people while just remaining within the letter of the law, but your ability to do this will eventually cause your targets to get frustrated with your behavior, call you an “asshole” (or something similar), and then get hit with a warning. I was actually on the wrong end of a similar case last week. I ended up with a warning, which i deserved because i threw a direct personal insult at someone outside the Pit. But the behavior that led to the insult was right in line with what i described above. I said as much to the moderator in question, in a PM i sent: [QUOTE=mhendo to Moderator, via PM] As i said in the thread itself, i’ll cop to the insult, and live with the warning. But this whole incident shows what a bunch of bullshit the rules about insults are. They are so narrowly defined that they are easy to get around if you are willing to be a weasel. The poster in question, in response to my assertion that i had respect for military personnel, said “Yeah right :rolleyes:”. When made in response to a statement of personal opinion like the one i made, that’s an accusation of lying. It has no other possible meaning. It is saying, “You have told me something that you believe, and that only you can know for sure, and i’m saying that you don’t actually believe what you’re telling me that you believe.” If he had called me a liar, he would have been warned; using a weasel phrase and a rolleyes smiley conveys exactly the same insult, and yet it’s allowed. I’ve been around long enough to recognize that this is how it works around here, and it was my fault for responding to his baiting with an actual, outright insult. I’m just making the observation that, whether or not it fell within the strictures of your poorly-written rules, what he said WAS an insult. The fact that the SDMB continually refuses to recognize stuff like this is not to its credit. [/QUOTE] I still feel that way. The OP of this thread suggests it’s about moderator bias. This might be the case in some specific instances, but i actually think it’s more a product of the rules themselves. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/35 "2009-11-24T00:04:03Z")
Yes. Fer shure. ACCEPTABLE: What you said is a pile of rubbish. NOT ACCEPTABLE: You are a pile of rubbish. So, as long as you’re focused on what someone said (rather than who they are) you can get away with lots. That’s always been the rules and the way we’ve enforced them. Nothin’ new. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/36 "2009-11-24T00:29:43Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > yeah, \*this \*makes sense. :rolleyes: I think it’s just common sense. He’s already received two mod notes. I’m not going to go back and upgrade someone else’s comment into a warning. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/37 "2009-11-24T01:05:36Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think it’s just common sense. He’s already received two mod notes. I’m not going to go back and upgrade someone else’s comment into a warning. why not? I’ve seen someone just recently get a warning removed. We aren’t talking about a week of time passing here. This looks like hours. No, the issue is that you don’t want to look like you made a mistake. Again, I don’t care how you moderate, **Marley23**. But you can’t put a sweater on a pig and think no one will notice. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/38 "2009-11-24T01:08:52Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > why not? I’ve seen someone just recently get a warning removed. We remove warnings once in a while, yes. That’s not the same as increasing someone else’s note into a warning. > [@](#): > > We aren’t talking about a week of time passing here. This looks like hours. The post I said might have deserved a warning was made at noon on Saturday. And yes, I think that’s too long. The thread’s already been moderated and I think people have a right to expect we’re not going to go back and give them warnings that way. That decision’s already been made. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/39 "2009-11-24T01:08:59Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Yes. Fer shure. > ACCEPTABLE: What you said is a pile of rubbish. > NOT ACCEPTABLE: You are a pile of rubbish. > > So, as long as you’re focused on what someone said (rather than who they are) you can get away with lots. That’s always been the rules and the way we’ve enforced them. Nothin’ new. What about: What you said is a lie. You are a liar. Would the first one be acceptable? Because that’s a far closer approximation of the situation that i presented in my post. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561/40 "2009-11-24T01:56:23Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Yes. Fer shure. > ACCEPTABLE: What you said is a pile of rubbish. > NOT ACCEPTABLE: You are a pile of rubbish. > > So, as long as you’re focused on what someone said (rather than who they are) you can get away with lots. That’s always been the rules and the way we’ve enforced them. Nothin’ new. It’s a lot grayer than your simplistic black-and-white justification indicates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-topic-of-moderator-bias/518561.md?page=3)