"Proper" use of mod powers to steer a thread in GD?

You have put a spin on this that I did not place in the original. I never claimed that only posters on the Right would see bias or that they saw bias because they were on the Right.

My point was that, based on my being accused of bias both for and against nearly all philosophical positions, I see more-of-the-same unsupported accusations as examples of confirmation bias, regardless of their philosopical leanings. That they happened, at that point, to have all come from the “minority” perspective on the SDMB meant that when I responded, the examples I used would follow that divide. In point of fact, I have also gotten repeated complaints from the “other side,” although those folks have not tended to post to the current set of ATMB threads.

The confrmation bias exists regardless who is claiming it. I have no idea how accurate pedescribe’s self-description might be, but magellan01 is the poster who has accused me, on multiple occasions, of calling him a racist or of being about to call him a racist when I have never done that in any thread or post. Shodan is the poster who recently laid out two “examples” of my purported bias. In the first, he accused me of favoring the Left because I told an entire group of posters on both sides in a debate to stop using politicians as proxies to call each other names with no reference to Shodan and in the second I was acccused of providing aid and comfort to a now banned poster whom I have been accused by posters opposed to Shodan of railroading off the SDMB. When two opposing camps are using the same example to demonstrate my “favoritism,” I think I am justified in waiting for some evidence before I simply take their words at face value.

After your post in this thread, magellan01 claimed that there is an obvious bias on the board, confusing a clear philosophical tilt among a majority of posters with a carefully never identified bias among staff. magellan01 uses the phrase “handwaving” a lot, yet his are the hands I see waggling furiously above the crowd.

OK then I stand corrected. That is not, however, what I took away from your post.

In this first Shodan example (assuming its this one), though maybe not your intent, I can see how he would interpret as a veiled direction at him through the whole group. Not saying that I agree with him, but I could see it. On the other hand, I didn’t see where you called his post bullshit there, unless, again, I am reading the wrong post.

The second issue, I am not familiar with.

I happen to agree with him on this and I am pretty sure the bias has been identified in terms of ideological viewpoints.

The board tilts Left and non-religious. I doubt that any serious poster would deny that. This dos not prevent any poster who exerts himself or herself from examining questions while holding their personal beliefs in abeyance and it does not preclude the staff from doing likewise. Bricker has been known to defend Obama and I have defended Bush from attacks that appeared more partisan than just (or sane). Presuming that a general tendency to lean in one direction or another precludes honest assessment would seem, to me, to say more about the accuser than the accused in such cases.

I agree with this one hundred percent, but honestly I’m not sure what you are saying. I’ve never said one’s personal beliefs preclude honest assessment. I’m saying that the personal beliefs of the moderators and “majority rules” viewpoints are currently coloring the decision making and judgments of this board with regard to rigor and evidentiary expectations. Is it hard to put one’s personal beliefs aside to moderate impartially? Absolutely. Would it be reasonable to expect perfection? Absolutely not. Would it be reasonable to expect some self-examination and some discussion on how things are interpreted when given criticism or questioned? Yeah, I think that’s reasonable. Do I think that “It’s in your head” is a reasonable response to someone questioning the decision making and rule interpretation ? No, I don’t.

Very well said. One thing that I’ve found particularly disappointing on the SDMB is the reluctance of mods to do just this.

Self examination has gone on for years as the different competing and contradictory claims and accusations have been put forth.
“It’s in your head” is a quite reasonable response when no evidence is brought forth, accusations from opposite sides contradict each other, and a number of claimants have already displayed their own biases.

Man, when I read this I simply don’t know what to say. I mean frankly, I think you really believe this and that’s prolly the worst thing about it.

I’m not trying to be snarky, but if you think that’s reasonable then there is no more room for rationality.

You forgot “… and you’re infallible.” If you recall, there was one incident in which not only did I say you were wrong in your treatment of me, but those opposing me in the debate—no fans of mine—agreed with me. But did that penetrate the shield of infallibility and cause you to admit it and apologize?

[No answer need.]

Look, we’ve had our arguments, some quite drawn out. But I’ve also said on numerous occasions that I think you are intelligent, articulate, and make a tremendous contribution to the board. But you, like it or not, are biased. Just like the rest of us humans. The problem is that you think that since your job calls for you to be impartial that you’re able to live up to that 100% of the time.

Oh, you ain’t seen nothing yet. This is merely warm-up caliber tomndebb.

What do you think is reasonable? To simply accept that every conflicting and unsupported claim by anyone with a grudge has to be taken seriously and treated as gospel?

We have multiple posters with conflicting opinions all claiming that it is their ox being gored, but for some reason we are supposed to simply accept, (or, perhaps, ponder), one side’s view over that of the other when that side resolutely refuses to demonstrate any examples of their claims.

How about this: ban Der Trihs if he continues to post his hateful, content-free, cartoonish stupidity? The fact that this has not been done is proof positive that the moderation is biased. If a person on the right did the equivalent he wouldn’t last a month. The fact that his drivel doesn’t even merit a Warning is laughable—and I’m not talking about him just being off topic. There is no other poster who does anything like what he does. And you know damn well that he posts his shit regularly—whether it be against the military, religionists, theists, capitalists, republicans, america—all with a free pass. This ALONE proves the point I and others have been making in this thread.

Most of this is you being biased. Posters on the right frequently post stuff that is equivalent in hatred and nonsense to the stuff Der Trihs posts. They do not do it as frequently–he is far and away the most prodigious source of that sort of trash–but their comments are out there and the fact that you fail to acknowledge that demonstrates your bias.

There is an open thread for suggestions to improve GD. If you can suggest a rule that will curtail Der Trihs’s silliness in a bright line fashion that a majority of posters can agree to, we will implement that rule.

I think you’ll see the slightly heated-up version if you ask him links to the ten or twelve least nuanced, least objective, most biased decisions he’s made since becoming a Mod. I predict he’ll get all puffy, all “I should do your work for you?”, all “Every call I’ve ever made is tied for ‘Most Perfectly Objective’.” But try. It may be a fun converation.

How’s that ass-scratching working out for you?

Just great. Thanks for asking.

I think you need to stop scratching your ass and go get some evidence to back up your claim that “a person on the right did the equivalent he wouldn’t last a month”.

You should also provide some evidence that " There is no other poster who does anything like what he does.".

It also strikes me that this thread is starting to turn into a Der Trihs bashing.

I said that just to frame my position. I do think it’s probably pretty accurate, but I’m not going to spend hours scouring the archives just trying to find someone who has been banned in less than a month, who also had the same posting style as DT, but from the other side. Get real, wouldya? The point is that posters on the right would not be given the latitude he’s given. If you think that is incorrect, it should be fairly easy for you to point to a poster or two. Be my guest.

How would one even go about doing this? Let’s see, tacoloco, no. Elucidator, no. Fenris, no. Shodan, no. FinnAgain, no., Mr. Dibble, no. Bricker, no. pedescribe, no. Revenant Threshold, no. Monty, no. lissiner, no. Starving Artist, no. Dio, no. Saint Cad, no. Sage Rat, no. Left Hand of Dorkness, no. John Mace, no. Wesley Clark, no. Little Nemo, no. Shayna, no. jsgoddess, no. Scylla, no. BrainGlutton, no. Airman Doors, no. Chief Pedant, no. Paleface, no. Whack-A-Mole, no. gonzomax, no. Freudian Slit, no. kanicbird, no. Oakminster, no. mswas, no. cosmosdan, no. Lemur866, no. asterion, no. Little Nemo, no. Mr. Excellent, no. Contrapuntal, no. Captain Amazing, no. Dan Blather, no. Magiver, no. ITR Champion, no. Mosier, no. Voyager, no. Simplicio, no. Malthus, no. kevlaw, no. Chronos, no. Bryan Ekers, no…

You see the problem? It’s like asking me to prove a negative.

Only because that is, in my estimation (and possibly some others), his not being banned and so often getting a pass is a strong piece of evidence that the moderation of the board is biased.

You’re making the assertion that nobody on the right would be given the same latitude and now the ball is in your court to prove it.

It isn’t MY job to prove or disprove what you wrote.

No. I’m asking you to prove that the above mentioned assertion is supportable.

Let’s recap:

I said, “a person on the right did the equivalent he wouldn’t last a month”

You replied, “I think you need to stop scratching your ass and go get some evidence to back up your claim”

Fair enough, so far. So, you seem to disagree with my claim, thus believing that a person on the right WOULD last a month. Now, if you are debating honestly and not trying to just play a game of gotcha, all you have to do is point to the one poster to support your position. I don’t even know of any poster—from either side (though there may have been some that predate me)—who does/did what Der Trihs does. I stated this in my post that you culled my quote from. So how can I point to this person that I am unaware even exists. My comment was an opinion based on a hypothetical. I said ““IF” a person on the right did the equivalent he wouldn’t last a month”, meaning that IF such an animal existed, he wouldn’t last a month. In that same post I said “There is no other poster who does anything like what he does.” so, you’re either not understanding the conditional nature of my statement or your just playing the tired old game of “Gotcha” and failing. Again, if you think my statement to be wrong, it would probably be easy for you to point to a poster that supports your position. Now, if it’s just your opinion (as it was mine) you needn’t bother. But if your going to insist that ALL CLAIMS REQUIRE SUPPORT, provide away.

Next, we have:
You said, “You should also provide some evidence that " There is no other poster who does anything like what he does.”.

I replied, "How would one even go about doing this? Let’s see, tacoloco, no. Elucidator, no. Fenris, no. Shodan, no. FinnAgain, no., Mr. Dibble, no. Bricker, no. pedescribe, no. Revenant Threshold, no. Monty, no. lissiner, no. Starving Artist, no. Dio, no. Saint Cad, no. Sage Rat, no. Left Hand of Dorkness, no. John Mace, no. Wesley Clark, no. Little Nemo, no. Shayna, no. jsgoddess, no. Scylla, no. BrainGlutton, no. Airman Doors, no. Chief Pedant, no. Paleface, no. Whack-A-Mole, no. gonzomax, no. Freudian Slit, no. kanicbird, no. Oakminster, no. mswas, no. cosmosdan, no. Lemur866, no. asterion, no. Little Nemo, no. Mr. Excellent, no. Contrapuntal, no. Captain Amazing, no. Dan Blather, no. Magiver, no. ITR Champion, no. Mosier, no. Voyager, no. Simplicio, no. Malthus, no. kevlaw, no. Chronos, no. Bryan Ekers, no…

You see the problem? It’s like asking me to prove a negative."

SO, just how should I go about demonstrating “There is no other poster who does anything like what he does.”. Seriously, how do you suggest I go about that? How is it possible? It makes no sense.

So, first you want me to show support for one statement, an opinion, which would require me pointing to a person that I said I don’t even think exists. Then you want prove a negative. :rolleyes:

This is a common ploy. Someone makes a point, even a off-handed one, and someone like you starts screeching about “Oh yeah, well prove it.”, thinking that if the person can’t support their statement or opinion that the position is without merit. It’s a tired ploy. Especially when one statement is conditional upon something that doesn’t exist, aka, a hypothetical. Or one is asked to prove a negative. Tired, tired, tired. Yawn.