Thank you for your response.
Regards,
Shodan
To be fair, there are more posters on the left than on the right, or, at least, I would say more that post in potentially contentious threads. With that in mind, it’s both possible that more posters on the left are actually admonished, yet there still be a bias in “favour” of the left, so far as (assuming an equal level of admonishment-requiring behaviour on each side) the amount of lefty admonishments is more than but not proportionally the same as the amount of right admonishments?
Well, that just doesn’t seem like reality. If so, DT would merit God knows how many warnings or admonitions every week. I don’t think that I want to go through the exercise, but according to what you say here there should be slews of posts moderating DT’s behavior. Probably daily ones. You don’t want to say that they exist, do you?
No, sorry. What you said doesn’t mesh with reality well.
Again, we have that problem with the real world—the huge number of times he has spewed his content-free hate and the number of times mods have taken him to task for it. Hell, if there was any positive correlation between the two he would have earned bannings multiple times a day.
Okay. Fair enough.
Question: do you see may have inadvertently drawn an equivalence, especially from the tone of your post?
I understand what you are saying and agree with most of it but I take issue with this point in particular. I think it is exactly the other way around. I think an OP should be given a bit extra leeway. Specially if his, er, eccentricities were made manifest in the OP. Responders know what this is about and are free to choose whether to play along or walk away.
I seldom venture in GD but when I do and OP a thread, I am a bit obnoxious. I want something very specific discussed and I become a very OCD host to my thread. This may be why some of my threads flop and sink. If I were to behave like that in someone else’s thread, I wouldn’t object much to being modded (which is why I don’t). But in my thread I want things argued in my terms. As long as those don’t contradict the rules, I see no problem with that.
Marley, Can you please answer this question that you seem to have missed:
(reposted with spelling correction)
One additional point, it can very well be the case that an OP does not do a good job of either stating his case or defending it, but a good debate can result among those that choose to enter the thread.
Those threads tend to be left alone.
Compare KLR 650’s thread up to post 39 with the (currently) remaining 106 posts in the same thread.
KLR 650 has posted 16 times and 12 of them were (the only) posts on his side of the discussion up until Marley’s intervention.
Since that time, KLR 650 posted four more lame one-liners, but the discussion has been picked up by defenders of both sides of the issue and has progressed with no more Moderator intervention.
I agree with the last part of this. But do you hold that an equal number of posts are created by those from both sides of the aisle (we’re talking GD and The Pit)? Additionally, do you think those on the right on the left contribute “ill-prepared” OPs at equal rates (per capita)?
[
We’re talking about one thread, not whether Der Trihs’s posts are welcome on this board.
Appearances are important but the truth is that people can see bias in pretty much anything. I’m more concerned with making a fair ruling. If I had responded to Der Trihs’s post and not yours, he would have had a case that I was being unfair because I moderated his post but not a response to it, and that might have implied he couldn’t talk about it anymore, but people who wanted to respond were free to get their licks in.
Of course equal numbers are not created by both sides. However, the percentage of bad stuff is very much proportional to the numbers of adherents.
I agree. And based on this one would expect to see those on the left admonished, moderated and slapped more than those on the right, in proportion to their numbers, as you say. But I don’t see this as being the case at all.
They’re related. It’s perfectly appropriate to discuss this here. As much as you might not want to. This discussion easily expands because DT always gets a pass from you guys. So, there’s the incident in the thread in question, whioch is but ONE example of him not getting slapped for what he poists. And YOU claimed to Shodan that his content-free posts actually was the issue and if I hadn’t posted you STILL would have admonished him. History does not support that claim.
No. You could have simply told him that his hate-filled, content-free post was unwanted, unnecessary, unhelpful and to cease from posting more of the same. Simple, really. But you didn’t do that for the same reason that you, and other moderators, consistently give him a pass. Does one really need to search for DT shit and show that you and other moderators let it slide? No. No, one doesn’t.
Your claim here to be so concerned about “fair rulings” isn’t coming off the way you hoped. And you still haven’t answered the question. Disappointing. Unsurprising, but disappointing. Especially in a thread that seemed to be a good Doper-Moderator session.
It’s fine to discuss it. But I said his post was not welcome in that thread, and you’re interpreting as if I said “posts like that are never welcome on this site.”
You’re using an instance where he didn’t get a free pass as evidence that he always gets a free pass? That doesn’t work.
But I did admonish him. The bottom line is that if two people are posting on a tangent that belongs in another thread - even if one of them is bringing most of the heat - it’s fair to tell both of them to drop it. I think that makes it clearer that the entire debate belongs in a different thread.
I think I did answer it, but I recognize you’re not getting the answer you want. I see that the comment was unfair from your perspective. But from mine it was pretty simple: to forestall a hijack, it’s better to respond to everyone who is involved so everyone is clear on what discussion I’m referring to, and I think it’s fair to tell everyone to drop it and not just one person.
Maybe I’m not understanding. Could you tell me when posts like the one in question are welcome on this site?
No, I’m using this instance where you did not go after him for what he said, but for the “tangent” that you so feared it would develop into, as an example of similar, even more leeway he is given daily. That works.
No. You admonished “us”—him (with me) for a tangent discussion. You CLAIM you would have admonished him even if I hadn’t posted. So, according to you, it is not necessary for there to be two people involved before you would admonish someone for a post like his. Yet, there are probably countless posts from him, just like that one, that you, and other moderators have let slide.
So, I have to ask you, why should I or anyone believe you in this instance?
Yes, you have some cover you can claim here. Yet, we’re left with two facts:
-
you claim that you would have admonished him for that post in that thread anyway. You chose to not do so. You chose to lump me in with him and make the infraction the “tangent”.
-
Since you claim that you would have admonished him anyway for that post, one would expect that there would be many instances of you admonishing him for similar posts. Sadly, those many instances don’t exist.
Conclusion: the board moderation is biased and the powers that be either can’t see it or refuse to acknowledge it. Or both.
“Like this one” how? Expressing very strong opinions? Most of his posts are like that and it isn’t a problem. Hostile to people who disagree? That’s true sometimes. I find that distasteful in some instances, but I’m not necessarily going to moderate against it. When it’s off-topic, low in content, and hostile, I think it’s appropriate to step in.
Is there any particular reason not to believe me, other than just not liking the answer you are getting.
You’re making a bizarre interpretation here: you’re saying my adminition of him for that post doesn’t count because it also included you. But I explained already why I thought it was fair (and more thorough) to include you both.
Would one? I’ve been modding in Great Debates for about two months and I’m finding people don’t report Der Trihs’ posts very often. (I did find this one, and see the next post after his.) If you think he’s breaking the rules, report his posts. [If you are considering replying ‘we don’t report them because you won’t do anything,’ please don’t bother.]
Confirmation bias. When someone on “your side” is admonished you pay attention and when someone on “their side” is admonished you ignore it as their “just due.”
No offense Tom, but really? That’s your answer? It’s all in your head?
I’m glad you chose that example. Reread that that page. Look how many posts occurred simply to rebut what was content-free hate speech. Seriously. Reread it , following the various discussions and imagine it without DT? Better isn’t it? Yes it is. And just about every thread he’s in suffers from the same. At best, the only alternative to confronting him is to ignore him. But a poster who should be ignored as often as he, and who riles people as much as he does is better off elsewhere. And the SDMB is much better off without him. He adds nothing except 1) hate and 2) the ability for other left extremists to point and say “Well, I’m no DT!”.
Fair enough. So, if I were to find, say, twenty posts that match your criteria, in a forum you were moderating, I’d expect to see you admonish him what percent of the time? 75%? 50? 20?
Observation. History. The facts. Reality. You’re claims counter to them.
But by doing so you’re admonishing him for something different. You have found a common denominator where we both merit your “help”. That gives him a pass on the majority of his 1) off-topic, 2) content-free 3) hostility. Measure my “too good” against what he said using your three-point criteria. See the problem? And you’ve already said he merited a slap on his own.
Oh, I WILL bother and ignore your attempt to cut this off. He’s been pitted numerous times. He’s been ignored. He’s been reported. The fact is that the mods and administrators, for some strange fucking reason, prefer to have him around is beyond me. Given all the claims of farness and the desire to have civil debates, he’s allowed to remain. :rolleyes: This is nothing other than a big honking stain on the SDMB. One that will stand in the way of it and a reputation of either civility or fairness.
I will grant that you are, in some of this, acting as proxy for the mods in general, and that may be bit unfair. But any other mod is free to answer the questions I ask about the pass DT gets routinely.
No surprise. It’s the ultimate out. Because it’s always true to some degree and is difficult to rebut without hours and hours of research. But even then there’s judgement involved, which gives him/them yet another out.
Oh, and the confirmation bias is always the problem with the poster leveling the accusation. Never the mods. They, by definition and holy blood and their brand-deaf, circle-the-wagons are incapable of bias.
What’s going to be accomplished by my making up a number?
He was told to stop making those kinds of posts in that thread. That’s not a pass.
It was part of the hijack, it contained no content, and it was hostile to Der Trihs. What was your argument again?
Odd that I’m seeing so few of reports, then.
:rolleyes: