magellan01, what are the statistics on how the mods treat those posters to GD who are both liberal and theist? That is not an uncommon combination. There may even be a few atheist conservatives around.
Your arguments remind me of those students who would claim that a professor was racially prejudiced or had a gender bias when they received a failing grade on a test. But when they were well-prepared, the subject of race or gender was never an issue.
When you present your arguments in a debate, you should draw your information from reliable unbiased sources and be able to provide them when asked for a cite. In debate, it is common to ask for a cite if you have not already provided one. If you cannot provide one or more to back up your claims, you are busted.
On this board, that’d be me, though in the real world, I don’t think I could be described as conservative (Pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-gun rights, stop spending my tax money on stupid shit, etc.)
I’m not sure what this has to do with your quotes. Tom lay the observation of the disparity between the expectations and rigor of conservative/religious/unpopular viewpoints versus liberal//atheistic/popular viewpoints at the feet of confirmation bias, meaning that by the very nature of magellan, shodan, et al being conservative they will see the treatment as unfair. This of course is complete and utter bullshit.
At least one liberal atheist came in to say, “No, Tom. I’m an atheistic liberal and I see it, too.” Therefore kinda putting, at the very least, some doubt into the confirmation bias hypothesis.
But that’s the point. The complaints against DT are not that he hijacks threads, they are that he posts inflammatory remarks. He could post in a thread discussing Republicans and be on topic and still be inflamming these people.
Marley23
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 37,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman
megellan01 (and others) is complaining about the tone of Der Trihs’s posts. Not the subject, the tone.
So far, the examples you cite of moderating him all cite him for hijacking the thread topic. Not “stop posting hateful, contentless posts”, but “take the contentious right/left debate out of this thread”.
A warning about hateful, contentless posts is probably too vague to be useful, and people would probably object to that amount of editorializing from a mod. There’s a separate thread to deal with that as a broader issue. Dealing with an individual hijack is a lot simpler.
What if he started a new one in GD with the same title? What if he started one with the title, “Republicans: Evil Sacks of Shit or Just Greedy Bastards?” What if he kept starting threads like that in GD?
:rolleyes: Yeah, right. Because I’m not going to scour a board that any sensible person knows has a liberal bias and put every instance of moderator bias under a microscope to “prove” the veracity of my claim, only to have those very people handwave and torture every piece of evidence, then the claim is without merit, right? No, hun, I’ve got much better things to do. Like scratch my ass.
And we’ve already had someone from the left agree that this bias exists, so even your assessment of me being “busted” (whatever the fuck that means in this context) ain’t quite as busted as you’d like to think.
That’s a harder line for us to walk, as moderators. If he’s inflaming people in a Republican thread for example, is it because he’s being a jerk, or do they just not like what he’s saying?
The two aren’t exclusive of each other. It’s laughable that he’s allowed to get away with his hateful stupidity. It makes the administration look like they’re full of shit.
Why is it so easy to figure out when the viewpoint is popular? “Gay marriage is for immoral heathens” or “Democrats are liars” seems to be alot easier to classify as jerkish around here than “Republicans are evil” or “Gun owners have small dicks.”.
We actually suspended somebody a few months ago for saying something like that about gun owners in Great Debates. (It wasn’t a standalone thing, it was one of a few abusive posts.) So I don’t think it’s that hard to figure out.
Not because I really care but just because it is an exact redo of the closing that sparked this thread (that has already moved elsewhere, of course).
The poster made his, er, “contribution” to the thread with an argument that has been seen here a brazillion times. He gets warned for it, the thread gets locked and the mod gets to post his parting “argument” (which is actually not better than that of the warnee in that it is just an unsupported statement, even if it happens to be true) in a thread he is locking and nobody will be able to reply to. I find it a bit in poor form.
Just to prevent any misunderstandings, he was not warned for posting that argument. He was warned after he admitted he was trolling. I could have left off the Big Bang comment, yes. But I thought it would be okay to correct a basic inaccuracy.
I get the first warning for trolling. The second I don’t get. How was that trolling? It’s an “opinion” or his “viewpoint”. It’s stupid and not well thought, but his opinion nonetheless.
Secondly, to add your two cents to the debate in the act of modding, seems to cross that line of participant/moderator.
Because it was part of the same argument: calling science a religion to “chum the waters.”
I understand what you’re objecting to here, and I don’t usually make those kinds of comments when I’m closing a thread. But aside from the trolling, the comment was factually wrong. If I’d locked a thread about religion and said “And there’s no God, by the way,” I think that would be a bigger problem than correcting that statement.
I’m still curious if you’re saying that if I took DT’s posts, and used them as a model for my new posting style and post at the same frequency, would that be ok? It’s a lot easier to type “Dumb-ocrats R stoopid and rape kittens” than respond thoughtfully.
Mod ruling please: Would that be “jerkish” behavior, or is it “legal”?
Didn’t I answer this already? The political affiliation doesn’t matter. Of course, if we get the sense somebody is just pushing the limits to prove a point rather than making arguments in good faith, that might not go over very well.
But that basic inaccuracy was exactly what the thread was about. If we are arguing about whether Ford is better than Chevrolet and as you lock the thread you add “oh, and by the way, the Ford Lunesta had a 1350cc engine, not a 1345cc”. That’s fine. Saying “oh, and by the way, Ford rules, Chevrolets suck suck suck”, that’s not.
OK fair enough, but then why didn’t you close the thread upstream? The whole thread was about science as a religion. Seems sorta like a speed trap to me. Any comment he made to argue his side of the OP would be considered trolling based on the thread itself.
If you are closing the thread why comment? If the thread was shit and trolling in and of itself just close the thing.
Was the parting comment in any way a new revelation that either the warned poster or anyone following that thread had never heard before? It wasnt any more corrective or factually correct than “Because creation doesn’t answer all the questions, doesn’t mean it’s not true.”
There was still some worthwhile discussion happening at that point, mostly about the meanings of fact and theory. After Paleface’s second post the thread was circling the drain, so I closed it rather than letting the baiting continue.
How do I know if anyone had heard it before? For the warned poster I hope it corrected an error. If he already knew what he was posting was false, it doesn’t matter if I correct it or not.
If there is worthwhile discussion going on, even if it’s on one side and not “great,” I’d rather leave the thread open. After Paleface decided to keep provoking people, I decided it was time to close it down.
You realize that was a conditional statement, right? ‘IF he already knew, it doesn’t matter.’
Yep, but you had already made that determination by saying he was trolling and he admitted it by admitting he was trolling. So your conditional statement then follows the true path I would think.
Aside from anything, what you posted wasn’t even a correction, it was an extension of your opinion.