This paragraph, Bricker, is a swipe at liberals, and it pretty much robs your apology of any redeeming quality it might have. “Y’all are pretty shitty, but I’m better than you because I apologize,” it implies.
Next time you can leave out the accusation at the beginning of your apology.
(Deleted)
That your apology started with an insult, specifically at liberals. Guts the apology a bit, don’t you think?
No.
Now I understand what you meant, but I will decline your invitation. What I said is true, and it’s deserved. A constant complaint I have is the failure of liberals here to consistently apply the same standards to their own. A factual error from me is ferreted out and a refusal to acknowledge it is shouted from the rooftops. But that standard isn’t applied to those on their own side of the argument, and suggestions that they do so are met by ardent explanations about how they’re not responsible for any such thing.
You seem to believe that my apology had some conciliatory purpose which was then undermined by a “swipe.” But the purpose was to acknowledge the correct factual record and argue that this is a valuable part of reasoned debate. To highlight that second point in the context of this thread’s subject, I pointed out that board culture inequitably fosters this part of reasoned debate.
Cool–then I decline to accept your apology. It appears you offered it only as a rhetorical device, and that if you didn’t see a way to attack your enemies with it, you’d never have offered it.
Well while you are at it … you seem to have minimally implied that the banning of Terr was the result of an overwhelming liberal bias on the part of the moderators, yet we now know that the moderator who warned Terr and who initiated the banning action is not liberal by any stretch (albeit some farther right on the spectrum may charge that he is not a “true conservative” or is a RINO).
Care to apologize for that false claim as well? And maybe an actual one, not a jerky rhetorical device one?
Not sure if I’d use the word “ridiculous” to the concept of actively recruiting moderators by political stripe more than for any other value of diversity but it is minimally not necessary and a very silly thought given that moderation here seems to me to exhibit zero political bias to perhaps slight slack given to conservatives (a special rule written just for Shodan by appearances at least for example). There is no reason to believe that there is any lack of political diversity among moderators. Maybe if anything an over-representation of relative political apathy as far as posting behaviors go.
That said I would still consider that posters with POVs that are less often expressed on this board be banned with great reluctance and given an extra swing at bat to have their jerkiness rehabilitated. Not noted or warned any differently but consideration to taking another step after the one month suspension before the forever ban.
That is affirmative action and as for society in general I support affirmative action not for the goal of righting past wrongs but because I believe that diversity benefits organizations as a whole.
Cool, except you’re not wrong.
Wow.
I wonder how we reconcile that with the fact his own post contradicts that.
Genuinely curious.
I’m only mildly curious.
One is about retiring as moderator. The other is about leaving the board (& SDSAB) entirely.
On another note, it’s possibly of minor interest that 50% of self-identified liberals in the poll were in favor, higher than any other group. However, I suspect that this is because so many liberals voted for “ridiculous” (which was not broken out by political ideology).
This is correct. He said the staff never gave him crap when he retired as a mod, which was almost 2 years prior to him leaving the SDMB entirely.
Seemed pretty clear to me.
Just to be clear, from my standpoint, I don’t think the moderators should get involved in those types of situations. We don’t have a rule that says posters need to admit their errors. The situation you describe is one of those things that just going to be a characteristic of a left-leaning MB. I know you’ve tried to enlist some of the liberal posters here to correct that, and one or two might even have agreed to help. I think that’s as much as you can expect to happen.
Exactly. The Mods are here to create and maintain the environment conducive to posting and discussion, not to ensure that people admit their errors. That’s up to the boards posters to do or not do. I suppose a Mod in his or her poster role could do that as well, but they would be doing it just like anyone else at that point.
Could it possibly be that you monitor what is said about you more closely than what is said about others, and thus are much more likely to perceive any patterns, real or imaginary, that are aimed towards yourself than towards others?
I think that applies to the whole discussion of moderator bias as well. The makeup of the board is not going to change anytime soon and the moderation is not going to change anytime soon, and human nature is not going to change anytime soon.
These things can be interesting as abstract discussions, but if you get your hopes up on effecting any sort of change you’re just going to frustrate yourself. You need to either just live with it, or try another MB.
Wellllllll …
Sorry for not finding this and giving a false impression that he was untroubled by the board’s liberal leanings. I searched manhattan’s postings, for references to his quitting moderation, not postings about him or the SDSAB.
The actual subject of this thread is about moderation by moderators. I still find that manhattan claiming that he was never hassled by the moderators to be the relevant point. Even when he fled from us liberals, he didn’t claim there was a problem with the moderators - something he would have known upfront.
Regardless, the idea that we should establish an ideological test for the moderators, is, and shall remain, ridiculous.