[Off Topic]
I think all polls should have a “this is ridiculous” option
[/Off Topic]
I, for one, am astonished that we’re still worrying about why a mod left 12 years ago. As if it could have any resonance today or that the MB 12 years ago has any real bearing on the MB today.
Not only isn’t the board culture the same it would be horrible if it were.
I registered after **manhattan **was long gone, so his situation has little meaning to me. But his name was brought up in this thread and the information was easily found. Someone must think the board’s history is relevant. In fact, the events of a decade ago spawned the same discussion that is happening now.
Not true. Every single time I have become aware of a factual error in my postings, I have acknowledged it and apologized for making it, regardless of whatever rhetorical advantage may or may not have come my way.
Bricker is very good when it comes to facts.
Is that a fact?
What you need is a catch phrase. Here is one: Feynman Integrity. Unfortunately the concept is designed for scientific papers; by necessity message board posts (or even journalism) will have lower standards. But here it is anyway. Here is Paul Romer quoting Richard Feynman:
[QUOTE=Paul Romer quotes Richard Feynman]
It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
[/QUOTE]
That bar is rather high, too high except in rarefied circles. But it’s something to keep in mind.
Well, if you refuse to acknowledge your factual error, some metaphorical rooftop-shouting seems a fairly mild penalty.
Not “regardless.” You tend to use it as a rhetorical point, like you did here. You spin what should be a negative–getting something wrong–into a positive.
“Tend to?”
No. The majority leader of cases don’t include a observation other than the admission of error.
If the mods are allowing their politics to influence their judgment calls then the less moderators they. But I really don’t think they are. Sure, there are occasions when personal opinions may sway a fine decision. Mods are but human (at least, I think so) and such occasions are few and far between.
In short the proposal is a solution for a non-existent problem.
And I guess the answer is “no.”
A shock to be sure.
No, for reasons previously stated.
Having been “noted” in the related thread for bickering, I will post appropriately “chilled” here and suggest yet again that while affirmative action at a moderator level seems completely unnecessary, affirmative action for a variety of values of conservative remains as something worthy of consideration, and propose giving them perhaps an extra chance to rehabilitate before banning. And for all of us (be we liberal, conservative, or whatever) to do better at identifying and calling out (be it by reporting or whatever is an appropriate means for the forum) jerkiness that comes from those who we agree with as well as those we disagree with.
I say this as someone who self identifies as centrist (perhaps very slightly left of). I really do not want to be the most conservative voice in the thread and this board would be a lesser place with fewer voices that beg to differ.
Because you don’t feel like you can spin your error to your advantage this time?
The mods do an exceptional job of protecting conservative posters, with whom I’m quite certain they are often in disagreement on political matters.
It does feel like there is a common theme of “ganging up” on a poster who dares to offer a conservative perspective. More often than not, that just serves as fuel to my fire. I don’t feel that the moderation in any way discriminates against us. If anything, I think they offer a slight extra rope knowing that it isn’t easy to always hold the contrarian viewpoint. I probably could have received multiple warnings in my time but only have 1.
This post is – ironically – a taunt and not an argument.
It attacks me and my motives you imagined for me, and not any argument I am making.
It’s also bickering, but undoubtedly you are safe.
I don’t concede error, as previously stated, in this instance, and therefore have no apology to offer.
Moderator Action
And since this thread is also descending into snippy comments, I am closing this one too.
Posts in ATMB are expected to be polite and civil. Arguments belong in the Pit.
Thread closed.