The only way to actually know any of this is to make the secret Mod sub forum public, with all the vanished threads brought back, but that isn’t going to happen.
So the fact that you treated Terr more harshly in the past justifies treating him more harshly in the present, even though BrainGlutton’s behavior was demonstrably worse in the present.
Seems more than slightly circular to me.
Regards,
Shodan
OK
Although I do think the mods are generally even handed, and that might be confirmation bias on my part, I’m looking at your justification as you are presenting it (not how I might have perceived it in the past), and just not seeing a compelling argument. As others have noted, you got 1 warning you feel is unjustified in 15 years.
Whereas I, as a leftist poster, have gotten two warnings I feel are unjustified in 16 years, one of which I pushed really hard and got overturned, the other of which I didn’t push on because it was actually close to a line (even though I don’t think I crossed it).
Bricker, at the time of your warning, did you push hard to have it overturned? FWIW, I see what you’re saying, and I think the warning was probably unjustified. OTOH, I think terr’s warning was totally justified, and that he walks very close to the line a lot. And I am satisfied by the mod’s explanation of the difference between a 1-week and a 1-month suspension.
Inventing things to bitching about is not like being The Highlander, you know! 
Politics aside (and I like BG a lot), I can’t help thinking that a poster who requires suspending twice is not going to improve with a second.
What do you mean by the present? Since November 2013, BrainGlutton has received five warnings, while Terr has received eight. Since BrainGlutton’s suspension, Terr’s behavior has been demonstrably the worse of the two.
To be fair to Shodan, only 2 warnings were listed in the thread announcing Terr’s banishment, while 5 were listed in BG’s suspension notice.
And let’s keep in mind that there are lots of warnings that lots of us think are unjustified. Just because someone gets an unjustified warning doesn’t mean it’s for political reasons.
Okay, I’m convinced (seriously).
ETA: I’ve received one unjustified warning in 12 years and three justified ones, and the unjustified one was reversed after I started a thread about it.
OK, I want to back up a bit. Why are we measuring from Nov 2013? The better measurement is from each person’s initial suspension, until today. Does that end up being just 2 for Terr, or did he have more?
I did push hard, twice, both PM exchanges with the mod in question.
I chose not to open an ATMB thread, in the belief that these threads are carried, in significant measure, by the popularity of the poster. I believed that while some posters would chime in agreeing that the warning was unjustified, the majority – exemplifying the precise process now under discussion – would offer up opinions that the warning was merited.
I must be a fricken slacker. 8 years and not one damn warning. The mods must hate me.
I genuinely doubt that’s the case. IME, 25% of the people posting in those threads back the mods no matter what, 25% oppose the mods no matter what, 25% decide based on whether they like the poster, and 25% decide based on whether the poster is right.
In my own particular thread, the overwhelming consensus (at least 75%) was that I was correct, and I don’t think I’m particularly popular. In fairness, I had been warned for saying something about a very unpopular poster, so that might have played into it.
Now we’re getting into self-fulfilled prophecy here, Bricker. With all due respect.
You think you’re being more harshly treated because of your politics, but won’t test that in the best place to test it because… your politics will be held against you.
Yes, and I think that Shodan is modded with greater lenience because he effectively games the ref and you have a single example.
Your example happens to be a true borderline case. Bone, Wolfpup and myself are on your side. The last time we hashed this out, Shodan took the opposite side, interpreting the lie criteria in GD more broadly. (See below; I would predict that he takes your side in the current example.)
True borderline case
Here’s the thread. It’s from last June. Took me forever to find it. Google doesn’t work as well on this board as it used to: I had to use the board’s search mechanism:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=759625&highlight=lose
Not sure about Bone’s take in June.
Shodan says he reported an instance of a poster using the phrase “Deliberately disingenuous” in GD (it was actually deliberately distorted) : http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18443164&postcount=35
Grotonian says we should allow the word liar in GD or ban everything that could be construed as a euphemism, if I understand him correctly.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18442244&postcount=26
I quote wolfpup approvingly:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18446767&postcount=73
Jon Chance acknowledges that there was a lot of internal debate on this issue:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18447502&postcount=76
More generally, yeah heightened vigilance on this issue is reasonable give precedent. But decent posters have a filter in GD. I certainly do. Heck, I have a filter in the pit as well though it’s driven by decency rather than the rules. And speaking generally, I don’t try to compete with Vinyl Turnip or Bryan Eckers in terms of wisecracks and to be honest I think it would be best if most posters didn’t. It’s a specialist skill.
Bricker, Jonathon Chance has moderated posters more than once for saying “you don’t know what you’re talking about”, interpretting as some personal attack. He’s warned people for saying a linked cite is lying. He’s just got some hair trigger, trying to raise the tone of the boards or something. I haven’t noticed a political bias.
I’m not following you. Is the thread you linked to meant as a parallel to the one in which Bricker was Warned? Because it is not very close, IMO. Most of my posts focussed on tomndebb’s use of the term “deliberate”, which made it clear that he was accusing another poster of intent to deceive. There is at least some ambiguity in Bricker’s post, and some reason to believe that the cite was the deceiver, not the poster. Still and all, both are resolved on the side of treating them as accusations of lying in GD.
It is still not a very good example of even-handedness. If both case are borderline, both were resolved with the decision that both were in fact accusations of lying. I expect we can agree that Bricker is at least as respected a poster as tomndebb is.
The liberal’s first offense gets a mod note. Bricker’s first offense gets a warning.
Regards,
Shodan
If ALL one has is feelings, despite evidence to the contrary, I believe that’s what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness”. :dubious:
Shodan referred to their behavior in “the present.” Therefore I cited the number of warnings over the same period of time, from BG’s suspension in November 2015 until now. BG received five warnings from his one-week suspension until now. Terr received eight warnings in the same period of time (actually one month less, since his suspension is included in that), including six before his suspension and two after. Over the past two years or so, Terr’s behavior has been worse.