I have to admit difficulty summoning ire as well.
If I’m understanding you correctly, that’s not a fair comparison. You are including in Terr’s totals incidents before his suspension. If the suspension is supposed to serve as a kind of ‘this is the point of no return’ kind of thing, then really that’s the point where both were on even footing. So since BG’s suspension, he’s received 5 warnings, and then gets another suspension. Since Terr’s suspension he’s received 2 warnings, and gets banned.
It was stated earlier that BG’s previous suspension was more like suspension-lite, so I’m not sure you’d agree with that alignment. And I don’t necessarily think it is evidence of actual bias, but it does appear to be incongruous treatment.
There’s this phrase, “in fact and appearance” - meaning it’s not just the substance that’s important, but the appearance as well. The 2:5 and different outcomes appears disjointed.
Wow, you guys are like Minority Report. Suspending people in the future! 
I suggest one exercise might be to quote posts that earned warnings or notes without attribution, and let the audience vote on what response if any they should have received. Then, after a suitable voting period, reveal the authors of the posts and see if any particular bias is apparent.
Once again, I am just comparing behavior over the same time period.
Again. One month suspensions represent “Last straw”, though there’s some wiggle room. One day or one week suspensions, like BG received, are in a different category.
Typically the one month suspension represents your last chance. Which I assume is why Der Trihs decided not to bother returning. For example. If Terr was given any other sanction, it would have been an unusual step away from precedent. It happens. But it’s not typical.
Awkwardly, I could see BG surviving his next warning though, if it occurred in 2 years say. His warnings with one or two exceptions have been picayune IMO. He’s still officially on thin ice though.
Your politics are liberal. You’re not unpopular.
My problem is it’s not a “1-week and a 1-month suspension”, it’s a 1-week followed by five more official warnings, and then two more in the thread in question (one of which was deliberately disobeying a mod’s instructions) vs a 1-month suspension followed by 2 more warnings and one more in the thread in question.
So it’s 1-week+7 warnings (one of which was for ignoring the mods) vs 1-month+3 warnings
My *politics *are not unpopular. I, personally, am loathed by the masses.
Right – and then later, when the banning is debated, people will eagerly point out the warnings received as justification, without ever admitting that the warnings themselves are not delivered even-handedly.
You joke, but in reality this is a good insight. I am actually loathed by some posters because of my politics. It’s not a joke for me.
Yes, your people have endured hardship on top of heartbreak for thousands of years, as you endeavor to persevere.
I hope that’s not me you’re thinking of. <3
Honestly, I think if there is a bias, it’s not in moderation. It’s just that if Joe Liberal says something snarky, there are fewer conservatives to report his post.
If Joe Conservative says something snarky, there are more people on the other side, and thus more of a chance that someone is gonna hit that report button, bringing the incident to a mod’s attention.
Thankfully, there don’t seem to be warnings for committing whooshes.
I understand that. I don’t think that’s a fair basis of comparison. It would be like pointing out that certain box office receipts are not inflation adjusted - just the gross figures are not the true picture. The activity after the suspension is a more informative view. YMMV.
I noted this a few pages back, and the more I think about it, the more I think this may be in play.
I think it’s more confirmation bias.
There’s absolutely no doubt that conservative posters get beat up more by other posters. A lot more. And when you’re continually attacked for your views, every mod action probably starts to feel the same - here we go, more of the same. And you don’t notice the controversial mod actions against liberal posters, or the conservative posters who get away with stuff, or that maybe the mod action was justified.
Bricker has one example in 15 years, Shodan has an example from 5 years ago where he was only noted, and neither of those are clear-cut examples of unfair moderation. I’m sure people could come up with many more examples. I’m sure others could come up with examples of liberal posters being unfairly moderated (in their own view), and example of conservative posters getting away with something. Nothing short of a full analysis of every post and moderation event over the last 10 years will convince anyone differently, and even then I’m sure we’d still argue over it.
slight clarification.
BG has five warnings since his suspension including the two in the Oregon shooting thread. Terr has two since his suspension.
And let’s not forget, debunkers, investigators of pseudo-science and people looking for the straight dope do notice that currently a lot of the things that liberals are talking about have lots of support coming from experts and scientists, even conservative ones. (Some of those experts and scientists are being so maligned by the right that they stop considering themselves conservatives). However, I know enough of science and history to realize that this is not in all areas and that **such a coincidence will not be a permanent thing.
**
The point is that besides liberals, currently a lot of people that just investigate if things discussed are rational are usually not being impressed by many conservative talking points nowadays.
Sorry, but I read that 3 times and I can’t figure out what the hell it has to do with posters reporting rules violations.