Terr and BrainGlutton

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

IOW liberals get shorter suspensions, and they are less seriously meant. And conservatives are on a much shorter leash - two warnings get you banned. For liberals, five warnings aren’t nearly the same - you just get suspended (again).

Regards,
Shodan

IOW no matter what evidence is offered, you have found a way to reinterpret to match your preconceptions. There does not appear to be any possible evidence that could persuade you to change your mind.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

… since everyone is more likely to report a post from a poster with differing politics…

That’s not true at all. I have reported spammers without taking the time to ask about their politics. I have reported a number of political jabs in GQ without regard to who the jab was aimed at. I have reported abusive posts without paying too much attention to who made them.

[Colibri]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

IOW no matter what evidence is offered, you have found a way to reinterpret to match your preconceptions. There does not appear to be any possible evidence that could persuade you to change your mind.

This certainly seems to be the case to me.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DSeid

I am having a hard time not believing that the “I’m so oppressed and discriminated against!” conservative posters here are not whooshing the rest of us, satirizing “micro-aggressions” and all that. Because boy their claims of discrimination are far more gossamer than the most hypersensitive of those claims.

Tragedy is when I get a mod note on a messageboard. Comedy is when you run afoul of a racist cop and die.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Colibri]
Frankly, I have no idea of the politics of most of the other mods, because it almost never comes up in our discussions.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

[Colibri]

@Shodan

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

Just more evidence of your personal bias.

[MrDibble]

@Steophan

It’s the calling non-racists racist, in an attempt to avoid debating their views, that is the problem.

Well, if I ever see that happening, I’ll be sure to report it.

The continual assumption that, because you know one thing about someone, one view that they hold, that you know enough about them to just assume they are wrong.

I think it’s perfectly OK to go from knowing one thing (This poster posted a racist thing) to knowing enough about them (they hold racist views)

But, calling a view or a person “racist” and leaving it at that, rather than showing why they are wrong, is shouting them down.

No, it’s describing their view. Like I’ve said before - I may have to explain why a particular something is racist (say, blackface), once or twice (and I’ve done so, many times), but after that, I don’t have to explain why it’s wrong. Racism = wrong isn’t up for debate anymore.

That’s why “racist” has been ruled an insult here (correctly).

I disagree. But what do I know, I’m apparently the Orwellian who wants to censor what people can say…by not getting to call people what they are. Somehow.

[John_Mace]

@Irishman

I think, in theory, there is a reasonable concern that if conservatives consistently get slightly more calls against them, that imbalance will rack up to form an overall bias against conservatives when Warning counts are assessed against posting privileges.

Not that I believe this has been demonstrated to be happening, but it isn’t a ridiculous position to be concerned about.

I think the most important point, though, is to ask what can we do to prevent it?

1. Try to ensure there is fair representation within the moderators themselves.

2. Pick moderators who have a reputation for fairness and self-scrutiny.

3. Foster a culture within the moderators to look at the situation, not the politics of the posters.

4. Foster a culture within the moderators of double checking their own motivations when moderating, and having them internally review each other.

I’m not saying any of the above are not being done. These are the ideas that I can think of that would help mitigate unintentional bias.

Ultimately, the hardest to prevent is the imbalance of situation that I described previously. Minority positions get overwhelmed by more arguments and attacks, and can be put more on the defensive simply from numbers. A few snarky remarks from a lot of posters adds up the hostility factor for the smaller number on the receiving end. Trying to keep the number of quips and barbs equal is going to make the smaller side fielding more comments per person, making them look more aggressive, and thereby more troublesome.

E.g. if 15 people each make one remark to a poster, that poster makes 15 remarks back, that one poster looks more troublesome. And if you’re making more remarks near the line, you’re more likely to have one caught on or over the line, more likely to amass those notes and Warnings that build you a record of being a troublemaker.

But that’s not really the moderators’ fault. They deal with the behavior they see.

The reality is that the minority position has to accept an imbalance of hostility and snark. The only other option is to cut all snark and moderate the board to death.

That seems like way more than can reasonably be expected from an all volunteer staff.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

So, we should conscript moderators?

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So, we should conscript moderators?

No, that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

[Colibri]

@Irishman

I think the most important point, though, is to ask what can we do to prevent it?

1. Try to ensure there is fair representation within the moderators themselves.

We do have a preference for seeking diversity among the moderation staff. However, the characteristics you list below trump anything else. Often we are turned down by candidates we think would be suitable (and I don’t blame them;)). Politics is not an explicit thing we look for, except that anyone who is recognized as a strong political partisan for any side to the extent that it would bias their judgement would not be considered.

2. Pick moderators who have a reputation for fairness and self-scrutiny.

That’s characteristic number one when we are looking for candidates.

3. Foster a culture within the moderators to look at the situation, not the politics of the posters.

4. Foster a culture within the moderators of double checking their own motivations when moderating, and having them internally review each other.

We do make a practice of this.

[Irishman]

@John_Mace

That seems like way more than can reasonably be expected from an all volunteer staff.

Really? I think some of those may already be in place.

For 1, they already do send out occasionally to specific posters to see if they would be interested in moderating. How hard is it to look for a conservative or two in GD who have good reps and see if they’re interested? (Getting them to agree is a different matter.)

For 2 and 3, I suspect those are already true.

4 might be the difficult one, as it requires the most effort.

The rest of it has nothing to do with moderator behavior.

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Which of the current crop of moderators is fairly described as “conservative?”
[/QUOTE]

I have no idea. I don’t really know the politics of any moderators. I don’t regularly post in GD and don’t follow the common arguments.

[John_Mace]

@Irishman

Really? I think some of those may already be in place…

When you say something like “foster a culture” and “moderators double checking and interviewing each other”… I’m not seeing how you can do that to any significant degree within the parameters we’re working with here. But I’m not a moderator, so maybe they have more time than I think they have.

[Bone]

@Colibri

We do have a preference for seeking diversity among the moderation staff. However, the characteristics you list below trump anything else. Often we are turned down by candidates we think would be suitable (and I don’t blame them;)). Politics is not an explicit thing we look for, except that anyone who is recognized as a strong political partisan for any side to the extent that it would bias their judgement would not be considered.

I’ll discard my candidate registration forms.

[Colibri]

@John_Mace

When you say something like “foster a culture” and “moderators double checking and interviewing each other”… I’m not seeing how you can do that to any significant degree within the parameters we’re working with here. But I’m not a moderator, so maybe they have more time than I think they have.

It is quite frequent for moderators to run a post they are considering moderating, or a thread report, through the mod loop for comments from other moderators to see what the consensus is. We also on occasion call each other on moderating decisions we feel may not be appropriate or not according to precedent. There is a great deal of cross-checking that goes on behind the scenes.

[Bricker]

@Colibri

We do have a preference for seeking diversity among the moderation staff. However, the characteristics you list below trump anything else. Often we are turned down by candidates we think would be suitable (and I don’t blame them;)). Politics is not an explicit thing we look for, except that anyone who is recognized as a strong political partisan for any side to the extent that it would bias their judgement would not be considered.

Would it surprise you to learn that amongst the current crew, the number of moderators who self-identify as conservative is either one or zero?

Or would your reaction be more, “No, no – that can’t be right. We seek diversity among the moderation staff!”

[samclem]

@Bricker

Would it surprise you to learn that amongst the current crew, the number of moderators who self-identify as conservative is either one or zero?

How many have NOT self-identified as to either conservative/liberal/no affiliation?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bone

I’ll discard my candidate registration forms.

I’ve never thought of you as being a strong partisan either way, except on gun issues.

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

Would it surprise you to learn that amongst the current crew, the number of moderators who self-identify as conservative is either one or zero?

How many have self-identified as liberal? Must not be any.

[madsircool]

Id like to recommend that SDMB create a forum like the Box on the Giraffe boards where banned Dopers can still participate but only in that forum. And maybe rehabilitate themselves. These boards could use more posters, not fewer IMO.