I will accept anything that clearly indicates a moderator’s political viewpoint. That is, after all, the goal of the exercise here.
I used to say, along with others, that there is value in having a representation of diversity of political opinions here, including representation of American conservatives. 14ish years here has led me to believe that sentiment is vastly overrated.
So, you advocate a kind of “affirmative action” policy for potential mods based on political leaning, in order to reverse alleged political inequity? How do you reconcile that with your position on affirmative action, which I believe you staunchly oppose? Does it have something to do with what side of the fence one is on, or what?
Who would get to determine if said “Token Mod” was conservative enough?
Would you trust the mods to make that decision?
Tom tells the posters to stop calling each other stupid. In the very next post you refer to something as a “lie”, thereby escalating the situation despite damn clear albeit implicit moderator instructions to tone things down. Most posters would have received a warning for that. You got a note.
I don’t have a problem with that, by the way: this board has a longstanding policy of affirmative action for conservatives. Which I support.
Conservatives on this message board suffer the burden of weaker arguments, so it’s only fair that they are granted special preferences.
If that’s snark, then I approve. If you seriously believe that, I fear you are mistaken. I routinely toss the word crazy at those who don’t accept the scientific consensus on evolution and anthropogenic climate change. Abortion? Nah. I admit I don’t understand conservative arguments on that subject that well – but I don’t understand moderate ones either. I’m on outlier on that subject. Anyway, let’s go back to your list:
Except for the ACA, plenty of Rockefeller Republicans would have gone along with those things (I’m extrapolating on the gay rights issue). Heck, Nixon would of. Just saying.
I have disagreed with Bricker thus far, but you’re doing a good job of making me reconsider my position.
That is, unless:
Nixon would’ve.
Just saying.
(And betting most of the board’s conservatives already knew that. ;))
It’s not the analysis I think they object to. It’s the accusation that they definitely are biased–based on flimsy evidence.
<tears up ballot paper with “John Mace” written on it>
<writes new ballot paper with “John Mace” written on it>
I’m open to the possibility that moderation on the board leans to the left, but so far I haven’t seen sufficient evidence. From what I can tell, conservative posters don’t seem any more likely to be suspended or banned than liberal posters. I recognize it’s possible that my own bias clouds my perception on this issue.
But it’s also entirely possible that the complaints of some conservative posters are also clouded by bias. And considering that, from what I can tell, the only ones complaining about an anti-conservative bias are a few conservative posters, and since I haven’t seen any overwhelming evidence (to me, anyway) that conservative posters are treated very differently and more harshly than non-conservative posters, I remain unconvinced.
I’ve been busy for the last week. What did I miss?
I don’t think those qualities are less relevant. I think politics are at least as relevant.
You say that you want diverse, fair-minded people as mods. That’s good, and in general, most of the moderation from nearly all the mods is fair.
But if a mod is fair-minded, then his diversity will not affect his moderation. He or she will moderate fairly no matter what. If diversity affects moderation (presumably to make it more fair), then political diversity is equally desirable.
So either the lack of political diversity in the mods does not affect anything and you don’t need it, or it does and you do. If it doesn’t affect anything, why is political diversity the only kind that doesn’t affect the moderation?
Regards,
Shodan
- Bricker Apparently has the idea that the vast majority of the moderators are liberals.
- He would like some token conservative mods be put in place to counteract this.
Which would be more desirable to you: That they let their political persuasions effect how they moderate, creating a need for Bricker’s “token mods”, or that they leave their personal politics to the side when they do their job?
I doubt very much that you have a future in any professional field that requires accurate analysis of the underlying emotions of authors.
Ok I guess I’m it. The only Republican I can remember voting against is Chris Christie because he is a colossal douche. I also can’t see voting for any of the current candidates because they are horrible. I am moderate or dont-care-ian on most social issues. There, that’s probably the most about politics you will see me post.
And for the record, I’m the one who warned Terr and called for his banning.
Can you give me example of what would “clearly indicates a moderator’s political viewpoint?”
Oh, so that’s what this topic is actually about.
I think he is asking you, since you are the one who is convinced it is a problem for conservatives.
The precise thing that needs to be done, as stated by Bricker, is “reverse that inequity”.
I merely note in passing that on the matter of reversing historical inequities, Bricker is on record as stating that affirmative action programs are discriminatory and should be illegal. It’s hard to know at what point, in this philosophy, official powers are supposed to start meddling in the free meritocracy that he so favors.