Out of curiosity, what punishment would/did you vote for in BG’s case?
To recap:
Some self-identified conservative posters are complaining that there is, in their perceptions, unfair moderation against them. The evidence of that is that they say they perceive it so it must be true. Other posters in this thread, who are not for the most part members of any extreme pole on any conservative-liberal axis, simply do not see it. No question moderation is not completely consistent but we have seen as much (or more) unmoderated jerkishness from “conservatives” than from “liberals” … ironically Shodan who is the beneficiary of moderation action that appears to have created a rule specifically just to make legal his sign-off habit that many (agree with them or not) perceive as weak-assed trolling, argues help-I-am-being-oppressed!
Of course if any other group X in broad society was claiming that they are systematically discriminated against on the basis of the level of “evidence” presented here and demanded some “solution”, the response by some of the posters here would be … less than supportive. But be that as it may.
Further the “conservatives” here claim that the moderators of the relevant fora are overwhelming “liberal”. Now it is unclear how they define “liberal” … to some of them “liberal” may merely mean not as conservative as they are, let alone meaning farther along the axis than inside the middle half or even third. They have also resented no evidence that the moderators of the relevant fora are overwhelmingly liberal.
The moderator who warned Terr and called for his banning states he fairly consistently votes GOP and is moderate to apathetic on most social issues. But states is unlikely to vote for any of the current crop of GOP presidential wannabees … not a conservative I guess, so is therefore a liberal?
So so far zippo evidence that there is an over-representation of the liberal end of the political spectrum among the moderators of the relevant fora, if anything some decent evidence that there is not (or at least that the action against Terr was not the result of such a liberal pole bias), no evidence that there is any discrimination against conservatives (and some that a special rule has been created for a member of the group).
I honestly do not even see any overwhelming bias among posters here. In gun threads for example there is no shortage of posters representing the conservative gun rights position and if anything the far end of that pole is much better represented than is the far end of the other side that would call for bans. For many posters here political orientation is rarely a major lens that informs their comments and within the same grouping you will find very different conclusions and perspectives … certainly among liberals and the current state of affairs in the GOP primary evinces the lack of any unitary conservative perspective as well.
You want a token moderator each for every flavor of socially conservative, libertarian, fiscally conservative, neocon, and while we are at it each flavor of liberal/progressive and moderate? Or only special treatment that your particular brand of conservatism is represented (and without you being willing to step up to the plate)?
This does beg the interesting question of whether an anarchist could carry out the functions of a moderator.
Drawing and quartering but then there was all this liberal bleeding heart whining about “Human rights” and “Cruel and unusual punishment.” Then I told them they were going easy on him because he brings gluten free scones to their monthly liberal meetings. I think that’s where it ended. I don’t remember I got distracted because I was moving into a new place this week.
The chill is gone.
The chill is gone away.*
I’d support John Mace for moderator.
Either him, or Bill & Opus.
Hey, what do you mean by that?
This anarchist doesn’t see any reason why not - people voluntarily put themselves under the Mods’ authority when they sign up, so moderation here’s not coercive. IMO.
The Marketplace will have to go, though. Can’t have capitalism…
I’ve never doubted since I started posting here (as an extreme centrist) that this board is left-leaning, and that right-leaning posters (especially those who are vociferous and have annoying posting habits) get slammed regularly in threads. That’s the way it’s always rolled around here, and you deal with it (hopefully, without wasting a lot of time up on the cross).
Moderators have generally seemed, well, more moderate about things, given their sacred calling :dubious: and prone to zap unrepentant arse-pains of whatever political persuasion. In other words, I don’t have the perception that conservative posters are more likely to be suspended/banned than liberal ones.
It would be nice if those with strongly held beliefs (wherever they fall on the spectrum) could refrain from the assumption that they possess an exalted moral sense and that their opponents must therefore be satanic/racist/Bush-like. I’m resigned to the extreme unlikeliness of that outcome. 
Why not Bricker for the next open mod job?
**BigT **telling you how to do your job.
Your understanding of my position is flawed.
Back in 2009, I posted in a thread supporting a program that preferentially hired African American teachers to work in school systems in which the majority of students were African-American. Although the discussion called this “affirmative action,” I pointed out:
Later in the thread, having been criticized for this view by some fellow conservatives, I said:
This case is analogous. I certainly oppose affirmative action, defining it as the hiring of minorities to redress wrongs or counter infirmities suffered by those minorities. But I encourage the hiring of specific minorities when the job function is the intended beneficiary. If you want to call that affirmative action as well, that’s fine.
And to rebut any inference that this is a position crafted to support my current discussions here in this thread, please note that the linked thread dates from six years ago.
Because Bricker would be a terrible choice, and his tenure would be doomed from the start. Moreover, he has said clearly and succinctly that he does not want and would not accept the job.
I have offered solutions which he has rejected as insufficiently probative. I’m now asking him what he would accept.
My wife and and play a variant of this game all the time:
BRICKER: Where do you want to eat dinner?
MRS BRICKER: Oh, anywhere is fine.
BRICKER: Great! How about Mexican?
MRS B: Um… nah, I’m not in the mood for Mexican.
BRICKER: OK. Steaks? Outback?
MRS B: That’s too expensive.
BRICKER: Thai? Chinese? Sushi?
MRS B: Um… no, nothing Asian.
BRICKER: OK, so where do you want to go?
MRS B: I don’t know. Wherever you want.
I’d support it though if you would continue to refer to yourself in the third person, particularly ( maybe only ) when acting as a moderator. People who refer to themselves in the third person generate 49% annoyance in me, but 51% amusement - the mix is irresistible. You could use it instead of moderating brackets - “You’ve been here long enough to know better, Bricker is giving you a warning.”
Yes, I agree that gun threads are the most balanced here – still the majority leans left, but there is a solid core of counterargument to be had.
What fraction of regular posters here would you guess are pro-life?
Bricker appreciates your support but still wouldn’t take the job. Bricker knows it would be a disaster, although using the approach of speaking only in the third person, it might could be a humorous disaster.
I don’t know. What fraction of the regular posters here are insane?
Would this be a prerequisite for a “Conservative Moderator”?
What views must a moderator have to qualify as a conservative in your opinion?
QED