In what way is that modding? For one, your quote doesn’t even identify the mod, and for another, even if it was posted by a mod, it is clear he just disagrees with your viewpoint. No where has he warned or made any kind of note or other observation in his capacity as a mod. Mods are allowed to respond to your posts outside of their mod position, and they may disagree with you, but that does not count as being modded.
One example doesn’t exactly show a trend. And were others of the other political persuasion getting away with what you were warned for?
Maybe you should read the actual there and then you’d see Bricker got a warning for that post. Or not and just argue, because.
Bricker ended the post with “How utterly deceptive.”
**J.C. **gave him a warning for an accusation of lying in GD.
If there was a mod, it must come in a subsequent post, because it’s not there.
Yeah that’s generally how it works. The modding comes after the post. Doing it the other way is unusual to say the least.
Let me help you out with this.
I looked at the follow ups. The moderation was on the next page, I do remember that I was once put on notice (not a warning) for saying that a poster was making a whopper of a tale out of a small item. But like Burger King I was wrong, it turns out that another definition for that word is that made it look like if I saying that the poster was making a big lie. And those burgers are actually puny. 
So it looked like it was breaking the rules so it is a bit of a fair cop, but in the case Bricker linked to he did indeed say that the other poster was being deceptive, indeed a direct accusation of the other poster of being a liar.
OK, now that we have the facts, please explain how that mod shows unfair bias against a conservative.
Thanks. How many warnings have you gotten in your 15 years and 10 months of being on the SDMB?
Two.
One was was absolutely justified.
The other, that one, was not. The “deceptive” comment I made referred not to the poster but to the quote he offered up. The poster was not being deceptive; he was in good faith reporting what the news source said about the problems Hiller had with ID. It was the source that was deceptive.
No, just observing it. There’s nothing to debate, it’s simply a (big) part of what this place is.
I did something similar as a poster:
The OP to that thread was me credulously repeating a story about union crews in territory damaged by Hurricane Sandy turning away crews sent to help repair because they were non-union. I accurately reported the story from my source, which was itself a television station (and NOT a Fox station, I might add).
But the source was wrong. Deceptive.
And there a couple of responses to me:
Those posters did not receive warnings. The thread was moved to the Pit and there was a general admonition, not directed by name at anyone:
That was certainly appropriate mod action.
I, however, said something that I think is clearly more mild and less accusatory than “spreading falsehoods” and got warned.
In my opinion, that’s how it works. The conservative posters get a bit less leeway, and thus functionally identical behavior means that conservative posters accumulate mod notes where liberals would get general admonitions; conservative posters get warnings where liberals doing the same type of thing get mod notes; conservative posters get suspended for a month while liberal posters get two weeks; and then when banning is discussed, what a surprise! It’s justified based on number of warnings, and length of previous suspensions.
Not questioning your intent in that post, but I don’t think there’s anyway a reasonable person could read that and come away with the impression that you were talking about the source of the cite, and not the poster himself. Your sentence immediately before that is, “Is that what you meant?” giving the plain impression that the “deceptive” comment refers to the poster’s meaning, and not the cite he’s relying on.
At any rate, how does this bear on your contention that you’re moderated unfairly because of your politics? Are you suggesting that Jonathan Chance deliberately misread your post because you’re a Republican?
Yep. Bricker has just shown this trend, with his x-y graph with exactly one point on it.
Not at all.
I don’t think there’s anything deliberate about it.
I think that when a mod reads my union crew post, and someone calls it “spreading falsehoods,” he nods internally. “That’s EXACTLY what it is,” he thinks.
And when a mod reads my “How deceptive,” comment, he immediately thinks, “No, it’s not that deceptive, and anyway voter suppression is a real problem, so highlighting is good.”
You’re not accusing me of being deceptive here, are you?
How many points can I afford to accumulate in the process of proving my point?
Now, in an exaggerated effort to avoid another warning, I triple-censor myself. I avoid posting things that might conceivably be misinterpreted.
Meanwhile, the liberals posters here labor under no such barrier.
So we’ve gone from you are being overmodded because you are a conservative to, you would be overmodded if you posted the way you wanted to as a conservative?
Is that about right?
Because I didn’t imply that you were a liar. The word “deceptive” implies intent to deceive. I just labeled your cite as baseless propaganda. Big difference, because you may have done it out of ignorance, not intention.
I didn’t see that warning when it originally was issued to Bricker, but reading it now I’m surprised. Saying a person is being deceptive is construed as lying, but saying someone is being misleading or disingenuous is okay? I don’t think that’s necessarily bias against conservatives, but it’s not consistent.
I understand the rule against accusations of lying, but there really should be a bright line rule that includes the phrase “you are lying” as verboten, and not much else (in this area).
Consider the following phrasing:
[ol]
[li]The way you have presented things is misleading.[/li][li]The way you have presented things is disingenuous.[/li][li]The way you have presented things is deceptive.[/li][li]The way you have presented things is misleading and here is why:[/li][li]The way you have presented things is disingenuous and here is why:[/li][li]The way you have presented things is deceptive and here is why:[/li][/ol]
To me, all of those are functionally the same. But only the statements with “deceptive” in them are modded?