I am probably the polar opposite of you in my opinions, but I agree with your point there. I have no doubt a Mod will always be biased (not intentionally) based on their view of the world. To say otherwise goes against everything known about human natu
It’s not just political issues either, but this is of course, veering off topic.
You mean we’re only seeing the good stuff? :eek:
Nonsense. I got a warning for a clearly joking post that as near as I could tell was completely within the rules, and now I triple-censor myself to be sure I don’t fall afoul of the New Improved GD rules. The hair trigger applies to us all.
I think bias plays out in tricky and pernicious ways, and Bricker’s account here is utterly plausible. Systems featuring a broad range of discretion tend to produce systematically biased results along factors that are salient to the decision-makers in that system. All that can be done is to try to include diverse decision-makers in that system (in this case, more conservative mods), reduce discretion where practical, and to train the decision-makers to be conscious of the implicit bias they are likely exercising when they make decisions.
No. I have been overmodded, and it has had a chilling effect on my subsequent conduct.
That was my point initially, and it remains my point now.
That modding happened as of April of this year. What stopped you from being overmodded all those previous years, if this particular modding was your warning sign to tone it down?
Yeah, I finally figured out that the word you were looking for was howler. I was a little stunned when I looked up whopper in the dictionary.
Bricker - Jon Chance has raised the civility bar in GD over the past couple of years. Four years ago, I think your post and Gigo’s post would have past muster. It no longer does in GD.
My take is that I can adapt to the new regime. I can see getting caught in the transition though. I think that’s what happened to you and Gigo, who said in passing that Sam Stone would on occasion tell wild whoppers, when he should have said hootin’ howlers. (English isn’t Gigo’s first language, but I have no excuse.)
LHoD: you should link to your warning. It would provide a third example which might placate Bricker somewhat.
In Jon Chance’s defense, the civility bar was raised by popular demand. The idea was to lift it to the point where it cleared Der Trihs, who generally followed the rules here as they were construed at the time. I’m not surprised that unintended consequences followed.
Your question makes an assumption I haven’t argued, and therefore is a strawman argument.
I have not claimed that I have been overmodded “all these years.” Nor do I claim some sharp historical dividing line between reasonable and overzealous moderation of conservatives.
This is the part where you post, “…but what I am saying is…”, and clarify matters as to what overmodding you’re talking about.
n/m
No, his point is perfectly clear as he stated it.
So one warning that you feel was underserved in over 15 years of posting leads you to believe that you are overmodded secondary to your conservative POV.
Now I could see opening an ATMB thread at the time to protest that moderation based on your explanation that your intent was not to call the poster a liar but to question the veracity of the proffered source. Maybe it would have won on appeal maybe not. I don’t know. Mods make mistakes and sometimes they impressively own up to making them when more information is given and discussion is had. Not sure that I buy it myself but don’t care enough to think about too hard because even assuming the moderation was a complete miscarriage of justice, completely off the mark, making a claim of a pattern of discrimination based on one perceived as unjust moderation action is extremely laughable. One point is not enough even draw a line, let alone a pattern.
One perceived as unjust warning over 15 years seems to me to very likely below the median those who frequently get into contentious discussions about subjects in which feelings often run high.
The data you have presented seems more likely to support a contention that you have been cut extra slack* more than moderated harder than others. Not trying to be too snarky here but you are coming off like Trump complaining about Fox treating him “unfairly.” 
*Which is something I could understand if it occurred: well articulated expressions of perspectives less commonly represented here are valuable items that we do not want to lose.
It’s not the warning alone, it’s seeing the same behavior by others, that doesn’t even get a mention. It’s about bias, not about the one warning.
I can’t believe I am now arguing to explain Bricker. :smack:
It’s like I entered the Twilight Zone
Heh, people with passionately held POVs tend to claim that their POV is over-moderated … though in reality, it tends to be the “passionately held” part that is the problem. 
The stereotypical example of this in action is the Arab/Israeli debates - people who were passionate on both sides tended to raise accusations of over-moderation.
We were talking about a special needs student who engaged in controversial behavior. I said that special accommodations for behavior should be given to special needs students. Shodan responded to me by implying he should be able to engage in that controversial behavior.
I wanted to say that his analogy was inapt, because he wasn’t special needs–but I turned it into a joke by saying,
Now, true, there was the word “fairly” in there, which was a tiny dig–but I thought it was clear that it was not intended to be an actual question of Shodan’s intellect, and we’ve had mods say that playful comments like that generally don’t get modded. Overall, the sarcasm was, I thought, unmissable: clearly I was saying that Shodan was NOT inflicted with severe intellectual disabilities, and that I thought his analogy was therefore ridiculous.
Instead, I received a warning for insulting him.
I don’t know whether it was a hair-trigger warning for using the word “fairly,” or whether it was a misreading of what I was saying, or something else. But I think it was as unfair a warning as the one you received.
I suppose it’s possible that, since liberal posters outnumber conservatives one by a large margin here, that it’s more likely a liberal will report a potentially rule-breaking post than a conservative. And since the mods can’t see all the potential rule-breaking posts, that might skew things a bit.
Still, I’m just not seeing bias play out in any obvious way.
Are we rehashing old warnings? I can post about my one and only
Can you describe how this chilling effect on your subsequent conduct played out?
I tend to stay out of the debates about whether someone should have been banned. But this one really bothers me. I don’t see politically with Terr, and I think he and I have had maybe 2-3 exchanges the entire time we’ve both been here.
But him getting banned for this is petty, in my opinion.
IS there a way to start a grassroots movement to get Terr unbanned, like when Family Guy or Futurama were brought back due to popular demand?
I really think the mods screwed the pooch on this one. I think Terr should be allowed back.