That would have been a fine way to go.
Not at all the same thing. Posting a generalization about people because of a group they’ve chosen to join for political purposes is completely different from posting a slight against someone because of their membership in a group they’re born into. It’s why you can criticize Nazis or Al Qaeda or Bronies without criticizing Germans or Arabs or White dudes.
Right, but in terms of moving the conversation forward or contributing to the board, it’s just as useless.
Anyway, I really do want to wait until a moderator joins in, so I may not respond until then.
Agreed. I was bowled over by that warning. Historically, posts would be moderated if they broke the rules, but the moderator’s notes rarely included personal opinions, just a description of the rule being broken. UR2’s posts were stupid, but on topic. I don’t know if I agree that stupidity should merit a warning here.
There’s gonna be precious little fighting of ignorance going on if it does. That warning came out of nowhere, and I don’t think his earlier post deserved a warning either. Much better to post the ignorance so people can fight it. It might not convince UrbanRedneck, but there are other people reading.
It should if the “stupidity” is just an act.
I agree that the new moderation is different, but I don’t agree it’s about going after conservatives. The moderation seems to me to be more about reining in posters who have a habit of using certain disingenuous tactics.
That said, I will agree with everyone else that, if you’re doing newer moderation, it’s better to start with mod notes to let people know exactly what isn’t acceptable anymore. People shouldn’t get official reprimands (aka Warnings) for behavior that has previously been tolerate.
I would also suggest that the new mods get together and work out a statement about exactly what changes in moderation they plan to implement. That way it can be clear to all, and any potential downsides can be discussed.
One thing I really appreciate about @Jonathan_Chance’s moderation was when he decided to have us talk out what stuff should be moderated in GD. Rather than just implementing what he thought would make GD better, he got input from everyone.
I think that’s a good model for making changes in how the board is moderated.
I see the new moderation as actually implementing the rules JC set.
And not everyone thinks the new mods should start off with notes. Why should people be getting off lightly for things that are warn-worthy?
I don’t really care if the rules don’t matter any more, but it would be nice if the mods told us the opinions we were allowed to hold so we don’t get moderated for having the wrong ones.
Are you really seeing a lot of this?
I know the mods are trying to curb Concern trolling and JAQing among other trollish behavior. Not opinions. Stating things that are false and not backing it up and trying to pivot to a new point will probably not be tolerated as much as in the past. UR2 seems to be pushing the limits of what is trolling a lot.
I assume but don’t know for sure, that UR’s warning was part and parcel of his posting throughout that thread. If so, I agree, that could have been stated better. We are stilling getting the hang of this.
If I was still helping in GD, I would have at least modnoted and probably warned UR for his posts in that thread. Not his opinions but his not debating in a non-trolling way.
Trolling is not “an opinion”, and never was.
Serious question. Have any non-conservatives fallen foul of the new rules and received warnings? They seem extremely arbitrary and unpredictable.
MrDibble has been asked to climb down once or twice, IMS. But I think only in note form.
damuriajashi (sp?) was recently banned and wasn’t particularly conservative. I think he or she may have been accused of similar debating style, but I don’t recall exactly.
Is there a masterlist of Conservatives so I can crosscheck those against the warnings in the last 2 months?
I know there have been a few warnings for non-conservatives. But I don’t recognize many of the names I see in the Warnings list.
I thought he was just suspended? But that’s not reassuring at all, since he also has some very unpopular views.
I know you’re kidding, but it would make for an interesting social experiment if stats like that could be extracted. Certainly might serve to put to rest the claims that this message board leans left in moderation. Or not.
We could probably crowdsource you one. 
Is the list available for public consumption? Warnings aren’t a secret, after all.
This is two questions, not one. If the rules are phrased in a way that’s independent of partisanship, and if no non-conservatives have fallen foul of the new rules, then no non-conservatives should receive warnings.
It’s possible that some of our long-time conservatives have received a lot of extra slack in their nasty attacks on people and have gotten away with things that would have gotten non-conservatives banned a long time ago; with the repeal of that slack, they’re getting the warnings they’ve been building up to for years.
I actually do think we lean left, but not in mod objectivity, I think it is due to reporting. When someone is posting in a fashion that is not following the rules of the forum, it is more likely to be reported if the post is also a right leaning view.
We moderate mainly by flags. It is the system we have. GD & P&E have some pretty nice detailed rules. So if you treat the forum like The Pit or IMHO you can easily run afoul of that.
We also had a few posters, that I since learned were “conservatives” go ballistic when Modnoted or Warned and commit Banning by Mod. I don’t think over-reactions like that should count as proof of being anti-conservative.