What's with the flurry of bannings of late?

[Gyrate]

Every time a conservative is banned, no matter how long they’ve been a member of the board, the narrative trotted out in ATMB is “See? This proves that the moderation is biased against conservatives!” whereas when a liberal is banned, no matter how long they’ve been a member of the board, it’s “See? Look how long liberals can get away with stuff before they get banned!”.

Confirmation bias is a harsh mistress.

[ThelmaLou]

@digs

Well, my first reaction was “Whew, maybe now we can get back to actual discussions.”

I think the last couple of bannings were long overdue. Posters whose opinions and outbursts didn’t come from reasoned reflection, but their own emotional states.

Definitely this. “Posters whose opinions and outbursts didn’t come from reasoned reflection, but their own emotional states,” AND whose only purpose is to bait people into getting on the Hamster Wheel of Infinitude with them.

One of the things that makes this board a great place to hang out is the rigorous moderation. I’ve been on boards (and I know some of you have, too) that are out of control. There either aren’t guidelines or people don’t follow what guidelines there are, and there’s no one to enforce them.

[Skywatcher]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t see why this would be arguing in bad faith. Perhaps you can clarify.

The notion that she’s washed up coupled with the fact that all presidential hopefuls are running out of time to file are incompatible with sincerely holding out hope that she’ll be the party’s nominee next year.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don’t understand what you’re saying. But not a big deal, in any event.

[octopus]

@Gyrate

Every time a conservative is banned, no matter how long they’ve been a member of the board, the narrative trotted out in ATMB is “See? This proves that the moderation is biased against conservatives!” whereas when a liberal is banned, no matter how long they’ve been a member of the board, it’s “See? Look how long liberals can get away with stuff before they get banned!”.

Confirmation bias is a harsh mistress.

When you have a former mod stating basically that is it really confirmation bias?

[Gyrate]

@octopus

When you have a former mod stating basically that is it really confirmation bias?

I’m assuming this is a reference to Bone. Go on then - show me the relevant quote. Is it this one?

@Bone

Most conservative voices on the Dope are gone. There are a few voices left who I think always present strong arguments, but their voices are few and far between. What’s left are many of the dregs, and it brings down the quality of discourse. Nearly any prolific conservative poster has a running pit thread. Every comment is interpreted in the most negative way possible, and after a while it gets pretty tedious. Granted, much of what is said is well deserved. But some of it isn’t. But rather than quality argument, intelligent voices gets drowned out by low quality bickering.

[octopus]

What I quoted in post 34. The thread is only one page long.

[Chisquirrel]

You mean where Bone regarded them as negative and detrimental forces, the dregs who bring down the quality of discourse?

And you miss them, because why? They agree with you politically?

[D_Anconia]

@octopus

What I quoted in post 34. The thread is only one page long.

From that thread, this is what Bone said:

I have argued against more severe action towards some of our more liberal members who got over exuberant in their transgressions.

The politics, real or perceived, of the posters shouldn’t factor in to moderation decisions, IMHO.

[octopus]

@Chisquirrel

You mean where Bone regarded them as negative and detrimental forces, the dregs who bring down the quality of discourse?

And you miss them, because why? They agree with you politically?

When stuff is written explicitly and not read or is read and the exact opposite meaning is reached I’m not sure what to say.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@D_Anconia

From that thread, this is what Bone said:

The politics, real or perceived, of the posters shouldn’t factor in to moderation decisions, IMHO.

I don’t interpret it that way. I think he was trying to show a lack of bias on his part. That is, he’s defended posters, who happened to be liberal not because they are liberal.

For example, it’s true that when I was a mod I noted liberal posters for their politically relevant posts more frequently than I did conservative posters. I’m saying that not to claim I took their politics into account, but as evidence that I try to be equitable regardless of politics. I think Bone’s post was similar in intent.

[octopus]

@D_Anconia

From that thread, this is what Bone said:

The politics, real or perceived, of the posters shouldn’t factor in to moderation decisions, IMHO.

Exactly. That’s part of it. The other part, which of course is denied yet again, is that some of the warnings bone handed out were precisely designed to weed out certain members. It was pretty obvious when the warnings were issued. It was obvious when those warnings were used, conveniently, to trap posters. And the obvious nature of the whole farce was confirmed with bone’s post.

But, this is the same moderating crew who knows for a fact that Ed explicitly allowed certain behavior and still felt the need to warn someone over something explicitly allowed and then denied that the post that explicitly allowed behavior said what it said in clear, unmistakable English.

[Colibri]

@D_Anconia

The politics, real or perceived, of the posters shouldn’t factor in to moderation decisions, IMHO.

You selectively quoted just the part referring to liberal posters. In context, the quote was intended to show he tried to be even handed to both sides.

[Gyrate]

@octopus

When stuff is written explicitly and not read or is read and the exact opposite meaning is reached I’m not sure what to say.

Yes, I hate when people do that.

[Colibri]

@octopus

Exactly. That’s part of it. The other part, which of course is denied yet again, is that some of the warnings bone handed out were precisely designed to weed out certain members. It was pretty obvious when the warnings were issued. It was obvious when those warnings were used, conveniently, to trap posters. And the obvious nature of the whole farce was confirmed with bone’s post.

Did this apply in particular to conservative posters? If so, what was nefarious strategy used to trap the liberal posters who were banned?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Maybe they posed as a 16-year-old girl to lure Budget Player Cadet into a chatroom.

[MrDibble]

@octopus

The other part, which of course is denied yet again, is that some of the warnings bone handed out were precisely designed to weed out certain members.

Why would anyone deny it? It’s right there in Bone’s own post - “certain members” being the “detrimental” and “negative” ones.

You think we should *keep *members who are detrimental and negative? Weeding out the detrimental and negative members is what the mods do.

[Colibri]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Maybe they posed as a 16-year-old girl to lure Budget Player Cadet into a chatroom.

Moderator Note

Reference to a poster’s politics and posting style may be relevant, but that kind of crack is over the line. Knock it off.

Colibri

[octopus]

@Colibri

Did this apply in particular to conservative posters? If so, what was nefarious strategy used to trap the liberal posters who were banned?

When the following wasn’t sufficient to counter a warning issued in part due to pressure from the crowd, I’m not sure any amount of evidence will convince those who have a vested interest in not being convinced.

@Ed Zotti

We reviewed the posts Chimera finds objectionable at the time they were initially reported to us, and we’ve now done so again. We’ve also reviewed posts by the relevant parties in the Pit. We find no evidence of a campaign of harassment. Morgenstern, it’s fair to say, doesn’t think much of Chimera and has made this plain in a couple threads where the two were on opposite sides of an argument. This isn’t against our rules. Arguably if Morgenstern were to disparage Chimera repeatedly in threads having nothing to do with the original disagreement, that would constitute harassment, but that’s not what’s been happening here so far as we can tell. Please note:

1. Insults are allowed in the Pit. Some of the insults are funny; some are vicious. It’s always been that way. If you don’t want to be insulted, don’t post in the Pit.

2. Be aware that information you post about yourself on this board may be used against you. Doing so may be a dick move. It’s not against our rules.

3. Our mistake was in leaving this thread open after it had ceased to be a discussion of board rules and had degenerated into bickering. We’ve not going to make that mistake again. We’ll leave this thread open briefly in case anyone has a point to make about our rules, enforcement, etc. If you want to rehash an old argument, take it to the Pit.

@Ed Zotti

“Don’t be a jerk” is the guiding principle behind our rules. It’s not, in itself, an enforceable rule. Everyone has a different notion of what constitutes jerkishness. To avoid endless arguments, we’ve tried to come up with bright line rules that are clear to all. The rule invoked by Chimera was the one against harassment. To repeat, we find no evidence he was being harassed as we understand the term. The posts reported by Chimera were mostly dismissive remarks. No doubt he didn’t like being addressed in such terms; they weren’t harassment by any stretch.

Underlined for emphasis. Again, with the amount of success I’ve had even with incontrovertible evidence do you honestly think I’m going to change your mind?

[Colibri]

@octopus

When the following wasn’t sufficient to counter a warning issued in part due to pressure from the crowd, I’m not sure any amount of evidence will convince those who have a vested interest in not being convinced.

You haven’t answered my question.