Why was this post not modded?

[Saint_Cad]

In a GQ thread on the 1876 Presidential Election

@Hari_Seldon

I was vaguely aware of some of that FtP, but the details are interesting. Certainly the subsequent history supports what you say. Moreover, depriving blacks of the right to vote is still ongoing and it is no longer confined to the south. That’s what all the voter ID laws are about and note that the parties have traded position.

Emphasis added

While the mention of denying Blacks the right to vote is borderline for GQ considering it doesn’t address 1876, why is the vitriolic crack about voter ID laws allowed? Remember this is in GQ not Debates.

[running_coach]

Maybe it wasn’t reported. Did you?

[silenus]

Or possibly because 1) It’s the weekend, or 2) It’s a fact.

[Saint_Cad]

@running_coach

Maybe it wasn’t reported. Did you?

Yes 24 hours before I posted here.

[Saint_Cad]

@silenus

Or possibly because 1) It’s the weekend, or 2) It’s a fact.

The sad part is I’m worried that it wasn’t modded because the mods agree with you that liberal opinion on <insert topic here> = fact.

[running_coach]

@Saint_Cad

The sad part is I’m worried that it wasn’t modded because the mods agree with you that liberal opinion on <insert topic here> = fact.

Facts are neither liberal or conservative.

[John_Mace]

@running_coach

Facts are neither liberal or conservative.

Well yeah. That’s the point.

[Defensive_Indifference]

I think your bar for “vitriolic” is a bit lower than mine.

[Saint_Cad]

@Bayard

I think your bar for “vitriolic” is a bit lower than mine.

Does it really matter? It is a political opinion in GQ and AFAIK on that basis alone is moddable. And considering it was in the first couple of replies those are always enforced more strictly in GQ until the question is answered.

[aldiboronti]

@running_coach

Facts are neither liberal or conservative.

But is it a fact or a political opinion? I myself, as a non-American, don’t have the knowledge to decide that but surely that’s the nub of the matter.

[engineer_comp_geek]

I saw the post report. I am not the only moderator in GQ, but this is why I personally took no action on it.

In GQ, we allow threads to wander a bit from the OP once the question has been factually addressed, and in this case, the question had been very thoroughly answered by Freddy the Pig’s post. Hari Seldon was replying to that post and was clearly expressing his opinion in his response. While the voter ID portion of the comment is something that is probably better suited for Great Debates, the shift in the Republican and Democratic parties with respect to blacks is factual, easily cited, and has been discussed in GQ before. The post wasn’t entirely off-topic for GQ.

If the post had caused the thread to veer off into a discussion about voter ID and modern politics, then I would have stepped in. As it was, I felt that the post, while not ideal for GQ, did not require any moderator intervention at that point.

[Bricker]

@engineer_comp_geek

If the post had caused the thread to veer off into a discussion about voter ID and modern politics, then I would have stepped in. As it was, I felt that the post, while not ideal for GQ, did not require any moderator intervention at that point.

So. . . the liberal opinion in GQ remains unmodded, even after the post is reported, but if a conservative rebuttal is offered, at that point the moderation will put a swift end to things?

That seems a bit . . . actually, pretty much what I expect from the SDMB.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

So. . . the liberal opinion in GQ remains unmodded, even after the post is reported, but if a conservative rebuttal is offered, at that point the moderation will put a swift end to things?

That seems a bit . . . actually, pretty much what I expect from the SDMB.

When events perfectly align with your expectations, you should consider whether it is the expectations that are shaping your view of the events.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

So. . . the liberal opinion in GQ remains unmodded, even after the post is reported, but if a conservative rebuttal is offered, at that point the moderation will put a swift end to things?

That seems a bit . . . actually, pretty much what I expect from the SDMB.

Presumably, the same events would unfold if the conservative opinion were offered first, and the liberal rebuttal second.

However, it would seem better to simply moderate all political statements rather than pick and choose. Else, the rule becomes: No politics in GQ, unless the political post does not result in further discussion, in which case it’s OK. And, of course, the mods risk inserting their own biases whenever they do pick and choose.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Bricker

So. . . the liberal opinion in GQ remains unmodded, even after the post is reported, but if a conservative rebuttal is offered, at that point the moderation will put a swift end to things?

Whether it was liberal or conservative didn’t even enter into my thinking, so I have no idea where you are getting that from.

If the post had dragged the thread completely out of GQ territory, regardless of whether the opinions were liberal or conservative, I would have stepped in to moderate the thread. Since it was one post that was only marginally off-topic for GQ, I didn’t see a need to do anything.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@John_Mace

However, it would seem better to simply moderate all political statements rather than pick and choose.

I personally let minor political comments slide all the time. Yes, there’s a rule about no political comments in GQ, but I don’t feel that there’s any need for draconian enforcement of it. We don’t need to harshly slap the hand of everyone who gives even the tiniest hint of a political opinion.

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

When events perfectly align with your expectations, you should consider whether it is the expectations that are shaping your view of the events.

When the Sun rises in the east again tomorrow, I will contemplate this guidance.

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

Presumably, the same events would unfold if the conservative opinion were offered first, and the liberal rebuttal second.

However, it would seem better to simply moderate all political statements rather than pick and choose. Else, the rule becomes: No politics in GQ, unless the political post does not result in further discussion, in which case it’s OK. And, of course, the mods risk inserting their own biases whenever they do pick and choose.

I would be wary of offering the conservation political opinion first, based on:

2. Political, religious, or professional jabs, hijacks, and trolling prohibited. The purpose of General Questions is to get factual questions answered. In order to accomplish this we need the threads to stay on topic. We tolerate some joking, but that is generally acceptable only after the question has been answered. Please do not race to a thread to post that hilarious one-liner in response to the thread title, and don’t drive by just to drop in an anecdote that doesn’t answer the question. If you want to be funny while contributing to the thread, go for it. We tolerate some discussion of tangentially related factual information. We don’t tolerate political, religious, professional or personal jabs or insults.

If I chose to offer a conservative opinion hijack in GQ, I could be warned by a mod citing that rule, and what defense could I possibly offer?

But the liberal thinks he’s safe. And, as we see, he is.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

When the Sun rises in the east again tomorrow, I will contemplate this guidance.

You are as sure as the sun coming up each day that this board is that unfair…and yet you stay?

[Bricker]

@engineer_comp_geek

Whether it was liberal or conservative didn’t even enter into my thinking, so I have no idea where you are getting that from.

If the post had dragged the thread completely out of GQ territory, regardless of whether the opinions were liberal or conservative, I would have stepped in to moderate the thread. Since it was one post that was only marginally off-topic for GQ, I didn’t see a need to do anything.

I believe you believe that.