# Why was this post not modded? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 2, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610 "2017-04-02T21:32:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/81 "2017-04-03T21:06:54Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > IIRC, you didn’t protest this warning at the time, saving it for later to present as bloody proof of partisanship amongst moderators. You don’t recall correctly. I protested the warning the day I got it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/82 "2017-04-03T21:11:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My comment was intended to paint the original cite as deceptive, not the poster that presented it, but even if it were taken as my comment on the poster, the summary presented an impression that was materially at odds with the actual facts. > > And not in a way that helps liberals, which transformed my comment from a factual rebuke to a Warnable comment. “But it’s the truth!” has never been accepted as an excuse for calling a poster “deceptive” outside The BBQ Pit, as far as I can remember. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/83 "2017-04-03T21:28:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “But it’s the truth!” has never been accepted as an excuse for calling a poster “deceptive” outside The BBQ Pit, as far as I can remember. I was the first (and, so far as I can recall, the only) poster ever warned for calling anything deceptive, be it poster or cite. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/84 "2017-04-03T21:34:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I was the first (and, so far as I can recall, the only) poster ever warned for calling anything deceptive, be it poster or cite. Which means the rest of us figured out before the fact that it would be wrong to do so. Not a point in your favor, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/85 "2017-04-03T21:40:32Z")
There was nothing about this moderation that suggested unfairness. There was given a good reason for why the post was not moderated: it was made after the question was answered, and largely stayed on topic. If it had led to a hijack, then it would’ve been moderated. Nothing about that suggests that if the post had been pro-voter-ID that it would have been moderated differently. Thus, if you wanted to bring that up, you needed to bring up a counterexample that contradicted what the mod said. You didn’t. You decided to whine. You didn’t even try to present it in a neutral tone. No, you decided to attack, with absolutely no evidence. That makes you come off badly. I don’t doubt that, on occasion, the political leanings of the culture of this board lead to bad moderation. And, when that happens, it’s fair to bring it up, since the mods are trying not to be unfair in that manner. But this is not that. It is just whining and accusations without substance. You have not in any way shown that what engineer\_comp\_geek said is incorrect, and that there is actually a liberal bias at work instead of what he claimed. And what you don’t seem to get that attacking this particular situation, where a good reason was given for the moderation, makes you seem like all your other complaints are just as petty and invalid. It only hurts your case in the future if you do encounter actual unfairness. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/86 "2017-04-03T21:55:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t recall correctly. I protested the warning the day I got it. Ah. Not publicly. [Here’s the thread I can find that you started on the subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=803149), wherein you stated: > [@Bricker](#): > > Over a year ago, I got a warning from Jonathan Chance. I protested this warning twice, believing it to be an uneven application of a standard – that is, I believed my words were judged more exactingly than others’ words had been in previous interactions. > > Over the past year, however, I have gradually come to realize that I was wrong. The issue was not that my words were judged more exactingly, but rather that Jonathan Chance was applying a more exacting standard across the board. So to speak. > > I was wrong in my earlier protest, and in any suggestion that any less even-handed motive was in play. > … > I have come to believe that the particular instance I mention was not the result of bias. Is this what you’re talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/87 "2017-04-03T21:55:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Thus, if you wanted to bring that up, you needed to bring up a counterexample that contradicted what the mod said. You didn’t. Correct. I’m afraid to make any posts that might serve as a counter-example, for fear I’ll draw a warning. A counter-example would also violate Rule #2 of the forum, just as this one did. For this reason, I am unable to offer counter-examples. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/88 "2017-04-03T22:13:31Z")
Bricker, if I were you I wouldn’t be so worried about getting warnings. I don’t think you’re remotely close to being banned. So you may as well go ahead and do your thing, and if you start piling up the warnings you can become more circumspect then. I’m pretty conservative myself and while I make a good faith effort to keep the rules, I don’t go about worrying that perhaps I might be in violation in some semi-ambiguous circumstance, if it seems to me that I’m in the clear. So far so good. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/89 "2017-04-03T22:16:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not clear to me if you’ve been reading the whole thread. But the moderator analysis was, in pertinent part, to step in if the comment caused the thread to veer off into a discussion about voter ID and modern politics. **Applying this standard means that a conservative comment denying a racial animus to voting ID laws would at great risk of being modded, while a liberal comment alleging racial animus to voting ID laws would be less likely.** That’s not a result of moderator bias. It’s a result of disparate enforcement of that rule because hijacks occur more as a result of the conservative comment. > > Dii you not read all that already? Your chortling seems oddly unaware that this point was explained. Emphasis mine. The bolded part is just utter nonsense that doesn’t follow from anything prior. You’re just continuing to claim that moderators are biased in favor of liberals. That seems to be your whole schtick, and no one is buying it. This very example disproves your point. The first mention of voter suppression was one that made Democrats look bad. The response to it was a criticism of modern Republicans. Both were substantially factual, but the second was starting to veer into modern politics. It could easily have been the other way around, with a liberal-favoring comment countered by a conservative-favoring one. The moderator quite reasonably stated he would have eventually intervened if the back-and-forth was hijacking the thread. Do you have a problem with that? Your argument about allegations of racial animus being allowed and denying it being likely to be modded is inexplicable fantasy, stated without basis. Furthermore, this whole “racial animus” thing is your own invention. **Hari** didn’t say anything about racial animus; he said “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”. He didn’t impute more specific motives. Do you doubt that if blacks tended to vote Republican, all the sanctimonious voter-ID types would be doing everything possible to help them vote instead of making it as hard as possible for them to do so? I sure don’t doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/90 "2017-04-03T23:04:01Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That seems to be your whole schtick, and no one is buying it. Thank you for making the effort to speak for everyone on these boards. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/91 "2017-04-03T23:06:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The first mention of voter suppression was one that made Democrats look bad. The response to it was a criticism of modern Republicans. Both were substantially factual, but the second was starting to veer into modern politics. So you contend (as do others) that voter ID being used to prevent Blacks from voting is a fact and not a political opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/92 "2017-04-03T23:07:54Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The bolded part is just utter nonsense that doesn’t follow from anything prior. You’re just continuing to claim that moderators are biased in favor of liberals. That seems to be your whole schtick, and no one is buying it. By “no one,” do you mean “no liberal poster,” or “no one at all?” > [@](#): > > This very example disproves your point. The first mention of voter suppression was one that made Democrats look bad. Yes, but that was referring to prior century behavior that doesn’t give rise to any political dispute today. Even the most fevered of Democrats on the board today admit that Democrats of those days deserved harsh criticism. So that so-called “first mention,” is not relevant to a list of potentially politically divisive comments. > [@](#): > > The response to it was a criticism of modern Republicans. Both were substantially factual, but the second was starting to veer into modern politics. It could easily have been the other way around, with a liberal-favoring comment countered by a conservative-favoring one. Could it? I won’t risk making such comments in GQ, because the rule against them is clear. So in addition to having fewer possible sources for the conservative counter (because there are fewer conservative posters) there are still fewer conservative posters who are willing to risk a violation of GQ rules. > [@](#): > > The moderator quite reasonably stated he would have eventually intervened if the back-and-forth was hijacking the thread. Do you have a problem with that? My problem is that this scheme, applied to this board, means that liberal-favoring comments are more likely to survive, unrebutted, than conservative-favoring comments. > [@](#): > > Your argument about allegations of racial animus being allowed and denying it being likely to be modded is inexplicable fantasy, stated without basis. I have explained the basis a number of times, most recently in my immediately preceding paragraph. If moderation is triggered by dispute, then a liberal who says, “Voter ID laws are racially biased,” is less likely to be modded than a conservative who says, “Voter ID laws are not racially biased.” The reason is that on the SDMB, more people are likely to object to the conservative’s post and respond. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, this whole “racial animus” thing is your own invention. **Hari** didn’t say anything about racial animus; he said “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”. He didn’t impute more specific motives. Do you doubt that if blacks tended to vote Republican, all the sanctimonious voter-ID types would be doing everything possible to help them vote instead of making it as hard as possible for them to do so? I sure don’t doubt it. In what specific way do you imagine that “depriving blacks of the right to vote,” is NOT an accusation of racial animus? To your final question: I think that the purpose of Voter ID laws is to ensure voter confidence in the outcome of close elections. If poor people voted Republican, I think the “sanctimonious” people would be just as eager for Voter ID, but also be eager to provide more funding to ensure it was easier for people to get one. This would happen regardless of whether the people were black or white, because the supposed barriers imposed by Voter ID are economic, not racial. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/93 "2017-04-03T23:08:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What exactly does this mean? Are you asking for some sort of artificial equality where, if there a three moddings on one side there must be 3 on the other? Bricker’s said previously that he wants to stack the moderator team with more conservatives. Knorf had a thread about it a few years ago (in which I participated.) > **[Should the SDMB have an affirmative action policy for the conservative minority?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=771389)** > > Should the SDMB have an affirmative action policy, in terms of moderator recruitment, to protect the conservative minority? The subject arose because Terr had been banned but Brainglutten had only been suspended, even though Glutten had more warnings overall. > **[Terr and BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=770852)** > > These posters were banned and suspended, respectively, at virtually the same time by the same mod (JC), so I was interested in the details. As I read about them, it seemed very odd that their behaviors were almost identical, but the discipline was... Presumably, Brainglutten’s eventual banning is further evidence of the moderator’s War on Conservatives, or something. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2017, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/94 "2017-04-03T23:14:48Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Bricker’s said previously that he wants to stack the moderator team with more conservatives. Knorf had a thread about it a few years ago (in which I participated.) > > [Should the SDMB have an affirmative action policy for the conservative minority? - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=771389) From that thread: > [@Merneith in October 2015](#): > > You actually want moderators to be chosen to favor your conservative political bent. That’s what you’re actually arguing for. > > > [@Bricker in October 2015](#): > > > > Yes, that’s a somewhat accurate statement. I believe that conservatives get the short end of the stick here, and I believe one method to reverse that inequity would be more conservative moderators. I say “somewhat” because I think that “that’s what you’re actually arguing for” is not a fair summary. **I am actually arguing for the existence of the inequitable treatment; the recruitment of a more politically balanced moderation staff is one possible cure and I am not arguing for it specifically**. I’m certainly not saying you were deceptive, **Merneith**. But perhaps that quote, in which I have bolded a portion that’s relevant, may have refreshed your recollection a bit and will allow you to make an even more accurate summary. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/95 "2017-04-04T00:15:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From that thread: > > I’m certainly not saying you were deceptive, **Merneith**. But perhaps that quote, in which I have bolded a portion that’s relevant, may have refreshed your recollection a bit and will allow you to make an even more accurate summary. Cut Merneith some slack. Given that you don’t seem to remember declaring that your warning “was not the result of bias,” others may be forgiven for misremembering your posts :). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/96 "2017-04-04T00:30:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Cut Merneith some slack. Given that you don’t seem to remember declaring that your warning “was not the result of bias,” others may be forgiven for misremembering your posts :). I did. I explained, carefully, that I was sure **Merneith** was NOT being deceptive, but that a review of the posts might help to refresh recollection and allow an even more accurate summary. Interestingly enough, later in that thread Merneith again repeats the charge, prompting me in response to the second repetition to say: > [@](#): > > As you, and hopefully every reader, can see, your summary of my position was addressed by me earlier. In that response I explicitly said that adding more conservative moderators was “one possible cure” and I was “not arguing for it specifically.” > > In this post #33, though, you again claim that the important thing to me is that we should be hiring conservative mods in order to protect conservative posters, despite the fact that I explicitly said otherwise. > > Someone reading only this post might inaccurately conclude that you were quoting me, or that your summary of my position was based on a post in which I said substantially the same things you attribute to me. Such a conclusion would be wrong; that person would be reaching an incorrect conclusion about my position, based on your summary. Isn’t that right? > > So knowing that this outcome is possible, even likely, why would you undertake to ignore my words and substitute your own, and then attribute the result to me? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/97 "2017-04-04T00:44:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I did. I explained, carefully, that I was sure **Merneith** was NOT being deceptive Not what you said, different in a key way. However, this is pretty far afield at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/98 "2017-04-04T09:45:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What exactly does this mean? Are you asking for some sort of artificial equality where, if there a three moddings on one side there must be 3 on the other? I don’t know why you’d interpret Bricker’s statement this way because I can think of no way that your interpretation follows from what you are responding to. It’s quite clear what Bricker is asking - He’s asking that should a post be reported, the standard of pulling a thread off topic shouldn’t be used as a basis for whether or not to moderate. We can agree or disagree about that, but I think it’s appropriate to give it a fair summary so at least people are discussing the same things. > [@Bricker](#): > > I claimed there was a chilling effect. In support of that, I’ve shown an example of a statement that was political, one-sided, tilted towards the liberal point of view, brought to the attention of the moderation staff, and explicitly not so much as given a note. > > That’s what this thread is about, you see. I think a challenge is that a chilling effect however real it may be, is difficult to demonstrate. One reason it may be difficult to demonstrate is because it may not exist. You have stated that you feel you experience this chilling effect however do you think another disinterested observer would feel the same? I think I align with you politically more often than not and I can’t remember ever experiencing a chilling effect. Though reading back through that historical thread I may now be the token mod 😛 I think this thread is a good example of each person approaching from their own perspective and viewing the matter at hand from that lens. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/99 "2017-04-04T10:55:37Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t know why you’d interpret Bricker’s statement this way because I can think of no way that your interpretation follows from what you are responding to. It’s quite clear what Bricker is asking - He’s asking that should a post be reported, the standard of pulling a thread off topic shouldn’t be used as a basis for whether or not to moderate. We can agree or disagree about that, but I think it’s appropriate to give it a fair summary so at least people are discussing the same things. > I think a challenge is that a chilling effect however real it may be, is difficult to demonstrate. One reason it may be difficult to demonstrate is because it may not exist. You have stated that you feel you experience this chilling effect however do you think another disinterested observer would feel the same? I think I align with you politically more often than not and I can’t remember ever experiencing a chilling effect. Though reading back through that historical thread I may now be the token mod 😛 > > I think this thread is a good example of each person approaching from their own perspective and viewing the matter at hand from that lens. It seems pretty simple to me. Why not just moderate political statements in GQ? If we want to keep politics out of GQ, it serves no purpose to use a filter unless moderating those posts places some undo burden on the moderators. A rule that isn’t enforced isn’t much of a rule. And the more people get away with politicizing GQ, the more it’s going to feel normal to do so. Put on top of that the issue that has been raised in this thread, I don’t understand why there is a push-back from the moderators on enforcing this rule more rigorously. No need to be harsh and draconian\*, just some mild reminders that politics doesn’t belong in GQ. \*unless certain posters just don’t get the message ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/100 "2017-04-04T11:17:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Merneith](#): > > > > Bricker’s said previously that he wants to stack the moderator team with more conservatives. Knorf had a thread about it a few years ago (in which I participated.) > > > > [Should the SDMB have an affirmative action policy for the conservative minority? - About This Message Board - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=771389) > > From that thread: > > > [@Merneith in October 2015](#): > > > > You actually want moderators to be chosen to favor your conservative political bent. That’s what you’re actually arguing for. > > > > > [@Originally Posted by Bricker in October 2015](#): > > > > > > Yes, that’s a somewhat accurate statement. I believe that conservatives get the short end of the stick here, and I believe one method to reverse that inequity would be more conservative moderators. I say “somewhat” because I think that “that’s what you’re actually arguing for” is not a fair summary. **I am actually arguing for the existence of the inequitable treatment; the recruitment of a more politically balanced moderation staff is one possible cure and I am not arguing for it specifically.** > > I’m certainly not saying you were deceptive, **Merneith**. But perhaps that quote, in which I have bolded a portion that’s relevant, may have refreshed your recollection a bit and will allow you to make an even more accurate summary. I don’t have to summarize anything, Bricker. All I have to do is point to the specific post in which you state that you’re trying to get conservative mods on the team. Here’s a direct link to it: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18752090&postcount=342](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18752090&postcount=342) And here, let me quote it. > [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Merneith](#): > > > > It’s starting to sound like Bricker is campaigning for a moderator title. > > Let me nip that in the bud right now: if nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve. > > > [@](#): > > > > Or at the very least, trying to get some more conservative justices on the panel. > > This, yes. In fact, pointing to your own words in which you explicitly state that you’re trying to get more conservative mods on the panel is **[the exact response I made to you two years ago.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18755962&postcount=40)** As I said at the time, I’m not really interested in swapping verbiage with you. I just want people to see what you’re doing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610.md?page=6)