# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 8
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/141 "2017-04-04T19:36:48Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I don’t see that as an ongoing problem. Someone who habitually hijacks threads to attract attention to a post he’s all hot and bothered about and feels should have been moderated, or to score political points, would be dealt with on that basis. You’re assuming it’s always going to be the same person. And you’re assuming that it would be agains the rules to engage with someone posting political stuff in GQ. Sure, it’s against the rules if a moderator tells people to stop. But if a poster simply challenges a political statement with a request for a cite, what’s wrong with that? The day we start handing out warnings to people who simply ask for cites in GQ is the day I give up on this MB. Or, pointing out that a post is an opinion, not a fact, is perfectly acceptable in GQ. And it’s going to happen more frequently if the moderators don’t take action against political postings in that forum. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/142 "2017-04-04T19:53:18Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The only point I’m trying to make is that, IMO, that policy will lead to more hijacks than if we had a policy of simply moderating political commentary independently of whether it led to a hijack or not. That strikes me as a completely different issue than what was being discussed, which was about bias and disparate enforcement. There are pros and cons to the guidelines offered by ECG (which I endorse). The pro is that it allows on-topic, post-answer discussions involving opinions relevant to the question raised by the OP. The con is that sometimes these opinions will lead to hijacks that take the thread away from the topic of the OP. It’s not obvious to me why you think the bad outweighs the good, but if it does, it is for some reason having nothing at all to do with political bias or unfair enforcement. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not suggesting a warning would be issued if a hijack ensued. I’m just suggesting that some moderator action would be taken. So what? What’s wrong with moderators stepping in to prevent hijacks? Surely that’s not the kind of “chilling” being discussed. No one is chilled by a mod note asking to end a hijack, are they? ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/143 "2017-04-04T20:21:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. > > Bricker v. 2008 would have continued posting even as he kept getting more and more irritated, and ultimately said or done something that would legitimately draw a warning, mandate an apology, or both. > > Bricker v. 2017 is going to avoid that fate by withdrawing now. I’ve added my observations; take them for what thou wilt. > > I’m going to step away from this thread. Okay. I will leave you with a final few comments and I hope you take them in the spirit it is offered (positive). [ol] [li]A warning from JC in Great Debates is a different sort than one that may be issued in GQ. The mods are different, the purpose is different, etc. In that vein, using an example that originated from GD and applying that to GQ I think isn’t analogous enough to base your premise upon. If it is evidence, it is weak evidence.[/li][li]A warning is supposed to have a sort of chilling effect - it’s supposed to be a reminder to adhere to forum rules so to the extent it is doing that then it is doing its intended purpose.[/li][li]I too have received a warning from JC which I at the time (and still 🙂 ) don’t agree with, but no one on the moderation team has ever held that against me.[/li][/ol] Given that, I’d ask you to consider the counterfactual. What if your belief is mistaken - how would that manifest itself? Would you be able to tell and if you would, then give it time, look at it from that lens, and evaluate how events line up with that potential scenario where there is no chilling effect. ---
**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, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/144 "2017-04-04T21:23:28Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That strikes me as a completely different issue than what was being discussed, which was about bias and disparate enforcement. > > There are pros and cons to the guidelines offered by ECG (which I endorse). The pro is that it allows on-topic, post-answer discussions involving opinions relevant to the question raised by the OP. The con is that sometimes these opinions will lead to hijacks that take the thread away from the topic of the OP. > > It’s not obvious to me why you think the bad outweighs the good, but if it does, it is for some reason having nothing at all to do with political bias or unfair enforcement. There might be more than one reason why a particular policy is not good. No? > [@](#): > > So what? What’s wrong with moderators stepping in to prevent hijacks? Surely that’s not the kind of “chilling” being discussed. No one is chilled by a mod note asking to end a hijack, are they? There is nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, that is exactly what I’m suggesting should be done-- stepping in to prevent hijacks, and not waiting for them to happen. Or, in this case, essentially encouraging them to happen since there is a known policy of not moderating posts that DON’T result in hijacks. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/145 "2017-04-04T23:32:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Saying this over and over again doesn’t really impress me. Why not give us some examples of what you are claiming? If the situation is that unbalanced, it should be easy enough to point out. Because when examples are given they are ignored. Read this thread for proof. Slee ---
**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, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/146 "2017-04-04T23:43:29Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Because when examples are given they are ignored. > > Read this thread for proof. > > Slee I read it. What I saw were examples that were not persuasive. I also see you choosing to believe that because I was not persuaded I must simply not have paid attention. That is weak logic. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/147 "2017-04-05T00:47:18Z")
As someone with no particular dog in this fight…while the board unquestionably runs liberal, I don’t think the moderation here is particularly politically biased, in the sense that conservative posters are treated more harshly than liberals. That said, if moderation is applied as stated — a post is modded (or not) based at least in part on whether it results in a hijack — then that absolutely has the effect of suppressing the expression of any unpopular position, political or otherwise, without any need for personal moderator bias. Basing enforcement not on the content of the message, but the reaction of others to it, is pretty much the textbook definition of the Heckler’s Veto. With THAT said, the reason for the emphasis on “if” above is that I don’t believe that’s actually the standard that generally gets applied (present situation excepted, obviously). Certainly I’ve seen plenty of political jabs, borderline personal insults, and other pot-stirring attempts receive mod notes before hijacks ensued. I also think it’d a remarkably bad idea to try to implement that standard going forward, since it does create a de facto bias, intentional or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/148 "2017-04-05T03:02:05Z")
> [@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. The balance of a bunch of acts of moderation can have a bias without the moderators being biased. If the rule that decides the moderation allows popularity of the position to determine if it will be modded, then the bias will result. And that is the likely result of an imbalance in political opinions of the membership because it affects the likelihood of a hijack. > [@](#): > > 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. I will just point out that while the first loaded opinion was against Democrats, it was against _1876_ Democrats, not modern ones. Given the political party realignments that have occurred within the ensuing century + (ironically mentioned in the very post the OP is complaining about), that was actually a remark against _Conservatives_, as was the subsequent opinion regarding Republicans. Ergo, one could reasonably assert that there was a bias in allowing both those statements. Not that I’m making that assertion. I will say it took a while for the reason for which the remark was objected to become clear to me. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2017, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610/149 "2017-04-05T14:46:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The speed limit is 55. I am pulled over for going 60. I agree the ticket is proper and justified. > > If I notice that cars with a Dallas Cowboys sticker are permitted to drive 65 before they are pulled over, and cars with Redskins stickers get ticketed for 60, I would contend that there was a chilling effect in play for expressing my Redskins fandom. In your apology, you state: > [@An Apology to Jonathan Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-apology-to-jonathan-chance/764493/1): > > 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 apologize. My bolding. Are you officially rescinding the apology and believe that you were incorrect about being incorrect? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-this-post-not-modded/783610.md?page=7)