No.
A “chilling effect,” is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of rights by the threat of sanction.
In simpler words, I am saying that because the rule is so clear, and brooks no exception, I am reluctant to add politically tinged commentary to my posts.
How do you propose I cite examples of the words I did not write out of concern I would be modded?
You claim that there is some sort of inequality, so point it out. Otherwise, all we’ve got to go on is “Because I say so”.
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 personally would be happy if you would just cite examples of the supposed liberal bias the moderation staff has, especially in GQ. I’ve been asking for that ever since the claim was made that we have a liberal bias and I have yet to see any proof of it.
The most anyone has been able to show is that a small number of moderators have admitted to being liberals. Those who claim that the moderators here have a liberal bias haven’t been able to show what the political beliefs are for most of the moderators, and even for those moderators that have admitted to having a liberal political philosophy personally, no one has yet shown that this has carried through into their moderation.
If the liberal bias here is as obvious as you say it is, then it should be easy to cite. So please, show some examples.
And you were given an explanation that you didn’t accept about this one post, correct? Now, can you point out a similar type of post on the other end of the scale(as you interpret that phrase), that didn’t get the same result? It’s kind of hard to show an imbalance in the scales without showing what is on each side.
Fascinating.
Your OP complains about Hari’s “vitriolic” remark, yet the original post he was responding to is actually far more vitriolic, containing as it does a whole string of provocative adjectives like “brutal” and “sickening” and referring to “wholesale massacre” and the fact that there is “no doubt” about any of this.
When I ask about this, you switch gears and claim that “That comment at least relates to Reconstruction and the Election of 1876. Hari’s comment does not.” In the same vein, earlier you informed me that "… the current debate on voter ID has nothing to do with the 1876 election and the post should have gotten some attention from a mod if even a note saying “Hey, let’s stick to 1876 issues.”
OK, we get it, you’re off the “vitriolic” bandwagon now and your new angle is that Hari was supposedly off topic. Of course lots of threads in GQ drift off topic, often in informative and interesting ways. Ah, but Hari was drifting off topic in a political way, you say, and that warrants special attention! Never mind that you did exactly the same thing when you responded to a question about sovereign citizens with a snarky and highly political comment about sending them to Chad, or when you responded to a question about the legal loophole in Yellowstone National Park with a politically charged comment about judicial activism.
It’s hard to shake the notion that the real problem here is that you don’t like liberal or anti-Republican comments but you’re just fine with conservative ones. In any case, it’s fun watching you paint yourself into a corner!
But take heart, you’re not the only one. Bricker has now managed to convince himself that Hari’s post was so heinous that if he, Bricker, had ever said any such thing he would have been warned for it. When I read something so far removed from reality I can’t even take it seriously enough to respond to it.
There needn’t be bias in the moderators. The bias is inherent in the make-up of this board. Liberal political posts are less likely to be challenged than are conservatives posts simply because there are so many more liberals than conservatives that post here. If the moderators are not giving notes to political posts as long as the posts DO NOT lead to hijacks, then they needn’t be biased in order to produce a biased effect.
Now, if you were to tell us that it’s simply too much work to moderate every political post that gets reported, and that, of necessity, some filtering has to happen, that would understandable. But you haven’t brought that up yet, so I’m assuming it’s not an issue. Is it? Earlier, you said it would be draconian and heavy handed to do so, but I don’t see that as the case (per my post upthread).
I don’t think you’re quite grasping what I’m trying to describe.
I’m not, in this thread, saying that the moderators have a liberal bias.
I’m saying the board has a liberal bias, and the natural result of that is that any moderation which moderates or ignores GQ political snark based on the possibility of a hijack will, perforce, be liberally slanted.
Do you understand why this is so?
Wait, are you questioning the claim that the BOARD leans liberal??
So you’ve got a feeling that there is this unbalance, and you don’t feel a need to actually show it because it should be obvious that it exists.
If what you say is true, what solution are you looking for?
In this GD post, I asked another poster for “any actual person who doesn’t have any single one of those documents any actual person who doesn’t have any single one of those documents,” as we (ironically) discussed obtaining ID as costing thousands of dollars for some people.
He supplied a cite. When I read the cite, I discovered that the person had original ID but her granddaughter was holding it. I
[quoted the summary and the cite and said, “How utterly deceptive,”]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18295370&postcount=91)and was given a warning.
So I feel here’s a certain hair trigger quality afoot, yes.
That’s not an accurate summary of my position, or of the dialogue here that precedes this post.
The reported post should have been mod-noted to stick to GQ territory.
And you don’t see a difference between a statement that a poster presented as fact, and an accusation of deception on the part of a poster?
That’s not what you just finished saying in #59, which was the following – emphasis mine:
… I’m alleging a chilling effect from the combination of a bright-line rule in GQ and disparate enforcement of that rule. I don’t dare make these kinds of comments in GQ; I would get warned, and there would be no defense. My post would have been violative of the rule.
But a liberal poster has no such worries.
But you’re definitely not saying the moderators have a liberal bias! 
You’re going to have to come up with some truly amazingly awesome lawyerly explanations to get out of that one! Do tell us how it’s not accusing moderators of liberal bias when you plainly allege a “chilling effect” from “disparate enforcement” that you say would get your warned for things that a “liberal poster” could say without any worries!
Should both sides get the same treatment, or should the minority side(as you seem to see it) get preferential treatment?
I understand what you’re saying. I’m at work now and don’t have time to comment on it further, but I do get your point (and did when you made it earlier as well).
No. I was specifically referring to liberal bias in moderator actions.
Both sides should get the same treatment, but the “treatment” should not rest on grounds that depend on accepting as true liberal political precepts, nor should they rest on “likelihood of a hijack” in GQ; rather,posts that stray from factual material to disputed material should be Noted, or moved to more contentious fora.
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.
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.
IIRC, you didn’t protest this warning at the time, saving it for later to present as bloody proof of partisanship amongst moderators. I have a similar bogus warning that I got for arguing with a conservative–shall I trot that one out as proof that the mods are biased against conservatives, rather than as proof that the mods read ambiguity in an ungenerous fashion?
It’s the accusation of deceit (even if directed at a cite, not a citer) that renders it different from the GQ post, not the fact that you argued with a liberal.