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.
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.
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?
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.
There might be more than one reason why a particular policy is not good. No?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In your apology, you state:
My bolding.
Are you officially rescinding the apology and believe that you were incorrect about being incorrect?