Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450226 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #360 on: June 06, 2009, 03:56:41 PM »

Online Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30894
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
Also, while on the subject if a mod locks or deletes a thread then it becomes harder to see what you supposedly did.

Unless I'm mistaken here, I believe a locked thread is still visible to all, it just can't be added to.
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #361 on: June 06, 2009, 04:03:56 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
Oh no, it's not about my access rights; I just wanted to make the joke.

And of course there's a double-standard. I mean, just an example, I can point examples of liberals making offensive personal remarks, like calling individuals "dumb" and "clown", which is an explicit violation of the rules, without even being warned; while if someone writes something like "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" or "These ideas are laughable" (being a conservative) that poster is banned. These are just examples, there are even worse and more evident cases.

I wasn't even aware this bias was disputed; I thought it was just assumed by everybody.

If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)  I assure you, if moderators miss comments like that, it has nothing to do with a political bias.

I can't use that button and I honestly don't know where that post is. If you guarantee me the individual who used those terms would be banned in spite of being a liberal  :o, I'd be tempted to look for it (I'm a sucker for bizarre happenings). 

Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #362 on: June 06, 2009, 04:19:55 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.

Please link to that post. I can't imagine we'd let a post that says "Conservatives are stupid greedy and dishonest" exist without edit or reprimand. I'd be interested in seeing that.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #363 on: June 06, 2009, 04:36:29 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.

Please link to that post. I can't imagine we'd let a post that says "Conservatives are stupid greedy and dishonest" exist without edit or reprimand. I'd be interested in seeing that.

http://www.google.pt/search?q=stupid+greedy+dishonest+celticsblog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pt-PT:official&client=firefox-a

Do you want me to link to the topic where your double-standard is exposed (the one about right wing crazies, veiled racists, hate mongers, beady eyes, etc.)?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #364 on: June 06, 2009, 04:42:03 PM »

Online Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30894
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.

Please link to that post. I can't imagine we'd let a post that says "Conservatives are stupid greedy and dishonest" exist without edit or reprimand. I'd be interested in seeing that.

http://www.google.pt/search?q=stupid+greedy+dishonest+celticsblog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pt-PT:official&client=firefox-a

Do you want me to link to the topic where your double-standard is exposed (the one about right wing crazies, veiled racists, hate mongers, beady eyes, etc.)?

how do we get that link in English?
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #365 on: June 06, 2009, 04:44:33 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.


I got it. He's right, it happened. See above.

It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #366 on: June 06, 2009, 04:49:17 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
Oh, I can even dig a topic where the exact same sentence, the exact same expression, when used by a conservative resulted in a warning/ban and when used by a liberal passed, as per usual, without mention.

There are plenty of examples of bias. To the point that a few months ago, I used this board, and many of these examples, to illustrate a text I wrote in another site about liberal/socialist bias in alleged unbiased internet outlets.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #367 on: June 06, 2009, 04:59:11 PM »

Online Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30894
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
Oh, I can even dig a topic where the exact same sentence, the exact same expression, when used by a conservative resulted on a ban and when used by a liberal passed, as per usual, without mention.

There are plenty of examples of bias. To the point that a few months ago, I used this board, and many of these examples, to illustrate a post I wrote in another site about liberal bias in alleged unbiased internet outlets.

Cordobes,  It's any interesting notion, I'll give you that.  I don't spend a hell of a lot of time in  the political forums, so I can't say as whether I'm personally subconsciously moderating differently towards one side or the other, but I'm open to being more self aware about it.

What I wonder about your hypothesis is whether you've tested the other side of it as thoroughly as you clearly have on this side.  And I'm not just saying that to be a pain in the butt. I'd be interested.

I think we do a pretty thorough job keeping on top of stuff, but you found an instance of something that went unchecked.  Have you spent as much time searching for "misses" on the other side of the fence?




 
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #368 on: June 06, 2009, 05:08:16 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Here's the thing, though:  the staff doesn't read every post.  Unless something is reported, there's a good chance we'll miss it.  There's no bias if the staff isn't given a chance to edit the post.

EDIT:  Here's the post I'm seeing:  "We allowed stupid, greedy dishonest people to run the country for the last 8 years."  Was there another one?

That's a far cry from calling all conservatives stupid and greedy.  Now, whether the Bush administration fell into that category is a matter of debate, and I'm not sure how the staff would have responded if the comment was reported.  I haven't examined the thread, for instance, to see how the post was supported, what the context was, etc.  It's not necessarily against the rules to call a politician stupid, or greedy, or dishonest; rather, it's about the manner and context in which such arguments are made.

If the post had been reported, the issue would have been examined.  It wasn't reported, and it was overlooked.  To suggest that it belies some anti-conservative bias is silly.

Speaking as a conservative, I can say that many of the people who ran the country over the past 8 years were indeed greedy and dishonest.  I tend not to think that most people at the highest levels are stupid, but I guess it's a matter of debate.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 05:19:07 PM by Roy Hobbs »

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #369 on: June 06, 2009, 05:09:42 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Oh, I can even dig a topic where the exact same sentence, the exact same expression, when used by a conservative resulted in a warning/ban and when used by a liberal passed, as per usual, without mention.

There are plenty of examples of bias. To the point that a few months ago, I used this board, and many of these examples, to illustrate a text I wrote in another site about liberal/socialist bias in alleged unbiased internet outlets.

Cordobes, I don't doubt this has happened, but I will say it has never happened purposely.  As moderators, we miss things.  

But I will also point out that if there was a warning or ban involved, it most likely was not only because of the sentence you saw.  It was most likely due to a number of violations that led to action by the staff.  

And I also want to point out that just because things are not publically addressed does not mean warnings (or worse) have not taken place.  In fact, the majority of the moderating is done privately.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #370 on: June 06, 2009, 05:22:22 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site.  We all go out of our way to make sure our personal bias does not affect our moderating, and if it ever does, we have a very diverse staff to call each other out on it.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #371 on: June 06, 2009, 05:44:20 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

I wouldn't advise anyone to do this. That's what I did, by pointing out to a moderator a post that, in my opinion, was being overlooked and the consequence was that I was banned for suggesting the moderators were being biased.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #372 on: June 06, 2009, 05:45:09 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site.  We all go out of our way to make sure our personal bias does not affect our moderating, and if it ever does, we have a very diverse staff to call each other out on it.

I don't dispute you believe that; the examples I've provided prove you just aren't successful.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #373 on: June 06, 2009, 05:47:22 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site.  We all go out of our way to make sure our personal bias does not affect our moderating, and if it ever does, we have a very diverse staff to call each other out on it.

I don't dispute you believe that; the examples I've provided prove you just aren't successful.

Oh, I don't think they prove anything other than that we miss things.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #374 on: June 06, 2009, 05:48:17 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
Here's the thing, though:  the staff doesn't read every post.  Unless something is reported, there's a good chance we'll miss it.  There's no bias if the staff isn't given a chance to edit the post.

Well, there are posts that were quoted and replied to by members of the staff.

Here's the post I'm seeing:  "We allowed stupid, greedy dishonest people to run the country for the last 8 years."  Was there another one?

That's a far cry from calling all conservatives stupid and greedy.  Now, whether the Bush administration fell into that category is a matter of debate, and I'm not sure how the staff would have responded if the comment was reported.  I haven't examined the thread, for instance, to see how the post was supported, what the context was, etc.  It's not necessarily against the rules to call a politician stupid, or greedy, or dishonest; rather, it's about the manner and context in which such arguments are made.

If the post had been reported, the issue would have been examined.  It wasn't reported, and it was overlooked.  To suggest that it belies some anti-conservative bias is silly.

Speaking as a conservative, I can say that many of the people who ran the country over the past 8 years were indeed greedy and dishonest.  I tend not to think that most people at the highest levels are stupid, but I guess it's a matter of debate.

But I never said he was calling all conservatives greedy and dishonest. However, it's an explicit violation of the rules, as far as they were understood in other cases.

For example, if that's not a violation, explain to me why saying that "X spews biased partisan propaganda for the left" is.