- Sep 30, 2009
- Reaction score
- Boston, MA
That's actually my point is that there have only been three public, personal reprimands and they've all been directed towards members of one side of the aisle here. The small sample size is actually the point. There's only like two active liberal posters and yet three have gotten public reprimands. There's many more right-wingers posting here and none have gotten a public reprimand. The math, well, doesn't check out. Of ALL posts that get made here, only those three were deemed worthy of getting a public reprimand?First off, you don't know who gets warned or how often, because we don't call people out publicly, as I said.
Secondly, either of us posting in a thread that we'd like to to get back on track is vastly preferable to formal warnings and suspensions, or locking a thread. If you want to take it personal, that's your call, but we don't like issuing warnings. If you want to take it personal when it's not even your post that was responded to, that's your call too. If we see a thread getting derailed and post that we'd like to get it back on track, well, that's what we want. It's not personal.
If we do that, and I go out of my way to politely ask it to stop, and within minutes it escalates further, then warnings get issued. I could provide examples of that if you want.
Warnings in our definition is your post gets flagged, and if you accumulate enough of those you get a vacation. We're not doing much of that, trust me, we talk daily about it. I've reached out to people on PM as opposed to either flagging their post or responding publicly as well, including in one your cherry picked examples. Because I DON'T WANT TO FLAG POSTS.
The ensuing fall-out of this thread should also be very revealing. Moderators should be sort of like referees in that they shouldn't necessarily be hated by both sides, but they shouldn't be though of as completely unfair by one side and completely beloved by the other side. That is absolutely the case, not only in this thread, but it's spilling over into other threads right now where the liberals are getting mocked for voicing their concerns (of course nothing is being done about that either) and the right-wingers are all united in sneering at our concerns and declaring everything is fine. At the end of the 2012 Ravens/Patriots regular season game, after Justin Tucker's kick went high over the uprights, the Ravens loved the refs after that game while the Patriots were enraged by the refs. That's what you're seeing here.
Now, there's two potential explanations for that. One is that us liberals are just malevolent in our wishes and deeds (johnlocke accuses us of being evil and other such descriptors and of course nothing gets done about it) OR, alternately, the deck has been tilted in one direction and one side has been the beneficiary.
This isn't an un-fixable situation; I do know that good faith efforts have been made on the administrative side of things for the board in the past However, beyond the fact that I'm sure you're not happy to hear my criticism, if you look at this situation honestly, you'll see that it's incredibly blatant that there is a reason for the facts on the ground being what they are. This board is currently "self-policed" by a sort of mob mentality of the majority opinion that piles on and agrees with each other and then baits/taunts any dissenters until they get the reaction that they want (you can literally see that in this very thread right here) and then once they get the reaction that they want, the reactor is punished while all of the pile-on'ers just skate and will do it again and again. The cycle then repeats, it happens again and again. It's why there are very few, if any, long-standing liberal posters here because the cycle is tiring in that it's just a mob of group-thinking taunting piling on every opinion they have and they know they can't respond in kind.
So yes, I know you're getting plenty of unanimously positive feedback from one side of the aisle and unanimously negative feedback from the other. It's up to you how you want to interpret it, but like I said, I encourage you to think of this like referees and if one side is extremely happy with the refs and the other side is not, does that indicate to you that the refs are doing a good job?