Thread: Moderator Bias

Originally Posted by topscribe

If you have to admit that moderating has been unbiased, then what's the
problem? Perhaps part of it is that you don't know the process that goes
on behind the scenes.

We have a discussion forum, where we often bring up a "gray" issue that is
not clear to a Mod or that he/she may be biased on so the others can
offer their input. This happens often.

Also, when we issue a "Concering your post" PM, it is replicated in another
discussion forum for all Mods to see. When other Mods disagree with such
an action, they post it there, and it happens.

Moreover, in our discussion forums, we have had long and thorough
discussions on making sure our moderating remains fair and balanced at all
times. When a moderating issue comes up, the Rules and Guidelines are at
the center of it, and that is our consideration. Nothing else.

We view it as a great boon to our staff that Anubis and Den21, neither who
is conservative, are among us because they make us think and help to
balance things. But when they were selected, it was not because of their
political or religious philosophies but because we felt they would make
excellent moderators. This is also true of Turftoad, Dread, Davii, Mike, and
JR. (Carol and I were there from the start, and JR followed us only days
later.)

Far as replacing Mods, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They are all still excellent
Mods. And Anubis is an excellent Mod.

If you want Anubis to stay, what I suggest you do is to PM him . . . ALL of
you, and let him know. If he insists on leaving the staff, that will be a BIG
loss to us all. Maybe he needs to know whether you really want him.

Why not find out?

-----

I'm not advocating replacing any mods... And there is no "problem" per se, I'm just kind of thinking aloud on how to "fix" P&R to make it better for everyone... I don't mean to slight any of the current mods who by and large do a great job.

It can't hurt to have some more dissenting opinions within the mod discussions behind the scenes. Plus, having more differing opinions might help determine exactly what the problem within P&R is (if there is one) and what should be done to fix it... I get the impression we're a little bogged down by "groupthink" as a community. As we sit here having the same "problems" with politics and religion as Mania over and over again, I can't help but wonder if the "problems" lie with those who perceive them... Meaning, maybe a utopian P&R is a pipe dream and we either need to scrap it all together or lighten up on our behavioral expectations. (I would obviously prefer the latter, but I'd rather just scrap the whole thing all together rather than return to the police state that is broncomania)

I guess the reason I started this thread is that if we are going to change our expectations of P&R, then we ought to shake up the status quo within the moderators as well... And the easiest way to do that is to add moderators.

Again, just my two cents...

Originally Posted by Npba900

Sorry Slim, you totally missed this one and your response reeks with bias conservatism.

I respect Buff's opinion. I will honestly say that there probably is an inkling of conservative bias from the moderators, but certainly not enough to make it a problem.

The above response is just ridiculous, and shows why said poster was part of the problem, and why I decided to opt out of the forum. Sure, the above poster makes the routinely post in the Broncos forum so said poster doesn't get in trouble, but the poster is not here for the Broncos, they are here to make problems.

I will continue to do so, despite opting in for about four hours yesterday. I get caught up in it, and for that I am guilty. I've enjoyed my time in the lounge and the Broncos threads in the last few weeks more than I've enjoyed myself on this forum in long time. Politics, unfortunately, divide us, when in all actuality, I'd probably love to have a beer with those who are civil about the matter.

I will continue to stay opted out, because I cannot hold myself back...and that's a personal issue...at least until after the election, but I also don't think that the mods are unfair. Bias and Unfair are two different entities in themselves. Bias means they lean one way. Unfair means they use that bias to their advantage. I haven't seen any of that, imo.

I am not going to post in the thread about whether or not the forum will go away, because I've opted out...but I don't think it should.

Originally Posted by Buff

I'm not advocating replacing any mods... And there is no "problem" per se, I'm just kind of thinking aloud on how to "fix" P&R to make it better for everyone... I don't mean to slight any of the current mods who by and large do a great job.

It can't hurt to have some more dissenting opinions within the mod discussions behind the scenes. Plus, having more differing opinions might help determine exactly what the problem within P&R is (if there is one) and what should be done to fix it... I get the impression we're a little bogged down by "groupthink" as a community. As we sit here having the same "problems" with politics and religion as Mania over and over again, I can't help but wonder if the "problems" lie with those who perceive them... Meaning, maybe a utopian P&R is a pipe dream and we either need to scrap it all together or lighten up on our behavioral expectations. (I would obviously prefer the latter, but I'd rather just scrap the whole thing all together rather than return to the police state that is broncomania)

I guess the reason I started this thread is that if we were going to change our expectations of P&R, then we ought to shake up the status quo within the moderators as well... And the easiest way to do that is to add moderators.

Again, just my two cents...

Buff, we have about 450 active members and 9 mods. That is less members
per mod than any other board around. How many more do we need?

-----

Originally Posted by Buff

I'm not advocating replacing any mods... And there is no "problem" per se, I'm just kind of thinking aloud on how to "fix" P&R to make it better for everyone... I don't mean to slight any of the current mods who by and large do a great job.

It can't hurt to have some more dissenting opinions within the mod discussions behind the scenes. Plus, having more differing opinions might help determine exactly what the problem within P&R is (if there is one) and what should be done to fix it... I get the impression we're a little bogged down by "groupthink" as a community. As we sit here having the same "problems" with politics and religion as Mania over and over again, I can't help but wonder if the "problems" lie with those who perceive them... Meaning, maybe a utopian P&R is a pipe dream and we either need to scrap it all together or lighten up on our behavioral expectations. (I would obviously prefer the latter, but I'd rather just scrap the whole thing all together rather than return to the police state that is broncomania)

I guess the reason I started this thread is that if we are going to change our expectations of P&R, then we ought to shake up the status quo within the moderators as well... And the easiest way to do that is to add moderators.

Again, just my two cents...

who would you suggest adding?

Originally Posted by Buff

I'm not advocating replacing any mods... And there is no "problem" per se, I'm just kind of thinking aloud on how to "fix" P&R to make it better for everyone... I don't mean to slight any of the current mods who by and large do a great job.

It can't hurt to have some more dissenting opinions within the mod discussions behind the scenes. Plus, having more differing opinions might help determine exactly what the problem within P&R is (if there is one) and what should be done to fix it... I get the impression we're a little bogged down by "groupthink" as a community. As we sit here having the same "problems" with politics and religion as Mania over and over again, I can't help but wonder if the "problems" lie with those who perceive them... Meaning, maybe a utopian P&R is a pipe dream and we either need to scrap it all together or lighten up on our behavioral expectations. (I would obviously prefer the latter, but I'd rather just scrap the whole thing all together rather than return to the police state that is broncomania)

I guess the reason I started this thread is that if we were going to change our expectations of P&R, then we ought to shake up the status quo within the moderators as well... And the easiest way to do that is to add moderators.

Again, just my two cents...

Buff, you are right'ish.

Also keep in mind its a few days from election, 2 months from now this stuff will calm down because we will be stuck with McCain for 4 years.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Buff, we have about 450 active members and 9 mods. That is less members
per mod than any other board around. How many more do we need?

-----

Well, in that case-- replace some mods...

I don't care how it happens, my core argument is that we ought to try to be representative of the membership as a whole, especially as the community grows-- If that means having separate mods for P&R, then maybe that's the way to go...

Originally Posted by Denver Native (Carol)

I do not understand your conclusion that the moderators are being dictatorial in nature and treat the adults in this forum like children. We have a set of POSTED rules/guidelines which outlines what is not acceptable. Those are what we mod by.

Its important to have guidelines and to have a Coc as KC mentioned. However, when it comes to discussing politics in a political forum, the forum can be become over moderated, and the guidelines may become over penalizing in nature.

So as a result, currently the standards set as we speak does not allow opinionated discourse, w/o someone becoming thin skinned and getting their feelings hurt. The moderators have set the tone, but have not allowed the forum members a chance to resolve the rights of each poster to "Agree to Disagree".

The standard bearer for getting banned I believe should mainly rest with whether a poster threatens another poster with bodily/physical harm, using profanity, racism, harassment-spamming, and par-taking in personal gender attacks.

I also, believe before a moderator(s) should intervene, the forum members in the political section, should let a fellow poster know that they have been attacked personally and to please stop; if the request is ignored...then for the sake of law and order, the moderators must intervene.

At the same time, the moderators must be able to distinguished btwn tattle-telling and mob mentality vendettas against posters from other members versus with distinguishing true violations of the guidelines. Now if the guidelines have already been set up not to take into consideration the need for the enforcement of tolerance and temperament amongst forum members, the intent of open minded opinions and discussions when it comes to politics is severely restricted.

Originally Posted by Buff

Well, in that case-- replace some mods...

I don't care how it happens, my core argument is that we ought to try to be representative of the membership as a whole, especially as the community grows-- If that means having separate mods for P&R, then maybe that's the way to go...

Well, once again, you appear to be advocating "affirmative action."

I repeat: That will not happen. Because when it does, ethnic/political/religious
concerns become more important that qualifications.

We have nine Mods. Two are either at center or "leftish." Another is non-
political. One or two others don't care that much. This is by accident
because it is not a consideration. And it will not be. We will not reject a
more qualified candidate to "balance out" demographic representation in an
enforcement capacity.

-----

Originally Posted by Buff

Well, in that case-- replace some mods...

I don't care how it happens, my core argument is that we ought to try to be representative of the membership as a whole, especially as the community grows-- If that means having separate mods for P&R, then maybe that's the way to go...

Don't make me a mod. I'll ban all your asses.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Well, once again, you appear to be advocating "affirmative action."

I repeat: That will not happen. Because when it does, ethnic/political/religious
concerns become more important that qualifications.

We have nine Mods. Two are either at center or "leftish." Another is non-
political. One or two others don't care that much. This is by accident
because it is not a consideration. And it will not be. We will not reject a
more qualified candidate to "balance out" demographic representation in an
enforcement capacity.

-----

Well, this is a perfect example of why we need a more diverse set of mods... You aren't even open to the notion of implementing a more diverse group. Because, of course, you're against affirmative action; and I'd be willing to be all the other mods are too. *shrugs*

...And to expand on the affirmative action point a bit, the implication there is that we'd be passing over more qualified candidates to implement this system... My contention is that these people would be just as qualified, but might not have been looked at in the past for one reason or another.

Originally Posted by Buff

Well, this is a perfect example of why we need a more diverse set of mods... You aren't even open to the notion of implementing a more diverse group. Because, of course, you're against affirmative action; and I'd be willing to be all the other mods are too. *shrugs*

Buff, I'm not against diversity. I'm just for qualifications. The most qualified
candidate. Period. I don't care about his/her politics, religion, ethnicity, or
sexual orientation. I want the best Mod. For instance, if we need a new Mod,
I would throw your name in the pot because I think you would make a good
one . . . even though you know we don't agree on much, outside of our
Broncos. That is because of what I perceive of your qualifications. Nothing
else.

I'll let you in on another secret: You're well thought of by more than just me
among the staff. We have had other names come up as candidates, too,
some of them "liberal," and not all known whites. But it's qualification. That's
the buzz word, and that will not change.

-----

Originally Posted by Buff

Well, in that case-- replace some mods...

I don't care how it happens, my core argument is that we ought to try to be representative of the membership as a whole, especially as the community grows-- If that means having separate mods for P&R, then maybe that's the way to go...

So, you suggest replacing some mods just to satisfy the ratio in one area ONLY of Broncos Forums - politics? Broncos Forums was not started as a political forum. Why not just let the mods do their job based on the posted rules/guidelines - which by the way is not only there for the mods to do their job, but also as a guideline for ALL members to follow.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Well, once again, you appear to be advocating "affirmative action."

I repeat: That will not happen. Because when it does, ethnic/political/religious
concerns become more important that qualifications.

We have nine Mods. Two are either at center or "leftish." Another is non-
political. One or two others don't care that much. This is by accident
because it is not a consideration. And it will not be. We will not reject a
more qualified candidate to "balance out" demographic representation in an
enforcement capacity.

-----

Topscribe, how do you make the leap of logic of having a represenative membership as the community grows and diversifies....in your view its suddenly affirmative action! At this point, one could accuse you of being intolerant and narrowed minded.

Originally Posted by Npba900

Topscribe, how do you make the leap of logic of having a represenative membership as the community grows and diversifies....in your view its suddenly affirmative action! At this point, one could accuse you of being intolerant and narrowed minded.

NP, you would accuse me of that, no matter what I do. That's just you.

But it doesn't matter. No one has considered you for the job, anyway.

-----