Agree with that.

By the way, just passed my 2000th post. So congratulations to me, I guess.

Thankyou Thankyou.

Quite a milestone, all things considered.

Almost a testament to relatively objective moderation.

They also were both treated pretty equally and neither of them was ever going to be perma-banned, despite both being frequent rule-breakers. If the moderation is biased in any particular direction it's likely in favor of regulars over new accounts.

Not sure if this is directed at me at all, though you also said something about newness to me above. I wasn't close to new in Oct. 2016. Prolly had 2000ish posts at the time. 2500? One single continuous account since 2012. Most posts were in llsnl. New to politics at that time, roughly, sure, if that is what you meant.

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but yes, I meant new to politics. It's not at all uncommon for the kinds of "new racist trolls" I referred to earlier to be established 2+2 accounts that were just venturing into Politics for the first time.

This much is true, I am pretty open about it, and it's true in every forum on 2p2, and I would think most would even agree it's reasonable.

Hit dog gonna holler.

So too will dogs that smell bull****.

There have been some propositions stated frequently without an explicit reply:

* proposition: the rules of the politics forum are biased against conservative posters.

* proposition: the moderation of the politics forum discriminates against conservative posters and does not apply the rules equally.

---

In my opinion, both of these propositions are false. No evidence has been presented to support either. They are simply assumed. To support my opinion, I've been paying attention to what does and does not get moderated since before I registered this account.

Even with neutral rules and neutral enforcement it is possible to have unequal outcomes. I hinted at the mechanisms previously in this thread whit this post: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=217

Should affirmative action be applied to conservative posters to protect them from the existing equal process so they can have a safer space to post? That's an admin level decision.

Even if you think both that's what makes it toxic, in Pv7.0 there's no intolerable situation where some fear getting banned from 2+2. There's no situation where they might have to appeal to Mat for an exile.

Posters are going to get heated while discussing politics, mods are going to make mistakes or be perceived to have made mistakes (even if we dont believe things such inherently biased things as 'its not a personal attack if we think it's true or justified'). Bans, even temp ones, for judgement calls are a bad idea.

Sure, it's just idiotic to act like a "toxic situation" is a forum where you might get banned for posting terribly (describes lots of forums on 2+2, really) rather than a forum that welcomes toxic posting and is currently full of it.

What are you talking about? There's no bias to the personal attack rule in P7 because there isn't a ****ing personal attack rule.

I never described one as toxic and not the other. I think you said 'sure' to the point I actually made so hopefully I cleared up any confusion you had.

Better to allow all personal attacks (within limits) than claim some are personal attacks and some aren't. I'd prefer we allowed none but that's not where we are as you know - it's still a level playing field for all which is far more important.

That is it in a nutshell. A lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp this point.

So go post there and stop whining.

and that's how you get to the echo chamber effect. It's fair enough if that's what people want. It's not a bad thing but lets accept it for what it is.

BS will completely ignore this post.

Agreed. As I was reading through the last few hours of posts, I was going to post similar to this until I came upon it. When it comes to borderline posts, established regulars will get the benefit of the doubt, whereas newbies won't. It's the nature of the beast.

I didn't ignore it. I actually posted a response to his earlier post the other day.

But just to add, it's a bit difficult to present evidence when you can't access the relevant forum.

You seem to be able to read +rep's posts without difficulty.

I can read them when I'm logged out. When logged in I can't access the forum, therefore I can't link or quote posts.

I actually took a screen shot of rep's post and posted the image. It was the only way I could do it.

<-- CTH is over there

Yeah, but **** that. I'm not going to all that trouble. What's the point?

I've wasted enough time here already.

if you can't access it, how did you get that screenshot of +rep_lol's post?

Sheesh.

I'm going to have to go and have therapy after this. Seriously.

Reread the post you quoted above.

CTH won't help in this case.

I need divine intervention.

Better still, can someone ban me from this thread please?