(06-09-2019, 11:44 AM)Bullseye Wrote:

(06-09-2019, 10:42 AM)rollerjag Wrote: Which were? 

Did you really think there were no discussions about warnings, no divergence of opinions among moderators?

Namely there was a conservative bias among the mods and there was selective enforcement.  Not surprising on many levels.  Jacksonville is still largely a conservative town.  Jaguars fans are largely from Jacksonville.  It's not a stretch to conclude most of the posters and mods would be conservatives.

There would be a controversial topic (often as an aside) that would arise on the main board on occasion, usually from a right leaning perspective.  Plenty of others would chime in and agree with the sentiment(s), which would often linger on the boards for hours.  Invariably when I would chime in and rebut the sentiments, there was suddenly a need to start deleting posts and threads.  Now it's entirely possible that my timing in seeing and responding to posts was always bad, and the mod action was always merely coincidental but I don't (or didn't) see that as likely.

Even though CoC has traditionally frowned upon posts of a political nature on the main board, the net effect is conservative sentiments that were marginally football related at best were allowed to linger and reproduce on the board, but dissenting thoughts and arguments triggered administrative action almost immediately.  I hasten to add, though in fairness I didn't get many warnings for my content and I can't say others did for their relevant participation in the threads.

Do I think there is NO divergence of opinion among mods?  No.  I know you have a differing political view than, say, FBT.

But if my perception of how moderation operated was true, and moderating a post or thread operated on a "first come first serve" or "rotational" basis, and the bulk of the moderators had a right leaning political view, then invariably their rulings and subsequent actions would favor-consciously or unconsciously-right leaning viewpoints.

Now the knowledge of mod deliberation before taking action changes my perspective to a large degree, but not completely. If the proportion of right wingers to left wingers among posters here generally and mods specifically is as I hinted at above, then deliberation could still yield the same "inequitable" results.  Nevertheless, the idea of a deliberative body of mods is reassuring.  Operating optimally, such a structure will lead to a well moderated, more consistent board.  I think over the years, that aim is realized far more frequently than not. 

I will say as a group, the mods have done a pretty good job here speaking out against racial  bias on the main board.  I will also say (hoping I don't jinx things) there doesn't appear to be as frequent political advocacy as there was in years' past on the main board.  Or perhaps over the years I've grown less inclined to address it.

In any event, I reiterate the mods have done a commendable job on the whole over the years and commend you all for your efforts.

99% of the time us mods will discuss posts that we see and will get a consensus regarding what to do with said posts/threads.  If any of us sees a blatant violation of the rules we sometimes will act on our own and even then, most times it is reported/discussed among us.

As far as the political leanings, I feel like we have a reasonable balance.  I can honestly say that I didn't "agree" with some of the mods/admins when I joined the team and I know some of them didn't really like my point of view.  However, over time we have come to have a respect for one another and our points of view.  I for one had a learning curve and was "called out" on more than one occasion for my decisions.  The same can be said by many on our team.

My point is that the current board is governed by a collaborated effort from people from all walks of life... even the one that I affectionately call our "un-documented" mod from another country (DF).  Our goal is to provide a pleasant experience for those that choose to browse the site.

---