Being On The Right Side Of Moderator Bias
I'm seeing accusations of uneven enforcement cropping up here and there, so I thought this might help:
No matter what your opinions about 9/11 may be, it is natural to be more sensitive to how you and others who agree with you are treated than how those
who disagree with you are treated. It is also extremely easy to infer a sinister motive when you feel persecuted, even when there is none.
In other words, while moderators are human and therefore indeed prone to bias (and that's something we're constantly watching for in each other),
members are also prone to see bias where it doesn't necessarily exist.
If we assume mod bias is running rampant, and that it's targeted against your particular point of view, the simplest and most effective response is
to follow the rules.
If a moderator takes action against you when it is clearly not justified, it stands out like a sore thumb, and is exactly the sort of thing that
should be reported to the staff.
On the other hand, if you are
breaking the rules,
claiming moderator bias is utterly pointless, as explained in the link above.
In the case of the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, the biggest problem at hand is not differing opinions about 9/11. Different opinions are very much
expected and offering members a place to express, compare and discuss them is the reason the forum exists in the first place.
Courteous discussion is not exclusive nor unique to any "side" (see: false dichotomy
) of the
issue. Enforcing it is neutral to the subject.
The prevailing bias among moderators in our forums is in favor of courteous discussion and against name-calling, ridicule, insults, abuse, harassment
and anything else that disrupts topical discussion.
If you share this bias and are willing to post accordingly, you're on the right side.