The Smoking Gun...

OVERVIEW

You can interpret these threads however you like. In my opinion, all of these threads at least proves some injustice or inequity. But remember, my original argument needed no evidence. It was asked of me so I complied and provided some evidence. If you think this evidence isn't enough, or is "lame", then think that way. But my logic tells me intuitively that those threads show some partiality to moderator power. My original argument is basically this. Since Sasha and David are basically the only moderators that work on political posts in the Cafe, there is embedded inequity simply because of unconscious feelings toward whoever did the posting. Because of this, it's an A PRIORI example of why there is bias. I've argued this over and over. It's the same as if O'Rielly were the moderator on this board. When a figure who has the power to control discussion has an open ideological slant, then the truth becomes self-evident no matter how fair they claim to be.

Onto...The evidence:

Can we talk here?

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=361261&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

There is not much going on here, except I believe there should have been a warning to 2dogs, which there was not. If you look at his empty rhetoric and angry, unsubstantiated remarks, you'll see what I mean.

Also, Sasha states that it is not the right that keeps posting controversial topics. To the contrary, it is always the right that posts controversial topics, as I've shown below. It is simply that there is less disagreement and conflict because most of those who reply are conservative as well.

Arnold Wins!!!

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=358347&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

Now this one kind of makes me angry because I don't know what I did to "bait" anyone. I merely cited two articles and then wrote some small commentary, which was true, and not just some assertion (DieselDave even agreed with me on it). Then, David comes up and tells me that the Sacramento Bee is not a good source. This leads me to believe that the source doesn't really matter, as long as it conforms to an ideology the moderators agree with. Do you guys seriously consider Newsmax to be fair and unbiased media? Because you guys use that as a cite all the time. So this is what I'm talking about when I say inequitable.

Arianna Huffington Drops Out!

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=351894&page=5&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

This one is just blatantly offensive to me. 2dogs is the perpetrator again, and it seems that aboslutely no action was taken against him. He writes:

"She is an arrogant female dog who refused to answer questions like why is it OK for you to ride in an SUV but not the little people. She thumbs her nose at the peasants."

Then all the moderators proceed to agree. Now if I had said that about Bush would the thread be locked and me warned about baiting? YES. Another example of inequity.

Has France become our enemy?

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=342004&page=6&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

This one is in regard to RevDavid. He writes:

"France seems less willing to sacrifice, more willing to criticize and interfere, and in general, more cowardly than most nations on the earth today. I think more highly of them than nations that harbour terrorists, but not much more highly, as they seem content to pursue a course of action that does nothing to discourage the kind of problems the US is trying to deal with in the world...

...They have very little gratitude for the precious blood of American and English soldiers that was spilled in their land to liberate them from tyrrany. They are long on criticism and short in memory."

No one even mentioned that post because it was pro-conservative. Personally I'm offended by that, because I frankly think the same about the United States. That is his opinion. If I had posted that about the U.S., I would have been asked to stop baiting, and to prove my assertion with facts. Neither of those laws have been applied to him. Another example of inequity.

Telling the truth in Iraq

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=314164&page=20&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

Another example of moderator inequity here. This one is by Silviron, a moderator himself:

"Well, I know that if Hillary gets elected president I hope some foreign army invades and frees me from her despotic rule.

I'm only half joking."

Now, if I had said that about Bush, I would have been asked to stop baiting, again.

And the half joking part. Didn't David and Sasha just teach me that just because you use a smilie or a joke doesn't cover up for a bait?

I think fairness is again lost here because of partisan leaning.

Go F#$% Yourselves!

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=302303&page=23&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

This one needs no explaining. David's actions and words were reprehensible in my opinion, and after that I believe he no longer has the right to tell us what is good behavior or not.

Saddams boys are toast...

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=294692&page=24&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

Read this one for yourself. Here, both sides have done some baiting, and that is up to interpretation how much it is. Both sides also make some blanket assertions. But only I and the liberals have been accused of doing these things. The conservatives are left unscathed. Another example of inequity.

McCain calls for investigation and security firing

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=284514&page=28&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

Read this one for yourself. It is a classic example of all the moderators ganging up on ikendu because he is left, and not right. If ikendu had done the same thing but with a right agenda, would he be accused of trolling? Read it, and judge for yourself.

Good forum to discuss the WMD?

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22&Number=286189&page=8&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1

This thread is a bit appalling to me. One person left and one person appears to have been banned. I don't know why that person got banned and am not attributing this to that. But I haven't seen any proof of ikendu trolling or baiting. Brotherscrim looks like he had a very good reason to leave, because DavidW was being quite arrogant towards him.

Even after all of this, no one addresses why he feels that way, and instead show him the door.

UNDERVIEW/FINAL THOUGHT

First of all I would like to thank David and Sasha for letting me post this. I want to thank them for not banning me when I yelled at them, and I want to thank them for taking the time for me to air my greivances towards them. At least in this way...this board has not sunken to what X-Cal and I sometimes say it has. We just don't want it to and are afraid that it might, so we sometimes tend to exaggerate our examples. I want to post a little final thought here about this embedded bias that I talk about.

Bush currently holds office. Therefore there will obviously be a lot more liberals complaining about him than conservatives on this board. You mix that with conservative moderators, and you get hard feelings and possibly biased censorship and moderating. It's a fact of life.

If a liberal Democrat was in office right now, and the same set of moderators were in place, then I think the situation would be reversed. Conservatives would post complaints, possibly bait, and the moderators would let them go by, with the exception of extreme flaming.

Thus, my argument is what I originally posted. The only way this Cafe can be truly fair in terms of political discussion is if either power is balanced by assigning liberal moderators, or if there is a complete overhaul and moderators with no political allegiance (or alliegance to both or apathy to politics) are assigned. That way...no one can censor any political thought. Censorship will only happen when it is truly neccesary to prevent flaming, profanity, or blatant misconduct.

Thank you for taking the time to read what I have written.

I look forward to the responses everyone has and I hope this can be a reasonable and civil discussion.

Ok... thanks hawk... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wow, how long did it take you to write that post?

AlphaTea: Numerous people have been wanting me to provide some evidence to back up what I said about how the board may be biased in its moderating, so here it is.

You used the word "if" eleven times. Seven of the eleven were used to make a "let's pretend" type argument, followed by a conclusion of what would have occurred to you based on your imagination. Surely you can come up with genuine events instead of make-believe events. Make-believe isn't evidence of anything other than your imagination.

Don't think of my words as refuting your argument; it's actually neutral to your argument. It's just that sometime you might have to make a defense. "If" will hurt your efforts. It's best to avoid them.

I do have one thing that I would like to input here.
I have made some observations...and I think this has to do with human nature.
I have noticed that no mater what the subject is, be it politics, religion, abortion, nuclear power, WMD's, gay rights, gun rights, equal rights, hair length, pre-marital sex, drinking age, old age, under age, underwear, over there or whatever...
I have never, not once, seen or heard of an individual who has changed his/her view on the any of the above said matters. Once a person's views are formed, they generally stick with them. You can argue till you are blue in the face. You will not change my way of thinking and I cannot help anyone else with theirs.
Some people might be swayed only if they haven't made up their mind in the first place. These are rare people.
Politicians dont count. Most will go with whatever will get them the most votes.
Some people are VERY passionate about certain topics. Most people dont give a rodents rump.
To sum this up, I think the general mindframe is(and this applies to everybody):
My religion is the only one. You're going to Hell.
My political party is good. Your political party sucks.
Your race discriminates against mine. My race discriminates no one.
Paper. Plastic.
My great(x3) grandfather was here first.My great(x4) grandfather was here first.
Pro life. Pro choice.
Ban all guns! Just try to take my gun!
Rain Forest. Jungle.
Meat. Vegetarian.
Thin is in! Fat is where its at!
Lethal Injection. Life in prison.
Coke. Pepsi.
This list could go on, and on.
Sometimes I wonder about people who are on a 'crusade'. Are they doubtfull of thier own beliefs and trying to affirm themselves by trying to convert others.
Wake up and smell the (insert your favorite beverage here). No matter who you are and whatever you thoughts may be, somebody somewhere thinks you are full of (insert yucky item of choice here)

I hope I have made my point.

ok, it took me about 15 minutes to write this...

Empath, your argument has no realistic merit. Simply because the argument cannot be empirically proven due to the fact that it hasn't happened, doesn't argue that it isn't efficacious. As long as the argument is reasonable, it falls under what can and should be used to prove a premise.

If you say "if" cannot be used as substantive argument, then why does anyone make any prediction at all?

Remember also, the heft of my case still relies on a priori analysis of embedded bias because of the unconscious struggle between ideology and power. That requires no evidence to prove.

Hmmmmmm ...

"I have noticed that no mater what the subject is, be it politics,
religion, abortion, nuclear power, WMD's, gay rights, gun rights,
equal rights, hair length, pre-marital sex, drinking age, old age,
under age, underwear, over there or whatever...
I have never, not once, seen or heard of an individual who has
changed his/her view on the any of the above said matters. Once a
person's views are formed, they generally stick with them. You can
argue till you are blue in the face. You will not change my way of
thinking and I cannot help anyone else with theirs."

Over the past 56+ years, my opinions/views/thoughts on several of
those topics has changed/matured. Some drasticly.

This has mostly come from expanded experience and re-examination.

[ QUOTE ]
hawkhkg11 said:
Remember also, the heft of my case still relies on a priori analysis of embedded bias because of the unconscious struggle between ideology and power. That requires no evidence to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

I'll add a little here (I guess I've been emboldened by Sasha reminding everyone that even SHE agreed with me once /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

In the last 30 years, I've observed a lot of what our Presidents and Congress have done (I'm 53 now). In every administration and every Congress, there are things that I think are not done quite right. That applies to Democrats and Republicans. As human beings we simply aren't perfect.

When Clinton was president, I thought he should have resigned once it became clear that he lied to us about his affair with Monica. I wasn't on CPF Cafe during his administration but I'm pretty sure that if I had posted that opinion...I would have plenty of agreement and no hassle from the board owner or the moderators.

But...Bush is president now. If I notice the blemishes of his administration, everybody assumes I'm strictly a liberal (and honestly...I feel hassled for my opinions). The board owner even said once on the forum something like ... "I don't necessaryily think you are even doing this intentionally (baiting and trolling)...but you are doing it none the less".

So...all I've been able to do is simply cut way back on my posting and limit my posts to areas that I think the board moderators will agree with (I've got a post right now on a 60 minutes segment that likely breaks that rule...sorry.).

Honestly, it has saved me a lot of personal time that I've used instead to work on promoting the benefits of renewable fuels for our economic and military security. ..."Freedom Fuels" like ethanol and biodiesel.

I really think that this forum is a great place for technical information exchange. Once in a while (lately) my political posting urges get the better of me and I post. Really though, it's better if I don't, here. It simply works better not to.

[ QUOTE ]
Tomas said:
<snip>
Over the past 56+ years, my opinions/views/thoughts on several of those topics has changed/matured. Some drasticly.

This has mostly come from expanded experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. Your views were not changed by debate but by experience. You came to these views/decisions on your own.

Hawk, all I see are a few threads where some liberal baiting was cause for closure, one where I believe 2dogs was part of the reason it was closed as Sasha simply states that she went to dinner and came back to train wreck and while she makes a nod to a known baiter that he is again up to tricks (XCal) I'm sure it's the entirety that caused the closure (she even apologizes to E=MC). The other threads some borderline and some blatant bating go unchallenged then you simply postulate about what you "believe" would have happened to you if you would have posted similarly. I am sure that there are alot of similar liberal threads where baits go unchallenged (likely missed). The only thing you HAVE proven to me is that even David W. is subject to human nature, which I have noticed is conspicuously absent from your philosophys and also doesn't appear to be composite in the moral rule you keep measuring the rest of us against. I have to ask, do you always obey the speed limit?

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
hawkhkg11 said:
Remember also, the heft of my case still relies on a priori analysis of embedded bias because of the unconscious struggle between ideology and power. That requires no evidence to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... yeah... it does. You have proved nothing. You have speculated alot. You have assumed even more. You have not provided any solid proof of discrimination. You have only speculated that "if" blahblahblah... honestly hawk... you realy DON'T know what I will/can/won't/don't do in any given situation so again I'll warn you against assuming.

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past 56+ years, my opinions/views/thoughts on several of those topics has changed/matured. Some drasticly.

This has mostly come from expanded experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm... that sorta/kinda goes along with the premise of my Real-world, life experiences thread... very interesting...

Wow, this thread is movin' fast!

My take on things.....

Can we talk here?
2dogs was out of line but then so was e=mc2.
2dogs seems the greater offender.

Arnold Wins!!!
David wasn't knocking the SacBee.
He was stating (as I did) that the article you linked did not support your claim.
Your therefore unsubstantiated claim is most likely the baiting referred to by Sasha.

Arianna Huffington Drops Out!
Again, 2dogs was out of line but no one took the bait and a train wreck was avoided.
The thread managed to die within 3 hours so it seems no moderation was needed.

Has France become our enemy?
Maybe it's the conservative in me but I don't see much wrong with this thread. Everyone seems calm and well-behaved. RevDavid's comment's (IMO) are more opinion than assertion and can't really be proven or disproven.

Telling the truth in Iraq
Silviron may have been out of line but if the bait wasn't taken -- what is there to moderate?

Go F#$% Yourselves!
David is the board owner and can say what he wishes.
For the record, the moderator/s did step in to censor.

Saddams boys are toast...
The first "baiting" I saw was your terrorist remark but no moderator called you on it.
The only official moderating began after your repeated attempts to divert the topic from the killing of two individuals to a condemnation of regime change.
Lebkuecher was just plain rude.

McCain calls for investigation and security firing
Ikendu's post did not seem like trolling or baiting to me but coming so close on the heels of his other thread on the very same subject I can see where Sasha and David may have jumped the gun and overreacted (Which I agree that they did).

Good forum to discuss the WMD?
Ikendu's third thread on the same subject and he got exactly what he asked for -- from David yet.
I saw no references to baiting or trolling from any moderator.
David also gave an opinion that offended Brotherscrim who left. His choice -- his loss.

Trolling... Baiting... BAH! Just words. hawks examples do look pretty good in support of his "case"...but... Even Moderators are human... EVERYONE is bias towards one end of the spectrum or another. I've been in spiritual forums where I was ganged up on by other members just because I was not Christian... Who do you think got silenced? Me! But that is alright... I KNOW my intent was not to cause any troubles...and that is what matters. When you're outnumbered in a forum...you're outnumbered...No matter how much you argue or try to get around it... it doesn't change...

These kinds of discussions seem to degrade very quickly...as humans do not seem to understand how to conduct themselves...so I can understand the mods cutting them off at a certain point...But you will always be able to "perceive" some type of bias behaviour... They are only human /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Look - im conservative - that doesnt matter much tho.

i am not sure how to say this - im afraid to say what i want here. i am not talking about stuff thats against the rules- i mean the standard stuff .

IMHO David and Sasha are trigger happy.

i have no idea what goes on behind the scenes so i wont really focus on that.

i see this forum and am reminded of a npr reporter who quoted a guy that lived in the middle east. the guy said "they(the us gov) say its gotten better and the problems are being dealt with but people are still disapearing and there are still problems."

the 2 powers throw a tantrum and say they are going to start cracking down and fixing the problems:

BS!

im not blind. im not stupid (well some would argue but...) . i see a political forum trained admin attempt to aid a much tamer forum and use way to much force. we are a family and we used to act as such- now its a dictator like environ.

many are afraid of being banned for what they say- this is not right.


Sasha do not think that i neither like nor respect you. i have the same level of freindliness towards you that i have towards any other forumite. I have yet to and may never have the level of respect and adoration for you as i have for david. Why?
Example:
if DavidW told me to jump i would say how high on the way down. i would be that obediant out of the extreme loyalty i have for him. when i joined he was boss and in my mind he still is and the only one at that.

If Sasha said jump i would ask how high on the way down out of the fear that anything less would get me banned.


that is all i have to say at the moment.

[ QUOTE ]
Sasha said:

Um... yeah... it does. You have proved nothing. You have speculated alot. You have assumed even more. You have not provided any solid proof of discrimination. You have only speculated that "if" blahblahblah... honestly hawk... you realy DON'T know what I will/can/won't/don't do in any given situation so again I'll warn you against assuming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sasha, do you understand my argument? I don't think you do. My argument...the one you posted above, argues that even if I had no evidence at all, I've proved that moderation HAS to be biased. Why? Because there is an ideological slant combined with a position of power. It's like an mathematical equation. The greater the power + the greater the ideological slant = the greater the conception for perceived or actual bias.

Just like the quote "power corrupts". That statement can't really be concretely proven, but it's true.

Just because I don't have evidence for a particular argument, doesn't mean evidence is the ONLY way to go about an argument. If you think empricism is the only way to prove something then you don't know much about debate.

I think my "a priori" argument is even stronger than any argument I can prove evidence for. Because evidence can be misinterpreted or flat out wrong. A priori analysis cannot be proven wrong as long as the premise is sound.

GJW: Uhh...bait has to BE TAKEN to be moderated? I didn't know that, because I've been accused of baiting plenty of times, when no one was in sight. Sometimes people just ignored what I say. So if bait is ignored or not taken it's not a bait? I think I can find plenty of examples of that double standard...

hawk... you were asked to provide evidence of bias. You did not do that. You "supposed" and "pretended" and "assumed" and even tried to predict how I would or would not respond to a hypothetical situation.

I'm done with this... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/banghead.gif

Where's Roy? Hey Roy! Now what do I do with this pissed off cat?

Well...the problem is I do provide evidence. My post is the evidence. Even GJW, who analyzed my evidence, picked at least some of them out as credible and accurate.

My whole argument was replying to your accusation I didn't have evidence, which I responded that EVEN IF that were true, my arguments are still sound.