Moderator bias: Is it real?

Just a quick thought regarding Politics—you know, all the left versus right stuff, Team Cook versus Team B, and all that: mods shouldn't be picked based on their political leanings. It’s just not how it works. It’s not like we check if someone is religious before letting them moderate the Religion section, and we certainly don't check if someone is married before they moderate the ACLU. Apparently, Nero is a guy, yet he moderates the Zen section. Who knows? Maybe one of our LjES mods is actually a total celibate. 😲

The Politics moderators are fully aware of what their lineup looks like, and even though it isn't official policy or a strict requirement, whenever they're looking for a new teammate, they tend to keep an extra eye out for those "right-leaning" users for the exact reasons you mentioned—though personally, I think it's totally unnecessary. If someone stands out as a stellar candidate, it’s because of the quality of their posts, not because they’re a liberal or a conservative, but hey, I won't get too bogged down in the weeds as long as the person they pick is a top-tier contributor. My gut feeling is that there's also a bit of pressure from "public opinion," which I don't think is a good enough reason either. However, the reality is that sometimes there simply aren't enough high-quality people who are both interested in moderating and capable of passing the selection process. If they have a candidate from Team Cook who is a solid A+ and a candidate from Team B who is barely a C-, they’re going to take the A+ person every single time rather than picking the mediocre one just to balance the scales. That would obviously be a worse choice for everyone. And honestly, this logic applies to more than just the Politics section and its partisan divides.

On top of that, for the PDF to actually work, the moderators need to share similar criteria and have a unified vision for the site. That’s one of the reasons why most of them share certain fundamental perspectives. Of course, there’s always a degree of subjectivity involved; being 100% objective is basically impossible. If I had to put it bluntly: we look for people who can think critically, analyze things deeply, and stay open-minded without being overly stiff or rigid. Otherwise, their moderation style would end up feeling pretty robotic and cold, and that doesn't serve anyone—not the users and certainly not the administration.

Nicholas Watson said:crimsonjackal63, I think you're onto something here.
My group of neutrals could easily play the role of Microsoft. It would be a lot like watching things unfold in US Congress, except these guys wouldn't actually bother forming a coalition with anyone.

But if they're going to act like Microsoft, are we really so sure they won't end up teaming up with someone eventually?

Look, I was speaking figuratively there, and I made sure to emphasize the whole non-coalition thing just so there wouldn't be any confusion
If you're actually down for a political debate, we can move this over to a dedicated PDF format designed for that sort of thing

Edit
But let me expand on that a bit in case I wasn't being clear enough
If we actually went with crimsonjackal63's idea, we’d probably see a massive influx of left-wing posters flooding the place, throwing the exact same accusations at the admins that the right-wingers are currently lobbing at the left-leaning mods. It would just be a cycle where everyone keeps crying that we "need" neutral parties to keep things from spiraling out of control.
Because honestly, where does it end? Is every single user going to start hand-picking which moderator gets to handle their posts and which ones they want to avoid?

rustydrifter10 said:If we have to put it plainly: we’re looking for people who are capable of thinking critically, analyzing things, and staying open-minded without being too stiff. Otherwise, moderation would end up feeling pretty robotic and rigid, which doesn't help anyone—not the users and certainly not the admins.

Can I give my honest take on this without worrying about getting a strike?

rustydrifter10 Asks:
Just one quick side note regarding politics—you know, all that left vs. right nonsense, Team A versus Team B stuff: you don't pick moderators based on their political leanings. It’s not like you check if someone is religious before letting them moderate a religion sub. And it's certainly not like we check if someone is married just to have them moderate an ACLU forum. Nero is supposedly a guy, yet he moderates a women's forum. Who knows? Maybe one of the mods over at the local community boards is actually a virgin. 😲

The Politics moderators definitely know what their lineup looks like—and while it’s not an official rule or anything, when they start hunting for new staff, they tend to lean toward "right-leaning" users for the exact reasons you guys are bringing up. Personally, I think it's totally unnecessary—I mean, if someone stands out as a top-tier candidate, it should be because of their posts, not whether they're a leftist or a conservative—but hey, I'm not going to get bogged down in that as long as the person they pick actually knows what they're doing. My gut feeling? They get a bit swayed by "public opinion," which isn't exactly a solid reason in my book. But let's be real: half the time, there just aren't enough high-quality people who are both interested in moderating and capable of passing the vetting process. If they're stuck choosing between a "Team A" candidate who’s a solid 5/5 and a "Team B" candidate who’s barely a 3/5, they’re obviously going to grab the 5/5—they aren't going to pick the weaker choice just to balance out the political scales. And honestly, this isn't just about the Politics section; it happens everywhere.

Look, if we want this platform to actually function, the moderators need to be on the same page—they need shared criteria and, more importantly, a clear vision for where this place is headed. That’s really why most of them end up sharing certain baseline perspectives. Sure, there’s going to be some subjectivity involved—let's be real, total objectivity is a pipe dream—but that's just how it works. If I had to put it plainly: we should be looking for people who can actually think critically, analyze things, and stay open-minded without being all stiff and uptight. Otherwise, their moderation style would just feel robotic and rigid—and honestly, that serves nobody, not the users and certainly not the admin team.

Everything seems to be checking out for the most part—but there’s always that damn "but..." hanging over the whole thing.😁

Look, if I’m part of "Team A," then Team A is my squad—plain and simple. That means their players and fans are my people. I’m rooting for them, I’m not out here throwing shade at the founding members, and I’ll instinctively jump to their defense when things get heated. Honestly? Non-members constantly getting under my skin by picking on Team A is just part of the deal. It's how it works.
Of course it’s worth it—actually, it really should work both ways.
Look, we're talking about irrational, subjective categories here—stuff you can't just sit down and rationalize away with a spreadsheet or some logical argument. It just doesn't work that way.
I’m not saying they’re doing it on purpose—though, let's be honest, some people definitely are—but that’s just the reality of the situation.
Let’s just be honest and own up to it—to ourselves.

Look, if you only view everything through Tim Cook's lens, you're always going to be less critical of a potential new moderator coming from his side compared to anyone on the opposing team. It's just basic bias—you can't escape it.
In this kind of power dynamic—The Big Three is basically just the same as five against one.

Look, if we’re being objective here—and I mean actually looking at the math—it’s basically impossible under the law of large numbers. Assuming the premise holds that there are more "Team B" members than "Team A" types within the party, there simply has to be at least a dozen solid candidates for that position floating around in there. It just doesn't add up any other way.
Look, I’m sorry, but in a non-subjective world—if such a thing even exists—that is just straight-up impossible.

In the real world, Tim Cook isn't ten times better than Tim B—it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny—but if you look at the Current political landscape on this sub, the score is a total blowout: 10 to 0.
Honestly, it would’ve been a 10:1 landslide if Lockheed Martin hadn't pulled out right when the US Congress election campaign was kicking off.
He still hasn't made his way back into the game.

Look, I won't beat around the bush—these two teams are dead even, both on the field and in the stats. Anything else you hear is just people getting worked up over subjective nonsense.
We really ought to take action on this issue—so I want to give a shout-out to Nicholas Watson 👍 for starting this thread and putting forward some solid suggestions.

And just to be crystal clear: this isn't an attack on the quality of our moderator, Tim Cook.
The guys are fine as they are, but they’d be even better if there was a bit more balance on the other side of the aisle.
Ideally, things should sit right at zero—that's the sweet spot, and any rational person should be aiming for that kind of equilibrium.

crimsonjackal63 said:In any objective reality, Tim Cook isn't actually ten times better than the alternative, but looking at the current political landscape on this sub, it’s basically a 10:0 shutout...
It would have been a total blowout, like 10 to 1, if only Lockheed Martin hadn't bailed right when the US Congress campaign was kicking off and still hasn't decided to get back in the game...

crimsonjackal63, don't get me wrong, what you're saying is actually spot on... it’s honestly such a breath of fresh air to hear some legitimate, reasoned criticism instead of the usual mindless whining and baseless insults people throw around...

I still don't think you're hitting the mark on this one... First off, it’s not just a two-sided split. I’ll give you this much: if we're looking at some kind of "extreme right" wing, sure, the moderator ratio looks like 10:0, but that's actually somewhat expected given how things work... Otherwise, I think you're mistaken...

It’s just basic logic that more extreme right-wing views are going to get banned more often... On a topic like immigration, an extremist leftist might ramble on with some nonsense, but usually, that’s where it ends. But an extreme right-winger—not all of them, obviously, but some—will go too far and start saying things that are actually illegal, and those posts always end up getting nuked on this forum. It’s the same deal with politics; people who hate the Republican Party mostly just talk about their corruption and crimes, which we generally allow, just like we do with the Democratic Party. You rarely see someone crossing the line into truly dangerous territory, but when they do, they get penalized—I personally handed out 500 points for a post claiming the Grand Coalition wanted to introduce the death penalty for abortion. It’s much more common for hardcore opponents of the Democratic Party to say stuff that actually violates forum rules or engage in massive trolling, sometimes even worse, calling them Mexicans, claiming they work for Mexico, or labeling them traitors to America...

That doesn't mean the mod team is leftist, and honestly, thinking they are is a massive misconception... I think some people who deal with the immigration threads see them as being super progressive, but they’d probably be pretty shocked to hear my actual take on the whole thing—though, to be fair, I’d sooner cut off my own hand than vote for the Democratic Party, and the same goes for the Republican Party... But just because I agree with about 80-90% of what the anti-immigration crowd says here, it doesn't mean we're going to let them claim every Muslim is a terrorist, pretend America is being overrun by a wave of rapists, or allow racist links, blatant lies, obsessive nitpicking over single incidents, or even mild hate speech like saying everyone is uncultured or illiterate...

And that’s just the eternal struggle right there. I agree the problem exists, but there's actually a logical explanation for it... Within any group holding extreme views, you're always going to have a subset of people who simply lack the capacity to express their positions without lapsing into hate speech. For instance, today everyone is out for blood against Perman because he called Ranko Ostojić a "Mexican partisan pig who kills Americans"... but I can practically guarantee you that Perman will also be the first one to write that Tomislav Karamarko is an "American fascist pig who kills Mexicans"... except that never actually happens...

Just one quick clarification regarding what lonebadger6 and rustydrifter10 have already pointed out...
The Politics section operates through multiple moderators who all have the authority to oversee everything, which inherently creates a significant amount of horizontal alignment. This is precisely what matters: established criteria and clear rules of engagement. For instance, we don't tolerate insults toward users, no coarse disparagement of public figures, no nitpicking over trivialities, no racism in any form, no faking links, and so on. Once those standards are set, actual discussion can take place, making the individual worldviews—or opinions—of the moderators far less significant. Moderators aren't robots, of course; I'm not claiming they execute this perfectly every single time, but I will say quite seriously that the Politics moderation team does an incredibly good and consistent job.

If I may offer an example to wrap this up. Take me, my clone, and Lockheed Martin. My clone leans much further left than I do, while Lockheed Martin is quite a bit further right. I hold both in high regard, and I’d like to think the feeling is mutual. Furthermore, they respect one another deeply. It isn't that disagreements never occur, but they are resolved without any unnecessary drama, much like how other daily matters are negotiated and aligned among the staff. What I am trying to convey is this: they actually moderate much more cohesively (both amongst themselves and with me) than any proponent of "balancing" the number of moderators based on ideology could possibly imagine. Why? Because they are aligned on the criteria. To use a sports analogy: is it necessary to balance the number of referees by ensuring some cheer for Cleveland and others for the Kansas City Chiefs, or is it better to simply standardize the officiating criteria so it doesn't matter which team they support? The question is rhetorical, as I believe the answer is obvious.
Ultimately, all of us involved here put in the effort, and the Politics moderation crew is truly a group of high achievers. There is always room for improvement, and I hope there will be, but I certainly don't believe the current state is lacking. Far from it.

I’d probably say something about how biased the mods are when it comes to sports, but I really shouldn't go there

If I'm being honest, I kind of want to drift off-topic with a quick question
Is it actually allowed to pick usernames like: dahau, auschwitz, treblinka, or whatever else...

redbear2 said:Can I honestly weigh in on this part without worrying about getting banned?

Look, I honestly don't know what you're trying to get at here—nobody can give you a 100% guarantee on something like that, no matter how much they try to sell you on it.

crimsonjackal63 said:Everything seems to be checking out pretty well on a general level, I guess, but there’s always that damn "but..." lurking right around the corner, isn't there?😁

And honestly, no matter what they try to do or how much they scramble to fix things, he’s still going to be right there. It feels like a foregone conclusion at this point, doesn't it? No matter the effort, the outcome stays exactly the same.

crimsonjackal63 said:If I happen to be part of Tim Cook's inner circle...

lonebadger6 really hit the nail on the head there—it’s not always just a two-sided battle. Sure, we can sit here and debate the extremes all day, but I’m guessing those aren't really what we're focused on right now. Most of life happens in that gray area in between. Someone on the other side was talking about just two teams earlier, and I just wanted to jump in to add some nuance and clarify things, because if you look at how things actually work in practice, it's much more colorful than that.

crimsonjackal63 said:Look, when you look at the current balance of power, honestly? The Big Three is exactly the same as a five-on-one matchup. It’s just not a fair fight.

That’s just not how it works. I mean, sure, you could argue that if we only had one single person running the show, things might look different, but that isn't our reality. We have multiple moderators handling various sections, we've got supermods in the mix, and anyone can file an appeal publicly. Plus, pretty much anyone can chime in and comment on those appeals—either through a direct message or right there on the thread itself. Moderation doesn't happen behind closed doors here; it's not like some secret meeting where decisions are made in private. Penalties aren't just visible to the person handing them out, either, and we definitely don't ban people from appealing. When you look at the big picture, you've got users with twenty pages of warnings on their record sitting right next to someone who barely has a page and a half. If they're both showing similar levels of activity, then the logic behind the moderation becomes pretty obvious, doesn't it?

crimsonjackal63 said:I won't beat around the bush; these two teams are totally neck and neck whether you're looking at them in the real world or online, and anything else is just people getting caught up in their own subjective feelings about how things work.
Honestly, we really ought to do something about this whole debate, so I want to give a quick shout-out to Nicholas Watson 👍 for starting this thread and putting forward some genuinely solid suggestions.

So, let’s get back to the meat of the matter: under our current setup, any moderator or regular member can weigh in as long as they actually have the arguments to back themselves up—whether that’s within a specific thread, through private messages, or regarding moderator disputes; it really just depends on the situation. Trying to appoint someone "officially" to a role like that doesn't make much sense and would just overcomplicate things unnecessarily.

The moderators you mentioned—those who stepped in to moderate a forum they weren't even that familiar with until recently—are really just an exception to the rule that occasionally works out well. More often than not, it goes the other way; people end up turning into glorified janitors who lose their drive and eventually realize the job is such a drag that they wouldn't even want to moderate their own home boards anymore. That's exactly why we try to keep those kinds of arrangements short-term if the moderator doesn't get truly invested and active on the board. Plus, there's that issue I brought up earlier about not being in tune with the group dynamics, the regulars, and the general vibe, which can be a pretty big deal, especially when dealing with the stricter or more high-maintenance forums.

rustydrifter10 said:Nobody can guarantee that for you; I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Look, I’ll start by saying I find the whole argument about openness pretty hard to swallow. My sense is that most complaints aren't even taken seriously to begin with. By definition, a complaint comes from a different perspective than the moderator handing out the penalty. For instance, there have been several times where moderators didn't even bother explaining my warnings, and when they did try, I proved them wrong. In those cases, I was usually just labeled as being rude and then ignored. Other times, I've been told my appeals won't even be looked at unless I act "polite." That's the exact opposite of critical thinking or being analytical. If someone is right, their tone shouldn't matter—being right is being right. Pointing at someone's "attitude" feels more like an emotional reaction used when there aren't any actual arguments left. Don't you think?

I don't believe that's the issue... Whether someone actually possesses the right to an opinion, or whether they have successfully dismantled an argument (or merely thinks they have), is entirely distinct from the manner in which those points are presented. This ties back to what I mentioned earlier regarding our standards. At Unknown Organization, we maintain a very clear policy: we simply delete and refuse to engage with any complaints that are offensive or outright rude. By doing this, we aren't just fostering a more civil dialogue; we're ensuring that legitimate grievances can still be processed effectively.
Furthermore, complaints are indeed reviewed. While I cannot speak for every single moderator or PDF on the team, I know for a fact that this is how the most prominent ones handle things.

William Bennett53 said:I don't really care about that. Whether someone actually has a point—or if they’ve successfully dismantled an argument (or just thinks they have)—is a completely different beast from how they choose to deliver it. It's like judging a meal by the plating when the cooking itself is what matters. One thing doesn't dictate the other.

I'm with you on that. It follows that how someone delivers their argument shouldn't change whether the core complaint actually holds water. Just because someone loses their cool or isn't being polite doesn't mean they aren't right about the issue at hand. If they're actually in the right, the moderators should probably just wipe the penalty clean.

That’s just part of what I was saying earlier regarding the criteria. At the Unknown Organization, the rule is pretty straightforward: we delete offensive, rude complaints and we don't bother responding to them at all.

If someone starts throwing insults or breaking the rules, you’ve got to act on it. It’s only fair. Just tell the user to file an official complaint through the proper channels, lock the thread, and maybe hand out a warning. I don't stand for ignoring these things. It’s like calling customer service at Amazon and being incredibly rude, only for the representative to just hang up on you without saying a word. That doesn't solve anything.

If someone just writes from a distance, throwing aggressive jabs at whatever they’ve decided is wrong, and you interpret that as pure arrogance—well, that’s a whole different ballgame. Don't you agree?

A healthy culture of dialogue isn't just about talking; it’s about building a system where you can actually handle complaints without everything falling apart. It’s like running a business—you need a way to process feedback so you can get back to work instead of getting stuck in an endless loop of grievances.
And besides, those appeals are actually being looked at. I can't speak for every single PDF or every individual mod out there, but from what I've seen, that's definitely how it works with the major players.

I’m not saying complaints shouldn't be looked at. I’m just saying my impression is that, more often than not, they barely scratch the surface before moving on.

I’ll eventually circle back to that whole debate about whether anyone actually has a right to an opinion—or if someone has truly been dismantled by a solid argument (or at least feels like they have).

- I got slapped with a ban here for an ad hominem attack that wasn't actually an ad hominem. I even laid out the proof to show why, but apparently, that didn't matter.

- Just another ad hominem.

- I honestly don't even have the words for this one.

Just a few of my own cases.

It’s frequently, if not always, quite rude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudeness

As for anything else, let’s not derail the discussion.
(Even if you hadn't provided three examples to justify those three perfectly deserved bans, it wouldn't have been ideal. But fine, you've merely confirmed what we established at the start of this thread—that for certain users, no explanation will ever be sufficient.)

William Bennett53 said:It’s always just one step away from being outright rude.
The concept of "Bahatost" is essentially about being a bit of a loose cannon—someone who acts without much regard for social norms or the expected way of doing things. It’s that specific kind of eccentricity where you just do whatever pops into your head, regardless of whether it makes sense to everyone else in the room. Think of it like someone walking into a high-stakes meeting at Goldman Sachs wearing a Hawaiian shirt and flip-flops. They aren't necessarily trying to be offensive; they just operate on a completely different frequency than the rest of the corporate crowd. It’s a lack of decorum, sure, but there’s often a certain unpredictable energy behind it. In some circles, it might be seen as refreshing or even bold, while in others, it’s just plain irritating. It’s all about how much friction that unpredictability creates with the status quo.

And who said otherwise?

I said that's just a fancy way of describing someone acting arrogant by labeling something as "bold" when it’s really just plain conceit. I’d appreciate it if you didn't rely on straw man arguments.

Look, let’s not get sidetracked here. Stick to the topic.

Am I hijacking the thread? 😕

I’m just responding to what rustydrifter10 wrote; I don't see how that constitutes hijacking the thread. I'm sticking to my own experiences because, frankly, that's where my expertise lies.

It wouldn't have been any better, even if you hadn't gone out of your way to provide three separate examples for three perfectly justified penalties.

Alright. Here’s my take. I actually disagree with you, and honestly, I think my position is backed by the arguments already laid out here. I'll leave it to everyone else to look over the facts and draw their own conclusions.

Look, you already hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread when we were talking about how some people around here will never be satisfied, no matter how much context you give them. Some folks just aren't looking for an explanation; they're looking for a fight.

I could get on board with that, though I’d probably approach it from a different angle than you did.

I wasn't trying to strawman you; I simply misread your point above.
As for anything else, yes, you're hijacking the thread. This isn't a space to relitigate grievances you settled ages ago.
But fine, if you wanted to use your example to comment on rustydrifter10, you've done just that. Let's move on.

Matthew Anderson said:If they were acting like Microsoft, there’s no way they wouldn't be cutting deals with someone.

We'll just get it notarized. Go ahead and come after me, I couldn't help myself. 🙂

I’m gonna need the mods to actually step up and answer my question instead of just trolling the thread.
The question is right there in my post just above rustydrifter10's last one, so I don't have to keep repeating myself like an idiot.

And how exactly are you going to define "neutral"? In the current political landscape, Republicans call everyone a leftist, and Democrats do the exact same thing to them. 🤷

So you're just playing the neutral card. You don't really vibe with either side, do you? 🙂

Since you've decided to hang out here anyway, you might as well actually answer my question above.

Nicholas Watson said:I’d say something about how biased the mods are regarding sports, but I probably shouldn't.

I've got a quick question, if you don't mind me veering slightly off-topic.
Can I use usernames like Guantanamo, Auschwitz, or Treblinka here? ?

Here. Here are the rules for picking a username. It doesn't look like anything is explicitly banned right now, but we can always update the policy if we need to. 😉 My personal take? No.