Objection to locked thread

[Craig234]

A tale of two threads:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2099084&enterthread=y

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2099400&enterthread=y

The first thread is a 'poll' with a strong bias for the right-wing views, by not including the views of the left as choices.

Discussion in that thread went on for pages pointing out the flaws, and became tedious; a clearer way to point out the flaws was with a mirrored thread.

There are two levels on which to defend the second thread. One is that it is at least as legitimate, as useful, as 'non-trolling', as the first poll. Why would only the right's biased threads get approval for posting, while the identical bias on the left gets the moderator ban and a lock? Both, or neither, are 'trolling' or otherwise flawed.

The second level is to defend it as a discussion of the very issue of bias and ideology - to show how the first poster really has a distorted view in ways it's hard for people to see when told, but which can become clearer when seen in the other side doing the same thing. It's a discussion of the real issue in politics of the bias people have, and useful for that purpose.

Regardless, at the minimum, I strongly object to the term 'trolling' by the moderator for the second thread. I never troll and am offended by the comment. Trolling is when you post something not for a constructive function but merely to 'stir up trouble', posting something designed to disrupt legitimate discussion and cause 'noise'. That's not at all the purpose of the second thread, and if it does need to be locked I want the moderator to edit the reason it was locked to a legitimate reason, and not say it was 'trolling'.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm not the mod who locked your thread, and I rarely visit P&N. However, I found you choice of words to be very biased to the point where I also consider the language to be trolling. Even among the families who have made the greatest sacrifice - I don't think the majority of those consider the loss of their loved ones as merely a "wasted life."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I'm not the mod who locked your thread, and I rarely visit P&N. However, I found you choice of words to be very biased to the point where I also consider the language to be trolling. Even among the families who have made the greatest sacrifice - I don't think the majority of those consider the loss of their loved ones as merely a "wasted life."

Probably not, but that is very much a matter of partisan perspective. Those who support the invasion/occupation see the American deaths as serving some noble purpose. Those who object to it see those lives as wasted. As someone who has been against the invasion from the beginning, I found PJ's questions to be far more biased and intentionally inflammatory, yet another of the countless examples of the war supporters demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. I recognize some war supporters may view those same questions as fair, however. Perspective.

I'm not big on criticizing the mods here. I'm sure moderating P&N is a major pain, remaining impartial a major challenge. I believe this is the first time I've ever spoken out against a moderator action. That said, I'm with Craig. There clearly seems to have been a double standard applied here. I don't see any reason to believe Craig's thread has less value or will contribute less to the P&N discussion than PJ's. In my opinion, both threads should be treated equally.

 

[esquared]

My guess is that if you word a poll with the same verbage as prof john has in his thread, it would not be locked.

Do not used phrases like you did in the locked poll.

Preventing more wasted American and Iraqi lives

Something close to more wasted American and Iraqi lives before leaving

 

[Blackjack200]

I would like some clarification, if possible, on why http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2099084&enterthread=y was not locked. It contains no insight or attempt at reconciliation of views, and asks deliberately inflammatory rhetorical questions. I'd like to echo an earlier sentiment and add that the moderation on these boards is generally excellent. Thanks for that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I'm not the mod who locked your thread, and I rarely visit P&N. However, I found you choice of words to be very biased to the point where I also consider the language to be trolling. Even among the families who have made the greatest sacrifice - I don't think the majority of those consider the loss of their loved ones as merely a "wasted life."

Probably not, but that is very much a matter of partisan perspective. Those who support the invasion/occupation see the American deaths as serving some noble purpose. Those who object to it see those lives as wasted. As someone who has been against the invasion from the beginning, I found PJ's questions to be far more biased and intentionally inflammatory, yet another of the countless examples of the war supporters demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. I recognize some war supporters may view those same questions as fair, however. Perspective.

I'm not big on criticizing the mods here. I'm sure moderating P&N is a major pain, remaining impartial a major challenge. I believe this is the first time I've ever spoken out against a moderator action. That said, I'm with Craig. There clearly seems to have been a double standard applied here. I don't see any reason to believe Craig's thread has less value or will contribute less to the P&N discussion than PJ's. In my opinion, both threads should be treated equally.

Thanks for all the responses. I quote Bowfinger's because I especially agree with his general positive statements about the moderation, and acknowledging the challenges.

Having said that, DrPizza needs to read the thread *in context*, not as he did literally. I would not post that thread as it is meant literally - as it says, it's a counter-thread reacting to another that is equally or more 'biased' or 'trolling' or whatever term you like that went unmoderated.

To review: a poster posted a poll which was heavily biased, by not including any legitimate options for the democrats, instead implying it's a given that the democrats are only after power, and the only question to ask is whether you agree they should screw America over and choose to lose the war in Iraq simply to gain the presidency, or you disapprove. Not anything about withdrawing possibly being something they believe is good for the country.

After much discussion in the thread failed to help the right see this fallacy, I posted this new thread because often fallacies are best illustrated with a 'mirroring' technique.

I often find myself thinking about some criticism of a figure I don't care for, and then applying the 'what if it were one I like' and realizing I have a double standard.

DrPizza disregarded the entire point and context of the thread to imply that I had come up with these biased questions, when in fact they are only mirroring an 'approved' thread.

I repeat - this thread was only, or less, biased than the other thread not moderated, and while the other one actually meant its bias, mine points it out front as bias, honestly.

Either both threads should be locked, or mine should be allowed to remain either as no more 'biased', even though I admit and disown its bias, than the other, or for what it is, illustrating the fallacy of the original thread by not offering legitimate options, while only including partisan conclusions.

And again, I'd like the moderator comment that the thread was locked for 'trolling', which is *obviously* not the case unless the context is ignored, to be edited. It's a false attack.

 

[Red Dawn]

Your objection has been noted.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn