[Sabertooth]

No one deserves to be the target of abuse like we have been for the past year+.

I'm reminded of those Special Editions of Nightline, when mainstream press types grade their performances in a crisis, give themselves a martyred "A," and wax eloquent about how the public really doesn't understand how tough it is.

I'm not saying your tasks have never been worthy of praise, but yours is by definition a thankless job. No news is good news.

But you don't have that, do you? There is news (you're "targets of abuse," no?), and it ain't all good.

Heck, that's the point of this thread... damage control.

You've got a problem. There is a widespread perception of bias in the Moderation at FR. This get-it-out-in-the-open-before-Badjoe's-report thing might feel good, but it won't change things.

It's not just who you ban, it's who you don't ban. The inconsistencies are found between the two.

If there are posting guidelines that don't apply equally to all posters, then you are definitely banning people unfairly. If nefarious, malicious posters are allowed to remain on Free Republic, then the bannings of their targets are nefarious and malicious by default.

That's a real perception, a real problem, and that's something that this thread, thus far, has failed to address.

[Texasforever]

It's not just who you ban, it's who you don't ban. The inconsistencies are found between the two.

Who?

[MEG33]

I have read this but no one says who was unfairly targeted and banned and who is unfairly detained.Please ,names and details.

[Jim Robinson]

It's a tough world. Sometimes ..it happens.

[FreeReign]

There is a widespread perception of bias in the Moderation at FR.

What percentage of the posters at FR would you estimate have this perception of bias?

[Sir Gawain]

This thread was posted in Breaking News and left there for about an hour or so. What double standard?

[independentmind]

If nefarious, malicious posters are allowed to remain on Free Republic, then the bannings of their targets are nefarious and malicious by default.

The malice and bullying tactics routinely displayed by many of the posters on this very thread is exacty what critics point to when they call FR a "hate site."

[Ichneumon]

You've got a problem. There is a widespread perception of bias in the Moderation at FR.

And yet, I'd bet decent sums of money that everyone would disagree about which way the "obvious" bias went.

For example, on the evolution-versus-creationism threads, it seems that the evolutionists perceive a moderator bias in favor of the creationists -- and the creationists perceive a moderator bias in favor of the evolutionists...

As Linda Ellerbee once wrote about a TV news segment she had done on a controversial issue, "I knew I had done a balanced job by the way I got an equal amount of hate mail from both sides."

[Dales]

Yes, there is a perception problem. No question about it.

Some of it came on its own, and was inevitable. Nature of the beast.

Some of it has come, undoubtably, because of mistakes which have been made; there have been mistakes, and there will always be mistakes, because we are human and God made us imperfect. We try to minimize the mistakes, by watching out for each other, and by questioning each other when we see something we are not in agreement with.

And some of it was intentionally created, by those who wanted such a perception to grow to unmanageable levels.

In the end, everything comes down to one thing- Jim's decision. He sees every abuse report that comes in. He sees every action we make.

No one stays without Jim allowing that person to stay. No one goes without Jim allowing that person to go.

I don't think you understand how spontaneous this was tonight. I guess it looks planned. It wasn't. We've been seeing Joe's vague threats for about a year now, and had seen his more specific demands about a year ago. Jim then made this post.

I read it, and as it was going on, I decided that I really wasn't enjoying just being a dartboard. For over a year, I had let myself be one.

So I made my post.

Then WIMom, who accidentally had let her identity come out on a thread once and had it seen by a poster by the name of Central Scrutiniser who then took it to LP, decided to join me.

Then so did the others. No planning, so to say it was done for any particular reason is probably not accurate. I am sure each one of us had our own reasons. Some may have overlapped, some may be completely different.

But damage control? Yes, when someone is trying to malign the job I do, I want to try to set the record straight.

Do we all have our biases? I am sure we do. We do our best, and we try to learn from our mistakes.

All of which doesn't address your comment here. Except my first point.

If there are posting guidelines that don't apply equally to all posters, then you are definitely banning people unfairly. If nefarious, malicious posters are allowed to remain on Free Republic, then the bannings of their targets are nefarious and malicious by default.

The answer to this is that in the end, every decision goes through Jim. Whatever bias there is in who stays or goes is his. The vote of one Jim Robinson outweighs the vote of every single moderator.

[VadeRetro]

Patience, friend, and perspective. Perspective and patience.

A year and a half ago I was crying about the moderation myself. A lot of that was misunderstanding, eventually cleared up.

We're all on pretty long leashes here. Most of us like it that way. Some of us hotheads need that. The people who really need to be banned get there eventually.