Replies

"If I told you how I know the abuse statistics it would only result in more abuse abuse and probably elicit a warning."

If you really want to know I applied an exercise in forensic deduction. About 3 months ago I began capturing deleted posts by keeping two windows open simultaneously and referring back and forth to identify the poster and content of the deleted posts. I then went back through the three months of postings on the Religion Forum and reviewed the nearly identical content of the deleted posts to those that weren't deleted and came up with three plausible conclusions, each with a greater than 60% confidence interval, for the disparity in which the standards are applied:

1) Inherent Moderator Bias toward Catholics - I discounted this one

2) Inherent Moderator Bias toward or against individual posters - possible but not probable

3) Response to abuse complaints (the squeaky wheel gets the grease).

4) The standards are applied equally - very low probability (<25%) in light of the examples available.

It is also pretty obvious how certain FReepers make personal insults by substituting terms like "Rome" for "you" in very targeted, specific responses. Now lets see if this results in the warnings and abuse abuse I predicted.

"If I told you how I know the abuse statistics it would only result in more abuse abuse and probably elicit a warning."

If you really want to know I applied an exercise in forensic deduction. About 3 months ago I began capturing deleted posts by keeping two windows open simultaneously and referring back and forth to identify the poster and content of the deleted posts. I then went back through the three months of postings on the Religion Forum and reviewed the nearly identical content of the deleted posts to those that weren't deleted and came up with three plausible conclusions, each with a greater than 60% confidence interval, for the disparity in which the standards are applied:

1) Inherent Moderator Bias toward Catholics - I discounted this one

2) Inherent Moderator Bias toward or against individual posters - possible but not probable

3) Response to abuse complaints (the squeaky wheel gets the grease).

4) The standards are applied equally - very low probability (<25%) in light of the examples available.

It is also pretty obvious how certain FReepers make personal insults by substituting terms like "Rome" for "you" in very targeted, specific responses. Now lets see if this results in the warnings and abuse abuse I predicted.

I have a few personal observations concerning the "method".

1. Imaginative but not convincing.

2. Suggestive to me, a non professional, of a Paranoid Personality Disorder.
3. Much wasted time spent by someone whose life is so busy he gets only 4 hours sleep a day.
4. The Moderator may get a chuckle about your "Scientific Research" but there is nothing in your writing which would warrant a warning.
5. I can't help myself---I keep coming back to the "paranoid" thought.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=662#652

and yet here you are posting night and day on an internet forum

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=662#662

Amazing how you can do all that plus post on FR almost 24/7, be attentive to my extended family, work 60+ hours per week, run 10-15 miles a week, coordinate the Altar Server program in my Parish and still find time to be active in the local Tea Party.

Don’t you have a life?