-4

I had a question that was edited out of context and locked by a couple of really bad moderators a while ago because they did not agree with the facts in my question. Bernie Sanders was sandbagged by the DNC, we know that now for an absolute fact, but yet these terrible moderators (Sam-I-Am and Phillip) edited and locked the question because they did not agree with the negative light that the facts shed on the DNC. Is there any way that a non-biased moderator could unlock this question so that it can continue to be voted on?

I have noticed much extreme bias from moderators on this site, I was just hoping that after a while some decent moderators could have been added that were not totally biased.

Why would the DNC try to prevent Bernie Sanders from getting the Democratic Nomination?

| |
  • 4
    Will you refrain from editing it if I unlock it? – Philipp♦ Apr 11 '18 at 17:14
  • The question needs to be rolled back to the last edit where it actually had context that made sense. I have no desire to edit anything beyond that. – MultiMike Apr 11 '18 at 17:18
  • So just as I thought, the horrible bias continues... lol. This exchange has become a joke because of moderators like yourself. Changing a few words in the title of the question in order for the question to make sense again is obviously the right thing to do. – MultiMike Apr 11 '18 at 17:21
  • @MultiMike I'm not so concerned about the did/would in the title, but the Edit: paragraph is a meta-post, and has no place in the question. If we unlocked the post would you re-add that? – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '18 at 19:14
  • No, I don't want to add that part back, just the title change. – MultiMike Apr 11 '18 at 19:25
  • @MultiMike it should be unlocked now – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Apr 11 '18 at 21:33
  • 1
    since it seems like you aren't aware of this, you can actually search who the moderators are for any SE site. stackexchange.com/about/moderators – BlackThorn Apr 12 '18 at 0:16
  • 1
    Re "did not like the facts": conjecture. Supposing there are facts, a moderator might have been misinformed or mistaken in their belief that there was no fact, but nonetheless inwardly wishing that they might be mistaken. Similar to how an innocent person might be convicted of a crime based on bad evidence, while being arrested, prosecuted, judged and jailed by people that wished the innocent person somehow could somehow be exonerated. – agc Apr 20 '18 at 6:10
3

Having looked at it I don't think the change of wording is a big deal. I probably wouldn't have changed it, but once an edit war starts mods ought to it shut down. If hashing out exactly what the wording should be is too contentious for the normal editing system it ought to be done through meta.

I would go with Brythan's (not a mod) wording, because it reads less assertive of facts I'm not clear on and then maybe have a separate question about those facts. But reading the answers it appears that was already addressed, so perhaps a new wording that better leads into the answers to both issues would be more appropriate, but I think unnecessary.

Also asking why did someone do a secret thing is likely to be mind-reading and propaganda but why might they do it can have some supported explanations.

I'd also suggest citing a story posted under opinion and based on a politician's book as fact is unexpected. A participant's story shouldn't be discounted, and I'm not particularly skeptical that it happened, but it is hardly absolute proof.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .