A rather unjustified warning.

[Bone]

@k9bfriender

XT straight up said that his participation was not welcome and his viewpoints should not be considered, and ElvisL1ves was challenging that notion on its (lack of) merits.

XT was interested in other aspects of the discussion, rather than one as well trodden as the one Elvis was bringing up. Your interpretation is very far apart from mine. There is nothing wrong with indicating this - the topic is ABCD and a person wants to talk about D, whereas another wants to talk about A and B. Saying, ‘man, why are you bringing up D when that’s really uninteresting, and A and B are more relevant?’ does not mean that someone’s participation is not welcome, nor that viewpoints shouldn’t be considered.

@k9bfriender

The note, not warning, was because he indicated that someone feigning ignorance, and he said that that act of feigning ignorance was part of the problem.

This is not accurate. The original note for ElvisL1ves in post #418 had nothing to do with feigning ignorance. Elvis’s response to sps49sd was personal in nature. In a thread that stemming from multiple mass shootings, I interpreted Elvis’s statement to mean that sps49sd was part of the problem - i.e. blaming him for others being killed.

It was clearly directed at the poster, rather than any argument being advanced. I was trying to interpret generously, and therefore left a note rather than a warning for that post. My instruction was to not take shots at other posters - personal insults are prohibited in GD so this was a reminder about that. Typically when I leave a note, I monitor the thread more closely to ensure that things stay on track.

Then 9 posts later, there is this:

@ElvisL1ves

If you’re telling us you refuse to consider the possible validity of other viewpoints, including one that prevailed for most of our history until recently when a 1-vote partisan vote supported their party politically, that says all it needs to, doesn’t it? Meanwhile, this is still a Debates forum, not a “Nuh-uh!” forum.

Elvis is fond of these types of insinuations, “says all it needs to, doesn’t it?”. It’s his way of trying to insult someone without actually making a statement, employing an epiplexis. I may have left this with just a note, but seeing as how I did just that immediately prior, and combined with the taunting “nuh-uh” comment, escalated my response.

I still don’t see how you can hijack a discussion about gun control into the second amendment. Hijacking it about the 1st, or about smoking, or about cars, or any of the other deflections that I see in those threads constantly would be a hijack. Talking about 2A in a gun control thread is exactly relevant.

As an aside, I don’t view discussions about the 2nd amendment as a hijack to that thread. Certainly different threads with more focused discussion specific issues of gun control could be hijacked by 2A discussions, but general gun control (which is what that thread was about) is pretty far reaching in relevant subject matter. Things like relative risk analysis can make other risky behavior germane to discussion. Things like standards or jurisprudence can make other types of legal analysis germane as well. Broad discussions of gun control will have rather wide latitude on what is relevant.