Just wondering if some clarification could be provided about this mod instruction. It isn’t clear which post or posts it refers to.
It seems impossible to debate the idea “Hillary just lost the election.” without including the idea “Trump will win the election”, and vice versa. How can anyone discuss the probable outcome of an election without it having both a winner and a loser?
It killed the thread since there is really no way anyone can respond to it anymore without breaking the mod instruction.
In general it seems to me in the Elections forum it should be pretty much assumed any conversation about how one candidate is doing will include comments about the other. But I rarely dabble in that forum so maybe I’m just not aware of some implied ettiquette that needs to be followed when making such comparisons.
The thread had begun to pick up multiple claims that Trump has lost the election. That is not pertinent to a thread insisting that Clinton had lost the election. A post indicating that Clinton would not lose, based on actions taken by Clinton or perceptions projected by Clinton are fine, because they simply refute the notion that Clinton lost. Separate claims that Clinton will not lose because Trump has already lost belong in the “Trump lost” thread.
Thank you. I’m still not really seeing it. There isn’t any way to refute the idea that Hillary has lost without, at least by implication, arguing that Trump has won. The only way to demonstrate Trump hasn’t won is by discussing ways Trump could lose.
I understand the desire to keep every topic neat and tidy in its own thread but it seems like in a winner/loser discussion about a contest between two people there isn’t a way to keep them separate.
I will abide by the instruction of course, just curious because it seems like a lost cause to keep a discussion on any one candidate’s win or loss from including arguments about the other.
Haha. Perfectly clear. In a thread about whether a coin will land on tails you may not opine that it will certainly land on heads. That would be off-topic.
Ai yai yai-- is it November yet? I am seriously beginning to think it’s a lost cause to moderate the Elections forum in any manner to keep it from being a bunch of “but your politician does it too!” posts.
The real question is why this moderation keeps happening at all. The whole point of Elections was to keep the partisan bickering out of GD. If you try to get rid of the partisan bickering in Elections, you’ve defeated the purpose. It’s like trying to get rid of insults in the Pit.
Implication is different than explicit declarations. That is the difference between the two threads.
I am responding to complaints from participants that they viewed the crossover posts as hijacks. I recognize the Sisyphean task that Jonathan and I are facing, but that’s why we get the big bucks, (or not). (Only 51 more days!)
You get paid? Hell, I even lost the use of my mug, dammit.
Keeping everyone happy within the Elections forum - and even Great Debates - leading up to a particularly partisan and controversial election is an unattainable goal. The best we can do is hope to keep the bickering to a minimum and insist that it remain civil and that the bickering remains at least minimally intelligent and different in different threads.
I maintain that whether by implication or direct declarations there is no difference at all between arguing Hillary has lost (Trump has won), or vice versa, or Hillary will win (because Trump will lose), or vice versa. It’s difficult to argue that one will win or lose without giving examples of why the other might win or lose.
Just because someone complains doesn’t mean their complaint is valid.
But I don’t envy the job of trying to maintain an orderly discussion on the subject, for any amount of bucks. If I were Sisyphus I would square off the edges of the stone and let it sit right in the middle of the ramp for 51 more days.
Emphasis added. I don’t believe that is true, but I’m open to accepting that if you have evidence to support it. My recollection was that the forum was created to keep GD from being flooded with threads about the US election (partisan bickering or not) during the election cycle. Then it was successful enough to expand to election discussions around the world, all the time.