In post ~18, my post that mentions Obama’s (so far) failure to endorse Harris is deemed “basically off-topic”, as this is “a thread assuming Kamala Harris is the candidate” .
The thread title refers to the runup to the election, of which securing the nomination will be an important part. How is it off-topic to discuss specific reasons why Harris will / won’t be the nominee?
There have been several mod decisions I’ve thought have been curious lately, but given that there are major news events going on that people have very strong feelings about, I’m OK with the mods coming down a little harder than usual on potential hijacks.
Yes, the moderation is tight, but it makes perfect sense.
I mean after ANY charged real world event, we get a multitude of threads pop off that many posters join and try to steer towards their own hobbyhorses, or spawn a profusion of hydra like secondary or full on duplicate threads.
The mods then and now are working hard to close duplicates, and keep existing threads on track while tensions and emotions are high. I mean this happened after the attack on Trump, most mass shootings, the beginning of Russia’s war on Ukraine and on and on and on. I mean, heck, the second post in the thread is @What_Exit pumping the breaks because it’s the 4th overlapping thread on the same issue in 24 hours. Just slowing the roll.
I look at it as business as usual. And again, it’s a NOTE, not a warning, and not even a severe note, just saying that it’s better discussed in one of the many other parallel threads.
An extremely mild note. Not one that would be part of a flag review or anything in an unlikely future or where I really did the poster did anything wrong. I’m just trying to keep the keep the Politics & Electionskamala-harris threads on track.
The last 24 hours have been very busy. There are 4 active threads in P&E on this.
I was somewhat nonplussed by the moderation in the Harris VP thread about, “No deep dive hijack of thread into a border debate.” I didn’t see a “border debate” – rather, the discussion was around whether Kelly’s position on the border would be a help or a hindrance as VP, which seemed entirely on topic for the thread.
But I certainly understand the deluge mods have been under the last day or so and appreciate that some judgment calls are necessary.
Agreed it wasn’t a border debate per se, but it had the probability of veering into discussion of how to fix the border, the GOP scuttling of the bill that would have made a big difference to cheat Biden out of a win, etc. Best to nip it in the bud.
We can’t know when mention of a slightly hijacked point will turn into a full-on hijack, but we know a potential hijack when we see one. Sometimes we may call it a little too strictly, but it’s only because we’re trying to keep the thread as started on track.
People should never be discouraged from having the conversations they wish to. We just want them to start those discussions in related threads.
Might I suggest a pre-emptive note as a first step for such situations, like “Please be very careful to restrict your comments to the effects of the border issue on Harris’ VP pick, and don’t discuss the issue more generally”?
Because I did feel that nobody in the thread had crossed that line, and it was a potentially interesting topic for discussion.
Obviously I’ll defer to your moderation, but discussing where Harris and potential VP picks disagree on hot button issues like the border, Gaza, gun control, abortion, etc., – and whether and how those differences would strengthen or weaken the ticket – doesn’t seem like a sidebar in that thread. At least it seems like a more invigorating discussion than just “I like Kelly/Whitmer/Bashear/Shapiro/etc.”
If the bits can be kept strictly to positions and record and not turn into a debate about border policy, gun control, Gaza, etc. I would agree. That will not happen though. Too many will hijack the thread into a specific debate.
I would not object to something that showed the leading VP candidates positions on a subjects and where they vary from Harris, but it would have to be factual and objective, not subjective or conjecture.
Debates on these issues belong firmly somewhere else. Especially as 2 of them are among the most hot topic subjects on this board.
IMHO, WhatExit’s moderation in the Kamala threads has been far too restrictive. For example, the voting public’s attitude toward Hillary Clinton as the best example of a female candidate is very relevant — it’s no more a “rehashing” than to say any talk of swing states is a “rehashing” because we were also talking about them in 2004 or whatever.
It’s like he’s forcing us to stay on the New Jersey Turnpike, never allowing us to explore the beautiful Pine Barrens or the lake-studded hills and valleys of northeast Jersey!
FWIW, I appreciate the tight moderation. These fast-moving threads with lots of impetus from news events and high emotions need to be kept in check or they disintegrate into anarchy.
Plenty of places and good tools to open new threads for your digressions and explorations.