In the thread about Trump’s choice for a running mate, we were discussing whether he’d replace Vance, and with whom. That seems like a good thread for that discussion, but it was closed. Is there a better thread for this discussion, because it seemed like the right thread to me.
The thread was about Trump’s choice of running mate. He has chosen one. Virtually every post in that thread past that was not on topic. I wanted to close it weeks ago and we just let it run on. It’s now got no end of stuff in it, not just the discussion speculating about a replacement.
Please feel free to start a new thread to discuss potential substitutes whom Trump may choose.
Wouldn’t changing the title to something like “JD Vance Discussion Thread” solve the problem without abruptly cutting off an active discussion, then?
Because it seems to me that adding “JD Vance has been chosen” in the first place suggests that the thread hadn’t outlived its usefulness when he was picked.
If that was the only discussion taking place, that might work. But it’s not. That thread has been hijacked into many different discussions.
It’s why I didn’t want to leave it open for all these weeks. It leaves us in the unpleasant position of having to decide which hijacks are too much of a hijack, and which aren’t. You of all people should appreciate this, since I modded you in that thread for a hijack, and why should yours be any more of a hijack than all the rest of them?
Is it such a hardship to just start a clean thread to discuss further JD Vance stuff? At least mods will have a fighting chance of keeping it on topic.
I disagree strongly. It is mostly a fantasy discussion, not based in reality.
Please explain what has been accomplished by closing one thread and opening another. Does closing a thread somehow preserve its integrity? Will our posterity read that thread years from now and say, “Thank goodness someone had the foresight to close this thread, we don’t possess the faculties to focus on a topic if any hijacks are permitted.”
Is it better to have that thread frozen in amber, than to allow any deviation from the original premise? It seems laughably rigid, a performative action without substance.
Somehow, the mods, in their infinite wisdom, have concluded it is better to force the proliferation of threads on similar topics, than just letting the original thread ebb and flow as human discussions are wont to do. It is moderation for moderation’s sake, without any point other than adhering to the Rules, which, once adopted, must be slavishly worshipped, lest a discussion break out and people start enjoying themselves.
I truly don’t see the point. If people are being civil, hijacks are are harmless. We can hold more than one thought in our heads at one time. The sky will not fall because of an occasional meander.
Just because multiple lines of discussion are occurring doesn’t mean that any one of them is off topic. The title of the thread indicated that anything about JD Vance or Trump’s running mate would be on topic.
I also do not like that we have so many threads that are so closely related, to the point that it’s easy for a reply in one to include things that would belong in the other. There is value in keeping things on topic, but I think you guys are being way too restrictive on what counts as on topic. You’re creating a lot more work for yourself.
I do continue to think it is important to bear in mind the reason the hijack policy was created. @Jonathan_Chance was trying to make GD less hostile. So it’s okay not to be super strict if it’s not causing problems.
We need to find a balance, becasue it’s not good that @Aspenglow and other mods feel overworked having to deal with these hijacks. I think it’s okay to err on the side of being a bit too lenient than too strict.
Keeping thread topics granular makes the relevance of search results easier to judge and sift; for example suppose we have a thread about pancakes, containing recipes for pancakes, but the topic shifts entirely to which kind of bacon is best; someone later searching for ‘which kind of bacon is best’ is going to see that thread’s contribution to the topic titled ‘Pancake recipes’ in the search results, and maybe overlook them.
That’s not a tragedy of course, and I don’t even know if this is part of the reason why threads are treated the way they are, but you asked what was the point, and this is a possible answer to that.
Agreed.
I started the original thread. As the OP, I don’t mind very much that it has been closed.
There has been a new thread created to continue the discussion about JD Vance. Any opinions you may have about whether he was a good choice, or whether he will be replaced can go there. Any discussions from the old thread may be continued in the new thread.
We lose nothing by closing the old thread.
I disagree with the OP.
Threads should generally be focused and generally should also live for only a finite time before dying a natural (or unnatural death). At 1500 posts, that one was already plenty gray of beard.
I do not like the idea of a thread which starts out about “who will trump pick?”, then morphs to “what do we think of JD Vance?” then morphs into “will Vance survive to election day?” to maybe 5 or 10 different subsequent topics so 4 years hence it’s the badly mistitled “great omnibus American VP thread”.
Far better to start new threads each time the baseline subject of the thread changes. Had I been emperor the thread would have been closed as soon as trump announced it was Vance. Along with an encouragement to start a fresh thread whose title and OP content clearly laid out the current state of play and intended topics.
Those of us who haven’t been following the thread all along and aren’t aware that it has morphed into a different topic may avoid it because we aren’t interested in the original topic or we think the original topic is no longer relevant, thus missing a discussion we would have been interested in. Or, we may open the thread intending to discuss its original topic, only to wade through it and find it has moved on.
That’s fine for the kind of human discussions where most of the humans involved have been around for the whole thing and understand where the discussion has ebbed and flowed to.
Except that posters have said over and over and over again that they appreciate the tighter moderation in these forums. You may not personally appreciate it, but it’s objectively incorrect that the moderation has zero substance.
Many humans conversations benefit from moderation. I’d be irritated if I attended a panel about pancake history and they spent the whole time talking about bacon. Panels have moderators because the “natural ebb and flow of human conversation” isn’t necessarily the best way to have every single type of conversation.
Right, especially if it veers off into fantasies- what’s next-“Is Vance secretly a Lizard person?” 