# "Hijack" in the Jan 6th thread **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 7, 2022, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576 "2022-07-07T20:16:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 27
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/27 "2022-07-08T22:36:25Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Not to speak for anyone else, but I think it’s more a matter of how the moderation was communicated than of the moderating decision itself. I fully agree that Lindell’s testimony would be a circus and that there would be no value in having him make a public appearance in that context. At the same time, I believe that “what he _might_ offer” is a debatable question. Ultimately, though, I agree that it would not be appropriate for that particular thread. > > The thing is, though, the parameters of the thread had not, as far as I can tell, been clearly established with the boundary “this is for discussing the facts of what has been testified to, and the legal and political implications of those facts.” Up to that point, the discussion had naturally revolved around that gravitational center, but it had been pretty squishy around the edges. > > So when another squishy edge topic is raised, and it’s quashed as a “hijack,” it feels a little arbitrary, that it’s based on an assumption that had not been explicitly articulated previous to that (unless I missed something). > > Consider, instead, a moderator note expressed thusly: “In the interest of maintaining a manageable focus in this thread, we will narrow the topic from this point forward to ‘what has happened, who has appeared, what has been said, and what it might mean.’ Speculative subjects should be covered in a separate thread, perhaps under the heading ‘who else _should_ be called, what _might_ they offer, why is the committee _not_ calling them, etc.’” > > Then it would have felt like a course correction, and not a criticism. > > Just my spectator’s perspective. I do view this as a valid criticism. However, I’d ask you consider a few things. First, we never know how a thread is going to go when it starts. It’s very difficult to anticipate what the parameters for a thread should be until it gets underway. Original posters don’t know this any better than moderators do, so it’s not really fair to expect them to establish boundaries before knowing what is going to happen. I agree yours is a better way of stating what it was I was trying to accomplish and with your permission, I will post it as you stated when the next hearing starts on Tuesday. Remember, please, that I issued 4 separate mod notes within the thread asking people to stay on topic as much as possible. > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/720): > > Moderating: Ok, and I’m guilty of it, too, we’re far afield of the topic of this thread. I understand that political threads can wander and have tried to be lenient about it, but let’s get back to the topic of this thread now that the hearings are again underway. Thanks. > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/1412): > > Moderating: I appreciate this discussion arose out of the January 6, 2021, events. And it is a laudable debate to have. But this thread is for the purpose of discussing the hearings, not the finer points of defining Treason. Please remove your debate to elsewhere on the forum. Thanks. Barely a mod note, and definitely no warnings. To all: Please try to stick to the topic at least to some extent. A little hijacking is fine, but if you’re getting into the weeds, probably best to start … > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/1441): > > Moderating: Ok, I realize the discussion over the alleged Trump Lunge and Clavicle Grab™ originated with the January 6th Committee hearing of June 28, 2022, which is why I’ve let it run on for so long. But it has become a distraction from the totality of that proceeding. I think all that needs to be said has already been said on the subject. Anyone who feels otherwise is welcome to start a new thread to discuss this narrow issue, which has occupied now nearly 500 posts since the beginning of… > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/1696): > > Moderating: It’s not going to happen, so let’s stop hijacking this thread with idle speculation about non-events. To all, please, again, let’s try to keep the discussion tied to actual January 6th hearing events in some way, and at least within the realm of possibility. Thanks. This is a unique thread. It arises out of a series of hearings all pertaining to a particular course of conduct by one man, culminating in an insurrection on January 6, 2021. We don’t usually have threads like this one, and moderating it is an especial challenge. I was dismayed at how out of control the steering wheel/clavicle grab got and derailed the thread. For that reason, I was determined to stop hijacks sooner than I had previously. I can see how it may have seemed to some that I was being arbitrary, but it wasn’t that. The notion that Mike Lindell would testify is absurd, and you don’t need a wealth of experience in the legal system to understand this. First, the Committee has never called anyone they haven’t vetted privately first. They’ve never even interviewed Lindell. Second, they always announce who is appearing for the next hearings. Lindell’s name has never been raised. Neither has Roger Stone’s or Peter Navarro’s. All defied their subpoenas. We can therefore safely assume that none of these are not going to be called to testify before the Committee. _Should they be? That’s a whole different discussion_. Third, there are only 2 remaining hearings about which we are aware, and we know that the final hearing will be held in prime time to tie the whole course of corrupt conduct together into a final narrative. Does Mike Lindell play any role in this? He doesn’t. So again, while inartfully stated, I was simply trying to head off a Lindell hijack before it became another lengthy colloquy off in the weeds. > [@Senegoid](#): > > First, yes I did see the earlier mod note. My own post was obviously (I thought) a rather facetious joke, and I assumed everyone (moderators included) would recognize that. Clearly, nobody — not even the J6 Committee — really believes, or ever believed, that Lindell has evidence to put 300M Americans in jail. I rather half-expected maybe a mod note for that. Maybe. @Senegoid, permit me to say that I never like giving out warnings. I really dislike it, and I must feel pretty strongly about something before I’m moved to do it. I was open to the notion that perhaps you had missed the mod note and had you said that, I was prepared to consider reversing it. But you didn’t say that. I reiterate that I issued no fewer than 4 mod notes within the thread asking participants to at least attempt to stay on topic. You admit that you actually saw the mod note that directed @Peter_Morris to drop the subject of Lindell. How could I permit you to make a joke about it when he was unable to respond? There’s a point where ignoring mod instructions becomes very problematic, and I felt you exceeded that limit. I can understand why you may feel I’m interjecting my personal feelings into the thread and then using my mod hat inappropriately. There are posters who I think believe this is often true. Their belief doesn’t make it true. Understand that there is _nothing_ I take more seriously than trying to stay entirely neutral when making moderator decisions. For that reason, I tend to double-check moderation decisions with other mods before acting – which has not prevented accusations of bias. But this instance seemed clear cut to me, and I did not involve other moderators before taking action. Please also be aware that the staff here knew I was a very active participant in political threads when they asked me to consider being a moderator, and P&E was the first forum they asked me to moderate. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Oath Keepers chief Stewart Rhodes has offered to testify. People in the thread are discussing his potential testimony. There’s no indication that the committee wants him to testify. > > Is this speculation also forbidden? If not, what is the difference? There is a difference. Stewart Rhodes was asked to testify. He complied. When he did testify, he stood on the Fifth numerous times. Now he’s revisiting his decision and asks for reconsideration by the Committee to testify. I doubt they’re going to grant his request, but it is pertinent because he did in fact comply with the earlier subpoena. As @Lance_Turbo points out, Lindell blocked his subpoena with a lawsuit. So big difference. _Again, all I have asked is that discussions not pertaining directly to what’s happening with the Committee’s work be discussed in a separate thread. This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable ask to me, and still doesn’t._ Two final points: If you feel it is best for another moderator to handle the January 6th thread, I can certainly ask around. No guarantees there will be any takers. I made a commitment when I accepted the job to be accountable to the community and I have tried to do that. But if you think I suck as a moderator, please just say so. I will take your views onboard as I think about if doing this gig was the right decision for me. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576)._