This is a really good take on the situation. Thanks for spelling that out so well.
Me too. If it needed moderation, a simple note would have done just as well. It sometimes irks me that some posters don’t read the whole thread before commenting, but it happens all the time here, especially in long threads like that one.
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.
A full-on warning seems like an over-reaction there. (OTOH, this is only my second warning in 8+ years here, so it’s not like I’m really worried about it. Yet.)
(Note also, BTW, if my post were to be taken seriously, it offered a reason why the Committee would NOT call Lindell to testify, not a reason why they would or might.)
I think the original mod-note, which is the main topic of this ATMB thread, is still the real issue in point here.
The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the moderator is expressing some personal views on the topic, and then issuing moderator orders on the basis of that. Witness comments like this one, from this ATMB thread:
There’s a full paragraph of commentary about the appropriateness (or not) of Lindell’s testimony. This is proper thread participant material that would have been perfectly appropriate in that thread and not here in ATMB, from a participant and not from a moderator wearing the mod hat.
Let’s remember that in the recent history of this Board, a certain former moderator (who is still an active participant, though no longer a mod) was criticized repeatedly for injecting his personal commentary into threads while acting as a moderator and giving orders as to what may or may not be discussed accordingly. We had one or more ATMB thread(s) about that.
It seems to me that something similar has happened here. This moderator has some plausible arguments to be made that Lindell will never be called to testify, and is citing those views to justify a moderator order forbidding anyone else to discuss it. We’ve seen this before, and I think there was a consensus that moderators should not be doing this.
As to whether this was actually a hijack anyway, I don’t think it reached that stage. There were several responses about it, but it hadn’t reached the stage of derailing the thread yet, and I don’t think it was about to happen.
The committee issued subpoenas to both Roger Stone and Peter Navarro.
They are trying to get to the bottom of the coup attempt and these guys might have useful information so the J6 committee wants to ask them questions.
Same goes Mike Lindell. He was trying to convince Trump to invoke the insurrection act in a meeting on January 15th. The committee could probably get some useful info from him as well.
Of course, none of these guys should be allowed to testify live before the committee has questioned them privately.
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?
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.
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, 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.
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.