It’s a kraken-repellent buoy–that is, a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Posts that might lead to hijacks are problematic because they might lead to hijacks. When they don’t lead to hijacks, they ain’t problems.
Pro-Trump posts in general are rare creatures.
You’ve already admitted that the moderators here are as unbiased as we can be. It’s already pretty well known that this board as a whole has a definite political lean. You aren’t going to change the board culture here. So once again, I have to ask. You keep going on and on and on and on with this. What exactly are you trying to accomplish, other than proving that this is an exceptionally hot-button topic for you and dragging ATMB threads on for pages and pages? What exactly do you think should change?
I understand that you believe that your every word on the subject is golden and is read and forever remembered by every poster here, but I cannot find any post of yours in this thread that offers a solution nor can I find a link to the other thread you keep mentioning and which I apparently skipped.
How about just stating whatever your solution is in so many words right here and now so that your solution is clear. I pledge to respond seriously to it just as soon as I find out what the heck it is.
I think you’re missing the point.
Consider: *Sorry, I missed your solution. Can you point me to it?
*
Versus: You have not offered any solutions.
Can you see why a person might tire of the latter, after repeating the solution several times?
Get modded? It’d probably get the poster banned for “trolling.”
Sure:
I believe I have answered that question several times.
It’s fascinating to me that despite those repeated answers, you continue to ask it.
Why?
And as a reminder, since the text is still conveniently in my cut-and-paste buffer:
And I have another question: if you ask again what exactly I think should be done without ever acknowledging the text in the quote box above, how would you recommend I respond?
The medieval scholastics were pikers next to this board. 
As was already explained to you (twice), the post was not moderated based on how likely it was to develop into a hijack.
I keep asking what you want to change because the only answer you’ve provided so far is that you don’t want us doing something that has already been explained to you that we’re not doing. And yet you keep going on about this, so I have no choice but to ask what exactly you want at this point.
You’re giving me the distinct impression that the problem here is that you are upset that this particular post wasn’t moderated and can’t let it go.
Because you didn’t report it.
If there’s a problem, it’s one that posters, not mods, need to fix. Be the change you want to see.
More fun at parties too, I bet.
You’re quibbling over the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. Bricker is saying it shouldn’t be a sufficient condition, and you respond saying it isn’t a necessary condition. I agree with him on that.
From your response in the other ATMB thread:
But the main reason it wasn’t moderated, as has been explained, is that it wasn’t enough of an issue to be worth bothering about. The post was mostly on topic and he was just expressing an opinion.
Since the post involved modern politics, that always has a chance of hijacking a thread, so yes, that was a potential issue. But that’s not the reason for the lack of moderation. The reason for the lack of moderation was that the post was mostly on topic.
Bricker is putting all of the focus on a potential issue that could have caused further moderation in the thread and claiming that this was why the thread wasn’t moderated, which is flatly untrue.
The prior thread on this topic is about a post that was reported and was in violation. It was not moderated.
Which was explained in the previous thread and was explained again here.
So I am going to ask one last time, and that will be it for this thread. What exactly do you want to happen?
If all you have to say is that you want us to not moderate based on the likelihood of a hijack, that wasn’t the primary reason for the lack of moderation, and we’re done here. If you can’t accept that the thread wasn’t moderated to your liking, you are just going to have to deal with it.
If you have something else you’d like to say, please say it.
It’s clear to me that more specific examples will be necessary. So I’ll be back to this topic when, or I suppose if, I have them.
I agree with you, and you have had to repeatedly express this position in the other thread and now again in this one while Bricker seemingly seems not to hear, and leads us around in circles repeating an argument that has no merit.
Since Bricker has now refused to engage with anyone who doesn’t acknowledge his alleged solution and explain why it won’t work, let me oblige. Here is his solution, and I even offer his alternate restatement of it for crystal clarity:
The reason this is nonsense should be patently obvious. Let’s look at the two examples that Bricker has been so worked up about and which he alleges proves his case, the one about voter ID discussed in the other thread and the moderation of which ECG explained above, and the one cited, by Bricker again, in the OP.
In the voter ID post, it was clear to me, to the moderator, and to many others that while it ventured somewhat into political territory in GQ, it was a direct response to another poster that had contextual relevance to what had just been said and expressed a view that is widely held and that many believe to be well substantiated. To moderate this as a rules violation would require the strictest and most draconian interpretation of the rules, which I doubt anyone would find productive. As I said before, GQ is a forum that is intended to focus on factual matters, but it’s also a forum in which the participants are human beings, not robots. Moreover, I maintain that such a heavy-handed interpretation of the rules would have applied to the original poster he was replying to, because while those particular facts may have been historically accurate, the wording was replete with provocative opinionated adjectives. So of all the reasons that the post Bricker didn’t like was not moderated, whether or not it was likely to cause a hijack was the smallest and least significant of all the factors considered.
Thus, if Bricker’s proposed rule was in force, the post would still not have been moderated and Bricker would still be complaining.
In the other instance that Bricker raised in the OP here in this thread, the post was moderated and warned apparently for using a silly pejorative that had been deemed inappropriate in past discussions. Bricker cited this as alleged mod bias (even though he’s lately been acknowledging that the mods are not biased, so who can keep track) because another (liberal) poster had used the same term and not been warned. As it turned out, the mod hadn’t seen the first case, and, in lieu of warning both, the warning was quickly rescinded. Note that this had absolutely nothing to do with any potential for a hijack, it was for a type of name-calling.
Thus, if Bricker’s proposed rule was in force, the post would still not have been moderated and Bricker would still be complaining.
Since neither of Bricker’s prized examples actually support his proposed remedy, I assert that his remedy wouldn’t work to achieve whatever goal he is after.
One can only surmise that what he really believes is that an extremely strict by-the-book interpretation of all rules is the only way to achieve fairness, but I think it’s clear to most of us that such a draconian approach would make the board a rather hostile and unwelcome place and stifle discussion, and still wouldn’t fix the perception of unfairness – indeed it would probably make any such problem worse, because there would be a lot more moderation and thus a lot more perceptions of unfairness --all in all, not a place most of us would want to be.
Or perhaps what Bricker really believes, as I suggested earlier, is that conservative posters should be cut more slack simply because they’re apparently outnumbered. I don’t think that sort of position needs any further comment.
In short, I don’t see that Bricker has offered any solution to what is, in my view, an imaginary problem to begin with.
What would you think about a GQ comment that said the reverse: after a responsive paragraph, a poster adds, “Of course, the racial animus of days past is obviously absent in today’s Voter ID laws, which are neutral and intended only to ensure electoral integrity.”
Would that comment, in GQ, justify a mod note?
Perhaps what you believe is that because the liberal position is self-evident, any ambiguity of interpretation should be resolved in favor of a progressive statement over a conservative one.
You posted in that thread; given it wasn’t reported, you didn’t report it. Given you don’t have to guess about at least one reason, what was that reason?
Would a fair reading of this statement mean that, as it currently is, you have shared all the specific examples that you know of?
I believed it would have been futile. It was a statement that enjoyed strong support from the liberal majority that I doubted it would have been modded.
And at the time, I was not trying to gather examples.
Yes, that would certainly be a fair reading.