The DNC thread was closed due to a brief hijack. There are still potential questions and comments to be made, especially since not everybody watched it all in real-time. There are still speeches I haven’t had time to catch up on, for example. Am I supposed to start a new thread if I want to comment on them?
I see no reason to shut it down due to a brief hijack.
I’ll second this request.
There are several hijacks in that thread since the end of the DNC convention, not just one. The New York Times, Trump, etc.
I don’t mind reopening it, but I’ve said many times in that thread to please take other topics elsewhere. It seems like an impossible ask. How do you suggest we deal with that?
Agreed.
Just let it run where it wants to run at least for a few days. Is it so important to keep tight control of the thread only one day after the Convention? To what end?
Maybe add the word “Aftermath” to the thread title?
I would agree.
The only comment I’ll make here is that the post I had composed just as the thread was closed (and was subsequently lost) included a self-directed “junior modding” that this was getting off topic and further discussion should be continued in another thread.
I tend to concur that the thread should probably remain open. Also, I apologize for my role in the hijack, but as I said, my last post that couldn’t go through was suggesting that we should take that particular discussion to a new thread.
What’s important about it is, if we allow hijacking in that thread, there’s no end to hijacking in all threads. Where do we draw the line? Do we let the New York Times hijack continue? The Trump stuff? Whose hijack is allowable and whose isn’t?
I repeatedly said that so long as the discussion is about the convention itself, the post is fine. But there are many side discussions now. Where should we draw the line? How long do we leave it open? There will always be someone who wants it to remain open past when we decide to close it.
ETA: I did not want to close the thread. I recognize there is more valuable discussion to be had about the convention. But there appears to be little effort made by some posters to take their side discussions to a more appropriate place, and it is really frustrating to constantly be having to sort those out.
I’m eager to hear someone’s actual proposals for solutions beyond, “Just leave it open!”
Then don’t close it.
I’m sorry you lost your post. Of course you appreciate that there was no way I could know that your intended response was going to include an offer to take the hijack to another thread.
I have no quarrel with your decision to close the thread, even though some of my brilliant observations that I can no longer remember were lost when they couldn’t be posted. 
I do have something of a quarrel with the general interpretation of “hijacks” that apparently all mods are supposed to enforce. This has come up before. The DNC is over. Does that mean that no useful related information can still be discussed? No, it does not.
This is not a criticism of your moderation, @Aspenglow. I’ve said lots of good things about your moderation style before. I do just wonder whether this encyclopediac strictness about keeping threads on their supposed narrow track is helping anything, especially when the main topic is behind us and we’re discussing the aftermath. This is, after all, a message board, not an encyclopedia.
I’ve reopened the thread.
I struggle with where to draw the line on hijacks. It we let them go on too long, that’s a problem for people who want strict adherence to the hijacks rule. If we moderate them in a strict way, we end up spending all our time defending our decisions.
There is no easy solution to this, I don’t think.
I will repeat for the eleventy-thousandth time, I don’t moderate hijacks in any forums except GD and P&E. And I generally allow about 10 hijacking posts before taking action. I don’t know how to do it any better than that.
You do a fine job. We need to notice hijacks earlier and ask for the thread to return to the topic.
Thank you. I really appreciate folks who notice and take steps to return the thread to its intended purpose.
Honestly, it takes several posts before it becomes apparent. It’s human nature to go off on side discussions, and eventually somebody realizes it and either mentions it or flags it.
That’s true for you, but not all posters. We have some folks who are very quick to flag hijacks.
Oh, sure, didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
I apologize for my role in the hijack and will try to do better.
I sometimes lose track of what thread I’m in (or even what forum); and should remember to check before posting.
In my opinion, hijacks are a feature of message board discourse, not a bug. Organic, spontaneous conversations meander and go off on tangents and that’s part of what makes them fun. Enforcing a laser like focus on an OP often makes threads less enjoyable to participate in. Just my two cents. I appreciate that others may feel quite differently.
[quote=“Aspenglow, post:16, topic:1006129, full:true”]
Do you “agree there is a problem” when they post? Because that is going to encourage them.
I would suggest that, unless things are getting heated, you should encourage these posters to try and steer the conversation back on track themselves. They don’t even have to say “this is a hijack.” Just bring the original topic back up.
You have complained about how much work this is. It would be a lot less work if we only got the mods involved if necesarry.
I know this goes against how this board has worked in the past. But we also used to allow much more hijacks.
Personally, I thought the DNC thread was fine. Little small tangents while waiting on the show to come back on. That’s what this was: a TV show thread. More like Cafe Society than GD.
There were some contentious topics, and you were 100% right where you drew the line on, say, the Palestine topic. That was a huge potential hijack. But mostly the thread was just some small tangents while waiting for more info.
I do think you guys are being way too sensitive to hijacks. And I wonder if it’s these reporters who are causing that. You used to have the balance correct.
I very much wonder if these quick reporters are part of why. I know from modding elsewhere how much every report makes you feel like you should “do something.”