Whether it will is on topic, whether it should is not.
So this?
Would being wordier and spelling it out, his belief that it won’t hurt with voters because Biden was actually fine, have saved him? Or if Quicksilver still responded with relitigation would he have still gotten the same response?
“I disagree that voters will invariably view association with the Biden administration negatively. I don’t think it will significantly harm Candidate Z’s chances.” does not contain the assertion that “Biden was actually fine”.
I’ll repost something I posted in the Modloop:
Considering that Biden being regarded as a “great President” is far from universal even among Democratic voters, it is very much hijack fuel and bringing up yet again, non-candidates in the thread for only candidates. He lit yet another match.
This is about him posting something likely to hijack the thread into a debate about a past President or Candidate.
It seems really straight forward. He got a fast reply and when I closed the thread, 3 others were preparing to post. I can’t say for sure about Biden, but it seems likely as they didn’t post after that.
ETA: An remember, replying to something in the thread that is off-topic, is still going off-topic.
If taking hijack bait in a thread is against the rules then surely constantly dropping hijack bait in threads should be too.
Sounds like we’re in agreement.
Is it possible in a thread that has hundreds, or thousands of responses and multiple mod notes, that there is a sticky at the top that alerts to the content of moderator actions.
To be fair, you reflexively do the opposite.
Not easily, but in this case is does not matter.
@DrDeth was specifically told twice in September to not hijack the thread with stuff about non-candidates. He also has had modnotes and PMs to avoid it in general within the last month. At least 3 that I can recall.
I would love to have a tool for that, doing it manually would be hard and probably a little ugly. Also, people still wouldn’t read it or end up ignoring it. 
Not sure I was one of them but I went into the thread to post about something else and didn’t stick around to wait for it to unlock. Your logic is very flawed.
No but the assertion that Biden was actually fine is reasonably read as containing the assertion that being associated with someone fine will not hurt you with voters. Is it a correct assumption? Maybe not. But it is on topic.
Exactly. It isn’t off topic.
If you want to declare that he is not allowed to discuss certain topics, you should make a topic ban. If he’s only a problem in a particular thread, you should give a thread ban.
One thing I find very frustrating is the punishment of posters for violating things that are nebulously defined. You should always give very direct, clear, exact instructions of what you don’t want in cases of repeat infractions.
DrDeth was answering what appeared to be an on topic post. A poster can’t read the mod’s minds and know that something borderline crosses the line into off topic for a mod.
Clear, easy to follow instructions. Those help more than anything.
I quoted the exact wording, he said:
He has been directly told this more than once in the last month:
Replying to someone in thread with an off-topic reply is not on-topic.
For that thread he was directly told more than once:
Additionally he was informed how tenuous his posting privileges were after the WWI thread. He only avoided a warning and banning for that one as we decided to give him one more chance as he was baited. If you missed that, it started in his pit thread.
So really, that is not clear enough?
Do you really think
Is not controversial? Or not about a non-candidate. He could have said being associated with Biden is probably not a negative for a Democratic Candidate, but instead, he went to a very debatable definitive statement.
And none of this is reviewing how many other modnotes in that thread were addressed to him.
Do you realize he causes more problems than almost any other poster?
That he has already been given 2, 30 day suspensions. I’m not aware of anyone else that has gotten that.
We have tried hard to keep him within the rules. Given him so many chances and notes.
Not to be argumentative but do you equate problematic behavior to the number of flags thrown by upset users?
Not really, in fact I’ve pointed how that metric skews against right wing posters. (DrDeth is not a right winger of course)
DrDeth has a long history of hijacks along with much else. Also a lot of long PM arguments with mods.
In that thread, discussing Biden seems akin to discussing Israel-Palestine: a topic that, in theory, can be relevant to thread, but in practice, will almost inevitably turn into a raging hijack without end. I can understand the mods wanting to clamp down on it.
I’m late to this discussion, but having read this thread I want to put in my two cents.
Being obnoxious, a nuisance, and disagreeing with other people’s posts to me is not enough cause to be banned from the board. Even ignoring mod warnings is cause for being banned from a thread but not from the board IMHO. This is a very broad church and we tolerate a lot of discussion and dissention and that’s one of the things that makes it the best message board around. The diligent and conscientious moderating is the other thing that makes this one of the best boards around. Those two things need to work with each other not against each other.
If people don’t like a poster and what that person has to say, they can put that poster on mute and then they will never see that person’s posts. People should be banned from the board for egregious offenses such as repeatedly insulting other posters, blatant and unrepentant racism, posting repeatedly while obviously drunk, advocating violence in specific terms, and things like that. IOW, hangin’ offenses.
Just being a thick-headed, stubborn pain in the ass shouldn’t be grounds for getting kicked out of the entire community. If people would just ignore and stop responding to posts that irritate them, the posters would lose their audience along with the buzz that comes from pissing people off. Continuing to engage with somebody who irritates the hell out of you reinforces their irritating behavior. Surely this is a common sense observation of human nature.
The modding here is excellent, and I wouldn’t like to see it become more strict without extremely good cause. We live in extremely troubled times and there are few enough places where we can discuss these volatile issues. People are going to get emotional and hot under the collar and angry. I think this board can handle it.
Yes, this. IMO, he seems like a lonely old fart who posts whacky opinions to drive engagement because (like many of us 
) he doesn’t get out much. He sometimes posts useful responses to a discussion, but usually I just roll my eyes and scroll on past.
I’m not trying to be a mod, honest. But my $0.02 is PITA ? (yes) BANNABLE (no)
nm