Yes they can, with proper moderator action. See for instance this thread, where I asked about the meaning of a word that Trump said. I requested that we not make it about Trump, just the meaning of the word, and Colibri backed me up. Thread went pretty smoothly.
In my recent thread I requested that we not make it about Pence in person, just the meaning of the words. It could have been just as smooth as the first one, but the mods chose to permit hijack and threadshit to happen, then noted me for complaining.
I’ve stated it several times, but once more:
Pence said the following words: “Well, there might be someone else I’d prefer more.” Some people interpreted this as equivalent to “I shall be making my own bid for the Presidency”. I asked if that is a reasonable inference.
And most of the replies were just attacks on Pence that had nothing to do with the question. Any good moderator would have told them to stop the hijack.
Any answer to your question has to deal with the fact that Pence didn’t answer the question that asked. (Or, at least, his tone and the reaction to his comment in the room were clear that he wasn’t suggesting – and wasn’t understood to be suggesting – that he would not vote for his party’s nominee). A person’s motivation (while entirely speculative) seems to be a pretty inherent part of what a person “meant” by not answering a question directly.
It’s a possible inference. Are you looking for someone other than Mike Pence to give you the clarity you seek? The answers you got in that thread were the only answers possible. To wit, “we can’t know, since he has reasons to be deliberately obtuse about this topic.” That’s not hating Mike Pense, that’s just stating reality and giving context.
You were, by my read, being needlessly difficult in that thread. When I quoted almost that exact question: “Do you think this is a valid interpretation?” I answered as succinctly as possible, because it seemed to me that no answer was going to satisfy you if it strayed even one iota from the specific question being asked. I answered “Yes, that is absolutely A valid interpretation.” But then you remarked that I answered the question, but didn’t give a reason why – which wasn’t in the question I quoted nor the question quoted above. Even when I stuck to the exact question as quoted, it wasn’t an answer you were looking for. I can’t read your mind.
The people before me answered sensibly, for the most part, in my opinion, but their answers were shut down; then I answered the question very narrowly and literally, and that still wasn’t somehow enough. Like what the heck answer could there be? I can’t read Pence’s mind, and that interpretation is one obvious to that statement. Apparently, i somehow got enough extra info in my next reply to satisfy you, but I don’t feel like it added anything that hasn’t already been said by other posters, nor was it included in the question I was directly replying to.
Again: you did not ask that in the OP. You asked for opinions on what he meant. When you first mis-paraphrased yourself, I thought it was a mistake. But you’ve been corrected, and continue to do so. Why is that, I wonder?
If we forget the specific merits of the OP, isn’t this where moderation has been heading recently and isn’t the OP just following their lead?
Rightly or wrongly, moderators have been more active than I can remember at any other time cracking down on side conversions and derailments.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that this is what posters have asked for and I think it’s probably done more good than harm overall but we should not be surprised when junior mods follow suit.
And the general rule was, and still is, that if you think there is a problem you report it to the mods. If they think there is a problem they handle it. I don’t recall the rule ever being “…and if the mods don’t give you the respond you desire, you can handle it yourself.”
In this case the OP had already poisoned the thread with his responses to reasonable replies in the thread. I almost closed it when I responded to the flag about his actions and probably should have as ECG rightly did close it when he reviewed the thread.
And boy have we now wasted a lot of time over a poorly written OP.
Why? In general I prefer for threads to die a natural death than to be closed. Sometimes threads do need to be closed, but I don’t see why that’s the case here.
It’s only moderating if you are asserting authority by demanding certain behavior of other posters, I don’t see a problem with declaring how you are going to feel over something.
We blame other posters for things all the time, but there’s a vast gulf between saying that a person is responsible for something bad happening and demanding that they not do it.
Of course, if you disagree with me, I will be sad. So, think about that before you reply!
As the culture here at the SDMB has evolved over more than 2 decades, and as moderators have had to reign in uncivility here over time (because you know, we can’t have nice things) this place is less and less a place to freely share ideas and thoughts but a well regulated thought machine. Good or bad, that’s for you to decide.
Ummm… isn’t “you don’t own your thread” more in the vein of “Hey, other posters are able to to freely share their ideas and thoughts” than the “thought machine” you seem to be implying?
