Nor did mine.
It was a rant.
No debate question was even postulated. You expressed your opinion on the subject and let it lie.
What was the debate? “Who agrees with me?”
If multiple moderators disagree with your take on things, you just might want to reconsider your position.
Sorry, if you think that was “framed as a proper debate,” then you have no business posting in Great Debates.
How unfortunate for you. Then you should consider not framing your OP in such an inflammatory way as to get it moved to the Pit.
Let’s put it more simply: No one has agreed with you. And by posting this thread, weren’t you making a bid for support from “the peanut gallery” (by which you evidently mean all the other members of the board)?
Nope. Just continuing my vain quest for more transparent, consistent moderation on this board. What can I say? I’m an optimist. 
Do you want me to dig up hundreds of GD threads that started similarly? The OP posts a conclusion in the title, explains their thinking, and sees who disagrees.
And what was the debate in Bricker’s thread?
Only one person in this thread seems confused, and it’s not me.
Well, it’s not me … should we do the finger-on-the-nose thing to see who’s it?
Yeah. Why don’t you do that.
Was it mainly just “hunt the poor and sick for sport” and “murder” that got it bumped to the Pit? Would the thread have been permitted to stay in Great Debates if the OP had stopped after “This is as close to an objectively evil piece of legislation as I can envision”?
Personally I don’t see anything inherently wrong with “Congressional Republicans are evil” as a topic for debate – certainly there are several threads on the first page of Great Debates right now that argue positions which are far more absurd and indefensible. But of course I can’t deny that “hunt the poor” and “murder” are hyperbolic. (In actuality, what they’re doing is removing the protections which could otherwise have prevented these people from dying, and then letting the inevitable happen – whereas, a hunter typically takes credit for his kills.)
Exactly. Basically, the deadliest prey bit was color commentary - the bill makes rich people happy at the expense of the lives of the poor, which - except for the terrible optics - is what hunting the poor for sport would do, too.
That’s easy. A rant is an OP that in the opinion of the mods is a rant. How could it be otherwise on a moderated board? Alternatively each individual poster could have their own definition of rant but that way chaos lies as I’m sure you’d agree.
I would! The current problem is that each individual moderator has their own definition of a rant, and as I’m sure you will agree, that way smaller-scale chaos lies. If we make an objective definition, we can eliminate the chaos!
All the moderators who have posted agreed that your post was a rant. I’m pretty sure that all the others would too.
One poster complaining about something that no one else has a problem with does not constitute chaos. It constitutes one poster complaining.
I was actually responding to aldiboronti’s point, but you assuming that no one else has a problem with the vague, haphazardly enforced rules here is a bit of a stretch, since there have been hundreds of similar complaints throughout ATMB for years… and who knows how many people just haven’t said anything?
I do not recall anyone ever speaking up in praise of the “flexible” rules interpretations, though…
Some people don’t know when to quit. :dubious:
Ah yes, the “Silent Majority” ploy.
The fact is, in this particular case, no one at all has agreed with you that the rule was “haphazardly enforced” or that the move was not appropriate.
Look, we’ve heard this a thousand times before. As stated, the vagueness of the rules - stemming from the cardinal rule of ‘Don’t Be A Jerk’ - is a feature, not a bug. It allows for interpretation of meaning and nuance.
It also allows for my - and I believe it’s a shared thought - belief that for every firm rule we set down our ever-inventive Teeming Millions will rules lawyer and game it to death with their habit of seeing just hoooooowwwww close to the line a person can come. Far better to make that line blurry and grey as a means to promote better behavior.
So no, I, for one, have little interest in setting down firm, bright lines without the flexibility needed to do this job. That way lies madness and ineffectiveness.
Oh, so you were being Howard Cosell? Many people took his commentary as ranting, too.
This guy’s post was a rant, and belonged in the Pit.
But please don’t open that can of worms again. Flexibilty is a feature, yes. Vagueness is not. You need clearly stated rules that are easy to follow without a lot of interpretation. Flexibility is useful for edge cases, but you do not want these to be common.
In this case, the vagueness is what causes the problem, as clearly the OP disagrees on what qualifies as a rant. If you had clearer rules of what qualified as a debate vs. a rant, this argument couldn’t happen.
And I firmly believe there are more people who want to follow the rules than people who want to rules lawyer. Plus, well, you can always just ignore rules lawyering. But you need to read arguments if your rules are vague.