I hope you guys make an ATMB thread before finalizing that decision. At the very least maybe the usual suspects in these debates can help put together a short list of topics to justify its tired-ness.
~Max
It certainly would be a useful thread for the board to officially take a stance on the subject. The subjects that are “tired” are things like scientific racism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, and climate change denialism. They are considered settled by the board and staff, and the board as a whole has taken a definitive side. Adding gun control debates to that list would make the pro-gun position undeniable.
100%. And if the official position of the board is that support for gun control is in the same category as belief in scientific racism or 9/11 conspiracy theories, that’s definitely something I’d want to know about.
That is not the position of the board. Don’t be silly.
That seems to be personal opinion about the topic. But the issue being brought up is a rule issue. The thread appears to violate the newer GD and P&E rules that require threads to stay on their narrowly defined topic, saying will be aggressive on moderating it. If the thread has been so completely hijacked, that would suggest to me that you should close it, and tell people who want a wider gun debate to open a gun debate thread.
And if such a thread is in another forum, then I would simply argue that a gun debate is a GD or P&E (or Pit) topic (depending on how it is framed) and too contentious for other forums. A thread has devolved into that topict should be either closed or moved. But since it would violate GD/P&E rules per above, it should be removed.
In short, I don’t think a thread that has been hijacked to be a general gun control debate thread should just be let go. Ideally you cut off the hijack and return the thread to the original topic. But, if that’s not possible, I suggest closing the thread.
And this would apply in similar situations on topics that face similar hijacks. If you want a thread on X, open a thread about X.
But overthrowing the tyrannical moderators would require weapons that I don’t think I should be allowed to own. So it could be very confusing.
It occurs to me in my frustration I was probably a bigger asshole to you than was warranted. Additionally, I don’t think the situation is as hopeless as you say.
During the last wave of gun threads, the biggest hijack was “bUt SwImMiNg PoOlS”. I think at elast 2 or 3 threads got hijacked by exactly that argument (by the same handful of posters). Eventually you (I think just you, maybe a second mod as well for a different thread) cracked down on it, gave a warning, and said you didn’t want to see anyone else bringing up swimming pools.
I’ll note that no one has brought up swimming pools in the current thread…
pool was banned. 
~Max
I agree with you, but let it go. No place is perfect.
And I was just expressing frustration. Gun threads are always a mess. But I don’t think they’ll get closed down.
But this thread at least, well it is closed.
Since we’re currently discussing this here anyway …
I admit to being really conflicted about gun threads. On one hand, I do tend to get drawn into them. OTOH, every time I do I regret having wasted my time. And then it happens again.
I got drawn into this one to correct a clear factual error (about homicide rates) and to comment about a misperception about media and about the ridiculous car whataboutism. Martin_Hyde then made some moderately nuanced pro-gun comments and we had what I initially thought was a productive debate, but it was soon apparent that we were coming from such totally different places in terms of personal values that there was very little common ground. If this had been a real-life negotiation I would have walked out saying that discussions had hit a brick wall. So once again I abandoned the thread in frustration, long before it was (probably justifiably) closed.
I honestly don’t know what to suggest about the future, because this isn’t like the ban on climate change denial as a “thrice-told tale”, where there is an objective truth. OTOH, open-ended gun debates rarely or never cover new ground. I think your idea of allowing gun-related threads but requiring them to stay focused is probably best.
With that, end of hijack and back to dissing trolls.
So, honest question about trolls, do we think cjackson (who recently opened a brand new thread about kratom with a very much unappreciated sexually oriented insult) is a troll? I am not saying he’s a sock, but he’s been here 7ish years, opens threads repeatedly, but only posts occasionally, and has a one hour read time according to his profile.
I mean, he could be an opiniated ranter, who just shows off to vent his latest outrage, but with nearly twice the topics created to responses, it seems to be a coping technique of sorts. Their last thread, in which he mentions using the earlier substance and Delta 8 to cope with their alcoholism, seems to support that statement, but the posts there and elsewhere seem to be filled with a near-mindless rage. I’m not going to link, for obvious reasons, but if they aren’t trolling, they need serious help.
Yes. For the reasons you identify in your immediately following sentence. Troll definitely. Sock quite possibly as well.
I see that TedBaiamonte, the one-trick troll, is at it again in the “The Rotten Core of Our Political System” thread in P&E, repeating the same mantra (the only one he knows) and regurgitating drivel from Conservapedia or Infowars. I suspect it won’t be long until the troll flames out. Probably a trock, too.
I don’t think Ted is really a troll, just someone more used to a site where moderation is notorious for being lax. Same handle is used in both places.
I don’t see any Teds in that link*, but isn’t it frowned upon to link users to other sites like that? A bit too close to doxxing.
*Nvm. Flew right over my head.
~Max
Nice find! Same bullshit, different board. He’s on a mission to save us all from Democratic Socialism!
I think TPTB don’t really mind if it establishes a pattern of behavior and nobody’s encouraging a board war. We had a “quadriplegic” or some other person garnering sympathy by pretending to be disabled get outed that way.
I’m still not seeing it. 
Ted is active on the web site Quora, where his sort of behavior would be unmoderated due to much of the moderation on that site being performed by poorly-designed scripts. (The same problem Facebook has.)