I disagree. I think it’s really hard to stay on just a single candidate in a thread at this stage in their campaigns – so much of the campaigns are attacks on either side, and inevitably there will be side discussions like “Trump’s claim about Clinton is false” or vice versa. I know it got spirited, but it didn’t seem to warrant a warning to me, even as much as I think adaher was wrong. The side discussion started from a claim about which candidate was more dishonest, and adaher was (by my reading) trying to support the claim (which I think is wrong) that Hillary is justly thought of as dishonest by the majority of the public.
If there was a hijack, it wasn’t driven by adaher, at least not solely. I might have contributed, as might have several others. But I don’t think it’s a hijack, since it started as a comparison of the honesty of the candidates.
I think its not so much the introduction of Trump into the thread as it’s adaher’s introduction of Trump into the thread, a practice which the mods had clearly noted him for previously.
I think you mean Hillary, since the thread was about Trump. But since the conversation started as a comparison between Hillary and Trump, and we were just disagreeing about how to measure this characteristic (honesty) that was being compared for Hillary, I don’t think it was a particularly off-topic discussion.
A quick search of when Jonathon Chance or tomndebb (the two Elections moderators) have said “adaher” does not reveal mod notes of any kind directed at him within the last year.
I haven’t followed in detail that thread, but mention of an opposing candidate in contrast to the thread topic candidate - thread diversion much greater than that hasn’t really been a problem. In a two party system. If there was a specific thread topic about one candidate-specific item perhaps, but this is a general megathread that is expected to encompass many issues.
True, but I think it would still be reasonable for a mod to call a stop to a long back and forth about Hillary’s qualifications in a Trump thread. I was also surprised to see one participant singled out and warned for it though.
When a thread reaches 122 pages, can it be expected to “stay on track”? And if posters are going to be warned for “but <insert opposite political side here> is even worse”, then we should start seeing warnings fly like bats at dusk in Texas.
Perhaps we should reboot those threads every month or so if we really want them to stay on topic.
Someone suggested that and even started a monthly thread. It proved unpopular.
Things are fine in those Trump&Hillary mega threads. Little hijacks happen and no really minds. Every 10 pages or so Jonathan comes in and declares a longer one to be an official hijack, bans the subject and the thread trundles along.
Yeah, a formal warning for hijacking seems a little much in a political thread of this broad nature. A simple “that’s enough of this hijack, please move on” would suffice IMHO.
The thread (the Dope being the echo chamber that it is) is 90% Trump-bashing. The rare contrary opinion is of course going to eventually veer into Hillary territory.
This is the kind of stuff the mods don’t get paid for. Keep the conversation on track, sure, but understand that it’s basically impossible to discuss a Presidential campaign without discussing the campaign’s opponent. Especially as we get closer to November.
Yip. Another example of throwing out a Warning when a Note would do. I thought tomndebb said the mods don’t like to hand out Warnings.
This is a thread about the Republican candidate for president. Of course the Democratic candidate will come into it. If it’s not a hijack for other people to discuss Clinton, it’s not a hijack for him to discuss her, either.
I actually can’t say I’ve ever noticed him hijacking any thread to talk about Clinton, let alone often enough that he gets a special rule. And I’ve always noticed the pattern when any other special rule was handed down.
But even if he has, this is not an instance of that. There is no way he is deliberately defying the rules. And that’s what the Warnings for not following instructions are about.
Well, I could see it being reasonable if adaher was constantly turning threads into Clinton bashing and he had been told to stop. Like I said, however, a basic search of the Elections moderators’ posts (and RickJay’s since he obviously hangs out there) on the word “adaher” turns up no mod notes directed at him.
I guess I should be clear that I wasn’t complaining about it because “the board is unfair to conservatives”. I just don’t see how you can have a thread about the US Presidential election, and not bash the other candidate.
