I can’t fathom how Trump is off limits in that thread.
I can understand Trump being considered off-topic if it turns into yet another omnibus talk about how Trump is a bad person in non-Iran-related ways. We don’t need to hear about Trump’s golfing trips or White House ballroom in such a thread. But if it is about Trump and what he’s doing to Iran, it is perfectly relevant.
It would be like having a thread about 9/11 but saying we aren’t allowed to talk about Osama bin Laden in the thread.
Okay, I made myself sleep on this before responding, but first, I think you’re quite wrong, and second, you aren’t doing yourself or the board any favors by NOT actually quoting the moderation in context. So first, let me add some context by way of my most recent moderation that included you.
[quoting the whole thing would make this even more of a book, so I’ll use snips to illustrate my points]
From the onebox listed (or if it doesn’t load, it’s the second sentence of moderation after my quoting):
We are trying to talk about issues, not just attack Trump.
Please note the work just in the line above. It’s very important.
I go on to say that of the three posters listed, the first was snarky but mostly on topic, making 5 solid (and quite snarky) on-topic comments about Trump’s motivations. The last was, well, by my eyes a roll-eyes level of exaggeration but making a point on Trump’s randomness, but when I first saw it I let it pass.
A pretty shot time later, you posted to the thread (not in response to the first poster I mentioned) with another of your passionate condemnations of Trump and his ilk. The first part of it was also on topic, about bombing the enemy to drum up support/patriotism at home. The second part was a similarly cheap shot about Trump being stupid, not exactly uncommon, but adding nothing to the topic in question.
But now we’re going from 80% on topic, to 50% on topic posting. And yet I still didn’t step in, despite seeing a reaaaaaaaalllllly common pattern.
The third poster who I mentioned, again, a short time later, was 100% Trump basing and zero percent on topic, with nothing but a crack on Trump being so stupid he can’t tie his own shoes and too fat to do it anyway.
I hope you see the pattern now? In Trump and adjacent threads, what goes from a few fun snarky bits to dozens of posts “just” (that word again) bashing on Trump. Until a moderator steps in, and then it’s all “why didn’t you just warn/stop it earlier, why am I getting called out?”
But that brings me to the rest of the moderation and your claims of bias:
I’m quoting the last paragraph of my moderation that addresses the points above:
I get it, I really get it, but please , take the cracks to one of the many Trump threads if you’re just getting your shots in. It doesn’t add to the topic, and it almost always leads into an extended off topic rant on Trump. If you want to attack him, keep it specific to his motivations for the event in question rather than on his appearance, weight, or general stupidity - the Pit’s a better fit for that.
Does “I get it, I really get it” look like I’m defending or protecting Trump? No, I’m saying the above are more rant than anything else. I’m specifically saying yes, you can attack him (though note the word JUST for the third time) but do keep it specific to his motivations for that topic, and to avoid generic rants on his stupidity, appearance, and weight or take those to the Pit. It’s where rants go.
And it was a note, not a warning. Hopefully that made my moderation at least more clear. As to your other recent moderation about “Trump being off limits” it’s largely the same. For example @What_Exit:
Note it’s not that Trump is banned, but just Trump bashing. And sure, WE is a bit brusque in that one, but we’ve given out the same nuanced instructions over and over and over again, but it keeps creeping back, because you (Der_Trihs) and everyone else is so angry about the situation.
Speaking of which, just an HOUR ago, WE had to step into these related threads again:
Because we had multiple responses that just said “Because Trump is Stupid”, or that “Because Trump is a criminal/pedophile”. Those aren’t comments specific to the actual events going on right at the time - or at least, the posters in question made no effort to tie it specifically to the current event. That’s venting, but no, it doesn’t further the conversation without those specifics.
As I said above, I get it, I really do. But yes, these comments almost always create extended off topic rants, and yes, we’re going to moderate them. And when people keep doing it over and over despite clear moderation saying “please don’t” we are going to get more abrupt, and probably in the not too distant future issue warnings for repeat offenders.
Hopefully this puts my and potentially other moderation in sufficient context.
Maybe it is more about signal-to-noise ratio than strict adherence to a topic. You had an interesting question about how the US could extricate themselves from the war (roughly “why can’t the US just pack up and leave?”), but the responses were all basically one-liners.
Right.
But I agree with the Mods, we just dont need another trump bashing thread. Mind you- discussion of his policies is on point, but name calling is not needed.
I disagree here @Der_Trihs: I see little to no bending over or hushing of negative language towards trump, or the right wing. Where I’m a bit left of a lot of the board, most of the board is left of the Democratic party in general. trump and right wing bashing is an honored tradition here, but it, like many things, has its time and place. I must admit, I have not read the thread in question as I’ve been preoccupied and by the time I saw it the number of posts was a bit overwhelming. In general, however, I do not see this board or it’s mods rushing to defend trump, his regime, or his followers. Just sayin’
You’re a better mod than I would ever be able to be. Willful blind oblivious misunderstanding is the least of what you are calmly dealing with here. Where do you get the patience from? (rhetorical question)
Thank you for the compliment. I’ll leave out the secret rituals but emphasize one more point about this particular subject that relates.
I get, heck we (the P&E mods by volume, but all of us) -get- it. Trump 2.0 is not a normal political situation. Trump 1.0 wasn’t either, but this is far worse politically. So we KNOW emotions are high, we try to put ourselves in your shoes (it’s not hard). And we’ve made note after note after note. But at the end of the day, we try to set expectations. When we split the thread, it was an effort to keep the moderation reasonable and distinct, but the real kicker is @Aspenglow’s lovely words:
Bonus points because she can say it in a paragraph and not in a book.
Actually, it often IS a problem IRL.
We have a group of artsy geniuses who migrate to the local tavern, and damned if it doesn’t feel like The Dope.
And we police tangents very robustly, because of Jimbo.
As soon as he can slip a Far Left talking point in, he’s off and running (Literally: I’m on a soccer team with him, and, as he ran past me full tilt he somehow had breath enough to say “Too bad our uniforms aren’t orange, because then they’d match the jumpsuit Donnie’ll be wearing someday!” My sensitive reply was “Shuddup and get the ball!”)
Back at the tavern, one guy can imitate a ref’s whistle as he throws a napkin down on the table and declares: “Tangent Flag! 30 second penalty while we get back on track!”
I would still say that Slack’s feature to allow people to create side-threads off a channel is a great feature. Full tree-based discussions are basically impossible to read or use for a straight conversation but a perfectly linear discussion, like we have here, just doesn’t work once you have more than 3 people wanting to discuss the topic.
If you have 5-20 people who are actively involved, you just need to allow an amount of pressure release to let a smaller group within the total number who are interested in the topic to split off and follow through on a particular sub-topic. Anything else means that you’re going to either get a lot of topic drift or one person taking over and crowding everyone else out.
This software that that ability, too.
If you click the “reply” arrow, you get a box to write your reply in. At the top of that box, just to the left of the avatar of the person you are replying to, is another, slightly grayed-out, “reply arrow”.
If you click on that, it give you three options.
Reply as a linked topic
Reply to topic
Toggle topic bump.
The first starts a new thread, linked to the one you are in, where you can go off-topic. That’s what What_Exit’s canned response is urging you to do.
The second lets you shift from relying to a specific poster to replying to the topic at large.
I have no idea what the third does, and maybe it’s a moderator-only feature. 
But that first one is exactly what you are looking for.
Google Chat has the same feature, though doing it is confusing as heck, especially if you’re replying on a mobile device. You can reply to someone as a quote (which stays in the original thread, just like it does here on the SDMB), or you can make your reply start a new sub-thread, but I keep seeing people generating sub-threads, when what they had really meant to do was quote someone in their reply in the main thread, because the commands aren’t clear.
It does not appear for me.
Just,
Reply as linked topic
Reply to topic
Not surprised.
Anyway, it’s the first option you want to explore. It’s really very easy to use, and quite handy.
I’ve done it a few times myself, when I think it’s worth it to reply to a post, but it’s too much of a tangent to still be on topic. Then it’s common sense; if it’s worthy of discussion, but doesn’t fit in this discussion, then it should be a new discussion.
And if it diverts that discussion out of the original thread into a new one, where it won’t continue to derail anything, then that’s a bonus.
And it really isn’t that hard. The most difficult thing is coming up with a decent thread title for the new thread, but I just make the title be whatever point I’m trying to make.
That’s like me saying that the nice thing about a movie is I can experience a whole different experience of life, without having to do anything but plonk down $20 and buy some popcorn. And you say, “Well, you could just join Peace Corps, and have all sorts of adventures!”
Yeah, no.
- Turning someone else into an unconsented OP ain’t cool.
- Spamming the top of the planet with a thousand little side discussions - meriting a few posts to follow up on clarifications, and nothing more - that have none of the context that surround their birth, and inviting in people who weren’t part of that surrounding context just isn’t particularly desirable nor useful.
If you use that function, your post (not the one you are replying to) becomes the OP.
I honestly don’t get why people are upset about having their post become the start of a thread, but that’s irrelevant, because this feature doesn’t do that. You should write a post along the lines of, “inspired by this other post, i wanted to talk about xyz”
I’m not sure what your second objection is. That other people might be attracted and not have read everything leading up that post? Guess what, that happens in the middle of threads all the time. The link to the conversation that initiated the new thread is right there in the OP, for anyone who cares.
Most people don’t want to go the trouble of creating a spinoff thread that will likely have one or two replies, if any.
Also, the severely over-moderated United States and Israel are bombing Iran {for current/ongoing events, past/future have specific threads} thread continues to answer the question this thread poses. People continue to constantly go off topic despite all the warnings, because we don’t live in an Eternal Now and obeying the thread rule makes normal or even useful conversation largely impossible. So people tend to either not obey the rule, or not post at all.
I had thar happen to me once, when a mod split off a thread starting with a post of mine.
I got a notification every time anyone posted to that thread. It was quite lively for a couple of days — and I wasn’t actually interested in it.
I decided that that was what I got for posting off topic in the first place. And I wouldn’t say I was upset; just mildly annoyed. But it was kind of annoying.
You can turn off the endless notifications simply by changing the Notifications (lower left at the bottom of the thread, where the little bell is) from Watching to anything else. You can mute the thread entirely, if you want. Discourse defaults to Watching for any thread you start.