Why was this post modded?

Really? Wow, maybe you could quote the part of the OP that asks about whether the law is too far reaching or not?

All I saw the OP ask was if the law would apply to presidents as well as congresspeople. I’m frankly surprised it wasn’t in General Questions, but I suppose since the question has never been tested in court there is no factual answer.

That’s an absurdly narrow way of approaching discussion topics that would mean that discussions in almost any topic would be derailments.

That’s one way of looking at it. Another is that if the OP in the original thread had wanted that sort of discussion, they very easily could have added a line like “What do you think? Does this law go far enough, or are there too many loopholes?” or “I am a masochist with three weeks to spare, so let’s beat this dead horse again: WAS January 6th an insurrection?”

It seems to ME that YOUR interpretation is absurdly permissive (on this particular topic, at least… :face_with_raised_eyebrow: ) and would allow certain posters to derail every GD thread with one of the same handful of dead horses.

I’m throwing out a guess here, as IANAM, but it’s been mentioned in ATMB frequently that notes/warnings/suspensions are graded on a curve as it were. Newer posters, or posters that infrequently step over a line tend to get a pass, or a gentle note. Posters that are always stepping riiiiight up to the line, or who repeat the same behavior over and over again, may get a slightly more severe mark (a note instead of a pass, a warning instead of a note) if it’s in their area of trespass.

The hijack in question, IMHO, was probably worth of a note rather than a warning . . . BUT I’ve seen quite a few threads where the poster in question has seriously contributed to derailing incidents and hijacks in manners much like the original thread. So I suspect it’s a cumulative effect and the Mods are trying to point out that it’s a pattern they have noticed and don’t want to put up with anymore.

But I could be wrong.

Wow, I think you’re right! Are you a mind reader? It’s almost like you read the text of the warning that brought us here!



Was just trying to drive this thread back to the reasons for the warning, rather than refighting the thread. And, for the record, agreeing with said moderation for the reasons posted, while pointing out that yeah, the exact offense is middling at best.

Because the argument(s) previous to my post kept coming back to ‘that’s not worth a warning because it’s too restrictive’ rather than the posting patterns. :man_shrugging:

And, that is the problem.


Rule here, emphesis mine.

As I recall the late Mr. Chance had envisioned a Great Debates forum with very, very focused topics. The topic in question is actually about whether section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the office of president. To debate what is or is not an insurrection is, in my opinion (and Babale’s), a hijack.

A hijack that began not with post #34, but really with post #18.

Your first post in the thread, #3, was on-topic. It would be hard to go off-topic with the OP sitting right there in front of you. But I’ve bolded the part which invites a hijack. In your better judgement you didn’t “go down the rabbit hole”. Yet.

Which brings us to post #18. This is the specific paragraph where the hijack began:

You decided to address the question of whether Jan 6 qualifies as insurrection. This is not a debate the OP proposed to have. It is not a debate the person you quoted in post #18 (also the OP) had brought up. It was a hijack plain and clear.

There was, however one other member who brought up the question of what constitutes insurrection.
@Exapno_Mapcase raised the issue in his post #4, dedicating most of that post to it. Judging by the timestamp you ninja’d him with #3. The differences between you and Mr. Mapcase is

a) respondants ignored the off-topic parts of his post until DrDeth came along in #23 (after you revived the topic),
b) he only made 6 posts (2 on-topic) compared to your 17 (4 1/2 on-topic),
c) perhaps most importantly, the thread died down on Friday and you revived it specifically to further your hijack.

Right here, you’re kind of sad that the thread died because people weren’t following your hijack. So, bump! and it’s back on the track.

But wait, that’s not all! You then hijack your own hijack:

First you hijack the thread to discuss whether Jan 6 is insurrection. Now you’re hijacking your hijack to ask whether a teachers demonstration is insurrection. And in the blink of an eye, you’re asking if it was insurrection when JFK was shot.

ekedolphin distinguishes your examples from Jan 6 by arguing that people in that event wanted to take down an entire branch of government. To which you argue that JFK is an entire branch of government.

Which you know is a controversial thing to say. So here you are inviting a hijack to your hijack of a dead/dying topic that you hijacked. And that’s where you finally got warned.

I rest my case.


I’m surprised you have to ask. A few inexplicable and indefensible notes is the pretext for warnings on the same subject.

Please clarify. Are you arguing that the mods are creating excuses for giving warnings?