First, let me apologize for missing your question. There are times when unread messages are marked as read when I sign on (it seems several of us have had that problem) and as much as I'd like to think I don't miss much, clearly I missed this.
Second, the back-to-topic note was posted because the thread did stray a short while earlier. There are times when others post to the thread while we are creating a message to post which can throw the effect of the Moderator's note. However, the thread moved back to topic and you'll notice no more Mod notes were posted.
If you need further clarification, please let me know.
Eh, if it was vital, I would've been a bit more active in seeking a response.
Thing is, I still don't really see the thread drift you're talking about. I see people talking about what they'd do, and people commenting on what those people have said, and the requisite responses to those comments which seems like fair game given the thread's topic. Seems like it'd introduce pointless clutter to split discussion on what you'd do as king, what people think of your kingly/queenly decisions, and then a thrid thread dedicated to the political ramifications of the prior responses to that, just because it's not explicitly stated that such discussion is allowed/permissible in the first post.
I don't see how what was present in that thread is any better or worse than introducing the topic the usage of varous attacking tools into a spinning back kick thread for example. The toolkit has some relvance to the topic, but it's never going to be 100% relevant to a discussion on a technique that really has two possible attacking tools. (Worse if there's political inertia behind one tool vs another as in the case of the roundhouse kick for example.)
Since I coudln't find much on the topics in the FAQs or the forum rules on thread drift, I figured it was as good a time as any to ask for clarification.