# About General Questions \[complaint about a warning\] **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 22, 2020, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784 "2020-01-22T04:14:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/21 "2020-01-22T19:09:18Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Then please change the forum description. “I hope” is NOT factual information. Maybe you should start a Pit thread to rant about it. I’m sure lots of posters will be happy to contribute in one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/22 "2020-01-22T23:21:30Z")
Whoa! There’s another factor to consider that everybody, moderator included, seems to be forgetting or not mentioning (although **Colibri** hints at it in Post #15): We have an established convention that GQ threads must remain strictly factual and on-topic until the initial question has been adequately answered or until a dozen-or-so responses have been posted, whichever comes first. After that, threads are allowed to meander (within some vaguely-moderator-defined limits). Is that rule not still the rule? Seems to me, I’ve been seeing more frequent moderator interventions (mostly mod notes, occasional warnings) when GQ (or even other) threads meander off-topic or get into IMHO territory in GQ threads, even when the above criteria have been met, even when the resulting conversation remains civil and (in some people’s opinions) interesting. It seems a shame to have those conversations squelched under these circumstances, but I see that happening a lot. (Sorry, no examples right at hand; this is just my impression.) I thought **D’Anconia** ’s remarks were borderline snarky (probably not enough to be moddable except for his established history of being snarky). But his complaint that other posts were IMHO doesn’t hold up, and the IMHO nature of his own posts should also be acceptable at that point in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/23 "2020-01-22T23:49:29Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Is that rule not still the rule? Pretty much. Though if no factual responses have been submitted after a dozen posts I’m likely to boot it over to IMHO. > [@](#): > > Seems to me, I’ve been seeing more frequent moderator interventions (mostly mod notes, occasional warnings) when GQ (or even other) threads meander off-topic or get into IMHO territory in GQ threads, even when the above criteria have been met, even when the resulting conversation remains civil and (in some people’s opinions) interesting. It seems a shame to have those conversations squelched under these circumstances, but I see that happening a lot. (Sorry, no examples right at hand; this is just my impression.) I believe your impression is wrong. At least, I haven’t changed my moderation practice regarding this. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/24 "2020-01-23T01:19:36Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > I thought **D’Anconia** ’s remarks were borderline snarky (probably not enough to be moddable except for his established history of being snarky). But his complaint that other posts were IMHO doesn’t hold up, and the IMHO nature of his own posts should also be acceptable at that point in the thread. I disagree, and apparently so does **Colibri**. I found **aruqvan** ’s and **Llama Llogophile** ’s to be at least related to the topic. **aruqvan** was sharing personal experience with being sensory sensitive, and **Llama Llogophile** ’s post was expressing a related desire for more sensory friendly environments. Whereas **D’Anconia** was making personal jabs at other posters, not relating to the issue of the thread at all. He wasn’t modded for posting opinions in a GQ thread, he was modded for being a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2020, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/25 "2020-01-25T20:50:16Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Pretty much. Though if no factual responses have been submitted after a dozen posts I’m likely to boot it over to IMHO… On this, if I may, let me fine-tune the the mods’ practice in GQ which I particularly like and which shows respect to the forum: a mod will clear his throat, so to speak, if the _first_ reply to an acceptable OP is along the lines of the otherwise permitted and engaging “non-factual” commentary from the bleachers permitted to an extent, including even [!] some sequential badinage. (But not persiflage. I think. Will go look the word up now). The worst that you can say about that policy, based on personal experience, is when you’re dying to make a funny and have to restrain yourself for moment or two. ---
**Author:** ![Magic\_Pig\_Detective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@Magic\_Pig\_Detective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magic_Pig_Detective)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/26 "2020-01-26T17:30:48Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > People are not prohibited from making non-factual remarks in GQ, and of course it would be impossible to moderate every such remark. So people are allowed to make non-factual remarks, but I got a warning for making a factual one? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/27 "2020-01-26T17:37:50Z")
> [@Magic\_Pig\_Detective](#): > > So people are allowed to make non-factual remarks, but I got a warning for making a factual one? :dubious: It’s been explained why you got a warning. It wasn’t for making a factual remark. **Moderator Instructions** Your complaint has been fully addressed in your original thread, which is now closed. Do not bring up this warning again. In particular, do not bump other threads on other subjects to complain about it, and do not start another thread about it. Violation of these instructions may result in another warning. Colibri This is closed. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2020, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784/28 "2020-01-26T17:39:08Z")
**Moderator Note** > [@Magic\_Pig\_Detective](#): > > So people are allowed to make non-factual remarks, but I got a warning for making a factual one? :dubious: You already had a thread to discuss you warning. Do not bring it up again. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-general-questions-complaint-about-a-warning/846784.md?page=1)