# Bad precedent

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-precedent/535594>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [April 9, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-precedent/535594 "2010-04-09T23:45:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-precedent/535594/6 "2010-04-10T00:05:00Z")

</div>

The word is irrelevant. She gave him a warning for disobeying a moderator, not for swearing.

I’m very uncomfortable with that precedent, where a moderator can create a rule that doesn’t officially exist, tell posters about it in a thread, and then warn you if you break it.

For example, in Survivor threads the normal procedure is to openly discuss the “next week on…” previews. If the OP explicitly says to spoiler boxes for them we do, but if it isn’t mentioned it gets openly discussed. Yesterday’s episode had a particularly interesting preview for next week, that has already been openly discussed in the thread.

For whatever reason, **twickster** felt the need to come into the thread and post this:

> [@Survivor April 8, 2010](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-april-8-2010/535490/25):
>
> People, please remember – they’re called “spoilers” for a reason. If you’ve got info on what happens later in the season, _use spoiler boxes if you post **any** of that information_.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> **twickster** , Cafe Society moderator and “Survivor” fan.

Emphasis on “any.” If we continue to discuss the preview, and then if someone complains that it wasn’t spoilerboxed, are we now in danger of getting official warnings for disobeying a moderator?

This is a real question/concern.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bad-precedent/535594)._