# Can we get a rule in GQ about patently obvious questions? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 27, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036 "2010-03-27T18:00:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/21 "2010-03-28T07:46:42Z")
Speaking of GQ, we need more reinforcement of the idea that WAGs should be frowned upon. There are lots of legal threads that have 3 or 4 just plain wrong answers right off the bat, with no cites except what the poster remembers from an old Law and Order episode. Same with some other disciplines. I could (and sometimes do) correct the misinformation, but it’s time-consuming. I don’t think we need bans or warnings, just a gentle reminder. Same with joke answers before real answers (though that, IMO, is more egregious). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/22 "2010-03-28T08:14:02Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Speaking of GQ, we need more reinforcement of the idea that WAGs should be frowned upon. > > There are lots of legal threads that have 3 or 4 just plain wrong answers right off the bat, with no cites except what the poster remembers from an old Law and Order episode. Same with some other disciplines. > > I could (and sometimes do) correct the misinformation, but it’s time-consuming. I don’t think we need bans or warnings, just a gentle reminder. Same with joke answers before real answers (though that, IMO, is more egregious). I don’t understand your opinion. Joke answers are, well, jokes. It’s far easier to be led astray by answers by people who actually think they are right. I really don’t see a problem with joke answers as long as they are labeled properly. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/23 "2010-03-28T08:49:35Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t understand your opinion. Joke answers are, well, jokes. It’s far easier to be led astray by answers by people who actually think they are right. > > I really don’t see a problem with joke answers as long as they are labeled properly. The problem is that joke answers can derail a topic straight off the bat, nobbling any chance of “serious” discussion of the issue. So yeah, I’d like to see a couple of serious attempts at answering the question (or a decent period of time elapse) before joke answers get the OK, FWIW. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/24 "2010-03-28T11:01:36Z")
New rule: Any thread [more than ten years old](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=3947) re-opened by a (drunk) poster should be left open simply because it’s just too frickin’ weird. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/25 "2010-03-28T11:17:00Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The problem is that joke answers can derail a topic straight off the bat, nobbling any chance of “serious” discussion of the issue. So yeah, I’d like to see a couple of serious attempts at answering the question (or a decent period of time elapse) before joke answers get the OK, FWIW. I consider that a deficiency of the people responding. I mean, it’s easy-peasy to actually answer a question even after the jokes. No other forum here has this rule, yet I’ve never seen a thread taken over by jokes. A bigger problem would be wooshes. Unlabeled jokes probably shouldn’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/26 "2010-03-28T14:24:54Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The problem is that joke answers can derail a topic straight off the bat, nobbling any chance of “serious” discussion of the issue. So yeah, I’d like to see a couple of serious attempts at answering the question (or a decent period of time elapse) before joke answers get the OK, FWIW. **Runs off to start a new GQ thread about whether or not “nobbling” is a real word** \<\\> Damn Brits! **shakes fist** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/27 "2010-03-28T14:31:59Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > The problem is that joke answers can derail a topic straight off the bat, nobbling any chance of “serious” discussion of the issue. Piffle. What’s more likely is that a joke or two will keep a thread bumped up high enough on the page that someone with relevant knowledge will see it and respond. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/28 "2010-03-28T14:38:51Z")
> [@leander](#): > > New rule: Any thread [more than ten years old](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=3947) re-opened by a (drunk) poster should be left open simply because it’s just too frickin’ weird. And funny. And a trip down memory lane…{busts out singing}_Memories, light the corners of my mind…_ ---
**Author:** ![Zeldar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b77776/32.png) [@Zeldar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeldar)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/29 "2010-03-28T14:40:40Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Piffle. What’s more likely is that a joke or two will keep a thread bumped up high enough on the page that someone with relevant knowledge will see it and respond. > > –Cliffy I agree. Joke answers indicate these possibilites: 1. The thread topic is too silly to be dealt with seriously 2. The way the OP is constructed makes jokes flow easily 3. The multiple meanings involved just cry out for some fun-poking 4. What **Cliffy** said 5. Stuff I haven’t thought of but that still applies. Joke threads from “serious topics” often mean that “General Questions” was the wrong forum for the topic. If nothing else, those kinds of thread topics provide fodder for the “sarcastic answers” threads. They are usually better answers anyway! ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/30 "2010-03-28T16:12:30Z")
A rule doesn’t matter if everyone disregards it. I pretty much agree with this, except for the part about the jokes. > [@ivn1188](#): > > Speaking of GQ, we need more reinforcement of the idea that WAGs should be frowned upon. > > There are lots of legal threads that have 3 or 4 just plain wrong answers right off the bat, with no cites except what the poster remembers from an old Law and Order episode. Same with some other disciplines. > > I could (and sometimes do) correct the misinformation, but it’s time-consuming. I don’t think we need bans or warnings, just a gentle reminder. Same with joke answers before real answers (though that, IMO, is more egregious). I’m fine with jokes unless they derail the topic. Getting back to what I agree with, I don’t think there should be any heavy handed bannations, people shouldn’t be given warnings unless they become notorious GQ thread-shitters. Just when there’s a thread that has 15 responses from people who aren’t even making educated guesses (those can at least lead the OP down the right path to find the answers they’re looking for), and are offering up wild assed conjecture based upon a TV show they vaguely remember seeing while drunk, it’d be nice if a moderator can step in with a gentle note, “Hey, there have been several responses to this thread, none of which answer the question or are from people who know what they’re talking about. If you don’t know, can you shut the hell up?” But say it in a nicer way. 🙂 ---
**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:** [March 28, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/31 "2010-03-28T18:01:13Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Getting back to what I agree with, I don’t think there should be any heavy handed bannations, people shouldn’t be given warnings unless they become notorious GQ thread-shitters. As **Gfactor** indicates, this is generally the way we handle it. The rules against dumb questions, WAGS, and jokes (before the question has been answered) are more in the nature of forum etiquette than serious violations. They will generally only elicit a Mod Note as a reminder of forum standards. They become a problem only when a particular poster engages in them persistently, and ignores moderator requests to change their behavior. In such a case they might become grounds for a warning. > [@](#): > > Just when there’s a thread that has 15 responses from people who aren’t even making educated guesses (those can at least lead the OP down the right path to find the answers they’re looking for), and are offering up wild assed conjecture based upon a TV show they vaguely remember seeing while drunk, it’d be nice if a moderator can step in with a gentle note, “Hey, there have been several responses to this thread, none of which answer the question or are from people who know what they’re talking about. If you don’t know, can you shut the hell up?” But say it in a nicer way. 🙂 I actually do try to do this, if a thread has gotten off track due to opinions, jokes, or wags (and I’m aware of the thread). Alternatively, if the question seems like it doesn’t have a definitive answer, I may just send it off to IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Erasmus\_Darwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@Erasmus\_Darwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erasmus_Darwin)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/32 "2010-03-28T19:31:49Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > They will generally only elicit a Mod Note as a reminder of forum standards. They become a problem only when a particular poster engages in them persistently, and ignores moderator requests to change their behavior. In such a case they might become grounds for a warning. I appreciate the ideal you’re trying to put forth, but the reality seems even more toothless than the already weak statement of “might become grounds for a warning”. As hajario pointed out, Jinx has been pitted as far back as 2002 for this sort of thing. He’s obviously not flying under the mod radar since you yourself mentioned that he’s been doing this for years. I can understand that you don’t want to become heavy-handed on the issue, but the current moderation in this area is so weak as to be non-existent. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/33 "2010-03-28T21:26:16Z")
> [@leander](#): > > New rule: Any thread [more than ten years old](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=3947) re-opened by a (drunk) poster should be left open simply because it’s just too frickin’ weird. Yyyyeah. I’m gonna have to vote “nay” on that one. Right after I take two more aspirin. :smack: Stupid “last page” button. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/34 "2010-03-28T21:54:20Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I have sent [Jinx] an e-mail instructing him to stop starting such threads without doing some basic research. Thank you. Is there any way you can demand some sort of read receipt to make sure he got the message? ---
**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:** [March 28, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/35 "2010-03-28T21:56:27Z")
> [@Erasmus\_Darwin](#): > > As hajario pointed out, Jinx has been pitted as far back as 2002 for this sort of thing. He’s obviously not flying under the mod radar since you yourself mentioned that he’s been doing this for years. Actually, although **Jinx** was notorious for such questions when he first appeared here (when he was a teenager), he hasn’t been that bad lately. I just did a cursory check of the titles of the 195 threads he has started in GQ in the past 24 months, and most of them don’t seem particularly out of line. I closed two of his threads back in August and September of 2008 for being excessively easy (one on the age of Michael Phelps, and one on whether a political debate had been canceled), and he did seem to improve. Hopefully his two recent closings ( **samclem** also closed one of his recent threads) will remind him of GQ standards. > [@](#): > > I can understand that you don’t want to become heavy-handed on the issue, but the current moderation in this area is so weak as to be non-existent. Well, I don’t think we really see it as a major problem requiring a draconian response. It can be annoying, and we want to discourage it. On the other hand, we’re in the position of having to make decisions about just-how-dumb-is-too-dumb, and [even dumb questions can have interesting answers.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2370/how-do-caterpillars-have-sex) Right now, I don’t see GQ as being overwhelmed by such questions, so an occasional reminder I think serves the purpose. ---
**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:** [March 28, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/36 "2010-03-28T22:02:01Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Thank you. Is there any way you can demand some sort of read receipt to make sure he got the message? I don’t think so. He hasn’t logged on since starting the thread I closed. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/37 "2010-03-29T04:32:42Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > I don’t think so. He hasn’t logged on since starting the thread I closed. In 2008? If yes, why is this an issue? If no, ah…nevermind. ---
**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:** [March 29, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/38 "2010-03-29T05:01:22Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > In 2008? If yes, why is this an issue? > > If no, ah…nevermind. No jokes in ATMB!!! 😉 03-25-2010 09:26 PM, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/39 "2010-03-29T06:38:01Z")
As a GQ moderator, most of these don’t bother me, because they can generate some fascinating discussions. Look at the thread on whether Quebecois is a separate language from French. The OP could have just looked at the official government website for Quebec, seen that they called their language “French,” and not asked the question. But we’ve had 60+ posts in that thread, and people seem to be enjoying the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036/40 "2010-03-29T11:33:48Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > No jokes in ATMB!!! [Master Shake]Why? Because Laughing is forbidden, that’s why.[/Master Shake] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-get-a-rule-in-gq-about-patently-obvious-questions/534036.md?page=3)