# Colibri's "Political" moderation

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibris-political-moderation/739880>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [December 9, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibris-political-moderation/739880 "2015-12-09T00:58:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 23

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\
**Post date:** [December 9, 2015, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibris-political-moderation/739880/23 "2015-12-09T04:09:54Z")

</div>

> [@Colibri](#):
>
> Incorrect. “The system is hopelessly corrupt” is inappropriate for GQ regardless of whether he had seen the previous warning or not.

As i said in my earlier post, if the post deserves a warning, then give it a warning.

But you understand that we can actually read what you post, right? It was YOU you used the fact that he should have seen your previous warning as one of your reasons for giving him a warning. Here’s your post again, in case you forgot what you wrote just under 4 hours ago:

> [@Traffic Tickets vs. Criminal Charges](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/traffic-tickets-vs-criminal-charges/739756/42):
>
> **Moderator Warning**
> 
> I missed this earlier. This is an official warning for inappropriate political commentary in GQ. _ **Since you quoted a post that had already received a warning, you should have been aware that this was inappropriate as well.** _
> 
> Colibri  
> General Questions Moderator

You explicitly state that the poster in question should have been aware that his post was inappropriate “[s]ince [he] quoted a post that had already received a warning.” You understand that putting those two clauses together in the same sentence suggests a connection between them, right? I’d be happy to explain the mechanics of related clauses, and the connecting power of the word “since” (_def: for the reason that: because_) if the point i’m making here eludes you.

If the fact that he should have seen the prior warning is irrelevant to his warning, why mention it at all? The fact that you did mention it, and that you did so in such a way as to indicate its relevance to the warning, suggests that it was a factor. And, as i said before, it’s a crappy thing to consider, because while you know that he saw the post, you have no way of knowing whether he saw the warning, especially if he hit the “Quote” button straight away, without reading the rest of the thread.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colibris-political-moderation/739880)._