I would at least consider it a whimsical statement if not an outright pun. 
GQ too often gets treated like IMHO even by those creating threads. Regularly there are threads asking for advice, suggestions or recommendations (often with the words recommend or recommendations in the titles).
Nice, guys. That was well done. And slightly subtle, even.
I usually try to report those when I see them.
I do as well but it’s amazing how often someone, even a long-time poster, will open a GQ thread explicitly seeking recommendations or suggestions. Obvious non-factual questions.
I was going to describe the miniature gas chamber used by the vet where my girlfriend took her ailing cat and propose nitrogen asphyxiation as an execution method but then I saw all the red text and reconsidered.
I guess I dodged a bullet, there.
Certain contentious topics like abortion, gun control and capital punishment are well known to go off the GQ rails pretty easily, and yet it’s possible, and desirable, to have GQ threads about them, so I think strict scrutiny is appropriate.
That may be partly due to sub-folder tribalism.
Someone who regularly posts in GQ, but rarely posts in IMHO, may anticipate that a thread they make in IMHO wouldn’t receive many looks. And they may be right—even though the wrong-folder posting they’re doing isn’t approved or according to policy.
I’m sorry, but what are folders and sub folders on this board? 
You don’t see them? Good to know the hidden permission only folders are working.
We call them forums, like ATMB, GQ, MPSIMS, etc.
Synonymous to boards and sub-boards, or forums and sub-forums. He’s thinking of a folder-style hierarchy.
~Max
I have complained in the past about some mods who rather lazily say, “This is a thread that is likely to turn political, so I’ll just shift it over to GD/IMHO” without even having first given it a real chance in GQ first - often before anyone has even replied to the OP yet.
If it turns unavoidably political, okay, then maybe move it over. But at least give it a real chance in GQ first.
Do you have a good example of this happening in the way you describe it?
Maybe it’s because, with all of their experience with posts and posters, they can see it coming from a mile away?
If a thread is preemptively moved out of GQ, it’s usually because the question is inherently political, or the OP has solicited opinions, or sometimes because they themselves have already poisoned the well.
If someone asks a narrow, factual question in GQ, even on a contentious question, I will usually try to keep it in GQ (despite the best efforts of some posters to hijack it into a debate.)
Okay: forums, not folders.
The point remains. Some posting decisions may be based on something other than strict adherence to the content-guidelines of a particular forum; they may be based on ‘who knows me and is likely to respond?’
I’m not saying that’s right; I’m just saying it happens.
(my edit of my own post)
I’m not sure what to think about the moderation in the thread. The problem was inherent from the beginning. The question was basically why don’t we execute criminals with the same meds we euthanize pets with, but it was titled “Death Penalty Options” which had nothing at all to do with the question asked and is a topic which lends itself to debate.
I find it pretty easy to be in GQ and see a topic which is ripe for debate and then accidentally debate. A mod note would be more appropriate than a warning. However, the people who kept going after several notes should have been warned, not so much with the first people who actually got warnings.
The first people who got the actual warnings were not *debating *anything.
I know that Colibri has been a Mod for many years and knows his stuff, but some of the warnings seemed difficult to understand. I accept that euthanising an animal is different to a convicted murderer but why does the method warrant a warning?