Question about the Warnings in the "Death Penalty Options" thread

[Colibri]

@Cicero

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?

You really think dumping someone alive into a wood chipper so that maximum gore is produced is a legitimate method of execution that is reasonable to suggest in GQ? Or a firing squad using machine guns with soft-nosed bullets? As for UCBearcats post, he has a history of trolling and previous warnings for similar posts, which caused me to believe his drive-by was merely intended to shock and was not a legitimate suggestion.

I’ve explained my subsequent instructions to limit discussion strictly to the questions in the OP, and not to other methods, was intended to keep the thread in GQ. I didn’t issue warnings for that until repeated violations had taken place.

[Northern_Piper]

when we’re in GQ, I think it’s always a good thing to read the OP’s question before commenting. Sorta goes with the “Question” thing in the forum title.

Plus the forum descriptions says: "Got a factual question… ? Even if the title to a thread is ambiguous, the forum location means no debates, so you can’t claim licence to start debating something because of the thread title.

(Says the guy who’s been on the receiving end of polite reminders from Colibri when I’ve lost track of the forum I’m in when I’m posting from my phone and have gotten confused occasionally about the forum I’m in)