This seems to me to be like baseball. When the first pitcher intentionally hits a batter, both sides get a warning. Net effect - the first guy gets a freebie and afterwards no one does.
The real mod error was upon reading the OP that they didn’t move it to GD. I mean how is TonySinclair not setting it up with phrases like “Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles or honor.” to start a fight?
TonySinclair started the thread based on a “hypothetical” that was clearly not a purely hypothetical question, and was in fact strongly based on current events. The current events that the question is based on is a topic best suited for other forums, but the specific question asked was about the law. As long as the topic is restricted only to questions about the law itself, that’s perfectly fine for GQ. I left a mod note in the thread instructing everyone to stick to the legal question and to take comments about the current events that inspired it elsewhere.
The warnings that Colibri gave were not for using the word “hypothetical”. They were for basically ignoring the instructions I gave. The strikeout was also clearly used as a political jab, which is not permitted in GQ.
Using the word “hypothetical” does not get you off of the hook when the rest of the post makes it clear that you aren’t talking about a purely hypothetical situation. For the OP, they didn’t actually break the rules of GQ, but to keep it within the bounds of GQ, further clarification (my mod node) was necessary.
The other two uses of the word “hypothetical” were used to intentionally slip political comments into a GQ thread, which is not allowed, and were in specific violation of the moderator instructions I gave upthread.
So neither the OP nor the two posters that followed were given a pass for using the word “hypothetical”. They were all treated the same, as far as that goes. The OP didn’t get a warning because they didn’t use their “hypothetical” to violate moderator instructions and GQ rules.
TonySinclair definitely brought some non-GQ wording into the thread, but the question asked was about the law itself, which is a GQ topic. Anyone who wishes to discuss the GD aspects of the same topic is welcome to start a new thread in GD, and feel free to link back to the GQ thread if desired. Since a factual question was asked though, I prefer to let that question actually be answered instead of just moving the entire thread to GD and losing the actual question that was asked in the greater overall topic.
If TonySinclair had worded the question properly as a GQ topic then my mod note would not have been necessary.
I (and I think engineer_comp_geek) tend to give notes for a first instance of political commentary in GQ, unless the commentary is particularly severe, or the poster has a history of such comments and previous notes, or there are previous instructions or moderator notes or warnings in the same thread.
In this case, Taesahnim blatantly repeated the same kind commentary that engineer_comp_geek had specifically given instructions against previously. They not only posted a potshot, they violated moderator instructions.
In RioRico’s case, he already had two previous warnings for political shots in GQ within the past couple of months, and is not going to be given any more slack at all.
Why didn’t you just move it out of GQ? Posing the OP as a hypothetical makes it impossible to give specific answers without expanding on the hypothetical. And as a result I don’t think the instructions were clear enough to rule out Taesahnim’s modded post.
The OP was asking a question about the law, which is a GQ question. e_c_g’s instructions restricted the scope of the question to that aspect alone. We sometimes do that when an OP has both GQ and non-GQ elements.
I think they were absolutely clear enough to rule out that post, in particular repeating the completely unnecessary crack about “a person who is utterly without principles or honor.” If a moderator has posted instructions to restrict responses to factual ones about the law, it’s best to do so.
This is one where ECG and Colibri were (and are here) pretty clear and to the point. We can think what we like of the first post and its nature but its clear that answers needed to be about the law involved and most of the responses are along that trail. The ones who wandered away — get noted and/or warned. And lets face it – that first note from ECG was especially clear and to the point. As they say at this time of year – the ruling on the field stands.
Although you do note that you don’t believe him, the crack about “Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles or honor.” perhaps could have deserved as specific mention.
Personally, I think that thread should have been closed right away, because it was clearly not a hypothetical. Shut it down as inappropriate to GQ, with invitation to start a new thread in GD, or just punt it to GD or Elections right away. Then this situation wouldn’t have arisen.
You appear to have missed this part of the OP (color added):
While the question is clearly not a hypothetical, the actual question being asked is a question about the law. The question is not about the situation that spawned it, only about the law that is applicable to it.
Moving the thread to GD or Elections completely ignores the actual question being asked.
I also read “Suppose further that the Senate leader is a man who is utterly without principles and honour.”
Sure, purely hypothetical. Has no relevance at all to the current political situation. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it. That was not needed to ask the question of law.
As soon as I read it, I assumed that because of the way it was framed by the OP, that there would be political shots taken, and there would be warnings.
I wish I could predict the stock market that well.
It may have not been purely hypothetical but that doesn’t matter . The question was about the actual law, even if the question had been blatantly framed as about the current situation. (in fact, it was ridiculous that it wasn’t just honestly stated that way. You’re allowed to ask real life question in GQ, so WTF?)
Why is that a problem when, as you admit, they didn’t ask a question in a manner appropriate to GQ? Why should they get a valid GQ answer if they can’t follow the rules and actually post a GQ question?
I also note that you admit they were being disingenuous in their question in pretending they weren’t being political. Why isn’t that a valid reason to close the thread entirely? The OP is trying to sneak his political opinion into his GQ question.
Plus, as Nothern Piper said, it was inevitable that a politically loaded question like that would get political responses. And the mods have stated that their goal is to avoid giving Warnings if possible. Surely it would make more sense then to move it to a forum where such was allowed.
Finally, I think putting so much emphasis on a single part of the question instead of the whole thing as a whole is a bad idea. You can easily slip a factual question at the end of any post–that shouldn’t make it a GQ question.
In short, I don’t think all of the aspects of this post were considered in its moderation. I believe a politically loaded question should be moved, and that disingenuous questions should at least be closed. And if you can’t ask a GQ question, you aren’t entitled to get a GQ answer.
It’s alright if you ask a clear legal question. You see, little political digs aren’t poisoning the well because the discussion isn’t about the politics. I’m fine with mods noting it’s not appropriate but letting the GQ question be answered.
But did the mods even note it was not appropriate? I know others have been noted and warned before for sliding political barbs into GQ responses. Did the OP get off free from that?