# Why was the thread on Colibri's note closed? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 19, 2018, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-thread-on-colibris-note-closed/809100 "2018-02-19T04:25:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2018, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-thread-on-colibris-note-closed/809100/1 "2018-02-19T04:25:37Z")
This thread [here](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=847364). For those of you who didn’t read the original thread. Anise asks a GQ question in GQ and recives an answer from Reimann. Later it is revealed that Anise’s motivation for asking the question has nothing to do with the original question. Reimann goes off on her and Colibri gives Anise a note for not revealing the reason for the original question. Needless to say some of us are upset that a mod can give a poster a note for something that is not a violation of the rules > [@Colibri](#): > > Well, no, it wasn’t at all clear that the OP was posting hypothetically. It appeared that she had a specific question about the situation. > If you are posting hypothetically, it is best to be clear about it. The OP was not, hence the note. Or is it that the mod invented “The Colibri Rule” where you must state the reason for your question in GQ? > [@Colibri](#): > > In short, be upfront about the reason you are posting in GQ. There is no reason not to. If the OP had done so, the thread might have been moved to IMHO, but they would have received similar responses. And later when he closed the original thread. > [@Colibri](#): > > You could have asked this question in IMHO and given the real reason you wanted to know. Instead you wasted people’s time thinking it was a serious question. Do not do this again or you will be subject to a warning. I think Czarcasm thinks that Anise was noted for being a jerk (C correct me if I’m wrong) but it seems that if that is true, then it is now moddable as being a jerk if you post a factual question in GQ and a responder disagrees with your reason for asking it. Or maybe if you feel after the fact that you wasted you time responding. It’s hard to know because neither Colibri nor anyone else from SD has bothered to respond to the issue raised. What rule did Anise break to get a mod note? Instead in response they closed the thread and chose not to give any reason for the closure leaving us with Omega Glory’s final statement > [@](#): > > If she were actually seeking legal advice, as we all know, the post wouldn’t have belonged in GQ. I still don’t see what’s so jerkish about asking a detailed hypothetical without stating upfront that it is hypothetical, and I don’t understand why such a thread would suddenly possibly belong in IMHO. This substantially changes what GQ has been about for the 17 years that I’ve been here. If people are suddenly going to start getting in trouble for this, the least the administrators could do is warn everyone else in advance. This is not a “we can’t make rules for every situation” sort of deal where it’s immediately clear that the behavior in question would be frowned upon. So can we get an answer of why that thread was closed and what is the rule on asking hypotheticals in GQ or if it is not a rule is it just up to Colibri’s whim? ---
**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:** [February 19, 2018, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-the-thread-on-colibris-note-closed/809100/2 "2018-02-19T05:03:48Z")
I have nothing further to add to my previous statements. There is no “rule” against asking hypothetical questions. However, we do expect common courtesy towards other posters, so we ask that you do be up front about your reasons for asking. A single mod note does not mean that a new rule has been created. Since I don’t plan on commenting further, I’m closing this.