If you look at that thread Paired t-test or Independent t-test you will see that the two people who commented were @Glen_b and myself. I am confident that neither of us saw anything remotely personal or critical in this question, which is just using that example to raise a general issue. As it happened, we were also the only people to reply at the time.
Following encouragement from @Andre Silva, I try here to summarize all the comments, with some extra nuances. I incorporate freely comments made by @Glen_b.
Even if there is an explicit forum policy on some matter (e.g. self-study questions, questions that are really about programming, avoiding bad language) there can still be a judgement call about whether a particular posting has crossed the line into unacceptable.
That members can disagree in public on where to draw a line in interpreting even site policy is at most very slightly embarrassing; it should never stop a member using their own judgment. In the limit the only alternative is that a moderator decides everything and that comments of the kind made by @Glen_b and myself are disallowed. Neither fits the principles or practice of CV.
Indeed, policy is maintained, or possibly even evolves, from seeing little discussions over grey areas in public.
Arguably it's only by seeing views on marginal cases that we learn where to draw the line, or least to get some sense of whether each of us is hawk or dove. "Hawk" and "dove" here means more or less inclined compared with others with sufficient reputation to vote for closure on a particular question. Extreme hawks or doves should try to moderate their behaviour or to keep quiet!
In the particular case of self-study questions, it is arguable that after a short delay (a few days at least), much more fully answering such questions is not only okay but perhaps to be encouraged. The pedagogical value of the OP doing some of it for themselves either has likely been achieved or won't be with further delay.