You’ve read GQ before, right? (The forum, not the Cosmopolitan-for-men dealie.)
Wait, stupid question. If you had, you’d have known that your post in the original thread was out of line, that your follow-up thread was in the wrong forum, and that this thread is spectacularly stupid.
Where, exactly, did a mod try to make you look foolish in this thread? No mods have posted in this thread, before or after you made the quoted claim.
I think he’s talking about Eutychus. Crandolph, Eutychus isn’t a mod anymore. “SDSAB” is “Straight Dope Science Advisory Board” and the only thing they can do on the boards is post on it.
No, it happened because I realized that I had erred in closing rather than moving it. And it seemed easier to simply correct, rather than to repost.
The word “political” has now been defined by the Moderators to mean “of or concerned with government, the state, or politics.” We are working on elaboration, but we’re only on page 137 so far.
And “I saw George Bush riding into town on a water buffalo” goes under MPSIMS.
(just helpin’, Poly…) 
He stuck a feather in his hat, and called it, “macarena… err, Marconi, err, you know, that stuff that’s like Zoodles only not as much fun.”
And “Who thinks Dick Cheney’s butt looks like a water buffalo’s?” goes in IMHO. 
OK, responding to your points by number:
Why does one or the other of us have to be an idiot? No one can discuss anything and disagree on them without throwing insults around and chiding each others’ intelligence?
People also posted in that same thread about how bad the Jewish conspiracy theories are (which I agree; they are) which is equally off topic (I’d argue not by much) and political. I was simply asking why one was cited for that and the other wasn’t. The thread then goes into German surnames in Milwaukee, which for some reason also went uncited as off-topic. I seem to have caught a lot of guff for asking what standard was being used to make these determinations, and none of you have yet provided a serious answer. I have, however, been insulted ad hominem for this by mods and non-mods alike about 5 times now.
Why is it OK for the thread to stray into that topic then (I once again agree that that’s fine with me, it seems within the rules established here) but my comment needs its own thread in GD? Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but “children” and “Jews” are two different groups of people (except for the intersection of “Jewish children”), right? Once again, I’m asking for how the operational definition of “political” and “off-topic” gets applied in one place and not in the other, if for no other reason than not to repeat this. You’d think someone involved in moderation here might treat that Q a little more reflectively considering it has the potential to come up a lot.
I think I asked that question (in About This Board…) fairly well respectfully and TubaDiva felt the need to insult me while dodging the meat of my question. Then CKDH locked the thread and suggested I post here, which I did, only to be insulted by someone I thought was a mod (but is apparnetly a former mod?) for doing so because by the time I opened this second thread the first one was unlocked and moved. Now I’ve got some of you bitching at me about opening this second one even though a mod suggested I do as much!
Sheesh.
Since when is asking clarifying points about moderation “throwing a fit?” I didn’t insult anyone or use abusive language in the thread I opened, I asked for clarification and stated a rational case (one anyone is free to disagree with of course) for why I thought that one post wasn’t off-topic. In exchange for that I got a snide remark from TubaDiva, a locked thread (initially… yes, it happened, it was there), and no explanation of, say, how “Is al-Jazeera pro-fundamentalist?” not a “political” thread?
Read the Dexter post in the locked thread, he suggested I take it here. I did. The other thread was locked so I couldn’t well have posted a reponse there. Why any of you are finding me unreasonable to the point of having to question my intelligence and intestinal fortitude for taking this course of action partially suggested by a moderator is beyond me.
OK, is “What makes the Stradivarius so great?” a Q with a strictly factual answer? How about any of the economics threads we have? How about the al-Jazeera one again? Clearly a lot of the topics that are dealt with involve people making judgement calls as to which facts are relevant and which aren’t, and which facts aren’t strictly germaine to the strictest definition of the OP but importantly or interestingly germaine to the discussion. If people are going to moderate these gray areas, I don’t think Qs about the guidelines being used are out of line or deserving of abuse.
It appears that , who I misidentified as a mod (a SD staffer who may have been a mod I’m told) needed to swipe at me for stating that a thread was closed even though it darn well was when I posted.
S/He(?) also needed to suggest I need to “take a valium” and called me “son.”
WTF?
Put yourself in my place; SD staffer #1 shuts down your thread, SD staffer #2 chides you for stating an open thread was closed (in a situation where I can’t re-edit my text to account for a change in status), you take another look and, yes, SD #1 has reopened your thread and moved it.
To anyone reading that post, I looked pretty foolish. I didn’t even know that mods would or could re-opened a locked thread.
That’s what I thought! Apparently not.
This should read “It appears that Eutychus …”
Um, TubaDiva said you were being oversensitive, and Eutychus suggested you take a valium. Not exactly crippling insults, those.
When you do it like a big drama queen. Your first thread (linked in the OP) was not a calm, casual request for clarification, it was a two page diatribe about how all the other kids get to post whatever they want but when you do you get scolded. For example,
Not to mention the whining in the OP of this thread:
You’re acting as if you were villified and on the verge of being banned, when in fact you were subject to a mod’s discretionary attempt to keep the conversation away from discussions not appropriate for that forum. Yes, it’s somewhat random – moderators use their discretion and experience to know what comments are likely to lead to a hijack. Yes, a lot of jokes and off-topic comments fly under the radar in GQ. Who gives a fuck? Just let it go, already.
Poor mod, wasting all that effort on a foregone conclusion.
It’s “she.”
The forum definitions do have some grey area around them, there’s no doubt about it. We did not choose “standard” classifications – like sociology, physics, astronomy, etc – for the forums, because few of our threads fall into such neat categories. We choose instead to base the forum distinctions on the type of discussion that would go on in them:
There is a sticky at the top of the GQ forum, it’s been there for ages, reminding folks that we do NOT want political discussions in GQ: Heh. Politics in GQ.
“Politics” are issues that have no factual answers, but only opinions. Like “religious questions”, you know it when you see it.
Note that “How does the electoral college work?” is a factual question, and appropriate for GQ. “Should we discard the electoral college?” is a political discussion and belongs in Great Debates.
And please note that there is no point in getting all hot under the color over being called on a topic by a Moderator. No one got pissy at you until you started getting pissy at us. So, relax, take a cold shower, and cleanse your mind. It’s not a big deal for someone to have posted a political comment in GQ. If you do it and you get called on it, then you shrug your shoulders and say, “Oops, sorry.” And we all move on. Starting a hissy fit because you got caught and someone else didn’t, that’s life.
You get caught for speeding and the guy ahead of you didn’t. The judge won’t buy that as a reason for you getting off. Moderators do our best to be fair and consistent, but there’s way way way too much stuff going on for us to be perfect.
Yes, I initially closed the thread and told you to take it to the Pit. Yes, I realized that was silly of me, and I re-opened the thread and moved it to the Pit for your. I apologize if this caused you inconvenience, it seemed the logical correction at the time.
Are we done with this now?
My beef is that there are a dozen posts to that same thread which have nothing to do with a strict reading of the OP question and some of which are political in nature (while I agree with the sentiment, saying bad things about Jewish conspiracy theorists is off-topic, political and not related to dead children.) Tsunami coverage and Milwaukee German surnames are also a wee bit out of the loop, yes?
So my beef/question is “What quality brings mod intervention to me but not to any of these other people?” I keep asking this, and fo that rational question I’m being told to shut up because it makes me a crybaby.
Why is it necessary for a mod to insult people at all?
Trust me, you got off easy. Be glad Manny’s not still here.
Time to let this one go, duke. The ship has sailed. The birds have flown. It has pulled up stumps and joined the choir invisible. THIS is a dead thread!
And Crandolph has definitely dug the proverbial six-foot hole and beyond!
I’m done with any discussion as to “how much trouble I’m in” (geez this is no way to treat adults!).
When did I get pissy? I didn’t intend to. I very clearly stated in the thread that was locked that I didn’t think the mods intend to show bias in picking out what was political or not, but that the lack of a clear standard (as best as I could tell) was problematic, gave the appearance of bias and seemed strangely applied only to me in that thread. I’m sorry if that came off as pissy to the mods, but I thought my words were pretty carefully chosen and this calvacade of insults I’m getting as a result is way out of line. It’s other Dopers who are doing that last part, not the mods.
I do think I raised a few good, useful questions and I’m sorry that no one feels the need to deal with the specifics of them. I’ll be more careful in posting in the future (which would be helped along by clearer guideposts I think).
I’ve seen a few people get banned pretty quickly and it isn’t always clear to me where that line is either. That kinda concerned me
It’s not acceptable to suggest to others that they should talke a sedative because you disagree with their judgement.