Well, we’ve already learned that a Cecil-approved response to someone asking a question is to call the questioner a dumbshit, so the “shouldn’t the overall philosophy of the Perfect Master and the board associated with and run by the same organization be consistent” argument is already on life support if not in the ground and quietly rotting.
Not only have I never seen this moderated, I’ve reported it when folks did it in the past, and was told that it wasn’t moderatable material.
Which raises a point: I don’t like attributing motives to others, and I shouldn’t have done so. Czarcasm, I apologize for doing so.
That said, I do think what Czarcasm did was detrimental to the boards, and I don’t think he’s acknowledged the way in which it was detrimental, instead continuing in a behavior that’s detrimental. However, given the new, stricter guidelines on insults, I don’t think I can be any more specific without risking a warning. Since the entire point of this thread is that some of us think that nonspecified behavior ought to be moderated, I don’t know that I can participate further in the thread. CKDH, poor form.
You can say whatever you want about the POST, but not about the POSTER. “That post reflects ignorance” is different from “You are an ignoramus.” That’s the way it’s always been. And, yes, I quite agree, Cecil’s columns would not be acceptable on our boards. I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything.
The Pit can be used for criticizing Czarcasm for being annoying. ATMB is used for criticizing moderator actions in not scolding Czarcasm for being annoying. (Cartoonverse, does that answer your supposed paradox?) There is a clear distinction, that seems to be deliberately being blurred (or ignored.) Of course, the problem with this distinction is that IT IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES TO BE ANNOYING. Hence, the current ATMB thread yelling about the moderators failure to scold Czarcasm, to which the answer is still IT IS NOT AGAINST THE RULES TO BE ANNOYING.
Giraffe, you have asked me to “think through the consequences” of what I’m saying. I respectfully suggest the same for you: do you REALLY want the mods to issue warnings/reminders/notes to people for being annoying? 
Again, the diff is between “Your post sucks” and “You suck.” The former is NOT a personal insult (generally speaking) while the later is.
Well, then let me just say that your post wins the “most hilariously inept attempt to define yourself out of a corner” prize of the day.
In this Forum my answer, of course, must be yes.
This post is cowardly, borderline paranoid and delusional. It’s sad to see such a pathetic post here. This post wins the “completely disconnected from reality.” award for the day.
Note–I am only commenting on the post, not about the poster.
Dex, what is the first rule? How do you not know this? It’s in the registration agreement. It says:
Czarcasm was a complete jerk in that thread, and instead of calling him on it, Collibri noted fenris.
Czarcasm’s *posts *were completely jerkish. Posts, not poster.
There’s a back-story to this whole kerfuffle that’s not being acknowledged here, except perhaps tangentially in one or two of the earlier posts in this thread. Is there a way I can say it without falling afoul of the dictum against piling on Czarcasm? Okay, I’ll try really hard to be polite and civil (which I of course always do, or at least try), and here I’ll try even harder.
Okay with that so far, Dex?
The Moderator Emeritus at issue in this thread has established a long and seemingly entrenched history of making mildly-to-moderately confrontational posts in threads, sometimes in threads where he seems to have no other interest in the thread than doing just that.
He demands “cites” from other posters for their statements of alleged “facts”. He criticizes posters for stating “facts” that he doesn’t know, or that he thinks are wrong, if there weren’t cites. He criticizes other posts over distinctions of “facts” vs. “opinions”. Okay, so far, so . . . well, legal under our board rules.
But his posts are way too often confrontational in tone (as seems to be the case in the thread that this thread is about). And he does these things very often. This forum, ATMB, seems perennially to feature complaint threads about him. I assume that a great many SDMB users know about this.
Dex and Colibri argue that his posts don’t “cross the line”. That seems to be an acknowledgement that he so often cuddles right up to “the line”, maybe even putting his toe just over it. Any individual instance of this, or several, might be tolerable. But is the annoyance cumulative? When these instances happen as regularly as they do, does the problem eventually become moddable?
Apparently yes, but maybe not quite enough. There were cites posted above to some warnings and mod notes he got. Should there be more of those? Clearly, this thread shows that there is a festering and growing annoyance with Czarcasm.
In summary, there are two problems that I see:
(a) The mildly (usually) confrontational tone of Czarcasm’s criticisms of other posts, and
(b) Their frequency,
both leading to all the complaints against him, including the frequent accusations of Junior Modding, leading to the further impression that, as a Mod Emeritus, he gets too much preferential accommodation from the current mods.
Dex has made perfectly clear his growing annoyance at the course of this thread. I submit that his growing annoyance is more appropriately directed at Czarcasm than at the rest of us (with due respect to his publicly-announced personal request that he duck out of this thread).
The mods can deal with Czarcasm via private PM’s if they are more comfortable with that, rather than through public mod-lashings. That’s fine. All the rest of us want to see is less annoyance from him.
Nitpick: I didn’t say Cecil’s columns would not be allowed, I said Cecil himself would have been banned. Because the Cecil I started reading didn’t tiptoe around ignorance for fear of implying that someone had unwholesome motivations or was blinded to the truth. It was just hyperbole, meant to remind us not to hogtie our sensible posters in the language they can use to fight ignorance.
And the distinction between “your post is stupid” and “you are stupid” is quite clear. The distinction between “from your post, you appear to be blinded by ignorance” (insult?) and “your post is that of a person who is blinded by ignorance” (not an insult?) is less so. Hence my suggestion not to let an annoying ATMB argument push you into a blanket proclamation that one can’t discuss other poster’s motivations or imply they aren’t seeing something clearly.
That was my understanding as well, which was why I was confused by your post to Morgenstern (in response to post #24 of this thread) accusing him of personal insults when he stated his opinion that the mods treat Czarcasm’s posts differently due his status as a former mod. Can you explain why that is a personal insult and unsuitable for ATMB?
…jerk is subjective. I didn’t happen to think he was being a jerk.
The back story is irrelevant. In ATMB: the only thing that is relevant are the posts in that particular thread. I didn’t have a clue what the OP was asking when I first read his post. It took me a couple of re-reads to figure it out. In order to answer the OP’s question correctly: one has to assume the other “facts” he mentioned are true and actual facts. I’m not entirely sure that there are that many psychopath’s walking among us. If someone is asking a General Question: I do not think it inappropriate to question the validity of the beliefs that led to that question.
Was it the questioning of the OP’s premise the problem, the nature of how the question was asked, or the fact that it was Czarcasm who posted the question the real issue at play here? You allude to the “back story”, which suggests its the latter. There have been far ruder responses here on the dope in General Questions. This old thread comes to mind.
Plenty of rude responses there. No warnings issued.
…you seriously don’t see the insult? He didn’t state “IMHO the mods treat Czarcasm’s posts differently due his status as a former mod.” He outright accused them of being “corrupt.” The evidence quite clearly doesn’t support that.
…and another point on that thread: I reported posts in that thread, so did others. When those reports weren’t actioned, we didn’t whine in the thread, we took it to the pit/and ATMB, as per board rules.
First off, the admonishment was against Morgenstern for insulting Czarcasm:
Secondly, if you are arguing that offering opinions that the mods are doing their jobs poorly / unfairly / incorrectly is in fact a personal insult, then you are effectively banning all criticism of the mods. None of the mods of this board have ever argued for that, nor do I believe any of them would support it. This board has a long history of open discussion on moderation issues and the mods generally strive for even-handed treatment of posters, regardless of their personal feelings about some of them.
…it was rude and uncalled for. And inappropriate for ATMB.
Well thank your lucky stars then because I didn’t either claim what you claimed or believe what you think I think. There is a difference between what you claim Morgenstern said and what he actually said. I’ll leave it up to you to go back and read his words and compare it to your paraphrase.
And I’m not arguing it either.
You think that’s bad, get a load of this rude note: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17556113&postcount=32. That thread includes three over-the-top messages to me from another user (count 'em), a moderator instruction to keep it down (which I do), then, presumably after sleeping on it, a second moderator note accusing me of “laying low” (WTF?) because of some messages posted back in 2012.
I think you’ve misread what I wrote, and thereafter, became creative with your interpretation of it. That happens on the internet.
…not at all. These were your words:
I know exactly what you wrote. I went back and quoted it. You can do that on the internet.
If you think I’ve misread what you wrote, please feel free to state what you actually meant. Because your actual words seem pretty clear to me. And while you are at it, provide evidence to back it up.
I think you’re creative license is overactive in this regard. 
Then you ask once. Maybe twice. Czar posted 10 times in that thread. The op? Four.
There are a bunch of actual warnings and mod-notes (largely in GD, some in GQ, at least one in ATMB) for people “badgering” a poster. These go back to an (I think) “Ask The Mormon” thread.
Posting 2 times for every one post the OP makes is badgering by any definition. The mods are willing to ignore certain posters doing this, apparently. And this happens repeatedly, hence my “junior modding” to Daz letting him know not to let himself get sucked into that trap and just carry on.