I feel the same way.
Well then WTF is there to fuss about? (Rhetorical question, not intended to elicit an answer)
I keep explaining, it is the content (or lack thereof) of your OP and posts that are the problem. I’m a moderator in this case and not a poster. I have not posted in that thread except as a Mod.
GD has pretty strict standards. You’re not really posting up to those standards.
Posting out of context is a pretty serious issue, especially in GD.
I’m not sure whether you are unclear as to what it means to meaningfully participate in a debate, or whether you are incapable of perceiving your participation in this thread. Because IMHO, whatever you are doing, you are NOT engaging in a responsible debate. I guess you ARE arguing, but you aren’t even doing THAT very effectively or meaningfully.
-You are not engaging in any give and take.
-You simply repeat your premises without developing them, and without attempting different means of persuasion when the message you feel is self evident is not being perceived as you wish.
-You show no sign that you are listening to most of what others are saying, and you refuse to get beyond the most superficial level.
-You have not meaningfully evaluated the responses you receive; instead, you charge racism.
I entered that thread with great interest and the best of intentions, thinking there might be creative discussion of how to address racial and other inequities America faces. Instead, you refuse to go beyond witnessing. So, I did the only thing I could, which was to step away. As I will from this thread. Your ceaseless repetition of statements which you do not develop and which I and most others have deemed problematic is simply boring.
And don’t be overly dramatic claiming persecution. What What Exit did in your thread in no way resembles “coming down on [you] like a ton of bricks.”
For what it is worth and from what I can see. Johanna has stepped it up in the thread now. I am still watching it and in fact, just had to hide a stupid hijack by other posters.
I resent the “stupid” but will accept the “hijack”
sorry about that, though I didn’t really mean you.
I foolishly opened the hidden post that I’m sure you were referring to, and I can attest that “stupid hijack” is a lenient description. It might as well have been about an airplane on a treadmill or cat declawing.
I will accept both “stupid” and “hijack”, although in my weak defense I was hoping to get an on-topic response to my question.
Surely he didn’t mean you either - it was post #79.
Two concepts are butting heads.
Normally an OP gets to determine what the thread is about. That’s why there’s a prohibition of hijacks. But here we’re seeing an OP asking that people stick to a narrow interpretation of the OP and being told that’s junior modding.
But again, we see many threads in which a group of people decide for themselves what should be discussed in a thread and gang up on those are opposed. I’ve seen it in threads about tv series, threads about peoples’ pet technologies, and about social customs.
Weirdly, the mods always take the side of the mob who go on the attack rather than the minority being attacked. I’ve never understood that.
Moreover, posters who create OPs that are vague, rambling, or utterly meaningless that led to threads that are entirely hijacks because they can’t be anything else usually get a pass.
I look for patterns in everything, perhaps much more than most, but that’s what I do. Inconsistencies disrupt patterns and so they stand out. Patterns may be good or bad, and disruptions therefore can be bad or good. I don’t see this inconsistency as good.
The point is that an OP can’t start a debate:
“Proposed: cats are good, not evil”
and then say that they would like to restrict the scope of the discussion to how wonderful cats are.
Wasn’t that pretty much what happened in the Cat Avatar thread?
I’m not sure if you’re joking - you surely see the distinction between a thread in MPSIMS for cat lovers to hang out and a thread in GD that is a debate over the merits of cats.
That’s why I said “pretty much” and not “exactly”, but no, I wasn’t being serious, the specifity of your example to that moderation amused me.
It was not deliberate, but I was familiar with the cat avatar thread scandal, so maybe unconsciously that subject area came to mind.
Unsurprisingly, I have no problem restricting a thread to how wonderful cats are. Even a debate. 
Your mod post did come on strong I found it dismissive and belittling. Was that true moderation, which is to referee, arbitrate or conciliate a session, or an opportunity to flex your authority? Where’s the kinder gentler tone y’all promised?
Did I promise that? I don’t recall.
The gentle part I suppose was not giving a warning and reopening the thread.
Just wanted to follow up on this - the OP get’s to determine, yes, but in the OP. If the OP is poorly written, vague or rambling (as this one is), they don’t really get to Dictate afterwards what they meant.
Now, there are degrees. I’ve seen OPs go back and say, ‘ha ha, okay, fair, what I mean is ____’ or ‘I would like to focus on blah, although I should have been more clear’.
Declaring something is verboten though, especially for a poorly written original post, has been seen as Jr modding before, or refusing to debate a point. I believe @lissener fell afoul of similar situations in which they refused to allow people to talk about subjects they didn’t want to talk about that were on topic.
I see the thread stayed open, which I think would count as kindler, gentler. Another option would have been to close it, and suggest the OP rewrite it as a structured debate.
Leaving a few notes, especially considering the poorly structured debate, and even leaving it in GD rather than moving it, does seem to be if anything, a generous and helpful moderation.
FTR - I started reading the thread when it was new, and the OP’s confrontational attitude in the thread turned me off of what seems to be an interesting discussion. So I’m not without emotional investment in it.
I don’t think anyone was posting in truly bad faith (well, mostly) or unfairly, although several may have done so with bad judgement, as have we all.