[Turing_Machine]

Why should I have to "make my case"? I'm the customer (or at least the user), right?

If they don't get those mods on a leash pretty soon, someone else will come along and drink their milkshake and I won't have to do anything.

[sp332]

If you want to participate on the website, you should actually participate. If you do nothing, then other people are going to run the site and you won't have any input.

[Turing_Machine]

Why would I want to "actually participate" when 4/5 of the stuff that interests me has already been nuked by a moderator?

[Piskvorrr]

What's your point, then? You are explicitly stating that you have interest mostly in passively receiving stuff that's out of the site's scope, not interested in actively participating, and not interested in changing the site orientation.

In other words, the site is not interesting to you, yet you choose to rant about it; very strange. Does the very existence of StackOverflow bother you?

(There are other sites on the Internet, y'know. It's not like SO is preventing you from visiting /r/ProgrammerJokes instead.)

[Turing_Machine]

I didn't "explicitly" say any of that. And I'm not "ranting", either.

Other than that, great point.

"Does the very existence of StackOverflow bother you?"

No, but the existence of abusive moderators does.

When I run across locked threads on SO, I'm not searching for "jokes". These are actual programming-related questions.

Please don't imply that I said things that I didn't. Thanks.

[Piskvorrr]

I must have misunderstood then; I apologize for putting words into your mouth.

[teh_klev]

How about some examples? I was a diamond mod (Kev) for a while and the stuff we were closing either fell wildly outside the scope of the site, or was just spam/garbage.

If you're unhappy about a question being closed (the community can and does make mistakes) then bring it up on meta-SO. If the question was closed by mistake then more often than not it'll be re-opened if you explain why.