I doubt it is on account of the capitalization.
What you are witnessing is a certain inconsistency in rule application which sometimes leads to strange results. See my question about how a well established philosophical topic was voted closed as off-topic.
Friends, how could a question about an idea with its own article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy be closed as off-topic?
Most organizations have a mission statement and by-laws that govern administrator action which is revisable by democratic principles of the membership. This organization does not, and there seems little interest in extending the rule of law to empower more consistency.
The factors that have been raised boil down to two major factors:
Strong ideological differences between two or maybe three groups of users based on factors such as formal training, differences in ability, and a desire to use this site to different ends which manifest themselves in different use of mechanisms. Some prefer to rely heavily on question and answer closure, some believe the voting mechanism is the better system, and some like me try to encourage philosophical and metaphilosophical discourse to build political consensus.
System administrators who are volunteers and therefore are encumbered with a certain amount of work without pay and are not empowered by by-laws to act decisively, perhaps not agreeing among themselves on matters raised in 1. This was exacerbated a while ago by a 'Stack Exchange'-wide protest over a conflict between staff and a volunteer named Monica which encouraged an exodus of experienced volunteer moderators.
I have myself for a year and change explored how this site functions, and how various parties use the site, and it has been insightful into how this contemporary technology is being used by such a disparate, but intelligent and well-informed group of people.
I would suggest that first and foremost, take nothing here personally. While there are many strong heads, it's rare for a contributor to genuinely be hostile. Feathers are easy to ruffle in general online, and intellectuals are particularly prone to be offended. Secondly, if you want to make this your home, just adhere to some rule of thumbs about answers. I'd support the post of 'Chris Sunami supports Monica':
How do you write a Stack Exchange answer?
Personally I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in this forum. But this organization of thinkers suffers from the same problems of any loose confederation: without strong tools creating a central mechanism of strong consistency, one simply is interacting with a herd of cats, or out of ethology and into mathematics, vectors which point in all different directions tend to work at cross-purposes.
Until there is a reformation of governance, on-topic posts will be closed as off-topic, and some one-line answers will exist for years and others will be closed quickly. I consider this site suffering from a certain kind of metaphorical brain death.
What is the current state of health of Philosophy SE?
There are many who do "their" philosophy on the Q&A-side, but refuse to do "their" philosophy on the meta-side to resolve conflicts, facilitate a mission statement, or build social cohesion and consistent use mechanisms of governance.