See if this helps.
Imagine a spectrum of posts that mention violence. Maybe it goes from the mere mention of violence, … , condoning violence, … , encouraging violence, … , advocating violence. This is far from perfect but you get the idea.
Forum rules need to draw the line somewhere on this spectrum dividing the allowed vs. disallowed posts. For simplicity let’s call this “loose” (the line is drawn towards the advocate end of the spectrum), “medium”, and “strict” (the line is drawn towards the condoning end of the spectrum).
Okay, every forum post can have multiple interpretations. Let’s say that posts that mention violence can be interpreted in the least favorable light (most violent) to medium to the most favorable light (less violent).
My view is that it is untenable for a forum mod to apply a “least favorable” reading with a “strict” standard. That would inevitably break down and lead to too many infractions, temp-bans, etc., and too much work for the mod.
On the other hand it is also untenable for a forum mod to apply a “most favorable” reading with a “loose” standard. That would also inevitably break down since far too few infractions, temp-bans, etc. would be meted out.
Maybe the above doesn’t make any sense to anybody else, but it kinda crystalizes my view of the current situation.