In a very general sense, we want moderators to look out for the best interests of the forum. On a very basic level, that means ensuring that the forum continues to exist by policing threads to get rid of content that can get someone sued or get the forum shut down.
Beyond that, I believe that some of the differing visions on how the forum should be moderated come down to whether it is more important to cater to people who read the forum vs people who actively post on the forum.
Those who want to prioritize the wants of readers want to organize content neatly, discouraging derails and splitting threads when that happens. They wish to get rid of ābad postingā, where posting is bad if it is stuff that they think ānormalā people donāt want to read or shouldnāt be encouraged to read (such as conspiracy theories). They often think that the old forum at twoplustwo were egregiously harmed by upper management (Mat and Mason) making it hard to prune bad actors.
Those who want to prioritize the wants of posters see value in the very act of posting. The sharing of words in electronic form is a form of self-expression that should be encouraged (within reason). Just as not every book is for every reader, not every post has a wider audience in mind. Some people want to post whatās on their mind, knowing that not everyone wants to see that stuff, but not wanting to be dogpiled by people hostile to their views.
The battle then becomes about people who want to make posts that people donāt want to read. Moderation then becomes an exercise in judgment, determining a balance between how far you let posters go in making other users uncomfortable with their posts. People want order, but too much enforced order becomes stifling and people becomes less willing to share their thoughts if they think that part of their self is just going to be erased while get banned. People want freedom, but too much freedom results in ruining it for everyone, as we see in the real world with people choosing poorly with respect to vaccines and masks in an age of COVID.
We could write a lot of moderation guidelines, but gifted trolls know how to skirt the rules and find angles to avoid technically doing anything wrong while doing things that are very wrong. We could trust in moderators to use their own judgment, but people have a tendency to see bias when decisions go against them. Just look at any sportsball team whose fandom is utterly convinced that the league and referees are biased against their team more than any other team.
I would ask @moderators to think about how they would define the best interests of the forum. Ideally, they would be able to state that definition in a way that makes their moderation decisions seem consistent. Actually, anyone who takes part in arguing about moderation should be able to give their own definition, one that is generalized and does not refer to specific posters or arguments, either directly or indirectly.