Just in case anyone missed it, I’m an ex-mod (for about three years now) so I haven’t had a firsthand view of any of the specific controversies that people are demanding apologies over. I’ve been an active forum community member for just about a decade, a non-mod for half that time, and that’s the perspective from which I’m writing. Not sure if that was entirely clear, or whether references to “you mods” were being aimed at me too. 
@chocolatemix, as you noted, I was responding to the claim that “it’s not art, just clear rules”… but I would definitely agree that moderation is not just art, that clear guidelines play a crucial role, and that rules can be clarified and tightened without mods losing all discretion – it’s not at all a zero-sum tradeoff. There are plenty of clear rules and guidelines in the existing Forum FAQ, as well as ones that invite judgment calls. So the fruitful debate is whether the existing rules need to be tightened up in one or more areas beyond what was announced at the top of the thread, not over “rules” versus “discretion” in general.
I wouldn’t use the real-world justice system as an analogy, though. A system of laws has to be a lot more rigid than the rules of an online community; because so many thousands of different people are tasked with applying it, it has pretty minimal room for discretion. That often leads to awful and unjust consequences, as laws designed with one scenario in mind can’t be adapted to the reality of different circumstances. An advantage of smaller communities with fewer enforcers is that you can allow more flexibility in how rules are interpreted and outworked – and the example you give shows that you recognize the value of that kind of discretion in many cases.
We would I think also agree that it’s not always an advantage – discretion can be abused as well. I can’t speak to the specific abuses you’ve got in mind, because I didn’t see them. You want clearer rules-of-thumb on which punishments fit which crimes, and that’s a reasonable area to think that some clearer guidelines would help. At the same time, as long as the new guidelines leave the degree of discretionary space you described – which we both agree they should – we would still I fear periodically see flare-ups like the ones we’re having here. People will angrily insist that the mods are using their discretion in all the wrong cases… against harassers when they should have been tougher on bigots, or vice versa.
This is where I want to be really careful to avoid destructive speculation in an example; I’ve got no idea how common it really is for (to use your e.g.) someone innocently asking about updates to get a first-time suspension rather than a warning. I find it pretty hard to imagine that’s become commonplace. If it had been, of course I’d agree that the rules should be tightened up in that area, but it sounds to me like the real issues here are more complex. When the charge list against the mods ranges from overzealousness to negligence, I’d guess there’s a balance being struck that (even if it’s the wrong one) would be hard to resolve just by tightening rules.
There’s a clear cost to a community when it litigates lots of cases of misbehavior in public, with pile-ons and harassment becoming part of forum culture. That’s what’s led Discourse to encourage forums using its software to adopt a flag-it-don’t-argue-about-it policy. That approach has its dysfunctions and dissatisfactions too, of course; we’re seeing them play out now. But on the whole I still think it’s best for a community when discussions about general principles and rules are carried out in public while the details of specific complaints are hashed out in private.
I started off this post distinguishing myself as a user from myself as a (former) mod, but I’d wrap up with the reminder that at the end of the day, mods are forum users; they’re the ones who care about the community enough to be willing to carry out an almost entirely thankless job to keep it a fun place to hang out and share stories. That doesn’t mean they can’t get things wrong and end up being destructive to the community… but it’s a tragedy as and when they do, because their intention has invariably been the opposite, and a lot of (metaphorical, thanks Mary) blood sweat and tears has been spent on that moderation with the intent of helping and protecting rather than harming.
If I were one of you all who felt strongly that a mod had got the job badly wrong and was hurting the community rather than helping it, I’d be angry too, and I’d bring my complaint to CoG management; but I’d do my best to keep in mind that tragic element to the story as I did so. Not because it alters the problem, or the necessary solution if you’re right… but because it might help me handle my own hurt and anger, and stay a bit more open-minded to the mod’s own perspective.
That is where the issue was. Not that you quoted me, but that you quoted me well after I deleted the post. Several hours later.