[decadence]

--You want the mods to enforce against everyone. But then you (that's a collective "you") b!tch and moan whenever threads get locked, etc. I.e. when the mod's moderating as they're supposed to.--
I think people were saying it's question of balance. Exactly the same theme applies to the comment in a post prior to yours suggesting all members with >100 post counts have probably posted an item along the way which didn't fit in with the rules. Probably true. I suppose moderation is important to ensure we can all chat happily. If draconian moderation was present to such a degree people could not talk at all and discussion was hampered that'd be different. But I don't think that's what anyone wants/asks.

--A lot of you say you admire the way the NPHC forums run, how the moderators keep things in check.--
Hmm. In fairness many of those forums do have several moderators with settings for that forum, which splits the workload for them.

As far as any 'rules don't run the site' comments elsewhere, of COURSE there is discretion and personal insight/experience used in moderating; that's how non-automated moderation is an effective tool. But the discussion is [partly] about moderators enforcing/applying the rules enough to encourage and promote discussion and keep things from getting horrible. Suggesting the Rules are enforced to the nth degree on every post all the time 24/7 could be seen as ... silly.
The thread was more about not so much the moderators not seeing a post as a problem when another has... but more about them not seeing it as a problem due to its origin not its content.

*Moderator in this reply can be substituted for frequently posting member since the thread is about people getting lambasted because of a posited hierarchy consisting of all sorts of users. Not just moderators. *