Unfortunately, "more coherent" doesn't mean "better", it just means "more fleshed-out". The problem with formalizing rules of human behaviour is that the latter is generally too fuzzy, so you either end up with a very complex system of rules, or with a simple system that has tons of edge cases (like the one in the post).
I think you were attracted to the improvement of writing rules down, but that has a host of other problems, including the fact that you are then forced to enforce the rules, even where they don't make sense (e.g. you have to remove some comment because of the letter of the law, even though it wasn't actually inflammatory, it just ran into an edge case).
I moderate(d) a large reddit community (millions of subscribers?) and you pretty much can't win. If you don't have rules, you're "murky" and "wanton". If you have rules, you get "these rules suck" or "you're only enforcing the rules whenever you feel like it" when you try to go by the spirit of the law rather than the letter.
To illustrate your point, Facebook censored the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken June 8, 1972 with crying children, including 9-year-old Kim Phuc, after an aerial napalm attack on suspected Viet Cong hiding places.
That photo violates a several of Facebook "ban" rules, but is an exception to the rules. After much outcry, Facebook reversed their rule-based ban.
Why? What makes you certain of that? I'm not suggesting that Dan and Scott stop moderating, just that it's possible to make a clear, coherent statement about bigotry in the moderation guidelines.
My experience with moderating large communities and, mainly, my inability to define bigotry to any satisfactory degree. I certainly urge you to give it a go, maybe you'll be able to solve the problem for all of us.
Hell, I can't even ballpark where your freedom to speak ends and my freedom to not feel bad starts.
I think you were attracted to the improvement of writing rules down, but that has a host of other problems, including the fact that you are then forced to enforce the rules, even where they don't make sense (e.g. you have to remove some comment because of the letter of the law, even though it wasn't actually inflammatory, it just ran into an edge case).
I moderate(d) a large reddit community (millions of subscribers?) and you pretty much can't win. If you don't have rules, you're "murky" and "wanton". If you have rules, you get "these rules suck" or "you're only enforcing the rules whenever you feel like it" when you try to go by the spirit of the law rather than the letter.