Yes, that was the main point of my reply to @swift who, once again, insinued that I didn't know the rules of WR. The point of the post that originated swift's reply (post number 96) was that the perspective of an user about the subject of this thread surely isn't the same if you deal with mods like the one quoted by @Nanon than if you have to deal with other sort of mods (see below).if what you're saying is simply that there are inconsistencies in the way different moderators reach decisions, then yes - I would accept that.
I guess it all depends what forums you are comparing and in what direction. Definitely, I occasionally post on one in which most posts wouldn't be allowed at all in the forums in which I most frequently post. If a regular of that forum who never posted on the other forums had to open a thread for the first time in any of the other forums, surely s/he would be shocked when her/his opening post was deleted if s/he had made previously tons of identical posts in the other forum without any problem whatsoever and s/he may get the impression that too many posts get deleted on that other forum. On the other hand, someone used to tight moderation may find the other forum moderation too lax -even though the forum seems to work nicely with that lax moderation- and may get the impression that too few posts get deleted on that other forum. However, unlike you, I do think that the thigh versus harsh difference is made by the mods involved; not by the forums themselves. That becomes plainly evident when you find that sort of differences within the same forum (or so I think).If the inference of what you're saying is that all the mods in a particular forum are unduly harsh or restrictive in their interpretation of the rules, then that is a slightly different issue, possibly to do with the way that forum operates and the type of questions members ask there.
That's not my case. Only once I had a post deleted due to what a moderator considered a "bare" link. I complained saying that I had explained the content of the link (as the guidelines of the English/Spanish vocabulary forum say; see post 98) but the mod said that a literal quote was required even though neither the guidelines (see post 98) nor the rules (in this case, rule 3) say it. Of course, I had to deal with it. That's stuff that happens when being harsh and restrictive is the common rule but I can understand that not everybody is fine dealing with that sort of stuff.The other thing to take into consideration is that if you read the rules and still consistently post bare links despite the guidelines, you might expect your posts containing bare links to potentially be deleted. If you’re expecting the mods to tell you why they’re deleting your bare links every single time, or to edit every single post containing bare links so that they are compliant with rule 3, that’s a bigger issue.