What is intended, and what is pursued, are active, engaged staff who intervene as appropriate in as timely a fashion as is feasible when (and preferably before) issues and argument get out of hand.
That doesn't always happen. And that's sometimes going to be the case. When examples arise we take them as lessons and try to improve. By and large 9 out of 10 times everyone is hunky dory and satisfied with not only the intent, execution and 'mission statement' but with the general environment that style creates.
I've been through this with the OP and we continue to. I don't hold anyone entirely blameless here. What's being described though, isn't laziness, if anything it's reticence. Because, at least in Foxx's specific post, what's being asked for instead of what we are doing, is to basically act as pyschologists and kind of help everyone work out their issues and 'how do you feel about what X said about you, Y? what did you mean when you said Z?' etc etc. That's a nice thing to do, but it isn't the job of moderating. The job of a staff member is to act as police, to keep the peace and enforce the rules, what we have, and if possible
, assist in that capacity, as police often do in, say, domestic dispute cases. Their role isn't school counselors. They (in fact, no one on this or hardly any other site I know of) is qualified or employed to help people work through interpersonal issues with each other. We can all try, and sometimes do, but demanding that be the standard reaction - that it's a responsibility to make people reasonable and basically be debate mediators between people who are having a fight, isn't something I've ever seen on any website in my entire life, ever.
Yes, the interpersonal issues are nuanced, and often intricate. They aren't simple. The expectation that at a moment's notice, another person from somewhere in the world, who happens to staff here (or anywhere), can be directed to an ongoing argument between two or more people they don't know, about a topic they are not aware of, instigated by person(s) or situation(s) that are rarely readily apparent, and featuring what is often typical internet argument style of insults and angry emotional words, and start without hesitation untangling the mess of people's emotional, reactionary, argumentative interpersonal issues, is an expectation that sounds like something people get payed a helluva lot more than nothing
for. Particularly, when there are often strong personalities involved who, knowingly or not, meddle in such things either out of good intent thinking they are helping or because they simply think they're smarter and more righteous than anyone else, when in fact their behavior often causes the very problems they subsequently bemoan the reactions to.
We all do the best we can, as users and staff, to ensure people have both freedom and a sense of security in their posting and communication, and by and large we have resoundingly
achieved this delicate balance, and in these instances where we don't, we will as I said take them as lessons for improvement. But it is not, and will not be taken as, a sign of anything more, or of a wholesale change needed in anything.