Actually, I don't have an issue with what transpired in the Uganda thread - and I don't think it broke the rules. Rather, someone stated an opinion that is rejected by the majority of HLP members' values, and was soundly called out and debated on it. That's the kind of "community-directed" moderation I was talking about in the other thread that is appropriate here. His post was definitely borderline on the rules, but again, I think flexibility is important because reasonableness was far better served by people debating him on this than a ban being handed out.
Now, that said, I still think the current prohibition on racism/sexism/homophobic slurs/etc is both reasonable and necessary because it is useful to dispense with horrendous and persistent arguers than cannot be debated, but in general more public good is served by calling these attitudes out than simply shutting them down, especially when its a matter of wrongheaded opinion, as it was today (though it walked the line), rather than outright attacks on particular people or groups.
Conversely, the rule is important because if a poster showed up repeatedly asserting something outrageous and offensive like "all women are *****es and whores" (etc) and didn't respond to the first warning, then I'd hope they'd be banned forthwith - and the rules should make that clear.