Nope. Nor is it desirable. That would mean a "Stepford Wives" type of community, marching in lockstep.

The conflicts we see here are perfectly natural in a non-homogeneous community. The only way to prevent them would be to ratchet up the moderators' duties to monitor every post in real-time, and delete potentially troublesome posts on the spot.

It might be surprising, but in some contexts, that heavy-handed approach actually works quite well. It keeps the content focused on the topic, and the discourse civil. (For an example, check out chowhound.com). I don't know that that is the right approach here, though.

The other extreme is the Wild West, no holds barred one. Individuals are left to work out their differences, while the mods duck behind the saloon bar. But I'm sure that isn't appropriate here, given structure of the business model, as I vaguely understand it (paid corporate advertisers, i.e.).

The middle ground is to have moderators acting as they do here, and setting the tone based on their best efforts to divide right from wrong. Being humans, with biases and fears and insecurities like the rest of us, their individual points-of-view will skew the content here. Pleasing everyone isn't an option, and trying to do so will only create more confusion. I'd rather see a consistent moderation policy that annoys me but has some internal logic, than a muddled one whose logic perplexes me.

What I keep wondering, though, is: what exactly is it about conflict that people find so offensive? I mean, I've been called many unflattering things here, and I've not felt harassed or stalked. I just consider the response, consider its source, and evaluate whether it has merit or not. Sometimes the criticisms are quite valid, even if harshly worded, and I change my way of thinking.

Care Bears and CandyLand, the internet ain't.