So you're basically saying that CM is either a liar or is stupid for not anticipating that people can't play by the rules. The only stipulation I saw was "no personal attacks" or attacks on another person's beliefs. Seems pretty simple. Yes, there will always be people who skirt and sometimes tiptoe over the line. It appears that the mods have done a pretty good job of nudging people back on to the right side of the line. In one case sterner measures were required. I applaud the Mod staff for giving this a shot. I think it has, overall, proven to be successful. But I suppose it is just too easy to take shots at them from the cheap seats. Normally I would recommend someone walk a mile in their shoes before complaining. But given the condescending and completely disrespectful nature of your attack I can see that you have no interest in that. If it were up to me....well,.....batter up.The 'experiment' was, allegedly, to 'allow' free expression, the free exchange of ideas.
That didn't happen, as anticipated. There were all sorts of 'cautionary rules' stipulated prior to opening up the topic(s) for discussion. That was an obvious clue that it was never intended to 'allow' members to "have the freedom to express their beliefs", just the appearance of doing so. The results were predictable, and predicted. At least by some.
The 'experiment' failed, not because of the members that did, in fact, express their beliefs but because those that set forth the 'cautionary rules' weren't really wanting members to have that 'freedom'. Otherwise, 'cautionary rules' wouldn't have been set forth.
When anyone "opens up the playgound", they should anticipate that the "usual players" will cause the "first dust up". It's known as "pre-planning". Common sense. Therefore, it's not the fault of the 'usual players', as alleged. It is the fault of those who neglected to plan for that obvious circumstance. There was no 'surprise', not when there's prior knowledge that the "usual players" are already present.
'Management 101'.