For all the talk of "forum admin drama" this is why I think it's better for communities to be small and run by actual people. Communities run by big corporations find it easier to stick to the simplest "fairest" rules that follow legal requirements. Communities run by one or a few people are free to apply "unfair" moderation that nevertheless protects everyone in the community.
When you're in a corporate setting it's easy to know what you can and can't get away with, so it ends up being pretty hard to get kicked out of a Wal-Mart. Small establishments don't bother with that, if the bartender at your local bar doesn't want you there you're gone. People who like to be assholes prefer everywhere be like a Wal-Mart, where they turn a blind eye if it doesn't affect their bottom line. They hate the local bar where the bartender knows what bad behavior is and won't tolerate it.
Yeah it sucks if you don't vibe with the bartender yourself, but there's lots of other bars out there. Just don't become the person that wants every place to be a Wal-Mart.
If you're familiar at all with F1, you're likely familiar with their technical regulations. An entire book of rules that says what you can and can not do. This book is then read by many engineers who proceed to find every single way they can operate within the wording of those rules, but outside of the intent. I won't get into the examples but suffice it to say, this is normal and expected behavior for F1.
Now your reaction to this might be the common team boss line of "Well the rules are the same for everyone", and this is true. Historically you can point to many cases where the interpretation of the rules were bent to suit some over others, or sometimes even the creation of the rules in the first place. This is all to say, rules aren't actually a good solution for fair standards. They can be bent and biased, just like anything else.
What some, smaller, racing series have, is a very simple clause near the beginning. "It should be clearly understood that if the following texts do not clearly specify that you can do it, you must work on the principle that you cannot. The fact that some modifications are mentioned as prohibited does not imply that others are allowed." This is basically saying, if you try to loophole our rules then we'll find you as faulting them anyway, so don't waste your time and ours. If you translated this into say, online moderation, it would probably translate into the familiar "Moderator say is final" or perhaps a more vague "No bad vibes" rule. Ultimately this is saying, someone is allowed to make a judgement call and that call will be backed up regardless of what kind of "um well technically the rules....." is presented.
If you don't like that, consider that firm adherence to rules isn't a valid solution either, and if anything trying to do that just gives more incentive for bad actors to try and circumvent them.
Or, to put it another way, if you ban someone and their response is "show me what rule I broke", you have almost certainly just validated your decision to ban them.
And strict letter of the law rule wrangling is what lead to the 2014 penis nose era of F1 cars, if you want a more visual example of why not allowing judgement calls is stupid.