I'm going to try to summarize your various points and then respond to them.
You complain that you were not allowed to use the racially-charged historical terms "Uncle Tom" and "kapo" to describe current folks who you believe to be acting against the best interest of those in their race as a whole. As we explained to you at the time, the use of racist or racially-derogatory terms is forbidden by IC rules as a means to prevent racially-bigoted posts. There's no exemption for "But I'm using these racist/racially-derogatory terms in a good way". And so you - along with everyone else - were forbidden to use them.
Also, vojak and Ovshinsky weren't banned as a "defense" against liberal bias, they were banned because they showed up on threads to with the intent to make the thread all about them and didn't actually engage with other posters and their posts. Their bans were the result of routinely failing to engage in decent discussions with others and instead showing up mostly to make the thread about themselves...which was deemed a form of trolling.
You also mention the allowance of personal attacks. With the ZZLP, the site PTB (independent of the mods themselves) decided to allow an experiment to loosen the rules on one board regarding personal attacks. Before loosening this rule, a lot of time was spent by posters whining about personal attacks and attempting to utilize the mods as a weapon against posters they disliked. Many posters worked very, very hard to push and push to determine exactly where the line of personal attacks was and then camped out on it. There were many recurring discussions regarding which exact terms were prohibited and would get someone a ban and which were prohibited and would only get someone a tsk-tsk from the mods and which were deemed acceptable. Instead, the rules against personal attacks were loosened so that only worst of insults (bigoted slurs/attacks, obscenities, attacks on family, etc) were deemed worthy of mod action. It didn't do much to prevent folks from attacking each other or whining about the attacks, but it very much got the mods out of the middle in determining the exact "naughty line" with regard to personal attacks and made it much clearer and easier for mods to address personal attacks. It was fairly successful in getting the mods out of the minutae of personal attacks, but at a tradeoff of increasing the vehemence of personal attacks used.
The moderation around sharing of copyrighted material was lacking in certain areas. Good message board discussions thrive on access to information regarding the subjects under discussion and, unfortunately, that information may often be in copyrighted work. There likely could and should have been better enforcement of copyright on the board. Some of that was probably that it takes quite a bit of work to examine every thread for copyrighted work and some was likely that sharing such work led to better discussion, but that's more of an explanation than any real excuse. That thought doesn't extend to social media meant to be distributed to the public such as tweets. There is no expectation of copyright on a tweet because the entire purpose of twitter is to publish thoughts into the public square for consideration and further distribution. It'd be like taking out a billboard on a heavily trafficked road and then complaining that people are looking at said billboard. There were no copyright issues with allowing the sharing of tweets.
I think that covers all of your concerns. If I missed something, please point it out and I'll address it.
