I just looked at someone's replies in their profile page, it showed a moderator had just edited a post there. I went to that post, but found

  That's what I thought, too. 
  --

Good thing we're all trustworthy!

I'd like to clarify my stance, if you don't mind. 

We don't "change" what people say in any type of meaningful way. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't allow that to happen. I do agree that if someone says something, we should, for the most part, leave it exactly as it is. That said, we also need to promote a positive environment and protect the integrity of the discussions. Most people do just fine monitoring what they say, but there are times when someone gives a stellar well thought out answer and then biffs it at the very end by tacking on something like "and you're a jerk" or cursing. If editing out the curse word doesn't change the context/ or intent, that's what we're going to go with in an effort to preserve the discussion. The same goes for other TOS violations like discussing other members in a derogatory way i.e. a personal attack. If removing a line or two directed at another member means we don't have to remove a whole discussion (which also includes all comments/ replies below it), and enables us to keep a discussion TOS-compliant, while preserving the core of the discussion, that's what we'll do. It's not about what suits us or doesn't. We're trying to keep things TOS-compliant while preserving as much content as possible, which many people appreciate- especially when they spend a considerable amount of time responding to something.

Unfortunately, we cannot honor individual requests for their content to get special or unique treatment. That would be chaotic. Everyone's content is treated the same. That being said, whether you agree with our decisions on what constitutes a personal attack or not, I have little doubt you and others are confused about what we're looking for, so you do have the first decision not to post something you think we'd consider a TOS violation. Failing that, you're also notified when we edit, which gives you the opportunity to edit your post for clarity or delete it on your own if that's your preference. 

It's also worth noting that it doesn't appear as if you and Randy D are addressing the same issue. He's saying an edit notice does not appear on content he thinks has been edited. 

  The phrase "personal attack" is blatantly misused and flippantly bandied about so much on this website that it has no relevance. Far too often it's been pointed out here that some people use it merely to silence those who have different opinions. Worse still is when moderators play into it by deleting one's content based on the other person claiming "personal attack".
~

I think we're placing more stock on the phrase "personal attack" than what needs to be. The TOS refers to "respect," which I realize is somewhat of an intangible thing, particularly on on an opinion site, but those of you who have been here for any length of time do understand what we mean and what we're trying to create. Most discussions are not of a personal nature. There's no need to discuss the people involved in the discussion at all. That's not a problem by itself, but when it becomes derogatory remarks about people, that's when we start looking at it from a TOS violation standpoint. It doesn't need to be an outright attack to be an unkind remark. It doesn't need to be something as straightforward as name-calling to be disrespectful to someone. We all know this. I've personally changed the language of my emails to members to clarify why I've removed something. Some simply say the content violated our respect guidelines, some use the phrase "personal attack" some say "derogatory remarks about other members." It's all the same thing. It all boils down to the respect guidelines and whether that person said something about the other member that they shouldn't have. We do have a mod who almost always uses the phrase "personal attack," which is fine by me. Semantics. I look at everything that gets removed or edited. If the content violated the TOS, it's fair game for removal, IMO. Whether it was a "personal attack" or just a needless slam/ derogatory remark is kind of irrelevant from a removal standpoint. It should be removed. Usually, when someone argues with me that their removal was not a true "attack," my question is "Did you mention the other member in an unkind or derogatory way?" The answer is always "yes." Well, there you go. "You" (general you all) therefore understand why something was removed. 

As far as silencing differing opinions, that's one of the reasons we opt to edit out the violations when possible, versus removing a discussion. What you say, your opinion, and the time you invest in a response matters to us. I don't want to remove anything you've written, nor do I want to remove anything anyone else has written. The moderation team is 100% on board with removing as little content as possible.

Reports are irrelevant for the purpose of removal. It's me who gets the reports. I review them and decide whether the content violated the TOS or not. It's no different than if I had seen something on my own. Also, there's quite a bit of paranoia around reporting. People assume that because they got a message, someone reported them. That's almost never true. Most removals occur because we caught something on our own. We get very few reports to begin with, and probably 75-80% of those get deleted because they don't meet my criteria for an attack/ disrespect/ derogatory remark. Maybe 1-in-20 removals occur after a report has been made, but it's never been the result of a report. It's because the content violates the TOS. I know of one or two people who are constantly accused of reporting who have never once reported a single member. 

I can't think of any way to provide more transparency to demonstrate to you guys that everyone is subject to the same policies and that things are happening equally. You're going to see things through your "window." You're going to form an opinion based on the removals you personally know about. That's natural and understandable. The rest boils down to trust. You either trust me to behave ethically or you don't. You, and many others here, have known me for about seven years now. Many of us were friends or at least acquaintances through other sites where I wasn't a mod. I'm not a disciplinarian and I wear the moderator hat rather reluctantly. I'd much rather be a regular member. That said, I really really believe in what we're doing here and I truly value and appreciate the trust that has been placed in me. I take that very seriously. I specifically left other sites and came here because I didn't like the nastiness of other sites. I didn't like that people couldn't give an opinion without being attacked. I personally have some unpopular opinions, and I know what it's like to be unloaded on for sharing them. It's because of that that it's important to me to protect everyone's right to say his or her piece, so long as it doesn't involve targeting other members. That's at the core of every decision I make. It really saddens me when people think that we're strategically removing or moderating based on complaints, but I don't know of a way to fix that. Goodness knows I've tried. Anyone who feels that way- I implore you to keep a clean track record for six months and then approach me about becoming a moderator. You'll learn firsthand what's really being removed and why across a broad spectrum and have the option of voting on major decisions and member removals. That option is open to pretty much anyone who has been active for an extended period of time and has a clean record here. 

 I will send it to you. 
~