Here is a perfect example of how your rule #1 has already created a situation for selective moderation. Meaning that enforcing the rules is not cut and dry (ie manhood101? delete) but rather, "hmmm, let me think if I personally feel as though this should be deleted". Because the second one is unacceptable in a default forum where you are simply the caretakers.
Please compare the posts on this thread which has not been deleted: https://voat.co/v/news/comments/505792 screencap: https://slimgr.com/image/BpU
To these posts which were deleted: https://slimgr.com/image/Bp1 https://slimgr.com/image/Bpj
Can you honestly tell me what is different?
My answer would be that the undeleted thread is a bunch of people being ironic and therefore the posts are being upvoted. The ones that were deleted were being downvoted and then a mod stepped in and deleted them. If you are going to mod even-handedly and objectively you should have deleted the first thread like you did the others or not deleted any of them. You are being influenced by your own personal opinion and that is going to create a situation where you can wield your delete power selectively. That is reddit, not voat.
Based on this, it is clear that comments deleted according to rule#1 are done so at moderator discretion and are subject to bias and error. I am really not trying to stir shit. I see an extremely disturbing trend starting that is eerily reminiscent of how problems started on reddit.
I point you to v/askvoat, v/askgoat, and v/truenews as examples of subs doing just fine with "hands off" moderation where the comments are concerned. Rude posters get downvoted and quality rises to the top.
I ask any v/news users reading this to weigh in below (if this doesn't get deleted).
edited for grammar