"Or words to that effect"
I don't know what the original words were, nor who spoke them, but I doubt anyone said or meant "let them fight it out" in any literal sense.
Far more specifically, what we've done is to allow a "marketplace of ideas" where all perspectives are allowed to have a voice, without partisan moderation stifling or shutting down views for lack of conformity to any particular worldview. The rules of that section were created to facilitate that marketplace of ideas, without it devolving into ad-hominem attacks - hence the basic principle, "Play the ball - not the man" (not, "let them fight it out").
At which point, I'll reveal my hand and say that I voted for the option that says News discussion "Is fine in theory, but has become too difficult to manage in 2018, given people's attachment to views and widespread political polarization."
I appreciate Kim acknowledging that the staff's approach to overseeing such discussion has been "tolerant", but unfortunately in the current political climate, certain members have been unable or unwilling to reciprocate that tolerance, in the sense of allowing opposing views that they disagree with to "just be". The recent trend of people to become increasingly intolerant of views other than their own, and the need to control what others think, do, or say is an authoritarian urge that I find quite disturbing, and I'm quite disappointed to see it have any degree of prominence on a Buddhist forum. Unfortunately, from my vantage point, the majority of this intolerance comes from an area in the political spectrum accustomed to priding themselves on their "tolerance", "compassion" and willingness and ability to "coexist". I humbly suggest that some reflection may be in order, if such individuals wish to reconcile their self-image with their words and deeds in the future, so as to steer away from "aversion".