I think the tier list of considerations should go like this:
1. Who has to clean up the shit. Obviously it's the mods. They're unpaid volunteers. So the final say should go to the one covered in muck at the end of the day. They're the only ones who should have any say in whether or not the job is something they're willing to do.
2. A good point that Yorky raised that I'm in agreement with, the non-LFC parts of RAWK, especially the News and Current Affairs section, are places where I come by because I want to read viewpoints from across the spectrum. Eroding that would not improve the overall quality of the site.
3. Sheer Magnetism also made a very good point in saying there's a possibility of over-rotating either way. You can be too cold and objective, maybe even flippant when talking about things that may more directly impact other's lives. That will inevitably lead to the escalation that creates shit that needs cleaning up.
My proposal would be a new section which any topics that are bound to be emotive are placed into.
This section sacrifices some nuance to allow for easier moderation. Rules like deletion of posts that are verge onto the overly emotional or flippant/throwaway, 24 hour section specific timeouts, with a clear focus on letting people who either want to expand their knowledge or ask relevant questions, and for the answers to be as informative and accurate as possible, with links and references from clearly verified sources only, and personal experience if the poster is a verified credible source with some history on RAWK.
Make it so it's clear that people who are there to show how right or clever they are, or to prove their points, should not post. If you want to score points or wave your epeen, then go somewhere else.
That's my 2 cents. I work in mental health, and I know having to put up with the worst parts of life takes a toll on us, and if we are to have a place on RAWK to do something productive, it shouldn't come at a cost of the mods literal sanity.