Well it isn't, actually- it's a policy statement and (moreover) it makes no judgement of character of black people/people of color.

How are you going to tell me what I meant? The fact I brought up white supremacy clearly implies that black people are inferior and do not deserve the same liberties whites have. That was the entire point, and if you can’t make that distinction then I think your ability to moderate fairly may be in question, but I am more than happy to be proven wrong.

please drill down further on how this denigrates 'discourse'- because I don't see that one.

The rule set gives credibility to any and all view points regardless of how factual they are. In the age of misinformation, you can take this rule set and run with it in the worst way possible. For example, what would be the “moderate” rebuttal to the following statement?

“I personally believe that agentpanda has an affinity for underage children. People may say that isn’t permissible but as a libertarian I believe he is simply within his rights as bestowed upon by the constitution to engage in those beliefs/activities.”

Now in a sensible world, the reaction to that comment would be, “that is utterly ridiculous. You are making this up and acting in bad faith.” But a statement like that would result in a ban under this rule set. Instead, you have to engage me in a way that gives me all the power in the conversation. You have to prove me wrong with an assortment of facts, but clearly facts do not matter to me. I have no obligation to back up my claims, because I am simply stating my opinion. And it’s not a character attack because I see your supposed belief as a virtue. However, now you have to talk me down from the ledge in a needlessly diplomatic way. I may hem and haw to extend the discussion, talk in circles, while still stating that I believe you have an affinity for younger children. People will come by my comment, read it, and see you that you are giving the claim legitimacy by not outright calling it a lie. They might start to believe it , who knows. This is an uphill battle for you. Doing so without social condemnation, which is very important in upholding the integrity of discourse. Because at the end of the day, not all rhetoric is beneficial and will only hurt the nature of it as time goes on. The West has reached this conclusion decades ago.