As the guy who largely designed how the staff runs the membership over there, I will say one thing.
The main criticism they lob at you is that this site is more heavily moderated. This is erroneous, and based on an incorrect understanding of how that site works.
At that site, until recently, less is directly censored. Censoring is done at the membership level.
In short, the BBC are herded so that they, in turn, will herd the rest of the membership.
This is not a criticism, given that I started the practice.
Currently, there are further hideden forums above the BBC in charge of herding the BBC, though this charge is not directly stated, it is how it works, while the staff itself are largely functionairy save one or two individuals, whoever is in the most influential faction at any one time on that site will run the show. It's a very populist system.
Regardless, those who cannot be herded are usually the most likely to be banned. This may be because they do not agree with the most powerful faction, or this may be because they are troublesome in their own regard.
The staff itself are actually really good for the most part, made up of long term members who seem to have a high degree of trust in the system and work hard to improve it. Most actions that are assumed to be from the staff, but are highly unpopular, are actually the actions of whoever the ruling faction is there, which will likely include no more than a few staff members, and never, in my experience, approach a majority.
How one becomes the ruling faction is the one element that I never dealt with, there was never a formal method for dictating this, as up until recently, the site was run around the idea that truth should be more important than ideology. I know how it works, but it's terrribly mundane and not worth mention.
As such, the idea that censorship is greater here than there under that system is comparing apples and oranges. While here, specific words and approaches are outright moderated, there moderation is often based around an entirely subjective view of truth that will not be consistent because of differences in subjective truths between the staff, the membership, and the ruling faction, and within each of those groups.
In the past, that site has experienced upheavals along style boundaries that would end when members would actually meet and realize that their ideas on style never seemed to show similar results in throwdowns, so that more moderate periods would ensue. This is likely to continue to be the dynamic that works there, and this most recent period based around the views of a very small number of ideologues within the site will again give way to a similar result.
In any case, don't feel bad about moderating, we all have done it. Just because I never had to moderate a curse word doesn't mean that I haven't moderated ideas or people to control the landscape of the site. You have attracted some good people, some good fighters, and then a few of us nutcases, so you can't be all bad.