Hex, I agree that the moderation is not entirely fair and neutral. Even Pete conceded there is some bias.
But it's not true to say the core flat earth believers can post whatever they like.
It's more that they've become core members because they don't post whatever they like.
I've seen Tom post stuff that I know a new RE member would have been warned for and he hasn't been.
But if Tom went completely postal at someone then I don't think he'd get away with it.
(Much as I have problems with his debating style I have to concede he remains remarkably calm under some serious bombardment).
Regarding low content post, they can do. Go to the profiles of them and look through the lists of posts by them and count all the one-liners they post. And then go through the forums and compare their posts with the posts by other people that got a low-content warning by Junker and you will see that the bias is eye-catching.
Or compare the posts Junker moved to angry ranting and compare them to posts by flat-earther believers where they rant about NASA, scientists, etc. calling them liars, fake, stupid, etc. Good example is the post where this Bishop guy called entire Astronomy non-scientific on the same level as Astrology. On the other hand if you call flat-earth theory a pseudo-science chances are quite high to get a warning.
Other example I posted above, where Junker insulted a so-called flat earthers as such, while a few posts later a round earther for something very similar got an implicit warning.
The excuse was, that poor Junker was provoked and we have to understand his reaction. But it seems to me, to provoke Junker you just have to disagree with his flat-earth believe. I'm pretty sure that if the roles where assigned the other way round in this dispute, the argumentation would be turned around also.