I'd say moderation priority is already quite similar as to how you list it.
We don't actively watch games for people breaking the rules or being "more edgy". For instance in a team game if the players are being a bit edgy but nobody minds and it isn't anything extreme, then so be it. If someone in the game took offense or some behavior was too extreme the players in the game can report it and we take action accordingly.
Public discussions that flow on are watched a bit more closely by moderators, if a moderator sees something against the rules, they intervene more proactively than for in-game things. If you've seen users "get away with things" or think moderation is "outlandishly lax", even with multiple moderators we can't monitor every single word and conversation in all the FAF platforms, so a report/ping/mention by other users to alert moderators is appreciated.
Forums are by nature a bit more formal, so when it comes to moderation, something that could pass in a flowing discussion might not belong as a post.
In regards to what should be moderated/how strict moderation should be, that is heavily tied to manpower resources and what kind of policy overall suits the community. Let's say you wish for really strict moderation, if we don't have the manpower for enforcing it, you'll effectively get moderators logging in/processing reports, "sniping" a few users they see breaking rules, meanwhile several other users can get away with similar level of "infringements". This causes easily uproar and potentially even more problems overall in the community if moderation consistency cannot be upheld. A bigger cliff between what is the largely observed "policy level" by the majority of the users vs. what a fraction of the users get punished for, can quickly degrade overall trust in the rules, moderation, cause "in spite" behavior and in consequence further degrade the experience users have in the community even if the opposite was the intended goal.