… are you sure? 
Personally, I would prefer that objectionable individual word choices were edited out in a clearly recognizable way, if the alternative were deleting the post. But you’re free to disagree.
In theory I agree. In practice I’m not sure that it would be used. Replying in situ will, I think, always be instinctive.
That said, are such posts in scope for Discourse Feedback ?
More than that, a top-level overview of what the org structure is. I can think of many titles off the top of my head that connote some kind of authority or privilege in the Python diaspora, and I have very little idea how they actually relate to each other.
I think Discourse should be held responsible for this rather than any individual instance. (And yes, it’s exactly as @hugovk says. Modern web design, you know…)
100%. I have seen far too many moderation teams fail to learn this lesson.
One thing maintainers (not just moderators, but anyone with any kind of curation privilege, or who is consciously trying to set an example, or is just far above average activity) of any community need to understand is that the world is full of well-meaning people who simply will not read any kind of “documentation of the community” until a conflict arises. They expect to get by on the fact that they’re well-meaning people and have no interest in causing trouble with anyone.
For the record, I tried actually searching. “Good” appears once, and “faith” not at all.
I was once a moderator of an explicitly political space full of highly intelligent people with wildly opposing, fringe views. What I learned was that the only effective prevention is setting a good example; and the most important rules are to speak plainly (i.e., without irony in the broad sense), avoid expressions of anger (including profanity), be intellectually honest, and be charitable.