Following recent helpful discussion and its conclusion:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13381/moderation-of-political-threads/p1

In political discussions, we have a much lighter touch on vitriol and inflamed tempers
— fdrake

Final decision:

I'm going to close the thread. It seems like current consensus is that there doesn't need to be a systemic change in how tone is policed in political discussions. There were a few times in recent memory where we perhaps intervened too late under the current ruleset. Maybe we can try and be quicker on the draw. — fdrake

Follow-up:
One reason that there was late intervention is precisely because of the ingrained philosophy of TPF with its high level of tolerance - 'Under the current ruleset'.

It's not only in political discussions or in recent memory either.
I will never forget the focused vitriolic set of personal attacks by Apollodorus in the Plato discussions which caused some posters to leave. Eventually, this was tackled by mods but it took a while.

I think the Ukraine thread got very out of control and we should have done better to reel it in early. It resulted in lingering bad feelings.

The question is whether we need a rule change (as you suggest) for political threads, or do we just need to acknowledge we didn't properly enforce that thread. That's the ongoing discussion. — Hanover

I agree. But if change is to happen, to make things better, then we need to look at the root causes.
Some questions to answer:
Why did the Ukraine thread get out of control? Which posters/mods were involved?
Why wasn't it reeled in earlier?
To me, it seemed incredible, if not ludicrous, that Admin found it toxic and let it continue.
I suggest this was due to the prevailing attitude, systemic, hard-wired; also personal involvement.
The utter reluctance to step in...until it was too late...

The rules regarding 'tone and context' do not make explicit the exception of 'political discussion'.
If there is to be no systemic change, then perhaps it is worthwhile to be upfront about it.
A revision to:

2) Tone matters:
A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

3) Context matters:
The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in the Shoutbox or in discussions in the Lounge, for example, than in the philosophical discussions. — Baden

I disagree that there should be more leeway. However, that has been discussed.
Given the requirement of being as consistent as possible, standards should be applied equally.
So, clarity should begin by including 'Political discussion' along with 'Shoutbox' and 'Lounge'.

I initially asked for increased vigilance but then changed it to a compromise position.

'we perhaps intervened too late under the current ruleset. Maybe we can try and be quicker on the draw. — fdrake

Being 'quicker on the draw' is exactly what was being asked for!
So, how to make sense of that in the Guidelines...?