This is especially for anyone who has ever been a forum moderator or administrator, here or anywhere else, or who is otherwise familiar enough with forum administration to have some informed ideas about my question.
In some forums at least, possibly in all of them, administrators seem to be terrified of meta-discussions, that is, discussions about the discussions. The worst kind of abuse and flooding and off-topic distractions can be tolerated indefinitely, in open defiance of forum rules, but the least meta-discussion frankly labeled as such always results in almost instantaneous administrative action, even by the most hands-off administrators with the lightest touch.
I'm dumbfounded by explanations saying that meta-discussions are off topic, or might distract from and obscure other discussions, when I continually see other kinds of distraction and off-topic discussion tolerated indefinitely. The lack of action on other distractions and violations might be explained by the possible harmfulness of heavy-handed administration, which I agree with, but that doesn't explain why the most light-handed administrators always respond so instantly and decisively to meta-discussions.
Can anyone help me understand that?
ETA: Thinking about it some more, the way I've described this looks oversimplified and inaccurate. Also, I have a feeling about what might explain it, but I don't know how to put it into words, and I'm not at all sure about it. It might have something to do with possible effects on moderators, and/or how it might look on the surface to most people.