If you see a post on your forum that contains innappropriate content or language, would you edit so that it is more acceptable for your community? Would you delete such a post and warn the member? Or, just leave it up? On my own forum I would edit an objectionable post rather than deleting. Just depends on what the content was. If it's just a difference of opinion, that's always welcome as it usually sparks more conversation.
It depends on how badly the post is with content that you don't want on your forum. Sometimes people on gaming sites just post nonsense that wouldn't make sense at all if you just edited it and put (Admin Removed) or something in its place. So removing a thread and messaging the person warning them about it is sometimes an option.
If someone says a inappropriate word, I will edit it and put something like (Admin Removed).
If its in your forum rules, then you shouldn't have to warn a member due to the fact that they should have known about the forum rules that they should agree to abide when they register on a forum of yours. If you don't make the forum rules very clear or point to them at registration, then yes a warning should be required.
I would always try to remove content that violates the rules - leaving it there only allows it to set a bad example of posting behaviour for others to think they can follow. If there was a small amount of objectionable stuff in an otherwise OK post I would edit it, but if it is entirely objectionable I would delete the post.
Having said that, keeping records of everything that is deleted or edited is important. If you have the facility to view originals of posts that have been edited and to 'soft delete' posts so that they can be reviewed and recovered, that's fine - if not I'd keep a staff-only thread of deleted/edited posts (or move offending posts to a private area), just to make sure that if anyone challenges whoever took action there is a record to refer to. It's not impossible to have 'rogue' staff members who are doing things they shouldn't and hiding it from the rest of the staff, and in any case members will sometimes question mod actions for further explanation.
I dislike to tamper with someone else's post because I dislike the same thing being done to me unless it's necessary. When I had my own forum fortunately I never had to do that. In another one I moderate, it depends on the severity of the post. In general we tend to soft delete the post, especially ones that can cause further drama publicly. Those posts can be seen anytime we need to see it again. Other than that we edited some parts out, leaving marks, and contacting the poster about it. vB has all those functions automatically, which is very sweet for us moderators.
If it's really bad, then I would remove it. Obviously there's a level at which it is considered really bad, but most posts are reasonable. I might censor inappropriate words, but there are ways around it.
On another forum I'm on, all misconduct reports are worked by team consensus. If we get consensus to staff edit the post, we remove the offending content and write Staff Edit for Edit Reason. Or we will soft delete it with the delete reason being something like Cleanup.
If the content is useful aside from certain comments I will just edit those comments out but that is about all. If it is completely unacceptable across the whole post then I will move the post to the trash can.