I haven't read those EA comments yet. I'll take a look later. But know that no one has reported any of those EA comments to us. So none of the mods may have even seen them. Let alone determined that there's a problem with them.
We did however receive reports (I forget if it was one, or several) for your post, which is how it was brought to our attention.

As for your first question, it could be considered a similar circumstance if the aim of that comment is still to get under the skin of Nintendo fans.
But of course, if you provide links to where Nintendo said that to support your claim, then there should be no problem. Then it's fair to call them out for it.

I suppose the answer to the second question would be similar. It comes down to the intent of the comment. If someone with no history of stirring the pot with large groups of people said that, the mod team would probably not assume that there was nefarious intent behind it.
But if someone with a history of baiting/instigating large groups says it, then we may be less inclined to believe their good intentions.

But regarding EA, the fact that none of those posts were reported, or any EA related posts that I can recall since becoming a moderator, kind of paints a picture of what we consider targeting a large group. If it's something that no one to our knowledge is bothered by, then it's also not a problem for us here, is it?

All about context.
I have often said things that were negative about Sony's approach to various things... I have also praised them for it.

But just bagging out a company just because you dislike them isn't constructive, it isn't forwarding a conversation.

Consequently we had a survey not long ago to highlight "bias" issues and generally the mod team was pretty balanced I thought.

Obviously a few people on the mod team have larger biases towards a specific platform and the community understands that. (I.E. Me with PC.) - But generally we all balance each other out, hence why we discuss issues as a team to remove any specific bias when it comes time to do a moderation.

...So the sooner we can get past the idea that the mod team has a bias towards and move on... The better!

Can't say I have seen this. I have always given Nintendo platforms criticism where criticism is due, goes for all consoles... I am still here.
In-fact many Nintendo orientated gamers actually ask for my perspective usually pertaining to hardware aspects and not always do I give them a reply that is glowing.

In regards to that EA thread, I thought it was better to just shut it down and move on rather than go on a banning spree, sometimes the path of least resistance is the better option.

Perhaps more users should have been banned? Perhaps we dropped the ball? It's something that we might discuss later on and learn from it if you do feel like you have been slighted.

It depends on if moderators think it was done with the intention of stirring the pot with a group. If it pertains to the the big three console manufacturers, then it probably more often appears to be the case, rather than if it was aimed at let's say Square Enix. A person's history with such behavior can also be taken into account, before giving them the benefit of the doubt.

When it comes to the cut off regarding how far back we look for moderation, it tends to be around a month. Exceptions can be made if it's something particularly egregious. Not sure what 3 day situation you're referring to, but if it's someone that's already been banned, then it can be complicated for us to amend their punishment while one is already in effect, due to the tools we have available.

By now it is very old.

I was giving examples that sometimes report of posts don't get looked by moderation (yes I know it is a lot of work, and several times it will take longer than usual to look at what was reported). One time when finally a mod got to the posts reported he said he wasn't going to do anything with it because it was over 3 days ago and the thread was more or less inactive at the time. Not even complaining that was what was done (although some famous offenders get unmoderated and don't have a mark on their history due to several coincidences) but really just giving examples that sometimes even reporting doesn't amount to anything (even if after reporting you PM more than one mod).

As you said yourself if mod team consider the user wasn't trying to flame (strange thing that the interpretation of he trying or not would have more to do with the subject of the flaming not the comment itself) even if there are report nothing will be done. So going to original complain I replied to, it was quite common some time ago to see a lot of 3rd party companies being trashed by a portion of Nintendo fanbase because they didn't make multiplats going to their console or that they instead should make exclusives to Nintendo, while at same thread saying all games from that company were complete trash.... basically saying the company should expend money on the system for no one to buy if they didn't want to be seem as haters of the system. Those never got moderated, and yes you answered to it saying that since there isn't much of a big fanbase for any 3rd party publisher usually even the biggest attacks wouldn't get moderated as interpretation of the mod team is that almost no one would take offense on it (but still that isn't what is in the rules, which by the way I have gotten some moderations that weren't written in the rules).

We not only look at every single report made. We always discuss every single report made. Every single time. And it's always several moderators that partake in the discussion. A single moderator cannot dismiss a report before it has been discussed as a group. So you are mistaken here.
Unless this was long before my time, and there may not have been a modchat in place.

But on that note, please do keep something in mind.
Whenever someone issues a report, multiple people will devote their free time to discuss and review the report. Time they will never get back.
If you find that 99% of your reports don't lead to any action, then you should start to reconsider your viewpoint on what constitutes an offense, and try to look at it more from the staff's perspective before hitting the report button.

I don't go look if a report I made have or not lead to a ban, unless the thread were active for let's say over a week and a person reported was still active. And usually I either report stuff I have been banned by, or know there is a specific rule against it. I even avoid reporting most of the personal attacks against myself.

This wasn't before modchat, but could very well be from before your time in the team.

I don't know what that is referring to, so I can't say much beyond what I've already said.
But one reason we discuss every moderator action as a group is to try to avoid individual mistakes. So PM'ing multiple moderators about a report doesn't really make more of them aware of a report. They should all be aware of it through the report system and modchat, unless they were unavailable at the time.
But if reporting doesn't amount to anything, consistently, then please consider what I said in the paragraph above. Because at the end of the day it is people's free time. And if we find that we have to spend much of that free time inefficiently (even if it is an obviously bogus report, we still discuss it), then we may have to revise the report system in some way.

I would suggest that if anyone reported a post it should already be greyed out so you don't get multiple reports of the same comment. Unless there is intention to really go the consideration about more people reporting meaning the comment needs more moderation.

If you consider that people tend to skirt the written rules, then obviously we also have to look at the subject when making judgement calls. Whether one is more important than the other depends on the context.
If for example we have someone that's been moderated 50 times for flaming/trolling Xbox users, then an ambiguous comment (that doesn't outright break a specifically written rule) regarding Xbox from this particular user may still be seen as an attempt to troll. While the exact same comment from someone else may not.

That is were I disagree. Sure one may reason that someone without a history may not meant harm so he may not even get a warning (although from what I see there is no statistics on report itself, just warnings or mods gave directly), but if someone isn't breaking a rule then a moderation shouldn't be handled. It would be like you throw to jail without committing a crime because in the past you committed one. There is a reason jury and judge are demanded to judge a action at that time only.

Yes. And I touched on people skirting the rules above as well. Essentially there is no way to write the rules in a way that would cover every way trolls behave. They always adapt to the rules, so we'd just be playing catchup with them for all eternity.

Could very well be, but really I don't remember a definition of trolling that would need people to reply to for validation.

This type of stuff continues to be your issue, among other things. Not only was your thread left open longer than it could have been, but when asked to elaborate on your stance, you became combative on a number of occasions (even though in that topic, you asked for civility). Then, you come to this thread and leave a comment like this one (again, among other things wrong with post) and then choose to play the victim. 

If you feel it necessary to leave, that's unfortunate, but we're not going to cave to ideas that are against some of the better principles of the site. For starters, try not to refer to anyone as a 'fanboy'. It's not only against the rules, it won't help any discussion thrive. Next, take responsibility for your role in these things. From the beginning, your topic was in trouble, mainly due to the wording of both the title and OP. 

I'll work with you, but without a halfway meeting, we can't really proceed.