If you didn’t want to engage in more drama, then why did you title this post “new mod drama”, instead of just “admin action and mod removal” for YoBuck?

Lund, all my communication to you were in the DMs, please show everyone the messages where I am hostile to you, because I don’t remember sending anything of that nature to you, while you are making it sound like I am hurling insults and slurs at you which simply was not true.

For little_cow, I was frustrated with their actions with the MBFC controversy that both you and them were involved in, I was trying to find a way to handle it delicately, but you two seem intent on causing as much drama with that as possible.

Didn’t your top mod tell you I was discussing future rule changes with them in the DMs? I told you before that I’m busy with work, talk to me in the DMs, if you want me to get on Discord for important things, schedule a time, I can’t spend all day there.

It is really telling to me then that you worked with YoBuckStopsHere for ~6 months, while he said horrid things around our instance as a mod, like “dropping white phosphorus on civilians isn’t a war crime”, “a girl who is a victim of suicide doesn’t deserve sympathy”, or when he was banned from startrek.website for being a homophobe and the embarrassing events that followed, and you removed me in 2 weeks for daring to take feedback for improvement, actually enforcing the rules you set up, and not wanting to be a part of the powermod mess that caused this whole thing to begin with.

Since we still ask submission title to match that of the article as part of the rule, please update your title.

The headline is a bit misleading, as you can see in the 2nd paragraph of the submission text, it’s the current round of assistance that has halted, and they’re pushing for Congress to continue their support of Ukraine.

That’s a reasonable and well thought out answer, I can accept that.

Does this apply to Donetsk and Luhansk as well?

Want to make sure you are internally consistent here.

Thank you.

Please update your submission title to reflect a potential change in the article title, as current rule does ask that they match.

I do think we allow different perspectives views to be discussed here, even though they are not views that I necessarily agree with. I tried to only remove comments and ban for what I think crosses the line beyond reasonable discussion into disruption.

There were many comments that were reported to me that I’m not quite sure about removing, but I do believe acting fast is preferable to being indecisive not acting. If you felt that your comment was removed by our error, you can discuss it in the feedback.

I’m open to criticism.

Noted. I would suggest that you use an archive link in not as a replacement but in addition to the link submission to ensure the article in question can be seen in the future.

Starting the contest this weekend might be good.

This is not a news article, it’s a picture of a graph.

In the interest of discussion here, I’ll leave it up this time.

Please report this to us earlier, or, if you think our rule about articles only is unfair, I would like to hear your thoughts on if this should be allowed in the future.

I see thoughtful, factual comments with double digit negative scores.

I see short, factually incorrect comments highly rewarded for asserting as facts, things that are unlikely and unproven

Unfortunately, this is really a community cultural issue inherited from the old site. Karma isn’t a thing here, but I do believe the habits formed from having karma to be the root of many toxic behaviors here.

There is no user scoring system here, if your views are unpopular but reasonable, I don’t see the need to remove it; the opposite is true, if your comment is upvoted but breaks our community rules, then they will be removed.

I am a strong believer in democracy, but I don’t believe in mob rule, so the above is the principle I go by.

This is US internal news, normally we would remove it, but in the interest of discussion, I would like to know if you think this should be allowed or not.

Perhaps the rule should be better clarified as “submission should be an internationally significant event”?

To address your points.

I think there should be a good justification for all of our rules. LW isn’t US based, many on the admin team are not even native English speakers, I see no good justification for us to restrict ourselves to US politics only. Of course, people upvote what they want to see here.

I don’t think we will be restricting text posts in the future, I would like to see it being allowed here in general. But changes should be implemented carefully but steadily.

I would like the feedback thread to serve the function of a general meta post on our moderation style. We’re all human, we make mistakes, but acknowledging them and correct them quickly would be our goal.

Please list the specific comments from the mod log.

Due to how the current version of Lemmy UI on LW works, I can’t restore comments that has been removed by other mods, so you will have tell us which ones that we removed that you think is unfair.

Link is already changed to suggestion in the comments.

Sorry, lemm.ee was not federating correct until now.

I think it is OK to discuss in this context, however, given that the evidence is really circumstantial at best, it could be hard to keep it on this track of discussion without muchbsupporting evidence to back it up.