Do you really need the exact description of the rule if the rule # that was broken was provided?
If its an interpretation of the rule then it would make no difference anyway, and is also pretty unlikely to be the kind of thing triggered by an automod.
The lemmy.ml admins often remove a post with a reason like “rule 2”, and then people get confused because rule 2 of the community they posted in wasn’t broken. Turns out they mean instance rule 2, but they never say that. I think that’s too unclear.
Thats not really giving you the specific rule though, they absolutely should note it being an instance rule.
Though all too often, I’d say with them its worse, and their interpretation of a rule that they are using to remove/ban, making it even more unclear more often than not.
or when a post is removed the mod can copy past the exact description of the rule
Do you really need the exact description of the rule if the rule # that was broken was provided?
If its an interpretation of the rule then it would make no difference anyway, and is also pretty unlikely to be the kind of thing triggered by an automod.
The lemmy.ml admins often remove a post with a reason like “rule 2”, and then people get confused because rule 2 of the community they posted in wasn’t broken. Turns out they mean instance rule 2, but they never say that. I think that’s too unclear.
Thats not really giving you the specific rule though, they absolutely should note it being an instance rule.
Though all too often, I’d say with them its worse, and their interpretation of a rule that they are using to remove/ban, making it even more unclear more often than not.
As an admin when i remove a post or comment, i say exactly why it was removed
That wasn’t really my question, but congratulations. Good for you.
The op commented sbout the vagueness of rules in the modlog. That’s the only part I agreed with
Yes, and I pointed out that a specific rule # is not any different than the text of that specific rule copied into a modlog.
Edit: LOL