Yes, you called me out directly for what you characterized as a borderline personal vendetta in that previous defense. I am glad that you seem to see some of the same signs and signals that I do. My alarm bells just happened to go off slightly sooner than yours, with more intensity. I believe we are coming from the same place of concern based on what you've said here.
I do take a somewhat less charitable view of how the admin conversations on these topics transpire. My perspective, and please note that this is my own personal imagining of events, is that an admin who has a pet governance topic takes that topic to the rest of the group. They make their case for it, and in the absence of much pushback, they post it for general governance discussion. Regardless of whether or not this is accurate, the plausibility of it based on what we observe directly should give us all pause. Hence, I previously suggested that Flatworm/unruffled should take a hiatus from admin duties.
#CluesBySam, Jan 15th 2026 (Tricky), in 04:08
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
The main way I use tags is on pairs. I tag them with the same color if it's an either/or situation. That saves me a little time when I come back to that pair later.
They exercised self-determination in deciding against joining, but you deem it appropriate to disregard that and group them with something they chose not to become part of?
This is a technical YDI with a heaping side of CLM(s). The comm rules spell out that Substack is verboten, even though the rule itself is misguided. Expect any such posts to be removed, most likely by the mod in question, until such point that either the rule or the modlist changes.
The continued presence of such a technicality in the rules degrades the credibility of the comm as a whole.
The powertrip here is less the application of the rule and more the total unwillingness to adapt the rule. It's being used as a tool against legitimate news from legitimate sources. It could be confirmation bias, but I do not recall seeing widespread enforcement of this particular rule by moderators other than Jordan. If that is erroneous, then it's my mistake, but based on that I believe the inclusion of Substack in that list to be Jordan's pet contribution.
If the other mods feel the same way, perhaps they'll make that known.
If this is meant as a counterpoint to my stance, it fails at the most basic level: at no point did I suggest that nothing be done. My belief is that we already have the means to remove offending posts and posters. I simply wish to see those existing guidelines applied rather than creating a new set of rules specifically relating to a term that is used like a playground insult almost as often as it is invoked to convey actual meaning.
Terminology on lemmy tends to become weaponized and used to dismiss anyone whose opinions aren't perfectly aligned, often leading to the total erosion of the original meaning. My issue does not lie with refusing to tolerate genocide denialism or genocide support, or with removing bad actors; rather, in how we choose to set our guidelines regarding acceptability.
By shifting to a stance of revoking instance privileges based on a label, a standard is set that invites further weaponization of that label and further abstraction of any real meaning it might have held. There's enough of that without creating incentives for more.
In regards to thee first of what you call your genuine questions, I would say I reach the conclusion based on my own observations of behavior, not limited to this one proposition. I did state my reasons as they relate to this particular post.
In regards to the second, I don't call for it to be defined. I advocate applying existing acceptability policy without the need to specify a label. On the subject of abuse, it is far easier to abuse authority when it can be abstracted by a term or label that means demonstrably different things to different people. The need to address content on its own merit, or lack thereof, is one safeguard against such abuses, be they accidental or willful.
To expand on that statement, I wholly agree that certain points of view have no place here or anywhere else for that matter. What I am opposed to is codifying what seems to me to be a weak definition of a term. That is a recipe for creating an oppressive tool that can be used to crush discourse.
Do we not already have ample policy in place to deal with the offensive parties without the need for further rules that are primed for misuse?
Additionally, your opening sentences read as very hierarchical and your initial decision to set a short expiry comes across as an attempt to sneak in a change under the radar.
I personally feel that you should take at least a short break as an admin of the instance.
Yes, you called me out directly for what you characterized as a borderline personal vendetta in that previous defense. I am glad that you seem to see some of the same signs and signals that I do. My alarm bells just happened to go off slightly sooner than yours, with more intensity. I believe we are coming from the same place of concern based on what you've said here.
I do take a somewhat less charitable view of how the admin conversations on these topics transpire. My perspective, and please note that this is my own personal imagining of events, is that an admin who has a pet governance topic takes that topic to the rest of the group. They make their case for it, and in the absence of much pushback, they post it for general governance discussion. Regardless of whether or not this is accurate, the plausibility of it based on what we observe directly should give us all pause. Hence, I previously suggested that Flatworm/unruffled should take a hiatus from admin duties.
The optics are off, and it is troubling.