And now the incident's "debate" is here.

Thank you all for doing this.

This is a bit learning the wrong lesson from what happened, isn't it? The problem is admin overreach. There was some disagreement on a sub, no big deal. I don't even care what it's about, I have no opinion on it. But now this admin comes in like Eric Cartman "Respect mah authoritah!". What am I supposed to make of that? Nobody was advocating animal abuse. I worry about admins who can't just let something go, who can't handle disagreement, like a cop always looking to escalate.

So thanks for the rules clarification, I guess, but what about:

• won't this general guideline of 'do no harm' stifle discussion in case it isn't clear which is the harmful position? For example covid
• is there a process in place when an admin does something in the heat of the moment, that the admin team can let them cool off for a bit?
• is removing mods going to be the norm?
• will there be more rules when another admin disagrees with a mod?
• why was this escalated like this? Don't you think removing mod status is an overreaction (procedure wise)?
• does the 'anti animal abuse' statute apply to animal consumption and animal products? Vegan community has a point there
• what about rooki?

All in all, please don't kill this instance by telling people what to think. There is healthy discussion and people don't always have to agree. That doesn't make me a 'free speech absolutist'. I think removing moderator privileges was quite out of bounds. Again, nobody was advocating animal abuse at all.

Mods and admins are here to keep discussion healthy, not impose their views on everyone else, right? So don't! And don't cover for others who do!

What a mess. Thank you mods and admins for doing the work.

I'm not vegan so I won't take sides in this particular debate (to me it seems like a trolley problem whether risking the harm of a pet is worth reducing the systematic harm of animals at-large), nor do I have any specific comments on the new rules...

I will say though, that these incidents are opportunity for growth and learning for both users and admins when it comes to running a grassroots online community. Whether people agree with the new rules or not, I think all of Lemmy is better for it if we have examples of how large instances can be run and how conflicts can be addressed cordially.

There's a fine line between misinformation and "subjectively offensive information". To me, this seems like it was a pretty clear case of abuse of power regardless of where you stand on the original issue and retroactively changing the rules to excuse that abuse does not bode well for this community.

Not my instance, but after perusing those links, what's the point? "Generally" this, "generally" that, paired with vague obligations. Doesn't matter a bit if you have an actual problem with a member of the administration time and the rest buddy up and play silent.

Let me ask you this, you've been up for quite a while, you've had staff rollovers, you must have had issues with at least one of your admins. Have you been transparent about them and reached out to anyone who might have been affected by them and publicly apologized and addressed any actions on their behalf, or have you played coy and just ignored them and kept quiet about them, releasing at best only excuses that have kept any internal drama hidden lest they affect the donation/income streams?

Not really launching any accusations, but actions speak louder than words. Look at Reddit, it has a decent community guideline, and it means shit except whitewashing when it comes to actual enforcement.

Users are encouraged to post information they believe is true and helpful.

Even in shitpost/meme communities?

I understand this intended mainly toward health and news communities but as a site rule there might need an exception for other type of communities.