Please PM me about this. I wish to understand what specifically you found objectionable, and who I may appeal the removal to.
“I’m saying you’re an idiot”.
Rule 3:
“Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.”
I edited that to say ‘you’re making idiotic choices’. Did that not take? And would that be acceptable? If not, then how can I express that sentiment?
We shouldn’t be forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back here, Jordan. There ARE bad-faith debaters here, pushing misinformation and disinformation for the sole purpose of ratfucking us out of our vote. What passes your smell test for civility when calling these groups out? Are we supposed to just pretend like there are no bots or paid actors? Or is there a way that will pass your muster for calling out those bad actors without violating Rule 3?
And is there any way to get your decisions reviewed? It sure feels like you leave up an awful lot of incivil posts by the ‘Genocide Joe’ people, while targeting us who call them out for their nonsense? Can we get your moderation decisions reviewed for fairness?
PS: I asked you to PM me so we didn’t have this conversation in public. Having a public grievance on moderation decisions was not my choice. If you’d rather take this private, I’m still game for that.
