Hi all! As promised, here is the proposed text of the newest version of the rules. The staff has gone through like eight drafts and literally thousands and thousands of matrix posts to get here, so please be kind. You can see @limeey's comment on the transparency post if you want more insight into how this sausage was made.
We are opening these rules to commentary from the community before they go into effect. To be clear, this isn't a vote, but we will take all community feedback into account and answer whatever questions we can before finalizing anything.
Please keep in mind that we are not Reddit, we do not have Reddit's resources, and safety and consent are our priorities.
I'll post the draft in two parts in two comments: The new sidebar, and the FAQ/clarifications page.
There are many moderators that I've seen given a position after simply offering themselves in a post. And we can't ask for a review of an action of a random person that has the title of moderator? Excuse me but if that is the case, this is feeling like quite a red flag to me.
If there is an issue with a moderators decision, please contact an admin for further review. There is work being done to try figure out how make it so that posts can have a reporting distinction of some kind, kind of like how Reddit did. Sort of (report to site staff) and (report to community)
Thanks for the reply and clarification. I still see as troublesome the wording in the part I mentioned. I can understand that you want to cut fast the issues with annoying users but from outside there can also be concerns about moderator abuse.
Thank you bringing it up! We will clarify in the final version, but yeah. Our desire is hopefully to have reporting procedures in the same way reddit does, kind of like "report to community" and "report to site staff"