If someone was to make the same comment in this community, I would leave it and discuss why or why not it should happen. I usually only remove content that is disrespectful (insults, harassment) or break the rules. Removing opinions you disagree with doesn’t seem to create a healthy space for conversation.
Also, traffic itself isn’t worth much, and actively moderating a community isn’t a task a lot of people want to do (as you can see in the post, nobody really volunteers).
About it being “my” community, I accept any mod who would like to help (we now have a few, that is nice). There isn’t any real benefit of moderating a community, it’s more of a hassle than anything else, which is probably why nobody wanted to do it over there.
protist@mander.xyz 5 months ago
I get you don’t think you were engaging in self-promotion by publicly talking up your community within their community, but you actually were, and it’s explicitly against their rules. And yes, as a mod of this community, it is your community, as it is for anyone involved in this community and who has an interest in driving traffic to it
Blaze@reddthat.com 5 months ago
Let’s agree to disagree!
protist@mander.xyz 5 months ago
It’d be better if you accepted you broke that community’s rules and the mod was justified in removing your comment rather than complaining about it and putting them on blast so publicly
maegul@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Hmmm. I feel like you may be a bit harsh here. I agree that the mod is free to do what they want, and generally don’t think community diversity is bad (though I lean on some form of consolidation around this kind of community, or at least better organisation).
But for a nascent and small platform like the fediverse, talking about how we organise ourselves is almost always a fair topic of conversation IMO, for the simple reason that self-organisation is exactly what the fediverse is about, how it was made and how it will thrive.
And was it really against the rules? “Self promotion”? The suggestion was for a merger with a community where I’m not sure Blaze had anything personal to gain. So not promotion or for themselves?
I can’t shake the feeling that this is all very Reddit thinking, that makes more sense at their scale and with the more rabid behaviour and territorialism you’d get there. There, shutting down conversations like this makes sense as an immune response against potentially toxic bad faith actors. Plus, the number of users there is such that community building is easier.
But here? That might be an auto-immune disorder. People take ownership on the fediverse and have the opportunity to think about how things should be and even make that happen (beyond just starting a new community that is). Letting that all play out in conversations seems fundamental, and removing comments or banning users for trying to have organisational conversations may just be anti-fediverse as much as it might seem like reasonable community moderation, at least if we’re still doing things the Reddit way.
Ideally, perhaps, there’d be a good meta-community community for people to talk about these things without moderation concerns being triggered.
Blaze@reddthat.com 5 months ago
I wanted to stop there but if you want to give it another go, sure.
First of all, there has been “self promotion” about this community on !movies@lemmy.world in the past:
I had a few discussions via DM with the main mod in the past, all went well as you can see above.
Also, he didn’t add the reason of his removal as “self promotion”, but as “Not currently considering this action”. He didn’t even mention breaking any rule.
I would have rather preferred having discussed that over DMs, but he never replied to my first.
Also, aren’t modlogs public for a reason, to keep moderators accountable for their decisions?