Any critiques, desire for clarity, outright hatred, whatever have you. I will respond the best I can.
I know there’s been some blowback on some of the policy updates but it’s been difficult to really explain fully that the restrictive content policy is temporary, this community was very unmanaged for a time and it had to be reigned in somehow and with the limited tools at disposal the temporary policy changes were made.
Here’s a comment that also explains a little bit behind the decisions made recently as well.
For community mods, we have a community mod coord matrix group chat now. Feel free to DM about it.
Also, there’s another ongoing discussion regarding SFW communities on lemmyNSFW here.
I wanted to express that I’m extremely concerned about the banning of @paddedperson and the deletion of their thread saying that they were migrating away from lemmynsfw.
As far as I can tell, @paddedperson was banned for leaking preliminary information about upcoming content policy changes from the admin discussion group. In my view, they were legitimate concerns, and retaliatory action taken against him are very concerning with respect to treatment of whistleblowers.
Can admins comment on this incident?
Truly transparent non-profit organizations (e.g. Wikipedia) typically release meeting minutes (a summary or transcript), or allow the public to attend voting meetings as part of the audience. Can the admins provide a summary or transcript of the votes taken on various decisions?
So I’m not really an “admin” - I’m a sysadmin/developer who was given the role of admin so I can make sure all systems (including modlog, reportings, and other tools) work as we adjust them for this instance’s very specific needs.
Padded got banned because he was trying to sabotage the efforts of an entirely volunteer group including revealing our hosting provider. We are not a “non profit organization” - lemmynsfw is a volunteer instance being run on donations. People need to understand that this is no one’s “job” and yet it’s literally taking a ton of our time. I’ve spent so many hours pouring over lemmy code, system configurations, working with the mod tool group, brainstorming, writing code, and trying to help the real admins where I can…
And seriously, no one is being paid for this, donations barely cover server costs, and any excess donations are being saved because it’s anticipated that server costs will continue to rise while donations don’t. Besides, I don’t think any of us WANT to be paid for fear of reprisal from our respective governments for “making money” off serving pornography.
When the creator put out his call for help, a bunch of us stepped up to try to keep the server alive, but this is not an easy instance to run. Please understand that.
To be clear, the volunteers/admins at Wikipedia are not paid either. From my personal experience in Wikimedia communities, my sincere advice is to consider and take transparency seriously.
The most important resource in volunteer spaces like this is ‘trust’.
I hope you and the admin team recognize that in order to run a website like this, you also require the trust and buy-in from moderators (who are also unpaid) to invest the many hours into their communities just as you have done for the server. Hiding things from moderators, sending mixed messages, and making secret deliberations (with rumors that some admins are eager to remove large quantities of content) is really damaging for that relationship of trust.
The recent content policy changes (even before padded’s leak) have been dictatorial top-down decrees. However, these unilateral rule changes are impractical/meaningless when moderators have not agreed to enforce those rules – and I’ve personally experienced this (at best, only 30% of the content that I’ve reported for content policy violations have been addressed by moderators). Realistically, no moderator wants to enforce rules they don’t believe in, and if they leave, the departure of skilled talent cripples this website and leaves communities effectively unmoderated in practice.
Please consider improving the transparency of these content policy deliberations, and at the very minimum, incorporate community moderators into the discussion and ascertain that they are in agreement with the rules before rolling out changes on the drop of a dime.