If you didn't want to engage in more drama, then why did you title this post "new mod drama", instead of just "admin action and mod removal" for YoBuck?

Lund, all my communication to you were in the DMs, please show everyone the messages where I am hostile to you, because I don't remember sending anything of that nature to you, while you are making it sound like I am hurling insults and slurs at you which simply was not true.

For little_cow, I was frustrated with their actions with the MBFC controversy that both you and them were involved in, I was trying to find a way to handle it delicately, but you two seem intent on causing as much drama with that as possible.

Didn't your top mod tell you I was discussing future rule changes with them in the DMs? I told you before that I'm busy with work, talk to me in the DMs, if you want me to get on Discord for important things, schedule a time, I can't spend all day there.

It is really telling to me then that you worked with YoBuckStopsHere for ~6 months, while he said horrid things around our instance as a mod, like "dropping white phosphorus on civilians isn't a war crime", "a girl who is a victim of suicide doesn't deserve sympathy", or when he was banned from startrek.website for being a homophobe and the embarrassing events that followed, and you removed me in 2 weeks for daring to take feedback for improvement, actually enforcing the rules you set up, and not wanting to be a part of the powermod mess that caused this whole thing to begin with.

The headline is a bit misleading, as you can see in the 2nd paragraph of the submission text, it's the current round of assistance that has halted, and they're pushing for Congress to continue their support of Ukraine.

This is not a news article, it's a picture of a graph.

In the interest of discussion here, I'll leave it up this time.

Please report this to us earlier, or, if you think our rule about articles only is unfair, I would like to hear your thoughts on if this should be allowed in the future.

This is US internal news, normally we would remove it, but in the interest of discussion, I would like to know if you think this should be allowed or not.

Perhaps the rule should be better clarified as "submission should be an internationally significant event"?

This article would be more appropriate for the politics community, since it is an opinion article from the interview of Peter Simi regarding Trump.

I would not consider this as news.

Note that Ukrinform is Ukranian state media.

News should be news, I would like this community to focus on political discussions, editorials, and commentaries from a variety of viewpoints, if that makes sense.

And to be frank, I don't think topics like "Trump smells bad" is good political discussion, which is what I would aim to avoid.

Individual moderators will have their personal opinion, but we will absolutely not conduct our moderation based on our personal stances and will aim to be fair.

In other words, neither, but you are encouraged discuss civilly and to provide sources to back up your claims in your comments.

Everything is up for discussion, while we will still take a hardline against hateful rhetorics. I think the rules can be simplified and made easier to understand and follow, instead of feeling arbitrary.

The top items that I feel should be discussed:

1. Title must match headline. Unnecessary on Lemmy since preview already includes titles, and titles are editable on Lemmy.
2. Restriction on US internal news. I don't think it has overwhelmed this community Lemmy in the same way that it has reddit, so I would like to see the effects of removing this rule.
3. Better definition of what count as opinion articles. I feel that with the removal of !politics@lemmy.world being US only, this should help the two communities complement each other and not step on each other's toes.
4. Reliance on MBFC as an objective measure of objectivity.
5. Roles and involvement of moderators in the community.

One of the first I was going to propose. I feel that MBFC is treated as completely neutral and objective when as with every single source, they have their own biases. I think we should be maintaining our own source blacklist here, instead of relying on a third party with, in my opinion, somewhat unscientific methodologies.

Let's see if we can make this place better.