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.

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

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 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 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.

Please update your submission title to reflect a potential change in the article title, as current rule does ask that they match.

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.

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.

That's a reasonable and well thought out answer, I can accept that.

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.

The previous logo and banner was made by YoBuck, I think he took it with him when he left.

Might want to run a logo contest/banner contest sometimes soon, if you guys are interested.

I apologize, and I do think changes are needed here.

As a first step, I have unbanned @naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca, as from the conversation detailed below, what he has done does not warrant a permanent ban at all.

I do take feedback extremely seriously, however, please allow us some time to figure out our next steps.

I'll give it my best shot.

Let it be known that I personally despise Fox News.

But as a moderator, I don't see why this would be removed just because it came from Fox News, since it is factual info they got from the AP.

I've restored the post, OP, if you are Oak with people in the comments downvoting you for submitting Fox News, that's your own business.

Since we still ask submission title to match that of the article as part of the rule, please update your title.

Blacklist will be used for the most egregious offenders such as OANN and Epoch Times.

In the future, I would like to implement submission statements to make sure people actually read the articles they are posting here and acknowledge there that what they are posting might be unreliable. I'm a big proponent of using hard facts and evidence to back up all claims regardless of who wrote the article, and this in my opinion should be the standard going forward.

Good to talk to you again. You are one of my favorite accounts on Lemmy.

Are the mods thinking transforming this community into something like “ask politics”-type format?

Article submissions are still very much welcome here, but I would like to expand this place so that we have more discussion among the community on political topics. So, a bit of both.

I do want to foster a culture of thoughtful discussion here, and that needs to originate from our power submitter such as yourself. If you put in effort in your submission, then the comment section will be encouraged to make effort as well.

I don't think a weekly highlighting would be necessary, because I think we should all read more and be more informed on politics before we comment. Still thinking about what we should do here.

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?

I want to give my side of the story.

I removed one of person's comment on the political community because it was reported, from what I can recall, it was a very long, borderline QAnon level rant that was antagonizing other users for essentially not buying into their conspiracy theory, which we took very seriously here.

This person was not even banned, and the modlog can confirm that.

I have had literally zero interaction with this person in any form other than this single comment removal. I have never sent this person a single DM or reply, and I think our admins can confirm that.

When I woke up the next morning, I saw 4 already removed reply to my comments from this person, and it appears that this person has already purged their own account.

Good point. Will definitely take into consideration.

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.

Again, I would want submissions to focus on the QUALITY of the content instead of WHERE the content is published.

If you feel that an article is factually incorrect, you should present hard evidence to dispute the part that was factually incorrect instead of appealing to authorities, otherwise, who's to say you are only agreeing to articles that are confirming to your own biases?

I made an alt for this specific reason, among others.

I don’t really get why two steady and operational fora need to change

One of the top moderator for both of these community was removed. !world@lemmy.world has had 3 different top moderators removed to this date, and the previous two times this happened was utter chaos, which is why I requested to step in this time.

And yes, US news, which has an impact on the world, should be worldnews as well. As long it’s not Internal US news, and placed with a correct country tag or title( like some suggested)

We will try to clearly define "internal US news" vs "US news" to leave no ambiguity then.

I would like to address your concerns. The audience here is very much US centric, so that even with the current rule change, I don't expect the content and culture here to drastically change overnight. In fact, I would still very much expect US politics to be fairly dominant here in the near future.

And rest assured, we would not want the antagonism here to increase either.

Given the removal of the US only restriction here, I am hoping that we can use !politics@lemmy.world as a place that allows for analysis and op-eds, and keep !world@lemmy.world as the place that does not allow op-eds and focus solely on world news.

https://lemmy.world/post/10066374

This article which is US news has been here for a day. I don't really see the reasoning for the restriction to US News away from World News on Lemmy, since lemmy.ml allows US News on !worldnews@lemmy.ml, and the community was not overran by US news.

Non-clickbait title is harder to enforce, because it is very much a "know it when you see it" type. I'm thinking that we will ask submitters to modify their titles first in these situations instead.

I don't think it is needed, considering !world@lemmy.world is still relatively slow compared to many similar comms, and the latest lemmy.ml's Israel Palestine megathread did not get much traction and sat at 0 comments for a very long time.

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world would be good.

I can assure you that I was not and am not a LW admin.

I can only speak for myself, and all I can say about that is I do live in the US.

Again, I would like to try something different here, which is also the reason we're also testing removing the US only requirement for !politics@lemmy.world, since it never made sense to me that our communities should be so US centric politics-wise when our instance and a great number of our admins are in Europe.

Link is already changed to suggestion in the comments.

To address your points.

I think there should be a good justification for all of our rules. LW isn't US based, many on the admin team are not even native English speakers, I see no good justification for us to restrict ourselves to US politics only. Of course, people upvote what they want to see here.

I don't think we will be restricting text posts in the future, I would like to see it being allowed here in general. But changes should be implemented carefully but steadily.

I would like the feedback thread to serve the function of a general meta post on our moderation style. We're all human, we make mistakes, but acknowledging them and correct them quickly would be our goal.

I see thoughtful, factual comments with double digit negative scores.

I see short, factually incorrect comments highly rewarded for asserting as facts, things that are unlikely and unproven

Unfortunately, this is really a community cultural issue inherited from the old site. Karma isn't a thing here, but I do believe the habits formed from having karma to be the root of many toxic behaviors here.

There is no user scoring system here, if your views are unpopular but reasonable, I don't see the need to remove it; the opposite is true, if your comment is upvoted but breaks our community rules, then they will be removed.

I am a strong believer in democracy, but I don't believe in mob rule, so the above is the principle I go by.

Thank you.

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

Noted. I would suggest that you use an archive link in not as a replacement but in addition to the link submission to ensure the article in question can be seen in the future.

I do think we allow different perspectives views to be discussed here, even though they are not views that I necessarily agree with. I tried to only remove comments and ban for what I think crosses the line beyond reasonable discussion into disruption.

There were many comments that were reported to me that I'm not quite sure about removing, but I do believe acting fast is preferable to being indecisive not acting. If you felt that your comment was removed by our error, you can discuss it in the feedback.

I'm open to criticism.

This post was removed for being a video, and not an article.

In the interest of transparency, this post is restored but will be locked. Please discuss if we should revise this rule in our feedback thread.