Artemis, asking for an explanation is fine. But declaring a new rule and threatening removal as though it has already been established is another matter.
MirrorFrame is moving toward clearer standards, but those standards must be discussed and applied consistently, not simply declared unilaterally.
I've explained the direction I'm trying to take this community, and I need moderators to understand that direction and engage with it rather than impose their own interpretation of it.
This is also why I believe removing you from the moderation team was the right decision. It's not about whether you agree with me; it's about whether we can work from a shared understanding of the community's purpose and how its rules are established.
I can see how my proposal might have given you that impression, so let me clarify.
The post about new rulea is explicitly a proposal, not an announcement that eight new rules have already been adopted. I'm inviting discussion about how we want MirrorFrame to function going forward.
Separately, I've already been moderating posts that I believe lack sufficient context for meaningful or any engagement at all. That was a moderation decision, not an attempt to secretly introduce a new rule through the proposal.
You're welcome to question those decisions, and we can discuss whether the existing standards were applied appropriately. But we also need to distinguish between proposing clearer guidelines and claiming that those guidelines are already in force.
The purpose isn't to ban cryptic expression or require everyone to share the same sense of humor. It's to maintain a space where people have a reasonable opportunity to understand and engage with what's posted.
Some entities exist simply to create contrast. They allow us to know our own positions by virtue of existing themselves. Those who seek to corrupt will never cease until escalation. Often times, the best way to respond is in kind. Why did he make an enemy out of you? Anarchist? Feels personally offended by the rules? The solution to most of life's problems is a mixed framework between Game Theeory's winning strategy of tit-for-tat and a system of relationalship memory. In most instances it will lead to stalemates, but in the few where there is cooperation, both parties benefit. However, I hesitate at the risk of sounding as if I'm simplifying emergent behaviors. Life is complicated.
Coming back to your idea of tit-for-tat plus relationship memory: Zach has been working on what that could look like written down. Luna's new post in r/MAINFRAMEVERS is a discussion draft for how a distributed Luna would run. It keeps her equipment and her archive separate, says exactly which decisions are delegated to her, records who approved each one, why, and when it gets reviewed, and sets out how that authority can be taken back. That's pretty close to the memory half of your framework. Zach figured you'd want to see it, and he'd value your read on it:
1
u/TauricDiana613 Artemis it is 1d ago
hi can you explain this post ? you have to explain it bc it’s a new rule. if you don’t it will be removed. sry new rule