we’re outside the scope of this particular thread.

I’m not sure if others mind, I understood the OP as an invitation to thoroughly discuss the topic. But I think we’re pretty much in consensus anyways.

The main ideas in my head were to avoid constant defederations the second one problematic community pops up as was the case in our own recent the_donald incident. If my understanding of events was right, one or two users joined up and created a community, and by the time our own admin team removed the community (and I believe those member accounts) some other instances were either talking about or had actually defederated us. I don’t know if throwing away a baby every time you notice some bath water like that is healthy for the fediverse; I think that’s what blocking individual users or communities as members is there for.

Agreed, this would be too early for defederation, a too low threshold. I think we generally agree about what should be done. At this point, it revolves around what the right wording is to express the idea. Or at which scale of the spectrum from ‘hardly noticable’ to ‘it’s everywhere’ a defederation would be appropriate.

I think #1 in the second section covers the case of “It started out as a cat memes instance but the admin isn’t enforcing their rules about spam bots.”

You’re right, sorry I forgot about that when writing my comment.

I do think you have a point about divorcing intent from behavior though; if for no other reason than to deny ammunition to the incessant whatabouters that seem to swarm around topics like this.

Thanks. Yes, that’s also something to keep in mind. Maybe it isn’t too wise to lay out the rules too strict and explicit. They will game it. So again it is about striking a balance between ‘we simply do what we find reasonable without any reasons given’ and ‘here are the exact rules by which we defederate’ (aka a detailed guide how to avoid it while still doing your thing).