Perhaps a little less animosity is appropriate in this case. While I agree with you, I completely empathize with OP. It is well known that the rules on reddit subs (especially default subs) are draconic to the point of oppressive and ridiculous (some even requiring that you read a flippin' wiki). That combined with how the large news and politics subs on reddit are compromised away from open and free discussion (note I did not say "free speech") and people are extremely against such things as large numbers or reddit-style rules.
Now that said, shame on OP for not recognizing how it was handled and for using anarchy dressed as free speech. This is entirely his own pride and... what is the phrase? "Butthurt"?
Yeah I came off a bit too strongly there. Although this was a pretty minor infraction. Regardless I think it was handled appropriately.
I definitely see where you're coming from about the Reddit level of rules. But I'm also tired of people losing their mind when any basic rule is enforced.
It should be kept in mind but it also needs to be kept in check otherwise people will come in and scream about it in order to divide the userbase, attacks mods, control the channels of speech. The only people who would be against feeling out the right balance would be people who are either extremely free speech or anti-free speech. You're going to have to ignore the polar extremes and make some common sense stuff and then stick with it, saving your responses to such discussions when someone finally makes a good point for you to consider. Ignore everything else.
No offense, but why can't someone change a headline, especially if the headline is clickbaity BS to begin with, but the article is interesting, as the poster of the article, MY interpretation of the headline could be used to better convey the purpose of the post to garner more feedback.
If people are responding to headlines, and not the article, then that means the publisher's POV is considered "correct", while the layman is considered "null and void." As a place for people to discuss things, shouldn't it be the OTHER way around?
In something like 99% of subs that would be totally acceptable. I myself often include the answer to clickbait titles in parenthesis. I specifically use the parenthesis to highlight my own addition. Occasionally I'll even rewrite the title to be more informative if the author just shat out word salad. But during the instances neither is against the specific sub rules. s/news is a default and consistently one of the largest subs of any forum board. I think the rules should be a bit more strict due to this factor.
My strawman argument for this is that "Because Australia" Could just as easily be "Because Nigs gonna nig" when discussing black crime. In that case someone must judge which editorial is acceptable, where is the line, who should make the call etc. this just snowballs into a whole shit show and I don't think there's many here that truly want to open that can of worms. It's just easiest to put a blanket rule in place like this and enforce it. That way everyone is treated equally and no one has a precedence to argue about.
My strawman argument for this is that "Because Australia" Could just as easily be "Because Nigs gonna nig"
I don't know if that is a strawman, as it is exactly what you see on voat, so it's not like it is an exaggerated position. But, over there, I know that I don't need to read that article and can continue to peruse past without stopping.
Grow the phuk up. This isn't some stupid off hand rule. This is a clearly stated sub rule that's there for an obvious reason, so that no one misrepresents or straight up lies about the article.
You're not being persecuted for the mod adhering to the handful of side bar rules.
If you want absent mods and no rules in the subs, go back to the lawlessness of voat.
Furthermore, you got a fucking warning, not a deletion. So get down off your soapbox of outrage.