I'm not here to object to your decision, as I mentioned earlier. I've done this numerous times with Godot's toxic leadership, this is futile.
However, I wanted to say that rules can often be adapted to be more tolerable; you have the power to modify them. I'd like to point out that some other communities handle controversies more tolerantly and avoid reacting defensively. My reference isn't limited to the video, but rather to Cybereality's post. The act of labeling something as allegedly defamatory could also be qualified as defamation, as you could be damaging Cybereality's own reputation if what he says is actually true, even in part. It goes both ways. However, the determination of defamation is usually governed by the laws and regulations of specific countries or legal jurisdictions. Until such determination is made, everything should remain open to discussion. Rules that stifle the raising of concerns and the questioning of leadership decisions, which are frequently negative in nature, lead to authoritarian communities. Forums say that spreading so-called negativity is disallowed. The problem is that virtually anything can be labeled as negativity, for example, as insinuations. The reality of life is that we have negativity that we must talk about. Disallowing this aspect proliferates the growth of echo chambers.
Nonetheless, the ultimate decision rests with you. I believe that Godot inherently leans towards an authoritarian stance, making the current rules in alignment with what happens in the Godot community. For instance, I'm uncertain whether initiating a discussion about Godot's censorship practices, supported by facts, would be permissible on this forum. My impression is that the Godot community is unlikely to undergo change. When engaging within the unofficial Godot forums (this community), individuals anticipate more flexible interactions as a means to express any concerns they might have.
If words of dissent have such power, to the point of potentially dismantling the entire project, this inevitably prompts a question about the fundamental worth of Godot. Not only its identity as a community but also its status as an open-source project. It's imperative to delve into whether the project's resilience and legitimacy can withstand the scrutiny of dissent, casting a spotlight on the project's overall robustness and its ability to embrace diverse perspectives while still thriving. Prove that Godot deserves to be adopted by the game development industry by challenging claims made by dissenters, or at least don't make it look like they are right by deleting what they have to say about the project.
I hope you treat the above as a piece of friendly advice since you're the new forum owner, along with your company, and I'd personally like to see a more tolerant community, not only in Godot but elsewhere. The younger generation tends to engage in conversations here, and they may wrongly conclude that it's fine to be silent while witnessing wrongdoings, which is false because not saying what one has to say is equivalent to lying by omission. That's how totalitarianism thrives. This is a fundamental issue. I hope you share democratic values.
No need to reply to this post. Thanks for reading.
