one moderator of !UpliftingNews@lemmy.world here! is it fine if i make a post (and maybe even edit into the itemized-rules post) directing schadenfreuders to your commag?

Your submission in "A bill that would give legal immunity to pesticide companies such as Bayer, the owner of Roundup, was defeated in Tennessee" was removed as schadenfreude (rule a)1).

Your submission in "There are more registered Democrats in 2025 than registered Republicans" was removed as toxic politics (rule b)).

Your submission to !UpliftingNews@lemmy.world has been removed for involving toxic politics (rule b)).

I would’ve removed this post if I saw it earlier. It’s an interesting article (that surprisingly hasn’t been posted anywhere else yet) but it documents another problem in our society, not any sort of progress or resolution. I would remove, say, “The fight to release the double-tap boat strike video” even if we didn’t have the toxic politics rule.

pinging some of the other mods for their thoughts: @NickwithaC@lemmy.world, @sga@piefed.social, @wolfeh@lemmy.world

Could you give some examples?

The article is about something much more sinister than not giving out appropriated money: The administration is now giving out nearly all of the appropriated money, but by paying a termed lump sum to far fewer projects—the only money these projects will ever get for at least four years, paid out in one payment right now, effectively halving the grant money projects receive while simultaneously meeting the obligations to congressional appropriations, decreasing investment in science and research, and preparing to allow for drastic budget cuts to science research next year.

The article explains this much better than I can, complete with visualizations after every sentence since this is _The Upshot _:

In the past, the N.I.H. typically awarded grants in five annual installments. Researchers could request two more years to spend this money, at no cost. Under the new system, the N.I.H. pays up front for four years of work. And researchers can get one more year to spend this money. Which means that they get less money on average, and less time to spend it.

As a result of this quiet policy shift, the average payment for competitive grants swelled from $472,000 in the first half of the fiscal year to over $830,000 in the last two months.

From $472,000–a-year to $830,000–for-four-years, and that’s unadjusted for inflation.

The Conservative government response to a 2016–17 parliamentary petition demanding proportional representation said that "A referendum on changing the voting system was held in 2011 and the public voted overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the FPTP system."[209] Tim Ivorson of the electoral reform campaign group Make Votes Matter responded by quoting the petition's text that "The UK has never had a say on PR. As David Cameron himself said, the AV referendum was on a system that is often less proportional than FPTP, so the rejection of AV could not possibly be a rejection of PR."[210]

I'm hoping it's not just because the outgoing one was controversial. If it is, then I'll probably remove this post since rotation of the Interpol president is bound to, required to happen every four years and it is borderline schadenfreude.

Added rule d) to clarify our current civility policy.

Dang, beat me to it wasted a share 😭