Dude, what is going on with c/politics these days?!

They're so paranoid about the election not going their way, that they're banning people left and right for practically anything.

I've seen people get banned just because of the communities they moderate! People who don't have a majority-approved opinion are automatically called "trolls."

Is c/politics really that afraid that a small 20K Lemmy community could actually sway an entire election?!

The answer is yes. Yes they are. Hilarious. LMAO

Seems like a reason for a post deletion and a message to the op with the requested edits, not a ban. Also the third person thing makes this very hard to read

Posting the contents of the article in the body or comments is against the rules?

I unironically love it when people do that. Saves a click, saves me from having to go to some trash website. Seems like a win win

Remember seeing the original title, unable to make sense of it after multiple re-reads. Your edit is clear and succinct.

Is there a reason you're referring to yourself in the third person? Seems weird lol.

But, dude, regardless of the ban being overkill or not, you did violate the rules as listed.

Now, how much of that is on you vs being on the vague language of those rules is back to the ban being justified or not. The title change rule is vague as hell, and needs rewriting if they're going to take issue with the degree of editing of the titles for clarity. But you did totally replace the title, no matter the reason for it, so some kind of mod action would be expected. A temp ban seems at the very extreme of appropriate, and even that only if it isn't the first time you've done it, and the rule was clearly written.

If I was to draft the same rule to reflect the application of it here, I would go with "title must match linked site's title if a title exists, which may include clarification, but must follow the original title's structure".

The way they wrote the rule encourages alterations to titles because it starts off directing posters that the post title must describe link content. As written, not drafting descriptive title is out of bounds, so people are going to assume exactly what you did, and come up with their own. Very badly written rule.

The part about not copy/pasting though, you posted enough length that a mod would have to follow the link and read the article to know how much you copied. While it coins be debated whether or not that's part of moderation when you have rules against copying entire articles, it's also not unreasonable to not follow every linked post to see if that's the case. Depends on the volume of posts that include long quoted sections as to whether or not that's a reasonable expectation on the mods.

That rule is well crafted and simple, but should be clarified if they're going to apply actions to copied sections as well, if they're above a certain length. You didn't break the rule as they listed it.

So, it's kind of a fuck up on both ends, with the onus being on the mods for not having their rules as written indicate the way they're going to apply them. You definitely changed the title far beyond what it should have been, but you seem to have done so in good faith based on a badly written rule