I don't like the wording of 'zero tolerance policy' about racism, sexism, etc. It can easily be interpreted by misogynists to allow bans for shit like 'misandry' or 'reverse racism'. The wording in the AOP is much better:

Oppression is defined as any language or action that expresses, reinforces, upholds or sympathizes with any form of systemic social domination, including but not limited to: eugenics, patriarchy, cisnormativity, white supremacy, heteronormativity, capitalism, etc...

Notice how it uses more specific words like patriarchy or cisnormativity instead of words like racism or sexism that don't specify what direction the oppression goes.

---

In addition, the /r/anarchism community has a "no personal attacks" rule. Debate is encouraged, but angry rants about other users are not. We understand that sometimes following this rule can be difficult, but if someone is breaking the code of conduct, don’t call them names, please report it instead!

This is a bad rule. People are going to be angry at bigots who come here, they should be able to express that. I see no problem with people calling bigots names or yelling at them. Telling targets of bigotry that they have to be nice to the bigots targeting them is one of the worst things you can do. It's tone policing. This rule makes it so that you can be banned for being mean to fascists. Any type of rule like this that doesn't take into account axes of oppression is going to help trolls as much as hurt them.

---

Personal attacks and trolling are afforded two warnings before one week temporary bans are instituted, with repeated infractions subject to longer bans.

Why does this have a long specific series of actions whereas other rules are up to moderator discretion? I don't like these sort of guidelines because there's different levels of personal attacks and trolling that warrant different levels of moderation.

---

Wherever possible, offending users should be directed to /r/anarchy101 or similar subs for education, which holds true for user bans as well.

This only really makes sense in cases where the user is an anarchist or socialist who said some bigoted stuff but would be willing to learn.

---

you are not currently banned from /r/anarchism (an exception is made for voting in proposals directly concerning you)

I don't think there should be exceptions like this. It should be the rest of the community deciding even if it does concern them.

---

ban and unban proposals will not be considered until

1. 48 hours has passed.

2. they have received at least 15 votes total.

In cases of an obvious troll or bigot I don't think we should wait that long. Just remove them and let the voting continue for the 48 hour period. I also think that requiring 15 votes to ban someone is ridiculous. A lot of bans aren't voted on because everyone knows they're being banned anyway. This is way too much for a simple ban. Maybe something like 4 or 5 votes would be reasonable.

---

proposals that change important rules or the nature of the subreddit will not be considered until

1. 72 hours has passed.

2. they have received at least 15 votes total.

3. if the first two conditions have been satisfied, then these proposals are linked in /r/anarchism for an additional 72 hours of voting.

I don't mind a longer vote period for important votes, but 6 days is too long. I also don't like the requirement for linking it on /r/Anarchism. Just make it 72 hours with linking in /r/Anarchism being up to moderator discretion depending on how important the rule changes are.

---

identical or very similar proposals must not be made, unless:

1. three months has passed since the previous proposal.

2. there is significant new information.

3. repeated abuse of this rule will result in a permanent ban from both subreddits.

I don't like this rule, especially when combined with the requirements for number of votes above. There could be a vote to ban a fascist, but their ban thread only gets 14 votes, then they'd be free to post fascist propaganda for another 3 months before they can be banned again.

---

Your 'rule convention' is way too complicated and elaborate. It has the same problem with the 2 72 hour periods that the I mentioned above. I also don't see the need for a difference between an 'important rule change' and these. Just allow people to make rule change proposals whenever they want like we do now.

first, a "rules convention" must be opened. rules conventions can only be held if one has not taken place in the last 6 months, and like other proposals, attempts to open a convention can only be made every 3 months

Having a several month requirements between them doesn't allow us to respond quickly if something comes up.

once a rules convention has been opened, the user who created the proposal receives the "speaker's position". this position is subject to the following rules:

1. the speaker's position allows a user and only that user to create rules change proposals.

2. the speaker's position allows a user to choose to close the rules convention.

3. the speaker's position may be transferred to another user upon the conclusion (i.e success or failure) of a rules change proposal, but only at that time.

Rule changes should be much more collaborative than this. Limiting proposals to a single person for up to almost a week is a bad idea. Generally this 'rule convention' seems like a lot of trouble for nothing.