Rule 7 of !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com is:

No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can’t control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.

I think a community with an ideology is a fine thing, and rules that prevent people with opposing ideologies from taking over the conversation are a good idea. FlipAnarchy's rules 3, 4, and 6 are well designed to accomplish this goal and I like them. And I've even taken a little inspiration from lemmy.dbzer0.com when I designed My instance's rule 2, which limits authoritarianism on the site, sometimes in a way that ruffles outsiders' jimmies - I once got a 2 day ban from .ca for reporting a screenshot of a post by someone named "princess". I was marking the post for later deletion because we don't want content from hereditary monarchist users, and the .ca admins didn't get it. My anarchism was a bit too radical for them to understand.

Anyway, FlipAnarchy rule 3 targets "right-wing" and "anarcho-capitalist" posts. Good, these are well-defined labels for ideological opponents to anarchism. Rule 4 targets "redfash", which is a lot looser, but fortunately comes with a well-reasoned explanation why tankies are not welcome. Rule 6 warns people who aren't "anarchist", and again we have some well designed rules here, very clear on who they're aimed at.

Rule 7 is a bit different. The tone of this rule is a lot angrier than the rest, and it being the last, it's easy to imagine that it was written in haste after the community mod became frustrated by posts that didn't break the rules, but weren't welcome. I think it's time to give this rule another pass to polish it up to the same spec as the other rules.

Sentence A of this rule is pretty clear, so far off to a good start.

Sentence B... is where it all goes wrong. It's saying no shaming people for anti-electoralism should be obvious based on rule 6, which says it's an anarchist community. But I'm an anarchist and I don't see how this rule is obvious. I think there's a lot of ongoing debate between anarchists about when voting is appropriate and necessary. Sentence B continues by calling everyone who breaks this rule a "turbolib".

Sentence C says "you have the rest of lemmy to moralize", but who is "you"? Is it the turbolibs? Are anarchists allowed to moralize on this community? Are they allowed to moralize if they disagree with db0's personal opinion?

This rule reads as angry, and defensive, and targeted at a particular idea of a rulebreaker in the moderator's head. What are the boundaries of the rule as they apply to people who don't fit this idea? Anarchists like Myself, who are not electoralist, but are pro-voting? Unclear until we see the rule in action.

So let's see the rule in action.

Removed Comment You've got to be kidding me. The fact that an anarchist sub moderated by a libertarian socialist has that rule is really shameful and embarrassing.
by Guy Ingonito@reddthat.com
reason: Rule 7

This Guy doesn't look like a "turbolib" to Me, they look like a fellow anarchist annoyed by the way this rule appears to insult them.

Removed Comment "Dems never learn! That's why we need to withhold our vote to teach them a lesson!" by PugJesus@lemmy.world
reason: Rule 7

Okay, I know PugJesus, and he's no turbolib. He leans centrist on gender issues, but he's also done a lot to oppose redfash ideology on Lemmy and PieFed, he has a clear understanding of communist ideology and would seem to be exactly the sort this community should welcome.

Banned
TrickDacy
@lemmy.world
from the community Flippanarchy
reason: Too many rule 7 violations to deal with manually

TrickDacy moderates !fuck_ai@lemmy.world, a very radical community.

Removed Post Communists vs Tankies on voting
reason: Rule 7

Well surely a post that portrays communists and tankies as ideologically opposed must be anarchist! I refuse to believe the OP of this is a turbolib! (it Me)

I'm cherry-picking, to be sure. There are plenty of instances of this rule in action where the target was someone who I would be willing to agree is indeed a turbolib, even if I wouldn't personally use that wording. But this rule isn't just for them, it's also for anarchists who simply don't agree with db0 on the best way forward in our current political situation. And we've got Marx quotes to back us up and everything, if you really need to test our ideological purity.

So this rule should be changed in one of two ways: It should either be reworded to stop insulting anarchists and make it clear that this is a point the moderator is unwilling to compromise on, OR it should be revised to only target neoliberals, and allow us anarchists to speak freely on this debate.

Until one of those two changes is made, the rule is currently abusing moderator authority to present a personal opinion, controversial within the community, as the only truth of anarchism. And that's not very anarchist.