In reply to Otto.

@otto, I own my mistakes as well Otto. Unlike what you're saying here, you have the order of my submissions flipped. You also misquoted me in your email.

I wrote one review that was colorful, but was suddenly moderated weeks(?) after the fact. It was pulled with no communication to me, so I tried again. That turned out to be very long review and as far as I can tell there is no formal policy against length itself, but I was chastised for it, multiple times. Nevertheless, I don't think the grounds for moderation itself were overly unreasonably, but I was definitely off-put by how it was communicated. I politely offered to put in a short review instead, you stonewalled. I didn't badger you with insults like the example given here. The impression I get is that you are assuming the worst in people and that leads you, perhaps, to read and misread things as if these people had malice on their minds.

Given that you do arbitrate comments, it's important to be factually correct to be perceived as fair. If you invite people to email you under the guise that you'll give a fair look at it and then proceed to make basic reading mistakes while mischaracterising words and putting words in people's mouths, it makes your invitation for people to email you look disingenuous.

Lots of people want to speak their minds on Gutenberg and want to be heard. Labeling it all as toxicity and horribleness does not help the Gutenberg transition. Given that the overarching theme around Gutenberg is about people's concerns being disregarded, the perception that reviews are being taken down aggressively does not engender trust with those people.