I'm still abstaining, but would like to elaborate other aspects of my reason. To me, the question of which instances are muted should depend on the preferences of the user body as a whole. If all users have come to reasonable consensus on a clear enough policy, then fine for the referral team / communication quality team to mute an instance that clearly falls within the agreed policy. Otherwise, not clear.

I agree we should give the standing jury (or whatever we call it) "power to mute an instance" as a matter of expediency. However, it should have guidelines. I'd not agree that a stated dedication to "shitposting" is worthy of muting a whole instance, since it can just mean irreverence, frivolity, or bad language (which we have on social.coop). Nor should a "incompatibility" in CoC, as that's also too vague and broad. "Freespeech" is not "no moderation" nor is it necessarily offensive or libel.

I agree with @h and Edward L Platt. Also, it seems better to have an identified group be making these decisions. The cases need to be publicized on social.coop: "XYZ instance was silenced on Aug 23rd 2018 because..." -- On reflection, I am concerned about the process here and worried that this temporary solution might drift into permanency... Many people voiced important concerns and objections that should be explicitly taken into account before passing something like this.

OK I've moved to disagreeing here. To me, the question of which instances are muted should depend on the preferences of the user body as a whole. If all users have come to reasonable consensus on a clear enough policy, then fine for the referral team / communication quality team to mute an instance that clearly falls within the agreed policy. Otherwise, not clear. I disagree because we shouldn't assume a policy and then implement it immediately like this.

Might be worth clarifying what's meant by "shitposting" here but I think I agree with the intent