I almost think this post should be upvoted because of that comment alone, and the possibilities it points to. The interesting thing about it to me is this open

I almost think this post should be upvoted because of that comment alone, and the possibilities it points to. The interesting thing about it to me is this opens a huge swath of "plausible deniability" actions on the part of Reddit administration. For example: 1. Can the admins invoke this rule to say that mods who force a blackout are "not active" and therefore can be replaced? 2. Is it conceivable that admins will spin situations to smear mods doing a blackout? How would we know, if they can delete evidence of what was transpiring beforehand, and much of it would be behind the scenes anyway? To be clear, I am absolutely sure there is a lot of inter-moderator conflict going on right now and have no doubt there are cases of mods blacking out subs against the wishes of other mods. This could certainly be one of those cases (if forced to guess, in fact, my guess it probably is). But at the same time, this sort of comment makes my antennae go up because it points to ways in which the narrative can really be twisted to suit the Reddit admins.