@KuJoe I think the problem is probably the focus on 'spreading positivity'. It's a very common thing for people to be more subtly transphobic or racist, and then when someone calls it out, *they* are seen as the aggressor who is being "needlessly hostile" and "so negative", while the original bigotry goes unchallenged because it used polite or pseudorational wording.

So it essentially becomes about keeping up an appearance of friendliness, instead of what someone is actually saying or its consequences.

Here's an example of the community rules of a queer community where 'good vibes' is an important goal: https://apothecary.gay/rules/ (and this approach works in practice too)

Instead of phrasing it in terms of positivity (ie. language), it frames it in terms of "being respectful towards others" (ie. intention/impact) and explicitly highlighting the importance of accommodating marginalized folks.

The exact wording doesn't need to be the same of course, but IMO the important takeaway is wording that focuses on intent and consequences, rather than wording that focuses on tone and appearances, so to say.

(An important part of how that policy is implemented over there, is that moderators reach out to community members whose behaviour is unintentionally problematic in some way, to explain the problem and help them find a better way to express themselves - and that obviously bad-faith actors are swiftly ejected)