It's not fun interacting with them when they often want to engage in ad hominems. This is why I have no interest in the tankie triad.
You could potentially enforce more respectful discussions there.
I actually lean more towards the side of "let the people talk." Some direct personal insults I feel like are maybe worth keeping away (I read this comment and was going to voice my agreement but then when I got to the "moron" part that instantly made me conclude, welp buddy, that's not productive). Mostly though I think the main asset of an alternative mod feedback community is that the dbzer0 admins are fine doing deletions and bans from YPTB for various reasons including "trying to stir up instance drama over our genAI policies, which are not up for debate." UP-FOR-DEBATING THE POLICIES IS LITERALLY THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY. But, as soon as someone comes into it and disagrees with the dbzer0 admins on some issue, they often decide it is some particular category of not allowed debate, and ban the person.
There are some other examples on that page that to me are equally stupid, but that one takes the cake to me. If I were to make a competing YPTB community, I think that's the most important rule I would change, personal attacks being allowed or not is a lot less crucial than that to me.