it doesn't seem M7 did either

He gets creative in his recollections. If you doubt me, ask /u/d3rr or others.

If you read the original discussion thread where this all sprouted from, which I had as a citation that /u/AXXA removed, you can see that user on user insults were the primary issue to maintain forum civility. The language was truncated for brevity and maximum civility. We hadn't considered nor discussed low tier subs so additional exception clarifications may be necessary in order for low tier subs to exist. Perhaps this may include concepts like 1) not be on /s/All, 2) keep their low-tier culture within their sub(s), 3) have strong reliable moderation to keep it from becoming a problem for SaidIt in any way, 4) have sidebox/rule requirements, and/or 5) other things. Feel free to recommend ideas to ponder.

Personally, IMO, "leaders" and public figures are always fair game.

So if this is an existing rule it's not being enforced unambiguously, or at all. A clarification implies the enforcement standard will change, or it would be pointless to call out.

This has been a problem for years. This clarification is for the admins as much as the users. I wondered (see that threat linked) whether it was even necessary to call it out, but felt it was worth sharing to get feedback on.

Though I think this is a terrific improvement for SaidIt, the admins, and the users, your concerns are very valid. Most likely you'll not even see any difference in the vast majority of typical SaidIt interactions, but in the fringe cases you'll find a more consistent management when it comes to user conflicts. Your input can help keep things fair.