This is to reduce the amount of harassment our moderators receive for rejecting the worst of the worst contributions, but also so they don't have to spend their valuable time responding to an user that will reapply for an another review on his every contribution regardless of the feedback.
If the policy is to address a specific problem it should be tailored to that situation, not a blanket change in the expectation that affects everyone. For example:
Moderators will reject without comment submissions from anyone who has been warned twice for flagrant rule breaking or harassing the moderation team.
The above creates no ambiguity for rule-abiding users while addressing the problem. It is transparent and achieves the same end in about the same amount effort. Everyone knows what's expected of them, including moderators.
@ewuoso 's suggestion of providing a bot or shared account to anonymize rejections is also a good one.
Moreover, for the rewards/curation platform to be decentralized moderators should not be rejecting borderline cases that one moderator sees as "barely too bad to be voted." Moderators have been centrally assigned an overriding amount of influence. The rewards are only decentralized if they use this influence with extreme restraint.
Thank you for extensive feedback. As @elear has already pointed out, we'll make this a bit more clear and encourage our moderators to leave solid feedback every time.
We want to move away from "accepted", "rejected" and the scoring process in these comments, but we want to make sure they contain reasonable and detailed feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the contribution.
These comments are going to act as a guidance to improve yourself and the contribution (which could also lead to identifying scoring mistakes), rather than as an information of "Will I get paid?" which is not something we stand for.
Thank you for looking out for us. You just changed Utopian for better!