You are committing a fallacy by trying to hold an entire community to the same standards as the moderators. Mostly because you act like it is one clumped up entity

Showing they don't like a rule in a constructive manner?

This happens more regularly than I feel you are giving credit on /r/LoM. I see a fair amount of threads setting up a legitimate criticism against the main subreddit's rules. If you mean on the main subreddit that just comes with the territory of managing over ~850k users. I guess my main issue with listing this is a problem just gives those on the other side an easy argument, that (some) moderators don't defend a rule in a productive manner or at all. Any discussion about a rule is met with a "No.", we decide whats best not you, because we said so etc. That's fine but if the community is held to the standard that they have defend their position constructively then the same should absolutely be said about those on the other end of the spectrum. Personally I support both sides defending their position constructively, not just one or the other.

When a rule happens, very few people look around and try to figure out why the rule exists, and when mods try to explain, they get DOWNVOTED. DOWNVOTED, PEOPLE.

I was very happy to see that the first rule removal due to community feedback happened recently, the removal of the flawed "Riot Pls" list. However it took over a year for the first rule to be removed even with plenty of well reasoned complaints about other rules on this sub. The burden to argue that you want a rule removed is so much higher than getting one added, hence the unproportional amount added versus the amount removed. I already know the argument that rules will not be removed if there aren't valid arguments but that is my point, I have seen many strong arguments against certian rules that still remain. In fact I saw a lot of the same criticisms of the "Riot Pls" rule on this sub half a year ago or more, but it took until now for that to change.