Ok, so it seems that bans by admins don’t show up on the modlog after two days. There wasn’t anything that indicated the auto-filtering so it’s sort of a black box scenario, and it sort of defeats the purpose of the modlog if you have to know the event you are looking for to begin with.
Regarding it being “federated”, I can find InternetTubes both on lemmy.world and lemmy.ml, but lemmy.world’s modlog also shows that kbin.social/InternetTubes has been banned YET lemmy.ml’s modlog doesn’t show it, so the claim that all that is modlog is federated seems sort of iffy.
Now that you are here, as an admin of the instance, can you say anything else about the ban versus what the user is claiming, or is it supposed to be left to speculation?
Regarding it being “federated”, I can find InternetTubes both on lemmy.world and lemmy.ml, but lemmy.world’s modlog also shows that kbin.social/InternetTubes has been banned YET lemmy.ml’s modlog doesn’t show it, so the claim that all that is modlog is federated seems sort of iffy.
So my “claim” is “iffy”, ok. Any Lemmy admin can tell you there are issues with the code. And why would an action from LW purposely be removed from the modlog on lemmy.ml?
You can’t convince me that you’re not internettubes yourself btw. You started posting as soon as Internettubes was banned and the few conversations you join is about the ban.
Now that you are here, as an admin of the instance, can you say anything else about the ban versus what the user is claiming, or is it supposed to be left to speculation?
What’s not clear? The user publicly said they did not agree to the TOS so they got removed. If you don’t agree during signup your account will be locked as well.
And why would an action from LW purposely be removed from the modlog on lemmy.ml?
Are you asking me why instances who might want to abuse their power might not propagate certain actions to other instances so they aren’t as visible? Or why it might seem like a bug when attempts at removal don’t seem to work out? I’m not accusing you, but these are valid concerns lemmy has to face.
But yeah, f it’s “bad server code” and not actually federated when bugs occur, there’s not much of a point to claiming they are. So far I don’t see that there might have been willing intent to screw with the modlog as the original complaint suggested, but it shouldn’t be left up to good faith. If it’s supposed to be federated, it should be. If everything isn’t getting federated, it should be clear what isn’t. If the modlog isn’t displaying everything, it should be clear when it isn’t. As of now, to anyone who can’t bother to look at the code, it’s a black box and it’s clear that the modlogs between servers aren’t lining up the same.
The user publicly said they did not agree to the TOS so they got removed.
Where did the user say they did not agree with the TOS? No point in not citing the original comment that was archived, because there’s no point there at which it does. It only contains criticism in a thread made by admins saying they were open to criticism. The closest it comes to not agreeing with the TOS is the criticism here:
“You waive Lemmy.World … from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities.” - I see many lawyers try to sneak this one, but there are very few courts that wouldn’t allow me to file a claim even with this under a Terms of Service I haven’t even had to explicitly indicate I agree with if, say, lemmy.world decided to violate my GDPR protections because censors in China didn’t like a comment I made about Tiananmen Square, requested my personal private data lemmy.world has on me, and they decided to give it to them.
But at least thanks for opening up on that. Is it also true that you haven’t contacted them or responded to them directly either?
You can’t convince me that you’re not internettubes yourself btw. You started posting as soon as Internettubes was banned and the few conversations you join is about the ban.
Considering how little it took for a user to get their entire user account purged and banned, I’m not sure why you would consider it surprising that anyone else who raises an eyebrow wouldn’t want to risk any previous account they made.
It’s a testament that you haven’t banned this account already from the instance given how you treated the original user, but it still seems like hunting around for an excuse, like maybe being able to apply the label of “ban evasion” like that you gave kbin.social/InternetTubes, just to dismiss criticism.
You and AvaddonLFC certainly seem to know each other personally and are the two most active admins on the instance, so if I do seem to be pushing this, it’s because I am definitely concerned about making any considerable amount of contributions over a considerable degree of time only to have it deleted or removed with a complete and utter disregard.
I’d rather face the problem sooner rather than later. Allowing it or not saying anything about it is basically allowing a way to gaslight and remove the reputation a user might have built up over time to one where it’s just a random claim versus a position of seniority. I’ll give you that I am one of the few people who seems to care about the issue, so I probably won’t be returning to my lemmy.world account, at least not without a VPN proxy and a separate VM instance.
Ok, so it seems that bans by admins don’t show up on the modlog after two days. There wasn’t anything that indicated the auto-filtering so it’s sort of a black box scenario, and it sort of defeats the purpose of the modlog if you have to know the event you are looking for to begin with.
Regarding it being “federated”, I can find InternetTubes both on lemmy.world and lemmy.ml, but lemmy.world’s modlog also shows that kbin.social/InternetTubes has been banned YET lemmy.ml’s modlog doesn’t show it, so the claim that all that is modlog is federated seems sort of iffy.
Now that you are here, as an admin of the instance, can you say anything else about the ban versus what the user is claiming, or is it supposed to be left to speculation?
So my “claim” is “iffy”, ok. Any Lemmy admin can tell you there are issues with the code. And why would an action from LW purposely be removed from the modlog on lemmy.ml?
You can’t convince me that you’re not internettubes yourself btw. You started posting as soon as Internettubes was banned and the few conversations you join is about the ban.
What’s not clear? The user publicly said they did not agree to the TOS so they got removed. If you don’t agree during signup your account will be locked as well.
Lol you’re really working overtime to defend the utter bullshit your instance calls moderation standards
Are you asking me why instances who might want to abuse their power might not propagate certain actions to other instances so they aren’t as visible? Or why it might seem like a bug when attempts at removal don’t seem to work out? I’m not accusing you, but these are valid concerns lemmy has to face.
But yeah, f it’s “bad server code” and not actually federated when bugs occur, there’s not much of a point to claiming they are. So far I don’t see that there might have been willing intent to screw with the modlog as the original complaint suggested, but it shouldn’t be left up to good faith. If it’s supposed to be federated, it should be. If everything isn’t getting federated, it should be clear what isn’t. If the modlog isn’t displaying everything, it should be clear when it isn’t. As of now, to anyone who can’t bother to look at the code, it’s a black box and it’s clear that the modlogs between servers aren’t lining up the same.
Where did the user say they did not agree with the TOS? No point in not citing the original comment that was archived, because there’s no point there at which it does. It only contains criticism in a thread made by admins saying they were open to criticism. The closest it comes to not agreeing with the TOS is the criticism here:
But at least thanks for opening up on that. Is it also true that you haven’t contacted them or responded to them directly either?
Considering how little it took for a user to get their entire user account purged and banned, I’m not sure why you would consider it surprising that anyone else who raises an eyebrow wouldn’t want to risk any previous account they made.
It’s a testament that you haven’t banned this account already from the instance given how you treated the original user, but it still seems like hunting around for an excuse, like maybe being able to apply the label of “ban evasion” like that you gave kbin.social/InternetTubes, just to dismiss criticism.
You and AvaddonLFC certainly seem to know each other personally and are the two most active admins on the instance, so if I do seem to be pushing this, it’s because I am definitely concerned about making any considerable amount of contributions over a considerable degree of time only to have it deleted or removed with a complete and utter disregard.
I’d rather face the problem sooner rather than later. Allowing it or not saying anything about it is basically allowing a way to gaslight and remove the reputation a user might have built up over time to one where it’s just a random claim versus a position of seniority. I’ll give you that I am one of the few people who seems to care about the issue, so I probably won’t be returning to my lemmy.world account, at least not without a VPN proxy and a separate VM instance.