So, I saw a report from one of my users. They reported:
https://ponder.cat/post/1594852/1813842
For the reason:
Unreasonable fighting with everyone in every simple post
I think that’s ridiculous, so I talked with them about it. Posting private communications is frowned upon I guess, but long story short, they weren’t receptive. I’ve decided to ban the account.
IMO the general culture on Lemmy is that users are entitled to their free account and everyone needs to be careful and circumspect about limiting that entitlement in any way, but I don’t see it that way. I don’t think it’s a requirement for me to provide hosting space for anyone who wants to use my stuff as a jumping-off point for abuse of Lemmy’s systems, and isn’t apologetic or receptive when I talk with them about not doing that. The fact that it’s in service of harassing FlyingSquid in particular is just icing on the cake, since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all (with this as an example).
AITA?
I often agree with your positions on various things, Phil, at least to the extent that it seems that we’re operating from a similar point of reference. That said, and in light of the nature of the private communications remaining private (as it should), there’s only one conclusion that seems fitting.
PTB.
One instance of anything hardly seems like grounds for a ban. Repeat behavior certainly could justify that action, but in the absence of any pattern it seems like an overreach. There might well be further justification for a ban based on the direct messages; but, as you’re submitting your own action for analysis, the only fair way to evaluate is on the grounds of what we are directly privy to. Anything else has to be viewed as simply your biased interpretation of the private conversation.
In the circumstance you describe the onus on the user is not to be “receptive or apologetic” to you in the private conversation, only to correct their usage of the report system. As presented, it reads as if they were banned because they did not show adequate respect for your authority, which is clear PTBehavior. Further, you attempt to bolster your point by painting Squid, a user who loves to try to win bad-take arguments by referring to their own mod status in other communities (essentially a PTB themselves), as undeserving of ire despite an extensive history of spinning out, losing the thread, and generally being a dick when it happens. Carrying water for someone who comes across as power-trippy does little to shift perception of your own actions away from that mark.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
The POV that banning for one report is a big overreach makes perfect sense to me. I talked about it a little bit below, you can search for “clear pattern” to see.
It wasn’t that they were unapologetic. I’ve actually had people have hostile disagreements with me in communities I moderate, and it didn’t even occur to me until later that I had some kind of power not to “get talked to that way” or disrespected or w/e. That kind of thing doesn’t bother me except very occasionally. The issue was that this person refused to back up their reasons for wanting mod action against FS, and rejected my request to not use the report function that way. I do feel like someone needs to be receptive to someone asking them “I consider this against the rules, please don’t do it on my server.” Of course I was less polite than that. Also, maybe I am biased because of course my rules make perfect sense but someone else’s might not, if I’m on their server and the roles are reversed. That’s just how I see it though.
This whole thing of being officially a person with authoritah is new to me, hence posting here to ask about it. I take seriously the discussion about it, even if I might not agree with individual POVs or sound like I’m rejecting anyone who’s trying to tell me I did wrong.
Further, you attempt to bolster your point by painting Squid, a user who loves to try to win bad-take arguments by referring to their own mod status in other communities (essentially a PTB themselves)
Maybe. In the little bit I’ve observed about FlyingSquid, it looks like they tend to get tangled up in long intense arguments which maybe they don’t need to get tangled up in. That’s sure not ideal, but it doesn’t make them a bad person or a power-tripper. I think there was one time several months ago when they noted to someone they were in a long argument with that the person had a habit of breaking the community rules in some other posts, also, and now everyone keeps referring back to that one time as an example of how FS is terrible and threatened to ban the person just because they were disagreeing.
I’ve just noticed that there are all these disparate attempts to get FS banned, removed from mod status, and similar things, and when I looked into the “why” of them they tended to boil down to not that much of consequence. So I have sort of a hair trigger now for something along the lines of “okay THIS comment was perfectly fine but we all KNOW that this person is bad, because they are, and anything they say needs a moderator to step in and remove it,” which to me is harassment unless the person’s done something absolutely truly reprehensible. If someone is being awful all the time, just report the awful comments, they should be pretty easy to find.
Is it a coincidence your username acronym is PTB? because I don’t think this comm has been around as long as that username.
Sometimes, the universe just needs to provide its input on some kind of situation, and there’s not going to be a thing that you or I or anybody can do to stop it from voicing its opinion.
We’ve reached the next level peeps. Mods pre-emptively opening YPTB posts about their own actions! 😈
Don’t know that I would’ve banned someone for a single report, even if it was nonsensical. Sometimes, people have a bad day, and aren’t thinking clearly.
Generally I’m quick with the banhammer about positions (ie genocide deniers o u t), but reluctant about attitudes. As someone who is miserable and tetchy myself, I know all about what it’s like to snap - even at someone I don’t like - and overstep the boundaries of good taste, norms, or constructive participation in a community.
BPR, I guess? I probably would’ve told them to fuck off, but a ban might’ve been an overreaction.
At the same time, operating on your gut to keep a place clean is often necessary to maintain your sanity. There are only so many hours in the day, and only so much energy you can spend reasoning or enduring people.
I dunno, man.
Yeah, I can see that. That’s why I posted here.
Everyone draws their lines in slightly different places. I’m actually probably a lot more tolerant than most about “banned” points of view, or someone just being abrasive one day, since I do the same (on both counts). As long as at the end of the day they’re open for some form of open communication about it. Explicitly rejecting the social contract or using Lemmy’s buttons in a way they’re not designed for, taking up moderators’ time for frivolous stuff and refusing to stop when asked, explicitly rejecting the idea of backing up your reason for attacking someone when asked, I have a lot shorter fuse for.
I wouldn’t have banned if they were at all receptive to the DM conversation about it, but as it is, I just didn’t think I was doing anybody including them any favors by saying “Oh okay, keep doing what you’re doing, you are welcome to a place on this network after a short time-out.”
It sounds like most of the conversation we cannot see here, so we’re only seeing your side here. Therefore take what I say with that grain of salt that we cannot evaluate what we do not see.
I would have offered them a warning first. Which, in the DMs, you did?
At that point, don’t worry about it. I will bend over backwards to explain something to someone who’s honestly trying, but if you are correct that they are not merely ignorant but rather obstinate, then I think it was the right call.
The fact that you are willing to be so transparent (with your own side of the conversation at least, which is all that you “own” so please don’t think I’m mocking you here, I respect that) and also to receive correction yourself seals the deal, imho. You thereby protect people from abuse and in turn allow freedom to have discussions when toxic people are kept out of the room - it’s like trying to discuss something when toddlers are screaming underfoot, it just isn’t going to happen, yet it requires effort to carve out those spaces to remain welcoming to have discussions.
The rest is just details: FlyingSquid really can be quite abusive himself at times, though this may not have been one of them, and he is often quite fun to talk to (unless he gets triggered), plus a single report is not itself abuse, etc. I mentioned more in a response to Blaze.
After learning about everything that happened here, personally I would feel more rather than less comfortable making a post or even account on ponder.cat, if that phrasing helps explain what I mean. By keeping toxic people out, you allow space for people to post who otherwise would hesitate to, for fear of the toxicity that so very often results from doing so.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
And yes, it’s weird that you have to take my word for the DM conversation without even being able to refer to the exact text. IDK, that’s the rules of the community, and also I do think it’s a little bit weird to expose private DM communication except in some very specific scenarios, none of which apply here (like if someone else is lying about the content of the communication).
Yup, and I only was dancing around that to be clear that the best we can evaluate here is to say “IF your assessment of those DMs is correct, THEN the conclusion seems warranted to me indeed”.
There’s not an abbreviation for this in the community rules.
It isn’t power tripping fully because the decision was made based on more than a single factor, and they are indeed reasonable rules.
But it is a tad much for a permaban on the first go on your instance. While I agree there are some people that do not give a fuck and stir shit everywhere they go, and I agree that it seems you were dealing with one, a temp ban is the go-to.
Since you can’t/won’t share private communications (and good on you for that), we can only go with what’s available, and a permaban is too far based on only that for a first offense.
If their responses in private were bad enough, that’s a judgement call, and it might change the matter. Since you don’t have a history of wielding the hammer heavily, despite having every right to do so on own instance, I give you the benefit of the doubt as well. A single action does not a power tripper make. It’s about patterns of behavior.
So, the specific action was low grade power tripping, but you aren’t a power tripper.
Now regardless of that, I fully support preemptive bans as a valid tool. Someone has a history of abuse on other instances and communities, and starts the same behavior on another one, it is a valid option. It is, however not an opinion that is held by a majority, and I tend to give my opinion about that less weight here lately. I accept that a lot of people consider that a power trip most of the time. But I think preventing a pattern from forming in the first place is a good thing when done with care.
PTB
I don’t get the ban over one report. Feels Gestapo.
Permaban should be reserved for bots and threat actors IMHO
I think that’s ridiculous, so I talked with them about it.
Well, there’s your problem. One silly report? Reject, don’t think about it again unless the reporting user gets increasingly uppity all on their own. You don’t have to engage with everything (and I am fully aware of the irony of my saying that).
Now, what the user said after that in your private communications may have warranted a “GTFO,” but you’re right to not publish that. It’ll have to be your judgment call there.
I want so badly to post the content of the DM conversation lol
You are correct that the content of the conversation was what tipped the scales in favor of a ban.
One report is not report abuse. And I do often see FS arguing up and down a thread about nothing at all, so the report isn’t off base either. If you think FS’s behavior is inappropriate, you can remove the comments or ban him. If you think it’s appropriate, then you can explain that to the user who reported it. You’re not required to continue that thread, though.
If they continue reporting material that has been identified to them as non-rulebreaking, then that is report abuse and merits a ban.
So, YTPTB I guess?
The report on that comment was totally off base. It wasn’t in any way an argumentative comment. It was reporting a totally innocuous comment because “every” comment by FS is allegedly combative. And, they refused when I asked for some examples of this “every” behavior by FS.
So they knew it was non rulebreaking and reported it anyway. And then, I did explain that to them as you described, and they weren’t into hearing the explanation. Okay, sounds good, guess who else doesn’t have to care what you think, if we’re doing not-listening-to-each-other? This guy.
I would have just stopped responding after explaining why it wasn’t rulebreaking. Like I said, one instance isn’t abuse, continued behavior is.
I won’t analyze this case, but: Abusing the report button is an issue. This forces you to do work to check it, clear it and so on. I can handle the reports in my communities (there are a few), but if I would be getting hundreds of reports every week, I would burn out quickly. People like to shit on mods, but most people don’t know how many batshit insane people there are on the internet and that the best way to have a nice community is to keep them away.
Someone reporting something, you disagreeing with it being a reportable offense, and the user getting banned for it… a single mistake isn’t abuse. If you had explained that doing it again would lead to a ban, and then they did, sure.
There’s literally no way to take this other than PTB. Unless he threatened you in the DM, you’re absolutely the one wrong here.
If they knew that the comment did not break rules but reported it anyway, they were abusing the report function. A ban is arguably too harsh of a punishment, specially since it’s a single event.
So I guess BPR? Potentially TDI (They Deserved It) depending on the DM interaction; if you included some warning and they kept insisting, certainly TDI.
In this case, you were not the target of the reports, it was the community mods I guess?
But if the purposes of the account was trolling and even stalking of a single other account, that would rise to instance admin jurisdiction?
Edit: this is getting so confusing. Here looks to be the banned account. The instance sidebar rules state:
All are welcome to this instance. Please no illegal content, no personal attacks, no misinformation, no bigotry. Other than that, go nuts. Be productive.
Emphasis mine. Where it gets really odd is that the post was to [email protected], and the target account likewise on Lemmy.world, and filing a report is not the same as a “personal attack”. So yeah I see what you mean now. The only reason this report ended up visible was bc it was originally posted by Cat on ponder.cat. However, if I think about how people from Hexbear use Lemmy.ml alt accounts (cough Cowbee cough) to attempt to escape from moderation of posts on other instances, I can see the appeal of an instance admin getting involved.
The banned account makes personal attacks against people all the time - though here, in this case, filing a single report was not itself an “attack”.
Essentially the person was banned for “general vibes” not matching the instance rules, though only noticed in the first place by filing this report.
Precisely. I know it’s a lot to ask since everyone’s volunteers, but I wish more instance admins would do something to address the issue when their users are openly being a pain in the ass. It’s not reasonable to ask every mod to click away an unlimited number of frivolous reports, every user to block every unapologetic asshole, every mod to individually figure out the complete list of who the fight-pickers are, and so on.
Exactly!
Lemmy already has quite the reputation for being a “Nazi bar”. To be clear, not with “actual Nazis”, but as e.g. Wikipedia defines that term:
Nazi bar (plural Nazi bars)
(Internet slang) A space in which bigots or extremists have come to dominate due to a lack of moderation or by moderators wishing to remain neutral or avoid conflict.
By allowing / facilitation of “unlimited free speech” on the internet, we ironically end up with LESS freedom overall, when their freedom to speak trumps my own freedom to not have to listen. Worse, people (myself included) simply shut down rather than speak up when they would have to shout to get past all the noise…
And you are not at all impinging upon the banned person’s freedom to speak… elsewhere, including that same community on Lemmy.World. You are simply asserting your own rights to not have to listen to their whinging, drawing the line in the sand to cease future offenses, which will inevitably lead to more of the same from other people who will follow suit.
The success (or failure) of your entire instance depends on such decisions. And I for one think that this was an okay call. Some of us here might not have made it, though I am pretty sure that I personally would have, but far more importantly I think we should support your right to have made it, i.e. to uphold your own vision for your instance.
Yeah. The combination of near-total anonymity, and a culture of “everyone’s entitled to their free account which takes two seconds to make, and anyone who wants to remove them has to clear every conceivable hurdle of due process and benefit of the doubt” has laid some obvious groundwork for a pretty toxic environment. Then, add to that organized political fuckery and trolling, home-grown organic trolling, genuine sincere political views which are totally insane, and a moderation model which encourages the creation of little fiefdoms of unlimited power, and it’s a wonder that anything good ever happens here.
Personally, I think almost everyone had good intentions, and that’s why it generally works despite all of that. But the question should not be “why is Lemmy so toxic sometimes?” It should be “why is Lemmy ever not toxic given how its systems are constructed? How can we set things up so that the nontoxic majority can hang out with each other without having this bullshit impinge on them quite so frequently?”
I would guess a large part of the answer would be the Rexodus, which gave many of us a sense of a shared purpose and goal. We also were FAR more willing than usual to overlook a great deal of pain, since we knew that what we were coming from had even more in store from us back there, plus we were more hopeful back then that the tools would grow to make things even better. Which to some extent they have, while in other ways we’ve actively gotten worse.
For example Reddit mods are extremely often PTB, yet there is a modlog, and people can continue to post an already-started comment reply to someone, and even make new ones, which allows people to “finish” conversations that were already started, even if the post is no longer visible on the subreddit feed.
In contrast, Lemmy has the modlog, but people do not receive notifications for events, nor is there a way to ask why or advocate - the only realistic option would be a DM, except how do you do that when the modlog simply says “DM”, and often many mods disappear for months (to years) at a time, so really is someone supposed to simply DM all of the entire mod team at once? And then continue that conversation individually, rather than as a team?
This btw is one of the strengths of Discord iirc, where you can see who removed something, and again Reddit might not do that but instead offers far better in the form of the modmail. Our tools here really suck in that regard. Especially bc removed posts don’t say “removed”, but rather “check back later”. I’m not kidding btw - go and look at one, and you’ll see that text!
I’ve heard it said that among people of conscience, rules are hardly necessary. Think: Star Trek TNG or some such. The mere thought that one’s own actions could impact others negatively would generally be sufficient to halt the vast majority of negative behaviors. In contrast, among people lacking that, no set of rules will ever be sufficient. They simply won’t follow them, or will even find ways to abuse them to harm others, remaining just inside the protective barriers themselves while using the rules as a weapon against their opponents to “win” arguments at any cost.
Honestly, I think moderation + modlog + YPTB is a pretty good approximation of justice. It’s okay to hand people a good amount of power, as long as it’s aboveboard what they are doing with it, and people can raise the alarm and in extreme cases avoid the domain where they’re overstepping what they should be doing, if they’re overstepping what they should be doing.
I’ve actually noticed a substantial reduction in how much PTB there is, since this community came into being and became the default place to raise the issue and discuss it publicly if one of the moderators was out of line.
Overall yeah. I mean, even here the reports continue to flood in unabated about the admin practices of e.g. Lemmy.ml, to the point where db0 brought in a second mod to help deal with the drudgery of handling all the drama and mod reports. And people still don’t seem to know about Midwest.social. But this community does still help a lot:-).
Good point
I would call some ways of requesting sanctions against another user an “attack”. You can’t get all insistent with the staff at the bar, that someone needs to be kicked out, and then get upset when you get kicked out because that’s messed up man.
You’re completely right that it was more about vibes than about violating a specific set of rules, but I also would consider accusing everything someone says of needing to be removed from the conversation to be a personal attack. It would be different if they were saying the reported comment, itself, was in any way objectionable.
Lol you might do that, but never underestimate what others are capable of! They will tell you full on to your face what you can and cannot do - bc apparently that has worked for them to have done so, in the past?
Here I was only trying to separate
our(edit: “out”) content vs. process: you did not ban someone merely bc of a single report that they made - doing so for ONE REPORT really would be a bit of a PTB situation. Instead, what that report brought to life (in the DMs) was content that you were not okay with, none of which you’ve shared here, but I’m willing to take your word for it and say that subject to the correctness of your interpretation there, then it sounds like an okay call to have made.I disagree somewhat that a SINGLE report counts as a full-on “attack” - a “jab” maybe, like taking a “swing” at someone, but not fully rising to a “fight”. Although… it’s not exactly a hug either, nor did it leave well enough alone: they did solidly take a stand on the subject, then it sounds like in the DMs they disrespected your authority, and the latter is what earned them the ban, not the former. Like on an “attack” scale of -10 to +10, filing one report seems like a +1, so no need to exaggerate its effect there, as it is closer to neutral than e.g. to flinging toxic comments that others would have to read (arguably it was more an “abuse” of the moderation system than an “attack” against FlyingSquid, though again: super low level).
Correct. I have nothing to do with the community, or the person being reported or the people handling the reports. I just saw the report because it originated from my instance.
Having read through some of the comments that the user you banned posted lately, yeah I don’t blame you. Their replies are often needlessly rude and holier than thou, especially when replying to squid.
I understand abuse of reporting to apply for repeated frivolous reporting, sending spam, or similar.
This report could simply be ignored until something else happens.
A user reporting something doesn’t know how the mods decide. Mods will always receive reports, where they don’t think taking action is necessary.
Think what‘s your definition of abuse of report button?
So: PTB
Think what‘s your definition of abuse of report button?
I probably have a little different view of the social contract and responsibility of communication than other people. Again, not trying to repost someone’s private communication, but when I asked them more or less “What’s the justification for this report?” they weren’t open to trying to justify it, just told me to do my own research. More or less. To me, probably more than other people, that’s a huge sin. You need to have reasons for what you say, you need to be open to defending it if someone semi-politely asks you to, especially when your statement is calling for sanctions from authority or anything like that. It’s part of being responsible with your communication and building a good community to be a part of.
Like I said, it helps that my perception is that there is “repeated” harassment of FlyingSquid in various forms. It means that any single report, even if it comes from an account that hasn’t been doing any of it, forms part of a pattern of spam like you’re talking about. But, I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, and talk to the person and see if they were open to saying “That’s a fair thing to ask me, I take it seriously, here is my defense of what I did / what I said.” Again that’s just my view on integrity of communication. I might disagree or agree with the defense, and either one is mostly fine, but if someone’s like “it’s not my responsibility, I just spew statements into the world and it’s your problem to figure out if they are bullshit or not, without my help,” they instantly go to the bottom of my shit-list. And, if they’re already on thin ice because we’re having the conversation because they’re using my volunteer hardware to violate Lemmy’s norms and that’s why we’re having the conversation in the first place…
when I asked them more or less “What’s the justification for this report?” they weren’t open to trying to justify it
I would have simply dropped the matter at that point and ended the conversation.
A short ban as a warning for wasting time is okay as well, I guess.
The issue here is the person is wasting your time.
Like I said, it helps that my perception is that there is “repeated” harassment of FlyingSquid in various forms. It means that any single report, even if it comes from an account that hasn’t been doing any of it, forms part of a pattern of spam like you’re talking about.
So, in your view, FlyingSquid is a superior class of user that cannot be interacted with negatively without being banned for it? I was lightly on the PTB side before, but I guess you’re just straight up authoritarian and favoring specific users.
Observing when there’s a repeated pattern of harassing one user, and taking responsive action against a request for sanctions against that user that doesn’t even pretend to be justified, is in absolutely no way making them a “superior class of user.”
If this user had “interacted negatively” with whoever, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because I wouldn’t have noticed and probably wouldn’t have cared. The user requested mod sanctions against FlyingSquid. It’s hard for me to read “I’m going to report some totally harmless comment because everything FlyingSquid says is wrong” any way other than “FlyingSquid shouldn’t be allowed to make comments because they pick fights.” Okay, the reporting user picks fights, and now they’re not allowed to make comments. Sounds like the type of social contract they were advocating for, a second ago. Right?
The paradox of tolerance is real, man. Everyone can have their opinion about whether I’m right or wrong, but I came out of this conversation concluding that I did the right thing.
If this user had “interacted negatively” with whoever, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because I wouldn’t have noticed and probably wouldn’t have cared.
Oh gosh, ew. I can’t believe you spent the previous paragraph saying FS isn’t special, or in a different category, and then immediately said this.
I was on your side until this, even though we can’t see the DMs and one instance of behavior that you don’t like is definitely more “warning” territory than banning territory. I think there’s room for vibes-based moderation, especially on an instance you host, but you’re openly admitting you give FS special treatment, and then in the same breath, saying that you aren’t.
PTB, and also gross. If you can’t see why special moderation action to protect someone from “harrassment” when you wouldn’t extend that protection to someone else isn’t fair, I don’t know what to tell you. Rules apply evenly to everyone, no matter how much you like somebody.
You misunderstood my statement. If this user had “interacted negatively” with FlyingSquid, or anyone else, I wouldn’t have noticed or cared. The thing that made it different was that it wasn’t just a negative interaction, it was a request for sanctions, and also the pattern that the request fits into.
I have no particular opinion about FlyingSquid as a person. I don’t think I have ever had even a single interaction with them. If I have, I have forgotten.
The issue is whether there is a clear pattern. Nothing about the target of the pattern. Some people have been telling me that, if it was repeated reports, that would be one thing, and the fact that it was a single report means I overreacted. That’s fair, I guess, but my argument is that there are repeated reports of this type, and there’s no particular guarantee that any account that pops into existence and then instantly starts filing more of them isn’t part of it. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt by talking to the person, and they rejected my attempt, so by default they fall into part of that pattern. Whether or not it is justified to put them there (since it’s impossible to tell one way or another). I don’t think that on a network that’s inherently anonymous, we need to extend indefinite courtesy to every new account that “they must be new, they get extra leeway until it’s ironclad that they’re causing problems on purpose and not going to stop.”
If you can’t see why special moderation action to protect someone from “harrassment” when you wouldn’t extend that protection to someone else isn’t fair, I don’t know what to tell you.
Absolutely I would. I’m pretty sure I have made comments in this exact community along those lines (defending someone I really don’t care for, because my read of the situation is that they were 100% in the right in whatever particular scenario). I can try to dig up examples of you’re interested to see them.
I have no particular opinion of FlyingSquid as a person
Okay but in the OP here you have the opinion that FlyingSquid is someone who needs protecting.
The fact that it’s in service of harassing FlyingSquid in particular is just icing on the cake, since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all (with this as an example).
Emphasis mine.
You’re not being objective about it and you’re arguing with anyone who points that out.
You don’t have to be objective about this on your own instance. But you came here to ask if YTA and yes, you are.
The issue is whether there is a clear pattern.
The users saying the issue is if there is a clear pattern aren’t arguing in support of whether there is a clear pattern of the world conspiring against one user. They’re saying moderation action is supposed to come down on someone, someone, with a clear pattern of misbehavior. Permabans for rules or harrassment require more than one incident of being a nuisance. Otherwise, they call for a clear but stern warning.
If I’m the mod, or admin, and someone reports Stamets (I’m sorry hon I was just trying to think of someone I favor) for rule breaking when he didn’t, just because a bunch of other people have been harassing assholes to him isn’t enough justification to ban that one person!
Now again, vibes-based moderation is fine. It’s your instance. It’s your little hamlet, and you’re the ruler. But as for whether this is objectively fair or not, the answer is no. And if this combative attitude is what you took to that user in DMs, then I can see why they escalated to a point where you had to ban them.
Okay but in the OP here you have the opinion that FlyingSquid is someone who needs protecting.
I think everyone is someone who needs protecting. My point is that things are happening to FlyingSquid that are not happening to the average person, which means I react differently when another instance of that same thing happens. It’s not based on any particular special class I put FlyingSquid in, because pretty much the only thing I know about him is the pattern of people criticizing him for things that seem to me to be made up, and me looking into it and seeing at most like 20% justification for it and often 0%. Like in this case.
It sounds like you’re saying that I’m an asshole, and being biased, if I do that. All I can really say is we’re going to need to agree to disagree.
The users saying the issue is if there is a clear pattern aren’t arguing in support of whether there is a clear pattern of the world conspiring against one user. They’re saying moderation action is supposed to come down on someone, someone, with a clear pattern of misbehavior. Permabans for rules or harrassment require more than one incident of being a nuisance. Otherwise, they call for a clear but stern warning.
I addressed this exact point pretty clearly in the comment you’re replying to. It’s a pretty critical part of my response, because like I said, what you’re saying is a pretty fair point.
And if this combative attitude is what you took to that user in DMs, then I can see why they escalated to a point where you had to ban them.
I’m not super friendly all the time online. I’m actually trying to work on it. But honestly I don’t feel like I need to be super-friendly to someone who’s using my hosting to spew bullshit into the network. I was civil about it, maybe a little bit curt, a lot like what you see in these comments yes. If they decide it needs to escalate because of that because I didn’t put any heart emojis, then IDK what to tell them other than “bold strategy Cotton” et cetera.
You seem set in your ways, so good luck. What communities do you moderate? I’m just going to block and move on if this is the policy there 🤷♂️
Yeah, sounds like you’re the bastard.
