Summary:
- @[email protected] was posting at a high volume to [email protected]
- there is no written rule on [email protected] about post volume
- there is no written rule on ponder.cat about post volume
- !news is the one single community Cat was this active in
- !news has no ponder.cat mods
- from my understanding, all rules Cat did break were unrelated to volume (correct me if I am wrong)
- ponder.cat admin @[email protected] reaches out to Cat via comment and then DM essentially threatening account deletion if Cat doesn’t lower their activity level
- Cat understandably deletes their account because who wants that
Of course, PhilipTheBucket had the right to do this, but I also think it’s exceedingly bad form and people have a right to know that this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head like that.
Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here. Communication should be chosen before simple fist waving and threats.
I agree with this comment that this is a bait-provoked reaction. Next time I recommend:
- at the instance/admin level, the creation of instance rules about volume
- at the community level, advocacy for community rules about volume (i.e. “[Meta] Petition: Limit daily submissions to !news to ensure community quality”)
- avoid personal slapfights to get your way
- avoid escalation directly to account termination threats
Source: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587
After the exchange I’ve had with spujb in this thread, I’m convinced of their bad-faith intentions for posting it. In that comment chain, I told them that I had not reported the thread for removal, which is still true at the time of this comment. However, let it be noted that the post is in violation of the sidebar rules, specifically
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
and
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
No sanction was imposed on spujb, they are fully a third-party to this matter. Their post title and body is deliberately inflammatory towards @[email protected] and ponder.cat as a whole.
Additionally, the post runs afoul of a post guideline:
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
This post has all the markings of a punitive reaction by sbujb to criticism (both direct and via downvotes) levied against them in another thread on this comm. I am aware that this very comment could read that way as well; my justification is that I attempted to communicate directly with OP, whose response was the equivalent of sticking their fingers into their ears and singing off-key, loudly, while running away.
In the event that I do make a formal report, I will use the preceeding text of this comment, and update the comment to indicate that I’ve done so. Absent that, any action taken on the post will be for reasons that do not involve a report from me.
This community should be a tool against mod/admin authority and abuse, not a weapon to settle a grudge.
However, let it be noted that the post is in violation of the sidebar rules
This is certainly a valid point, however, your words are equally true of PhilipTheBucket’s original report where they are also fully a third-party.
Are you also claiming that PhilipTheBucket acted in bad faith? Would you report both posts (if you’ll finaly decide to take an action), not just this one? Could you please clarify your position if your answer is “no”.
My comments requesting for the user please to not spam were also deleted, which formed a relevant part of my original report. I was in no way an uninvolved party.
It’s true that I felt that banning the other user was a lot more bullshit than deleting my comments, and talked about that too (as well as the leaving of the spam in place for some fuckin’ reason). But I had also received some sanction from the mods, my post was 100% within the letter of the rules.
Well, that’s a fair point.
No sanction was imposed on spujb
True. Also, no sanction was imposed on the original user in question either. This entire issue is because of a message I sent the user explaining the issue with their behavior, and explaining what the consequence would be if they didn’t stop. At no point did I touch any moderation controls anywhere in this interaction.
haha :) if the post gets taken down i’m fine with it but i maintain its relevance to community dialogue. i also notice you have dropped your initial claims that “it’s unmarked meta” because of course that claim was never a true criticism.
i am here only as a reporter of behavior. i don’t even know what “punitive reaction” you are talking about. (oh i got some downvotes somwhere? well this post got some upvotes so…)
to me, a threat of a sanction is just as valid subject to be commented on as a sanction. previously, i have also created posts about admin inaction (dereliction) entirely and the posts were also left up, which leads me to believe community mods are with me. here’s an example: https://lemmy.cafe/post/12745277
(unblocked obviously, because you are funny)
I think the threat of a sanction still qualifies.
deleted by creator
(Y)DI + this is an unmarked [META] post + no admin action was taken against the account + history of behavior + it looks silly to make a wholeass new thread after getting cratered to oblivion in the original one
Phil’s “mistake”, if we’re insisting there is one, was not approaching the account-hopper with “You post a lot, and most of it is questionable trash. Please don’t shovel shit from this instance anymore if you want to remain.”
Phil’s “mistake”, if we’re insisting there is one, was not approaching the account-hopper with “You post a lot, and most of it is questionable trash. Please don’t shovel shit from this instance anymore if you want to remain.”
That’s actually exactly what I did. You’ll note that OP’s complaint is that they describe that as “threats.” No sanction was ever given to the person who was spamming (“posting at a high volume”). We just talked with them, and the consensus was overwhelmingly that they needed to cool down, and then they deleted their account.
Here’s the conversation where it happened (what’s left of it, see next link): https://ponder.cat/post/1728396
I don’t have a lot to add to the conversation that already took place here: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587
It’s made a little bit more complex because there’s a separate issue of [email protected] mods not really reacting to propaganda-spammy users, and so I decided there was an issue with this user when the mods were saying there was not. The behavior was in no way limited to [email protected] though. I’ve seen reports for them in:
- [email protected] (“spam”)
- [email protected] (“bot that’s spamming articles”)
- [email protected] (“Propaganda/sensationalized headline”)
- [email protected] (“low credibility source”)
- …
And so on, I think you get the point. Several of their posts had been removed before from a variety of communities, because they were spamming and posting low-quality crap. I can’t show you in the modlog because they deleted their user, but they were a source of reports for a while. I was leaving it alone for the mods to handle, until it became clear that the community overwhelmingly considered them a source of negativity. Then I talked with them about it (not for the first time) and explicitly said that they needed to stop in order to keep their account. It just happened randomly that the post where it came to a head happened in a community with bad moderation (which, possibly, explains why the post stayed up for us to be able to have an argument about it in the comments).
I think most of the issue motivating this post is that I riled up OP by being kind of sarcastic with them. That part’s on me and maybe it would have been better for me to be more zen. But as far as the original situation, IDK what the expected reaction could possibly be, other than what I did.
This is a separate issue entirely. The fact the admin got “ahead of the bullet” by making a PTB post about the reaction to their action doesn’t mean they are magically immune from discussion of the actions that started things, that being slapfights and direct account termination threats.
Nobody is suggesting this “magical immunity” you’ve referenced. This smacks of shitstirring, which has its place, but in this case looks reactionary. My previous assessment stands.
Spujb is notorious for shit stirring.
Is that what people do once shit posting no longer scratches the itch?
Asking for a friend obviously
Calling this an unmarked meta post reads to me as a call for this post to be removed. I apologize if that is not your goal. But if it is you are wrong. I am literally just here to document admin behavior that I believe could be improved upon.
It’s a meta post, you didn’t mark it as such. Nothing more, nothing less. If I thought the post should be removed, I would have reported it for removal. The metatude (It’s a word now. I invented it. Probably after someone else already did, but they’re not here, are they?) of the post is noteworthy, so I noted it. You could have done already, and still can even now.
heard but no. it’s not a meta post as it clearly is about actions that happened before whatever is described in the other post, and outside this community.
you seem confused about what meta means; meta posts are about the community itself.
thank you for your input but if i added the meta tag it would make this post worse, not better.
I’m not confused: you made a post about a post, discussing matters brought up in the post, after getting dumpstered by downvotes in the post you subsequently made a post about. If that’s not meta, then it better not have kids with meta or we’ll end up with the Habsburgs all over again. You seem to have a blind spot with regards to how that comes across, which is fair.
If you intended to simply be informative, you lost the plot by titling your thread as you did. I’d consider that an honest mistake if you hadn’t avoided any mention of the other thread and your involvement in it. It’s in bad faith, and it’s a bad look.
two separate topics.
- admin threatens account deletion (this post)
- mod bans admin for bringing the discussion directly to the comments instead of engaging in community engagement for change (other post)
tired of this boring conversation. blocked.
deleted by creator
BPR. This could have been handled better but I don’t think that the admin was powertripping.EDIT: I’m changing my take to YDI / UDI (user deserved it). See discussion with the admin, his usage of power was 100% justified.
IMO what Philip did wrong:
- the issue was in a single community, so he should’ve let that community’s mods handle it. If the user was doing this shit across multiple communities it would be different.
- lack of transparency on what’s considered [un]acceptable behaviour for ponder.cat users. A single “be nice” would be enough to justifiably get rid of Cat.
- direct escalation, like OP said. Philip’s initial comment lecturing Cat doesn’t sound like an admin speaking officially; but when he does, it pops out of nowhere.
In the meantime, look at all Cat’s replies in the linked thread: the user is not just being spammy, they are being uncooperative, belittling other users, and passive aggressive. This sort of behaviour should not be given a free pass, and I do think that, if Philip dug across Cat’s post/comment history, he would find more reasons to ban the user from his instance… at least if his instance had some rule against poor behaviour.
Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here.
A lot of those dictates boil down to “report, ignore, move on”. Reporting would do nothing, and ignoring would be bad advice - because bad behaviour tends to spread. Eventually you aren’t just blocking a single person, but a whole lot… or leaving the space because why bother. As such, users in communities with lax moderation tend to monitor each other’s behaviour a bit, and this is not a bad thing.
If the user was doing this shit across multiple communities it would be different.
They absolutely were. See my longer comment elsewhere in the thread.
I don’t plan to weigh in all that much here, among other reasons because I feel like it’s mostly all been said about this situation at this point.
Other random response: Mine is a tiny instance (basically a glorified self-host), I was well aware of the context of what Cat was doing, partly because I was steadily getting reports about it. This was just the one situation that led me to decide something actually had to be done, or else I was enabling them to pollute the wider community in ways that the wider community was really being vocal that they didn’t want.
The hostility and belittling of other users who were telling them to cool it really rubbed me the wrong way also, yes. I left them alone initially because I thought maybe they were just sort of clueless about good participation on Lemmy but at the end of the day, what’s the harm, and it’s the mods’ business not mine. Once people are trying to have a reasonable conversation with you and you’re being hostile and snarky at them, your benefit-of-the-doubt level drops to a whole new type of category.
I was steadily getting reports about it.
I just saw it. Yup, it changes the picture quite a bit since consistent behaviour justifies your intervention.
The leftover matter is then just “telegraphing” to users that you don’t consider this acceptable, and you don’t want to see it from your instance. OP suggested a rule against posting volume, but perhaps this is too specific? This could be even handled through small tweaks of the description text of your instance:
All are welcome to this instance. Please no illegal content, no personal attacks, no spam, no misinformation, no bigotry. Other than that, go nuts. Be productive, polite, and reasonable.
or something like this.
Half-related, from the other thread:
I wasn’t expecting “making sure we make a safe space for the spammers by banning people who complain about spam” to be an important moderation duty, but I guess in the bizarro world that is [email protected] moderation philosophy, it makes perfect sense.
LW in a nutshell: “if you complain about harmful behaviour, you’re the one getting screeched at”. It feels like they’re trying their hardest to transform Lemmy into Reddit 2: Electric Boogaloo.
All are welcome to this instance. Please no illegal content, no personal attacks, no spam, no misinformation, no bigotry. Other than that, go nuts. Be productive, polite, and reasonable.
Done. I think it’s a good suggestion. I left “polite” out, since I am often impolite to people and I don’t think “you have to be friendly all the time” is a necessary rule for human life, but all the rest of it, I added.
Maybe I am overcorrecting, since I’ve notice that my own interactions are markedly improved now that I am making a specific effort to be polite in my own interactions, but on the whole I really don’t like how on the modern internet you have to be “civil” in all interactions even if what the other person’s doing warrants a certain level of incivility. I think it’s fair game to say something like “what the fuck are you talking about” even if that is not strictly speaking all that polite a thing to say.
LW in a nutshell: “if you complain about harmful behaviour, you’re the one getting screeched at”. It feels like they’re trying their hardest to transform Lemmy into Reddit 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Yeah. Some people in the other thread were saying that they get the distinct impression that the mods are deliberately trying to make a space for propaganda, and I think it’s a pretty compelling argument TBH.
fully agree! especially the part about it only being in a single community thats a key fact i should have mentioned :)
this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head
This doesn’t make any sense. Admins are responsible for their users wherever they are. If an account is overposting from an instance, the admin is well within their rights to address it, as you said.
Yeah, this is such a strange take. “How dare you police users on your instance! Don’t you know that it’s every moderator’s job and privilege to get reports, go through due process, and ban each individual person individually from every single community?”
Yes. We agree. The admin has a right to address the issue they perceive. And as I said right after, users have the right to know that this is the swift, emotionally charged, and overbearing due process that the admin may choose to implement.
If there were any written rules or good faith communication of instance standards I would not be making this post.
Same admin that asked if he was in the wrong for banning someone that reported a comment that he thought was fine. Response was basically unanimous that he was in the wrong.
Naturally, he doubled down and decided that he was absolutely in the right. I blocked him and the instance and am definitely happy with that choice.
In the linked thread here, the admin even says “This is a super weird and authoritarian philosophy,” when someone called out the bans as power tripping 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 because e-stalking people and banning them for participating in other communities is absolutely not authoritarian at all
I saw that one, not a great look for him, almost as if he was posting there simply so the other person couldn’t. Probably hoping he could spin it in a way people would see favorably, it did backfire on him though, greatly.
I certainly feel there is room for growth and improvement in that individual admin.
Okay one more instance to add to the list of instances for me to avoid.
