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?

  • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 days ago

    PTB majorly. You don’t want to ban people for reports unless they’re spamming false reports.

    Otherwise you discourage reporting. Think of it this way, would you rather have them just not report things because you ban them or threaten to ban them for things you don’t think are personally actionable.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      It’s a fair point. I talked more about it here:

      https://ponder.cat/post/1596872/1816086

      Basically, my point is, they knew exactly who FlyingSquid was and were familiar with Lemmy already from some other accounts, and on their first day, started reporting comments of his without claiming that anything was wrong with them, saying that just because of who he is, any comment of his deserves to be reported.

      I can understand the point of view that a permaban for that behavior is too much. As a general rule, I actually agree 100%. But to me looking at the context, their other comments, and especially how they reacted when I asked them not to do that, it was time for them to go.

      Edit: Also… I do want to apologize a bit for this sequence of events (Please understand that I am listening and this whole conversation was valuable for me to understand and check myself on it):

      • Me: AITPTB?
      • People: FUCK YES
      • Me: Well, if you saw the DMs I won’t show you, you’d understand. I’m still right.
      • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        If I understand correctly, he has someone that has multiple accounts that follow him around to argue with him because of his reaction.

      • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago
        • Me: AITPTB?
        • People: FUCK YES
        • Me: Well, if you saw the DMs I won’t show you, you’d understand. I’m still right.

        If you’re going to ask here then say “Umm achkually I’m not a PTB” what ws the point of making this thread? Just hoping to take away from the person who was doing the reporting so they wouldn’t ask if you’re a PTB? If that was it then it backfired because people indeed do think it’s wrong to ban people for and to discourage reporting.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Because I react very differently to people who saw “report, didn’t like, ban the person who reported” and are without further investigation giving their reaction to that (totally insane) decision, versus the people who clicked the link, talked with me about the context, and things like that.

          Most of the people who simply assumed that I personally thought the report was invalid and so I banned the person (which would, again, be an absolutely insane thing to do), I’m just discounting whatever they have to say about it. Sorry. I don’t need someone to tell me that that would be nuts.

          Some of the people who clearly wanted to understand the fuller scope also told me I was a PTB. Which, maybe so. Some of them found the person I was talking about and read the profile and said “Holy smokes that guy’s clearly off his rocker” or some variation. We talked about it. I’m not out here trying to be stubborn about my way only, but I’m also not required to accept whatever anybody tells me just because they’re telling it to me. Sorry. A lot of it has to do with how much effort they seem like they put into understanding what happened.

  • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Yeah. FS really seems to take a lot of heat. I think it’s because people have come to know that he will always defend himself. And when they repeatedly antagonize him- it always seems it’s for their entertainment.

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    I don’t think I have anything to add that others haven’t already said, except for

    You’re literally PTB - Philip The Bucket

    That is all

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    You are not the asshole. Your logic is reasonable and self consistent.

    since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all

    I still have them labeled as an abusive mod for baiting someone into a debate then banning them from the community for engaging in that debate. So I think this user does look for fights, to be fair.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      I still have them labeled as an abusive mod for baiting someone into a debate then banning them from the community for engaging in that debate.

      When did this happen? I feel like they get sucked into long pointless debates the same as some people on Lemmy, but I feel like it’s kind of mutual combat.

      I know everyone brings up that one example from months ago when FS arguably threatened to take some kind of unspecified action against someone they were mid-argument with, but did they actually ban someone in that scenario? I have them pegged as more of just an argument junkie than any kind of PTB about it. Maybe I have missed / forgotten about some actual ban they handed out of course.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        argument junkie

        Thats enough to see why they are polarizing across lots of people.

        Here is the exact instance when I flipped the bit on them

        I believe the mod in question is an abusive mod: I’ve seen them debate with someone in a conversation, bait them into sparring, then when the person responds, ban them for breaking the rules. That alone is moderator abuse, it’s not being objective, and an environment where the moderator tries to create ban incidents isn’t a friendly one to be in. For this reason I blocked every community where they are a moderator.

        https://hackertalks.com/post/3884023/4550323

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah. It’s not ideal to have someone with that habit doing moderation. I just don’t get how people jump from it to “PTB PTB he’s awful.”

          I feel like, in general, people have to categorize as “good!” or “bad!”, and FlyingSquid clearly gets in these bitter arguments sometimes which isn’t a good thing to do, and so by default he turns into “bad!” and any bad thing about him becomes true. Like I say, I’m not saying he hasn’t been banning people who argue with him, just I’ve never seen it in several times of checking what was behind people complaining about him. Every time that I remember, it basically boiled down to “He said a rude thing to this person! In a comment!”

          I feel like maybe there was one that was recent that was a lot more of an actual PTB, so maybe I am wrong. I can’t even remember the details.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I updated my post above with the example that was too far for me.

            Regardless, they are a good user, but a questionable mod of so many communities, and given their argument style plus wielding the ban hammer on those same arguments people can come away with a bad experience/perception… Which manifests elsewhere as just emotion.

            • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              Hm.

              The user said:

              She’s not a regular woman, she’s a freak of a woman. Most those athletes are freaks amongst regular people, she’s just not a freak in the same way most of them are.

              (This is in the context of https://hackertalks.com/post/3884023, Imane Khelif)

              I don’t feel like that’s all that outlandish to hand out some kind of sanction for. I probably wouldn’t, but I’ve seen people get banned for a lot less. I think they were banned for calling her “a freak” and repeatedly saying she isn’t “normal”, not for arguing with Squid. Plenty of people argue with Squid and it seems to just be arguing, no?

              I don’t think kemsat’s factual point is wrong, but I don’t think the factual things he was saying or disagreeing with Squid were the motivation for the ban. It’s in the modlog that “freak” was the issue.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 days ago

                Sure, in isolation thats a good moderation reason, but when you egg someone on to debate then use the ban hammer when they engage. Was their language great, no… but where they earnestly engaging with the prompt provided by moderator yes…

                • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Yeah, I get it. You’re not wrong. They’re just going to learn not to be forthcoming in moderator conversations in the future (which is a funny thing for me to say under this post). Also, as a more general issue, this is why I really just don’t like forbidding points of view in general.

                  I’m probably way in the minority on this, but even some really offensive things, if that’s really what you think, I think you should be able to talk about it. It’s the only way people can ever work themselves out of certain types of wrong thinking, is if someone’s willing to talk with them. It doesn’t mean you have to put up with unrepentant bullshit or hatred, or let it feature in your comments section. I think that’s what Squid thought he was taking a stand against, there. But yeah I kind of agree with you on it.

                  Like think of Wade Watts talking with the KKK and talking people out of racism. If someone’s being serious about what they think, and they’re open to hearing and talking about why it might be wrong, I don’t think it does anyone any favors to say “No you are bad get out now.” They’re just going to learn to carefully not raise certain subjects, and never have their mind changed about any of it. Or else, they’re going to decide you’re the enemy now, and talk to other people who think like them, and attack you when they do interact with you.

                  Again there are certain lines you have to draw. I’m not saying “free speech.” I’m just saying that honest debate means you have to let some people in with wrong opinions. Like I say, I actually agree with certain parts of what kemsat said factually. I think he just used some trigger-words,and trigger-words have this unfortunate outsized importance right now.

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    8 days ago

    We’ve reached the next level peeps. Mods pre-emptively opening YPTB posts about their own actions! 😈

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.”

      • OpenStars@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          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).

          • OpenStars@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 days ago

            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”.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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?

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 days ago

        I would have just stopped responding after explaining why it wasn’t rulebreaking. Like I said, one instance isn’t abuse, continued behavior is.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    8 days ago

    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.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

  • Ledivin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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.

  • lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 days ago

    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.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      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.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        So people who can perform “apologetic” are better behaved in future than those who aren’t good at that performance?

  • muelltonne@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 days ago

    PTB

    I don’t get the ban over one report. Feels Gestapo.

    Permaban should be reserved for bots and threat actors IMHO

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.