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?
since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all
You don’t end up as one of the two most talked about PTBs in this community with there being “no reason at all”.
My general approach is to look into things, when one or a bunch of people claim that it’s true. Often it is true. Sometimes it is not. Usually, the times when it is not are a lot more interesting.
I don’t plan to abandon that approach and replace it with “if a whole bunch of people say something then it automatically must be true.” That way is easier, of course, and you can go with it if you like. I’ll stick to my approach.
The receipts are all there, if you care to look. Nobody has deleted them.
But in this case, despite your underhanded implication, let’s just admit you have a preconceived notion and aren’t interested in the many documented instances of FlyingSquid and jordanlund being assholes. You aren’t going to look into this.
Why are you talking to me about this? Pretty much every time it comes up, I ask people for examples, and then I go and look at them. I actually have a bookmark saved right now for a good example of FS being kind of a jerk that I found all on my own and thought might be relevant, at some point. Why did you come back to sort of hassle me about this on a week-old topic?
Why are you talking to me about this?
Couldn’t be because you created a thread to ask everyone what they thought about it. If you don’t want to talk about it, don’t come to my home instance and ask what I think about it. You don’t get to shut down discussion when you don’t feel comfortable with where it’s going.
Oh, no, you’re fine to ask questions or talk with me, I was just wondering what the impetus was for asking about it almost two weeks after I created a thread to ask everyone what they thought about it.
I’m not upset at the questioning. But also at the same time, I don’t have the preconceived notion and am indeed extremely interested in the many documented instances blah blah, so I’m not sure where the conversation could potentially even go from here. You’re welcome to continue discussion, you don’t need to feel like you’re being shut down just because I don’t feel like going back and forth about it.
I wasn’t aware the discussion had a time limit on it. A quick search through this community reveals thread upon thread of receipts, with FlyingSquid being voted the PTB nearly every time. You might not agree with that, but you’re one person against a very many. Of course, I don’t dislike FlyinSquid myself just because he’s a shit mod, I dislike him mostly because he’s a shit person who justifies genocide and immediately cries antisemitic whenever he’s questioned about his views. He was not just a horrible mod, he’s also intellectually and morally bankrupt, and the Fediverse was improved by him finally being removed from power. You supporting someone like that doesn’t really say much about your own character, but it’s obviously up to you how you want to be remembered.
In the end though, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re a PTB yourself for what you did, does it? Until this thread, I never even paid attention to what your instance was, let alone realized you were the admin, and I don’t believe I’ve ever actually seen anything from your little kingdom show up on the front page of db0. If you hadn’t made this thread, it’s likely nobody would have even noticed, let alone cared. So while others might say you’re the PTB, I would instead say IDM, or “it doesn’t matter”. The actions of of admin for a small instance don’t have any impact on the Fediverse at large, so don’t sweat it. Even if you were tossing out instance permabans left and right, there’s not going to be a disruption for anyone.
You must have mistaken me for someone who loves getting in long pointless arguments. Actually never mind! I do. It’s the best. At least for short little bursts of time, I guess I enjoy it, probably more than I should.
Hey, so take a look at this comment thread – if you had to rate each participant from 0 being “totally hinged” and 10 being “totally unhinged”, where would you put each of them?
Let me analyze each participant’s behavior and tone systematically:
PhilipTheBucket (OP):
- Asks for feedback about a moderation decision
- Maintains calm, professional tone throughout
- Responds to criticism with explanations
- Shows willingness to examine evidence
- Remains level-headed even when challenged
Rating: 2/10 (mostly hinged, slight defensiveness)
_cryptagion:
- Initially starts somewhat measured but quickly escalates
- Makes increasingly aggressive personal attacks
- Shows fixation on a two-week-old thread
- Launches into character assassinations
- Makes dismissive comments about “your little kingdom”
- Uses multiple rhetorical tactics to both attack and dismiss
- Shows strong emotional investment in the drama
Rating: 8/10 (significantly unhinged, especially in final comment)
One interesting observation is how the conversation devolves. While PhilipTheBucket maintains roughly the same tone throughout, _cryptagion’s responses get progressively more hostile and unhinged, culminating in that final comment that manages to be both dismissive (“your little kingdom”) and aggressively accusatory (the genocide allegations and character implications).
The exchange illustrates a common pattern in online discourse where one party maintains composure while another escalates emotionally. What do you think about my assessment?
I think your assessment is great, Mr. AI. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
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”.
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 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.
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.
So people who can perform “apologetic” are better behaved in future than those who aren’t good at that performance?
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I understand correctly, he has someone that has multiple accounts that follow him around to argue with him because of his reaction.
Yep. It’s fun for some people, I think.
- 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.
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.
PTB
I don’t get the ban over one report. Feels Gestapo.
Permaban should be reserved for bots and threat actors IMHO
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.
Three-day bans are like spritzing a cat in the face. It’s corrective.
Permabans should be reserved for diet Nazi shit. Truly beyond-the-pale, never-gonna-get-better assholerey.
… did you permanently ban someone for asking to have rules enforced, instead of starting shit verbally? Because if so, what the fuck.
Quoting myself from elsewhere:
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.”
“Reports of this type” being, reports about comments that we both acknowledge are totally innocuous, because of who it is that posted them.
I feel comfortable defining “doubling down on their right to report anything one particular user ever posts, wasting everyone’s moderation time and harassing the user in question” as “never-gonna-get-better assholery.” It’s not beyond the pale, but I also don’t feel obligated to put up with it. IDK where people got the idea that any random person who makes a new account deserves abundant good faith and due process even while doing their best to demonstrate they don’t deserve it.
If this person wasn’t creating new sockpuppets before, they will now. You’ve taught them any misstep can have permanent consequences - and not done any favors for how they interact with mods or admins.
Nobody’s talking about infinite second chances. You did a one-strike permaban for ‘hey please look at this’ followed by ‘why wouldn’t I report things?’ Make it a week. Make it a month. Give them any reason not to dump the brand-new account you just diminished.
If this is a random person with a new account, they don’t know who the fuck Flying Squid is. Inferring conspiracy is obviously not a firm enough basis for instant permanent consequence. Slap them when you might not, or slap them harder than you would, on that suspicion. But it is only suspicion. Certainly you can’t talk about this individual having a pattern of harassment, because one action is not a pattern.
If this is a random person with a new account, they don’t know who the fuck Flying Squid is.
They claimed that FlyingSquid was a known user to them that is always getting in fights with everyone, and so it makes perfect sense to just report any comment by him, even if the comment is totally harmless, because he’s always getting in fights with everyone and so every comment needs to be reported.
And that’s a fatal flaw, which can’t be corrected, right?
Yeah PTB, why use a water spray to train a cat when you could use a pistol
I’ll go in-between power tripping and not power tripping. You have a valid reason to give punishment, but a permaban is a bit too much imo
If this person wasn’t creating new sockpuppets before, they will now.
Exactly.
Yeah, sounds like you’re the bastard.
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 🤷♂️
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.
flat-out, I tell people not to dm me, even mods who have a problem with my reports. i do make an exception for my admins, but that’s it.
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
