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 thatās ridiculous, so I talked with them about it. Posting private communications is frowned upon I guess, but long story short, they werenāt receptive. Iāve 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 donāt see it that way. I donāt think itās a requirement for me to provide hosting space for anyone who wants to use my stuff as a jumping-off point for abuse of Lemmyās systems, and isnāt apologetic or receptive when I talk with them about not doing that. The fact that itās 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?
Weāve reached the next level peeps. Mods pre-emptively opening YPTB posts about their own actions! š
Donāt know that I wouldāve banned someone for a single report, even if it was nonsensical. Sometimes, people have a bad day, and arenāt thinking clearly.
Generally Iām 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 itās like to snap - even at someone I donāt like - and overstep the boundaries of good taste, norms, or constructive participation in a community.
BPR, I guess? I probably wouldāve told them to fuck off, but a ban mightāve 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. Thatās why I posted here.
Everyone draws their lines in slightly different places. Iām actually probably a lot more tolerant than most about ābannedā 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 theyāre open for some form of open communication about it. Explicitly rejecting the social contract or using Lemmyās buttons in a way theyāre not designed for, taking up moderatorsā 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 wouldnāt have banned if they were at all receptive to the DM conversation about it, but as it is, I just didnāt think I was doing anybody including them any favors by saying āOh okay, keep doing what youāre doing, you are welcome to a place on this network after a short time-out.ā
It sounds like most of the conversation we cannot see here, so weāre 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, donāt worry about it. I will bend over backwards to explain something to someone whoās 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 āownā so please donāt think Iām 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 - itās like trying to discuss something when toddlers are screaming underfoot, it just isnāt 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, itās weird that you have to take my word for the DM conversation without even being able to refer to the exact text. IDK, thatās the rules of the community, and also I do think itās 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 āIF your assessment of those DMs is correct, THEN the conclusion seems warranted to me indeedā.
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 isnāt off base either. If you think FSās behavior is inappropriate, you can remove the comments or ban him. If you think itās appropriate, then you can explain that to the user who reported it. Youāre 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 wasnāt in any way an argumentative comment. It was reporting a totally innocuous comment because āeveryā comment by FS is allegedly combative. And, they refused when I asked for some examples of this āeveryā 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 werenāt into hearing the explanation. Okay, sounds good, guess who else doesnāt have to care what you think, if weāre doing not-listening-to-each-other? This guy.
I would have just stopped responding after explaining why it wasnāt rulebreaking. Like I said, one instance isnāt abuse, continued behavior is.
I think thatās ridiculous, so I talked with them about it.
Well, thereās your problem. One silly report? Reject, donāt think about it again unless the reporting user gets increasingly uppity all on their own. You donāt 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 āGTFO,ā but youāre right to not publish that. Itāll 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.
Someone reporting something, you disagreeing with it being a reportable offense, and the user getting banned for itā¦ a single mistake isnāt abuse. If you had explained that doing it again would lead to a ban, and then they did, sure.
Thereās literally no way to take this other than PTB. Unless he threatened you in the DM, youāre absolutely the one wrong here.
I often agree with your positions on various things, Phil, at least to the extent that it seems that weāre operating from a similar point of reference. That said, and in light of the nature of the private communications remaining private (as it should), thereās 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 youāre 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 āreceptive or apologeticā 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 āclear patternā to see.
It wasnāt that they were unapologetic. Iāve actually had people have hostile disagreements with me in communities I moderate, and it didnāt even occur to me until later that I had some kind of power not to āget talked to that wayā or disrespected or w/e. That kind of thing doesnāt 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 āI consider this against the rules, please donāt do it on my server.ā Of course I was less polite than that. Also, maybe I am biased because of course my rules make perfect sense but someone elseās might not, if Iām on their server and the roles are reversed. Thatās 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 Iām rejecting anyone whoās 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 Iāve observed about FlyingSquid, it looks like they tend to get tangled up in long intense arguments which maybe they donāt need to get tangled up in. Thatās sure not ideal, but it doesnāt 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.
Iāve 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 āwhyā 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 āokay 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,ā which to me is harassment unless the personās 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 āapologeticā are better behaved in future than those who arenāt good at that performance?
PTB majorly. You donāt want to ban people for reports unless theyāre 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 donāt think are personally actionable.
Itās 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: Alsoā¦ 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 wonāt show you, youād understand. Iām 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. Itās fun for some people, I think.
- Me: AITPTB?
- People: FUCK YES
- Me: Well, if you saw the DMs I wonāt show you, youād understand. Iām still right.
If youāre going to ask here then say āUmm achkually Iām not a PTBā what ws the point of making this thread? Just hoping to take away from the person who was doing the reporting so they wouldnāt ask if youāre a PTB? If that was it then it backfired because people indeed do think itās wrong to ban people for and to discourage reporting.
Because I react very differently to people who saw āreport, didnāt like, ban the person who reportedā 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), Iām just discounting whatever they have to say about it. Sorry. I donāt 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 āHoly smokes that guyās clearly off his rockerā or some variation. We talked about it. Iām not out here trying to be stubborn about my way only, but Iām also not required to accept whatever anybody tells me just because theyāre 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.
I wonāt 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 donāt 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
I donāt get the ban over one report. Feels Gestapo.
Permaban should be reserved for bots and threat actors IMHO
Thereās not an abbreviation for this in the community rules.
It isnāt 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 canāt/wonāt share private communications (and good on you for that), we can only go with whatās available, and a permaban is too far based on only that for a first offense.
If their responses in private were bad enough, thatās a judgement call, and it might change the matter. Since you donāt 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. Itās about patterns of behavior.
So, the specific action was low grade power tripping, but you arenāt 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. Itās corrective.
Permabans should be reserved for diet Nazi shit. Truly beyond-the-pale, never-gonna-get-better assholerey.
ā¦ 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. Thatās fair, I guess, but my argument is that there are repeated reports of this type, and thereās no particular guarantee that any account that pops into existence and then instantly starts filing more of them isnāt 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 itās impossible to tell one way or another). I donāt think that on a network thatās inherently anonymous, we need to extend indefinite courtesy to every new account that āthey must be new, they get extra leeway until itās ironclad that theyāre causing problems on purpose and not going to stop.ā
āReports of this typeā being, reports about comments that we both acknowledge are totally innocuous, because of who it is that posted them.
I feel comfortable defining ādoubling down on their right to report anything one particular user ever posts, wasting everyoneās moderation time and harassing the user in questionā as ānever-gonna-get-better assholery.ā Itās not beyond the pale, but I also donāt 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 donāt deserve it.
If this person wasnāt creating new sockpuppets before, they will now. Youāve taught them any misstep can have permanent consequences - and not done any favors for how they interact with mods or admins.
Nobodyās talking about infinite second chances. You did a one-strike permaban for āhey please look at thisā followed by āwhy wouldnāt I report things?ā 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 donāt 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 canāt 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 donāt 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 heās always getting in fights with everyone and so every comment needs to be reported.
And thatās a fatal flaw, which canāt be corrected, right?
Yeah PTB, why use a water spray to train a cat when you could use a pistol
Iāll 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 wasnāt creating new sockpuppets before, they will now.
Exactly.
Removed by mod
I donāt think I have anything to add that others havenāt already said, except for
Youāre literally PTB - Philip The Bucket
That is all
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 !News@lemmy.world, and the target account likewise on Lemmy.world, and filing a report is not the same as a āpersonal attackā. 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 āattackā.
Essentially the person was banned for āgeneral vibesā not matching the instance rules, though only noticed in the first place by filing this report.
Precisely. I know itās a lot to ask since everyoneās 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. Itās 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 āNazi barā. To be clear, not with āactual Nazisā, 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 āunlimited free speechā 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 noiseā¦
And you are not at all impinging upon the banned personās freedom to speakā¦ 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 āeveryoneās 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 doubtā 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 itās a wonder that anything good ever happens here.
Personally, I think almost everyone had good intentions, and thatās why it generally works despite all of that. But the question should not be āwhy is Lemmy so toxic sometimes?ā It should be āwhy 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?ā
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 weāve 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 āfinishā 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 āDMā, 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 donāt say āremovedā, but rather ācheck back laterā. Iām not kidding btw - go and look at one, and youāll see that text!
Iāve heard it said that among people of conscience, rules are hardly necessary. Think: Star Trek TNG or some such. The mere thought that oneās 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 wonāt 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 āwinā arguments at any cost.
Honestly, I think moderation + modlog + YPTB is a pretty good approximation of justice. Itās okay to hand people a good amount of power, as long as itās aboveboard what they are doing with it, and people can raise the alarm and in extreme cases avoid the domain where theyāre overstepping what they should be doing, if theyāre overstepping what they should be doing.
Iāve 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 donāt 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 āattackā. You canāt 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 thatās messed up man.
Youāre 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: āoutā) 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 youāve shared here, but Iām 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 āattackā - a ājabā maybe, like taking a āswingā at someone, but not fully rising to a āfightā. Althoughā¦ itās 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 āattackā 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 āabuseā of the moderation system than an āattackā 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.
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.
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 itās 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.
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: Iāve 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, itās not being objective, and an environment where the moderator tries to create ban incidents isnāt a friendly one to be in. For this reason I blocked every community where they are a moderator.
Yeah. Itās not ideal to have someone with that habit doing moderation. I just donāt get how people jump from it to āPTB PTB heās awful.ā
I feel like, in general, people have to categorize as āgood!ā or ābad!ā, and FlyingSquid clearly gets in these bitter arguments sometimes which isnāt a good thing to do, and so by default he turns into ābad!ā and any bad thing about him becomes true. Like I say, Iām not saying he hasnāt been banning people who argue with him, just Iāve 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 āHe said a rude thing to this person! In a comment!ā
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 canāt even remember the details.
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/perceptionā¦ Which manifests elsewhere as just emotion.
Hm.
The user said:
Sheās not a regular woman, sheās a freak of a woman. Most those athletes are freaks amongst regular people, sheās 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 donāt feel like thatās all that outlandish to hand out some kind of sanction for. I probably wouldnāt, but Iāve seen people get banned for a lot less. I think they were banned for calling her āa freakā and repeatedly saying she isnāt ānormalā, not for arguing with Squid. Plenty of people argue with Squid and it seems to just be arguing, no?
I donāt think kemsatās factual point is wrong, but I donāt think the factual things he was saying or disagreeing with Squid were the motivation for the ban. Itās in the modlog that āfreakā was the issue.
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, noā¦ but where they earnestly engaging with the prompt provided by moderator yesā¦
Yeah, I get it. Youāre not wrong. Theyāre 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 donāt like forbidding points of view in general.
Iām probably way in the minority on this, but even some really offensive things, if thatās really what you think, I think you should be able to talk about it. Itās the only way people can ever work themselves out of certain types of wrong thinking, is if someoneās willing to talk with them. It doesnāt mean you have to put up with unrepentant bullshit or hatred, or let it feature in your comments section. I think thatās 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 someoneās being serious about what they think, and theyāre open to hearing and talking about why it might be wrong, I donāt think it does anyone any favors to say āNo you are bad get out now.ā Theyāre just going to learn to carefully not raise certain subjects, and never have their mind changed about any of it. Or else, theyāre going to decide youāre 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. Iām not saying āfree speech.ā Iām 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.
deleted by creator
Did he? When did this happen?
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 doesnāt know how the mods decide. Mods will always receive reports, where they donāt think taking action is necessary.
Think whatās your definition of abuse of report button?
So: PTB
Think whatās 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 someoneās private communication, but when I asked them more or less āWhatās the justification for this report?ā they werenāt open to trying to justify it, just told me to do my own research. More or less. To me, probably more than other people, thatās 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. Itās 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 ārepeatedā harassment of FlyingSquid in various forms. It means that any single report, even if it comes from an account that hasnāt been doing any of it, forms part of a pattern of spam like youāre 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 āThatās a fair thing to ask me, I take it seriously, here is my defense of what I did / what I said.ā Again thatās just my view on integrity of communication. I might disagree or agree with the defense, and either one is mostly fine, but if someoneās like āitās not my responsibility, I just spew statements into the world and itās your problem to figure out if they are bullshit or not, without my help,ā they instantly go to the bottom of my shit-list. And, if theyāre already on thin ice because weāre having the conversation because theyāre using my volunteer hardware to violate Lemmyās norms and thatās why weāre having the conversation in the first placeā¦
when I asked them more or less āWhatās the justification for this report?ā they werenāt 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 ārepeatedā harassment of FlyingSquid in various forms. It means that any single report, even if it comes from an account that hasnāt been doing any of it, forms part of a pattern of spam like youāre 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 youāre just straight up authoritarian and favoring specific users.
Observing when thereās a repeated pattern of harassing one user, and taking responsive action against a request for sanctions against that user that doesnāt even pretend to be justified, is in absolutely no way making them a āsuperior class of user.ā
If this user had āinteracted negativelyā with whoever, we wouldnāt be having this conversation, because I wouldnāt have noticed and probably wouldnāt have cared. The user requested mod sanctions against FlyingSquid. Itās hard for me to read āIām going to report some totally harmless comment because everything FlyingSquid says is wrongā any way other than āFlyingSquid shouldnāt be allowed to make comments because they pick fights.ā Okay, the reporting user picks fights, and now theyāre 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 Iām right or wrong, but I came out of this conversation concluding that I did the right thing.
If this user had āinteracted negativelyā with whoever, we wouldnāt be having this conversation, because I wouldnāt have noticed and probably wouldnāt have cared.
Oh gosh, ew. I canāt believe you spent the previous paragraph saying FS isnāt special, or in a different category, and then immediately said this.
I was on your side until this, even though we canāt see the DMs and one instance of behavior that you donāt like is definitely more āwarningā territory than banning territory. I think thereās room for vibes-based moderation, especially on an instance you host, but youāre openly admitting you give FS special treatment, and then in the same breath, saying that you arenāt.
PTB, and also gross. If you canāt see why special moderation action to protect someone from āharrassmentā when you wouldnāt extend that protection to someone else isnāt fair, I donāt 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 āinteracted negativelyā with FlyingSquid, or anyone else, I wouldnāt have noticed or cared. The thing that made it different was that it wasnāt 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 donāt 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. Thatās fair, I guess, but my argument is that there are repeated reports of this type, and thereās no particular guarantee that any account that pops into existence and then instantly starts filing more of them isnāt 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 itās impossible to tell one way or another). I donāt think that on a network thatās inherently anonymous, we need to extend indefinite courtesy to every new account that āthey must be new, they get extra leeway until itās ironclad that theyāre causing problems on purpose and not going to stop.ā
If you canāt see why special moderation action to protect someone from āharrassmentā when you wouldnāt extend that protection to someone else isnāt fair, I donāt know what to tell you.
Absolutely I would. Iām pretty sure I have made comments in this exact community along those lines (defending someone I really donāt 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 youāre 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 itās 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.
Youāre not being objective about it and youāre arguing with anyone who points that out.
You donāt 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 arenāt arguing in support of whether there is a clear pattern of the world conspiring against one user. Theyāre 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 Iām the mod, or admin, and someone reports Stamets (Iām sorry hon I was just trying to think of someone I favor) for rule breaking when he didnāt, just because a bunch of other people have been harassing assholes to him isnāt enough justification to ban that one person!
Now again, vibes-based moderation is fine. Itās your instance. Itās your little hamlet, and youāre 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. Itās 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 youāre saying that Iām an asshole, and being biased, if I do that. All I can really say is weāre going to need to agree to disagree.
The users saying the issue is if there is a clear pattern arenāt arguing in support of whether there is a clear pattern of the world conspiring against one user. Theyāre 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 youāre replying to. Itās a pretty critical part of my response, because like I said, what youāre 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.
Iām not super friendly all the time online. Iām actually trying to work on it. But honestly I donāt feel like I need to be super-friendly to someone whoās 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 didnāt put any heart emojis, then IDK what to tell them other than ābold strategy Cottonā et cetera.
You seem set in your ways, so good luck. What communities do you moderate? Iām just going to block and move on if this is the policy there š¤·āāļø
when I asked them more or less āWhatās the justification for this report?ā they werenāt 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 thatās it.
