this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
194 points (82.8% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
543 readers
60 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
- Provide the cause of the sanction (e.g. the text of the comment).
- Provide the reason given by the mods for the sanction.
- Don't use private communications to prove your point. We can't verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don't deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don't harass mods or brigade comms. Don't word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin' in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
ah, i apologize. i do admit that i used language there that slightly misrepresented my meaning, and i see your confusion. this inclarity is my fault.
i was using the term “sadpost” in reference to whatever content that was removed, whether comments or posts. i see that you interpreted the “post” in sadpost to mean reddit-style top-level posts only, where my tendency is to interpret the “post” to mean any content, i.e. the act of hitting “post.”
nevertheless my point stands. you created a space which attracts the very drama blahaj is founded around avoiding.
it’s like you went into r/GirlsWithHugePussies (SFW 😄 and very cute, it’s clothed women holding big pet cats) and posted comments saying, “sorry y’all i have to leave because of the rule that you can’t comment about the women’s bodies.”
So, let's go over this
So I 'created space', something not generally associated with comments, implicitly enabling 'comments sections' in the 'sadpost' which might as well have had a 'title' of (insert the title you made here) despite the fact that comments don't have titles.
So you managed to use a whole hell of a lot of language implying that you meant a top-level post, and an argument centered around the space provided by a top-level post, but really what you meant were the comments. Wow! It's amazing that you managed to accidentally use all that language in such a specific and logical way that fits with your previous arguments made, but suddenly you clarified that DEFINITELY wasn't what you meant when it was called out that it makes no factual goddamn sense.
There are two places where my comments were. One, in the announcement by one of the mods of 196 bringing attention to the rule clarification. The rest, in a post citing the modlog that itself, was not removed.
In what possible fucking way were either of those 'creating space' for harassment? In the former, space is already created without the comment; in the latter, space is already created without the comment. If it was about creating the space for harassment to potentially occur, even assuming you were talking about my comments previously, how would that in any conceivable way reconcile with the fact that the post, a much bigger space for 'harassment', was left up?
Your latest argument makes zero goddamn sense in light of the evidence, just like the rest.
Or if it's like I was posting to GirlsWithHugePussies for over a year with no problem, and then the INSTANCE of GirlsWithHugePussies clarifies that "Dogs are pussies too". The comm of GirlsWithHugePussies mentions this, and when I comment to GirlsWithHugePussies "That's unfortunate, I don't have any desire to stick around guys/gals, sorry", it's removed for 'gatekeeping pussies'.
And rather than dispute it, because ultimately I have neither power nor desire to influence the instance's admins, I simply leave and bitch about my comments being removed for 'gatekeeping' on a comm about bitching about moderator/admin actions.
Then a whole bunch of defenders of the instance come in and say, in this bitching thread on a bitching comm on and instance entirely separate from GirlsWithHugePussies' instance, that I'm felinephobic for not acknowledging dogs as pussies, and one commenter in particular claims that I was acting 'entitled' for daring to mention leaving in the process of leaving, claiming that my anodynely worded original comments were actually 'not nice' enough, and that if I wanted to avoid a removal, I should've just worded them nicer, and that, furthermore, I was 'creating space' for harassment by saying farewell to a comm I'd been posting on for a long time whilst having any reaction to the rule clarification other than utter bootlicking sycophancy, since "It's not for me, I understand, but I'm leaving" was apparently too hostile.
That put it into perspective?
Doubtful, considering what lengths you've went through to avoid any troubling thoughts in your head in the course of this conversation.
So you acknowledge that you left the community simply because the Admin said to ~~report and block~~ disengage suspected trolling rather than engaging in harrassment? That’s so sad :(
No, not even close to what was said, and that's very much the response I expected after seeing your behavior in this argument. There's nothing even vaguely resembling that in the comment you're supposedly responding to. As usual, you ignore the evidence and arguments presented and make shit up.
Although I suppose I should thank you, since this reply clarifies that it's not incompetence, but explicitly bad faith you're arguing in.
edit: i think i misunderstood pug’s comment so putting my response behind a spoiler till i get confirmation sorry for any confusion
click to open
So, if I show you evidence that that was said, you would consider amending your understanding?
promise?
promise ?
its pretty close to what i said. reporting and/or blocking are indeed prominent tools in “not engaging with them,” i will apologize for using non-specific language there. i’ll edit my comment.
my statement ammended: she said “do not engage if you can’t not do validity discourse or misgender” which is such a tiny ask, and yet for some reason that’s a end-all situation for you
Not even close to what was said in my argument, as the next sentence very clearly indicates
An utterly moronic attempt.
Oh can you clear up the grammar here? I think we’re talking past each other—let me course correct. Did you mean “what I said” or “what Ada said?” (or another acting party maybe?) I admit if I got the wrong meaning from that sentence my response doesn’t make sense, and in that case my apologies!