By doing this, they've also ironically managed to disprove their own point of supposedly only enforcing the rules. Bit of a shame, as the idea of the community seemed nice, but I thought the mod was really out of line there.
Oh well, you better believe I'll be back downvoting in 74 years!
Now that’s the kind of power tripping I’ve witnessed when some loser gets a manager position at a shitty restaurant
@atomicpoet@piefed.social just posted
"Rule #1 Explained: What “Be Civil” Actually Means"
https://piefed.social/post/1251841
Which seems to be narrow and tailor made for him/herself.
And yet the first comment in his profile is him being snarky and uncivil to a guy asking him a genuine question......
I just got my very first ban, because @atomicpoet@piefed.social didn't like how I mentioned their post here.
At least its only 74 years
Hello fragile @atomicpoet@piefed.social
Hey @atomicpoet@piefed.social
Ban me if it makes your tiny pp feel less tiny 🙃
Unfounded accusations of using AI are really shitty. I'm not going to bat for anyone banned for doing it.
Fair. I didn't see that original post where they've made the accusation, so I admit it could have been shitty enough to warrant a ban. But there's that and then there's getting banned for 2 downvotes.
That is a good point. The way the message was organized screamed AI though: emoji in headers, bold headers, the "not just __ - it means __" that LLMs love em dashes and so much more. If you go back through my comments I have no problem with AI generated text. I agree is sounds like an accusation, but it wasn't necessarily meant in a negative, "this is bad" way.
The gall to put that as the actual ban reason ...
At least it’s honest, I guess?
Another perfect example of why we need private voting.
Yeah. I can see why admins might need to see the votes, at least which instance they're from, if there are actual large-scale brigading attacks. But I don't think mods really need to see them.
Yes, and no. People can be petty about this kinda stuff (mods can be petty about anything) - but ultimately, there are accounts that do go around mass downvoting that will 'target' specific instances with no interest in engaging with them.
I find it helps cultivate a high-trust culture.
pretty sure zero trust is a better plan
Overall?
I don't believe you'd be a constructive contributor here—or anywhere
Jesus did they use AI to generate their response, too
I just blocked the community. I don’t come here for drama.
This isn't how you improve mod behaviour.
You (octoshrimpy, not op) went out of your way to push their buttons, not converse.
Part of the reason the fediverse is so cozy, is that a lot of us remove users and comments the second the tone goes adverserial. I too do "vague" rules because when you don't, you inevitably get people who deliberately mess with a community and its users by finding every shitty thing they can do that is technically allowed.
And if someone I banned in one of my communities, comes at me in the comments on another community I mod, you better believe that ban then (and only then) goes into effect on every community I mod.
Contact me with a DM asking me to justify, and if I fail to do so, change my decision, and I'll engage in a back forth for as many messages as you like.
You might feel that this stuff should happen in public for transparency, but the reality is that people are far more likely to listen when changing their mind doesn't involve losing face in front of a bunch of spectators.
That goes both ways. I take the discussion into DMs with problematic users all the time, because they're far more likely to actually engage with what I'm telling them, instead of wiriting performatively for an imaginary audience cheering "fuck mods".
Edit: What I'm saying is this. Even as they are failing, this mod is trying to be reasonable. That should be adjusted, not blasted for all to see as a complete failure, crushed never to contribute to moderation again.
Are they power-tripping and justifying themselves after the fact? Maybe. But you're not gonna get that admission in public. You might, after you get it in private. And that's how you get them to do better next time.
As you can see by my replies here, I'm not here to insult the mod at all. I have replied to all their comments in a civil manner. I don't condone people coming here just to insult them, but wanted to have a discussion about modding practices. This is the second time I've been banned for downvoting a mod and neither of them contacted me beforehand, just dished out a permaban. I just think that's a silly and unproductive thing to do. It's a bit frustrating when I'm trying to be friendly to everyone and then still get randomly banned for frigging downvotes.
Ah. I'm adressing octoshrimpy here. Didn't realize the users we're different.
I edited my comment a bit further. The mod overreacted, but the thread is grilling them a lot hotter than I would have.
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.
All posts should follow this basic structure:
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.
YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
Relevant comms