before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com
i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:
and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you’ll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.
it was less than 2 hours. it’s almost not worth discussing.
but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.
db0 has said he doesn’t want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com (though i’m still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
Hi, I am the PTB that banned this user for 2 hours. As what was explained to you in the appeals channel, you’ve been trolling for months and when the person you troll gets mad, you report them for things like ‘incivility.’ You’ve done this many times to multiple users for months. That is why you were banned, not because of a specific thread and report. This was a warning to you to knock it off, as was explained to you.
It was not made known to other admins that you had contacted db0 in advance of making your account that you were using your account just to do things like this. It makes a lot more sense now why there was this leeway. I thought trolling other users was against the rules, but it seems the rules are muddy about it. We have often been warning people through 1 day bans to knock things off. So your timeout seemed appropriate.
so, one of us is mistaken about whether my conduct is acceptable. but which of us is it?
Your conduct is off-putting and should be discouraged, to say the least. Hence a 2 hour ban. Db0’s agreement with you was not made with me. It seems like you want it to be a rule that the db0 instance is a safe haven for trolls, effectively putting it at risk of being defederated by other instances.
I would not characterize my conduct as trolling. the restriction given by db0 to avoid going into liberal (or, implicitly, vegan) spaces and stirring the pot is one that didn’t honestly need to be voiced. I like to discuss particular topics, but I am respectful of the rules of communities.
but if, as this is the case, someone is spreading outdated information in a climate community, and I correct them, and they violate the rules of that community, and I report that community rule violation, that is not trolling as I see it.
edit: if my conduct is not acceptable, this implies correcting misinformation should be discouraged, as should reporting community or remote instance rule violations. that I should let misinformation go unchallenged, or accept abusive behavior for correcting it, or both. I don’t think that is the standard we should be setting.
“this implies correcting misinformation should be discouraged”
“I report that community rule violation, that is not trolling as I see it”
“I am respectful of the rules of communities”
This is a small snippet of your history. It’s a 2 hour ban, you can either chill or not, up to you.
I’m not antivegan, but I am anti-consumer activism
Just because animals cry out and try to run away when you hurt or try to kill them doesn’t mean they feel pain or want to live
What a disengenous asshat. I can’t stand these people who are all like, “My only problem with your cause is I don’t think you’re persuing it the right way,” but then they very obviously disagree with the cause and are just saying that shit because they aren’t willing to defend their actual positions.
doesn’t mean they feel pain
can you link this?
I’m fascinated by this worldview in which we can suffiently ascertain the workings of an animal’s mind by observing their behavior when it comes to trying to avoid feeling pain, but not when it comes to trying to avoid dying.
That is, assuming that’s your genuine position and you’re not just playing games.
this isn’t what you banned for, and I think it’s inappropriate. this smacks of poisoning the well.
the clarity I’m looking for would say how often you plan to ban me, how long I can expect those bans to be, and what you will ban me for.
i have objections to each of the examples you’ve raised, but they are red herrings, since they could not have been the reason for a ban, or i would have been banned when they occurred.
Insufficient information. The ban mentions report abuse. Did you report your interlocutor? If so, how many times, and for what.
I’m tending towards YDI because I’ve witnessed some of the borderline bad-faith arguments you’ve made in the past, but this specific instance perhaps seemed a bit mild for a ban just from the conversation alone, so I’ll reserve judgement for now.
Did you report your interlocutor?
yes. for incivility, to the best of my recollection, but since lemmy doesn’t let you review your own reports, i can’t say i recall perfectly
indeed we’ll have to rely on your memory. do you remember how many times you reported this admin (even across separate comments count) and whether you have reported others multiple times in the same sitting? i would ping the admin somewhere (here or in a thread you might start in /0 governance)
it’s possible I reported the user two or three times, but it might have been only once.
Lemmy reports can only go through once, you can’t report someone multiple times unless you use multiple accounts.
… or report separate comments
I mean you can report multiple comments, but as I said in my other comment about that unless you reported like 50 comments (common sense says that reporting multiple comments in a discussion thread wouldn’t be anywhere near report abuse thresholds) it would be PTB to ban someone for reporting multiple comments in a discussion. You want people to report violating content and not be worried about action for that, sometimes violating content spans multiple comments at once.
I think a better way would be to just ask the db0 admins since they can see all the reports that went down.
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com Maybe you could provide the exact copies of the reports made by @nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com, obscuring the resolver if necessary (though since I can see who banned him in t.lemmy.dbzer0.com I’m not sure how much privacy that would give).
Don’t Lemmy modlogs only tell you who received the action (i.e. who was banned), even on Tesseract?
Nope Tesseract shows the mod who did it when you’re logged in to the instance you’re viewing it from. I believe some apps also show the mod names as well, I know Photon and Voyager do.
Interesting you see that. For me (logged in on my db0 alt) on Tesseract there is a moderator column but it’s empty even for local actions and Photon doesn’t even give me a moderator section.
See if you can see it on your dbzer0 account now. I just added you as a mod to the modeveryone community.
That’s weird, maybe a bug or maybe it requires you to be a mod to see it?
I think we might want to do a governance post at that point.
Yeah I agree, @nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com OP a governance post is probably the best thing to do about this, it’ll bring the most clarity here, especially since this case is about the instance itself.
Just FYI you can’t report someone more than once, you can report multiple of their comments but no comment more than once. It would be stupid and PTB to punish someone for reporting multiple of their comments, as it is beneficial to point out violating content. Maybe if he reported a hundred comments sure but two, three, or seven is not reasonably report abuse.
You gave zero information to go off of but judging from what I saw from the comments, YDI.
You said about the other person:
You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.
But you were dead wrong about the point being discussed, you kept insisting that their evidence was outdated when they were referring evidence beyond the paper you were talking about. If anything, the other person was remarkably patient with you, and if you were decent you’d own up to having egg on your face and apologize to them. Instead, you reported them for correctly calling out your BS, and are now here whining about a two hour ban.
Personally, I find your whole thing of staying within the letter of “civility” while going “I’m not touching you” and talking down to everyone incredibly annoying, worse than if you just told people to go fuck themselves. If it were up to me I’d issue a permaban, but I don’t think we have an abbreviation here for “the mods didn’t go far enough.”
that reply is a direct quote from the comment to which I was responding
Yes, but the difference is that they were right. This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. Saying “Go fuck yourself” can be perfectly called for and justified in certain contexts, but extremely uncalled for in others. They had basis to say that, because you were fucking wrong. You did not, because you were fucking wrong.
From what I’m seeing, there’s a consistent pattern of behavior of trying to hide behind language, civility, and tone while being disingenuous as fuck and acting in bad faith.
Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn’t even relying on. The pro-vaccine person would be perfectly justified in getting frustrated, accusing the other person of lying or operating in bad faith, etc. But if the antivaxxer did the same - even if they parroted the exact same language - they would be completely unjustified and out of line, even moreso than they already were. So no, you don’t get to hide behind this “it was a direct quote” excuse, because you’re the one who was out of line. You don’t have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they’re right and you don’t have a leg to stand on.
but the difference is that they were right.
we both had some things we were right about, but the comment to which i initially responded was peddling outdated information, and, yea, i didn’t click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.
and, yea, i didn’t click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.
“Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person’s evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense.”
Yeah, no. You were talking out of your ass, realized you were talking out of your ass, but then didn’t let up when you did. You’re even still pushing the offense now, by making this thread to complain about it. You don’t escalate an issue like this when you’ve got that much egg on your face. The other person was 100% correct, the fact that there was a minor flaw in the evidence presented by the person you initially responded to does not give you license to ignore other evidence, and it certainly doesn’t give you license to ignore other evidence and then go on the offensive. You are extremely out of line and acting like a narcissist.
“Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person’s evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense.”
this is a straw man. and i wasn’t wrong: what i said is it is no longer the acamedy’s position that a vegan diet can be healthy at all stages of development, and i’ve been right this whole time.
Lol, come up with an abbreviation then 😅
YDM - “You Deserved More”
