atomicpoet

Thank you. This is actually a useful suggestion. I will likely implement something similar to this.

Nothing in that message you sent me was private.

You’re right that the content itself wasn’t secret—I’ve said those same things publicly before. But it was still sent as a private message, and I believe private messages should stay private unless both people agree otherwise. For me, it’s less about what the words said and more about the principle of respecting the privacy of the exchange.

There’s also a real risk when private messages are made public. Even if the content isn’t sensitive, taking something intended as one-on-one often opens the door to dogpiling, misinterpretation, or harassment from people outside the conversation. And unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened here—once the message was posted publicly, it escalated into conflict and harassment that I had been trying to prevent by keeping it private in the first place.

(by the way, if someone called someone else ‘bro’, would they not be considered civil on !fediversenews@piefed.social? What if they call you ‘bro’ ?)

Here’s the approach I’d take now:

1. Reach out personally—not as a mod—and politely ask them to ease off.
2. If it continues, follow up as a moderator with a clear warning.
3. If the warning is ignored, then consider further action.

!fediversenews@piefed.social seemed like it was a general community, but your decision about it made it more of a small community with stricter rules, and it seems this is where the issue comes from. If people had known from the start that it was mostly your community with your rules, they would have probably posted on fediversenews@venera.social and let you do whatever you want on !fediversenews@piefed.social

The majority of people on !fediversenews@piefed.social actually came from @fediversenews@venera.social, which migrated over to Piefed. Most of them already know me, so I don’t think they would have gone to !fediverse@piefed.social instead—many of them aren’t even familiar with how Piefed itself is structured. That’s something I’m actively working to change.

And just for context—!fediversenews@piefed.social exists because @fediversenews@venera.social was one of the very first communities on the Fediverse focused on Fediverse news. The only problem was that Friendica really isn’t well-suited for forum-style discussion, so I created a new home for it on Piefed.

In other words, if you want a community to reach a wider audience, the rules need to be acceptable by a wider audience as well

On that point, I see it differently. The way I see it, I’m providing these communities with an audience, not the other way around. A lot of people join in or comment because they’re already familiar with my Akkoma account first.

And honestly, “Lemmy” specifically isn’t even my focus. My communities were always aimed more at microblog audiences, and Lemmy engagement has just been incidental.

I’m not lying. The only reason the issue didn’t come up with you is because you’re on piefed.social, not a remote server.

The way my settings were configured, I could still receive messages from people on piefed.social, but not from anyone outside the server.

You might want to double-check that setting yourself—I’d hate for you to run into the same problem down the road.

At the time, I honestly didn’t realize they were trying to reply to me—and I also didn’t know they couldn’t reply to me.

I wasn’t aware that my settings were preventing people from remote servers from responding. I don’t even remember ever changing that setting—if I did at all.

It’s probably not a good idea for anyone to send messages to people on remote servers if there’s no way for them to reply.

And you’re right—leaving that setting on would have led to problems sooner or later. I’m glad someone finally pointed me in the right direction.

You received my DM because of the first clause in that sentence: I consider the word “bro” to be offensive in this community. The “downvoted my request” part is context, not the charge.

Let me unpack it.

1. The boundary: “Bro” is not welcome here. I’ve explained why before. In my experience it is used as a put-down or as a fake familiarity play. That crosses our be-civil rule. Setting that boundary is my job as a mod.

2. What your vote signaled: When I asked a commenter to avoid that word, you downvoted that ask and later wrote “ban me, bro.” A vote is your right, but in this situation it functioned as encouragement to keep using the term I had just flagged. If you had upvoted a “keep saying it” reply or written the same sentiment in words, I would have sent the same DM. The issue is the encouragement of behavior I view as uncivil, not voting itself.

3. What the DM was and was not: It was a friendly warning and an attempt to de-escalate before moderation is needed. It was not a punishment for how you vote. I do not moderate people for disagreeing with me. I step in when disagreement turns into pushing others to ignore a clearly stated boundary.

4. The goal: Keep the space focused and civil so people can talk about the topic, not each other.

Bottom line: You were contacted because your actions encouraged use of a term I have asked people not to use here. If you avoid that term and do not promote it, you are welcome to participate. If you prefer a space where that word is fine, that is your choice. Freedom of speech and freedom of association both apply, and I was exercising the latter to keep the community healthy.

“bro” is a commonly accepted term on the Internet today. If I had to ban it on my communities, I would add this in the rules, even potentially with a link to a post with an extensive list of banned terms. That way it’s clear for everyone.

The challenge with listing every banned word is that someone will always find a way around it. They’ll use a term not on the list and then claim, “It’s not banned, so it must be fine.” That’s why I prefer to keep it simple with the guideline: Be civil.

That said, on !videogames@piesocial I wrote up a detailed explainer and linked it directly in the sidebar. I plan to do the same for all my communities—and since we co-moderate one together, I’d really value your feedback on that.

There are two options for you…

My preference is to start Piefed communities myself because they’re portable. If I ever spin up my own Piefed server, I can migrate them over. That flexibility matters to me.

But just as important, I’ve been an early adopter of Piefed and probably one of its most vocal evangelists. When I create a new community, it often gains traction quickly simply because I’m already out there championing the platform.

That’s really why I start new communities—to keep momentum going and to help Piefed grow.

Practically, how would you have handled this situation? I don’t think sidebar works. Maybe a sticky but stickies can only remain up for so long.

We are probably going to disagree here, but messaging people about using a word as common as “bro” today and threatening them from a ban if they reiterate doesn’t really seem kind or gentle.

Let me ask you honestly—not rhetorically—what would you see as both practical and kind in a situation like that? I truly want to understand.

I’ll say again: I don’t think it’s realistic to list every possible insult or epithet in the sidebar. That’s why I’ve tried different approaches.

I’ve been on the other side of power tripping, on a movies community no less…

So have I. That’s exactly why I started !movies@piefed.social. A moderator there didn’t like my reviews and removed them without explanation, so I decided to create a new space where that wouldn’t happen.

From that point on, I promised myself that if something wasn’t clear, I’d do my best to make it clear. At first, I did that with public notes, but then I was told private messages were kinder. So I shifted. Then I listened to more feedback—but this time, things still didn’t work out.

And this is where the challenge comes in: moderation takes time, it’s unpaid, and when you step into it, you often end up facing dogpiles and harassment.

The truth is, I’m the main contributor in most of my communities. I spend hours every day creating original posts to keep them alive. Given that, it’s hard to see what purpose it serves me—or anyone—if a wave of people shows up only to harass.

I don’t believe everyone is automatically entitled to participate if what they bring is hostility and outrage. And I hope you’d agree that building a healthy space means drawing that line somewhere.

Well, a lot of things went sideways here.

I tried private messaging based on feedback—it didn’t work.

I even used ChatGPT to help me phrase things in a friendlier, gentler way—that didn’t work either.

On top of that, I wasn’t even receiving replies because of Piefed’s settings. Thanks for catching that, by the way—I honestly thought I was losing my mind.

And now I have to ask—have you been trying to reach me all this time and just never gotten a response?

You found the problem. The setting was “This instance”. I changed it to allow all instances, and now I’m able to receive a reply from lemmy.world.

I think if “This instance” is selected, you shouldn’t be able to send private messages to remote servers.

I have to disagree—many people I know also find it insulting. I’ve even seen serious conflicts break out, beyond just arguments, because of the word “bro.”

That said, I recognize not everyone realizes it can come across that way. That’s why I reached out privately—to help make people aware of how it might be received.

Which was thrown out the window the second you mentioned moderator actions. At that point it stopped being a message between two users and started being a message between a user and a moderator. If you hadn’t mentioned any moderator stuff, yeah. I would have disagreed with your assessment but I would have respected it and removed the word bro from my comment. But you escalated it by saying “If you keep doing this, then I will do this”. You made it worse. You prepared for the worst and then told me what that preparation would be. If we’re talking about things we find personally insulting or offensive, that’s one of them for me. That means that you’re automatically assuming that I’m going to disregard you and feel the need to back up the words with a stick.

So if I understand you right—you’re saying that if I hadn’t mentioned the rules or the possibility of a ban, you would have been more willing to ease off.

If that’s the case, I’m genuinely sorry that my attempt at de-escalation ended up making things feel more tense. I really did try to phrase things as carefully as I could. In fact, I even asked ChatGPT to help me write the message so it would come across as “very gentle, polite, but also firm.” Here’s the log of that request:

https://chatgpt.com/share/68d1ce2a-9e74-800f-954f-023db390a0ee

I often use ChatGPT this way because tone is something I genuinely struggle with, and I don’t want to come across harsher than I mean to.

Moreover, you unbanned THAT dude because you said it was a mistake.

Just to clarify—he’s not unbanned. He’s still banned, and his post on !asklemmy@lemmy.world was removed. That removal wasn’t requested by me, but the post itself did result in a ban on !fediversenews@lemmy.world.

I don’t think it’s practical—or even healthy—to try and list every possible insult or epithet that might get someone banned. That’s why I keep the rule simple: “Be civil.” When I feel someone has crossed that line, my first instinct is to give a private heads-up rather than make it a public scene. I used to handle things with public call-outs, but based on feedback, I was encouraged to try a more private approach. That’s what I was aiming for here.

Rimu, it’s not working for me. I can post multiple screenshots of this. The only message I received is from someone also on the piefed.social instance.

You then banned me because I made your stance public.

It wasn’t about making my stance public—I’ve been open about it for a long time. For example, here’s me saying clearly that I block anyone who calls me “bro”:
https://atomicpoet.org/@atomicpoet/posts/AyRhhPi12urDezmd1M

And here’s another example from last January:
https://atomicpoet.org/@atomicpoet/posts/AqZF38Bo0xQrUdXFBo

So my stance has always been public, and my usual practice is simply to block or ban when it comes up.

Now, you might say, “That was on your home server, not in !fediversenews@piefed.social.” That’s true—but the post in question originated on atomicpoet.org, which means all replies to it flow back there. Communities I run aren’t just for Lemmy users. They’re also for people on Mastodon, Akkoma, and other microblog platforms, and most of the engagement actually comes from those places. People on Lemmy sometimes miss that wider context.

Meaning that you banned me for making your own stance publicly clear.

The ban wasn’t about restating my stance. It was because a private message was posted publicly. If you had asked me directly to clarify my stance again in public, I would have done so gladly. But with piefed.social’s DM system broken, I never would have seen such a request.

You’re welcome to tell anyone about my stance—it’s not a secret. I’ve repeated it many times across the Fediverse. The only reason I reached out privately was to try to resolve things quietly and without embarrassment. Unfortunately, with the messaging system broken, that wasn’t really possible.

That said, I’d much rather we be able to move forward on better terms. My intent was never to escalate things, only to keep the community space respectful for everyone. If we can take this as a learning experience, I’d be glad to put the focus back on building the kind of community we both want to see.

No. You reached out to me to say “Don’t call me bro because I find it personally insulting and if you continue to do so then I will take moderator action against you”.

What I meant was: it was a private message asking you not to use language I personally find uncivil. My hope was that you’d understand where I was coming from, and then we could both carry on as usual. The “warning” part was only meant to make it clear what would happen if it continued—not as a threat, but as clarity.

You then banned me for posting that screenshot.

Yes—that was the only reason you were banned. The message was private, and when it was posted publicly it turned into conflict.

Again, all I did was post that screenshot and say I wasn’t going to engage further. You then banned me for that.

From my side, I never saw any direct reply from you in DMs. If I had received a response, I would have addressed it directly. What I did see was the screenshot posted publicly, which then brought in a wave of harassment. That was what forced my hand.

So why did you respond to my DM then?

I didn’t actually respond to a DM—I responded to your post edit. When that edit later included our private conversation, I felt I had no choice but to issue the ban.

Responding to your points:

1. The DMs were never about downvotes. They were about trying to discourage behaviour I felt could encourage toxicity. If it had been about downvotes, many more people would have received messages.
2. If you tried to DM me for clarification, I didn’t receive it. As I’ve explained, piefed.social’s DM service is broken—I can send messages, but I can’t receive them from remote accounts. If I had known that at the time, I wouldn’t have sent any messages at all. That said, you weren’t banned for asking clarification. You were banned for publicly posting a private message.
3. No one has ever been banned for downvoting. The modlog confirms this, and you’re welcome to check it.

The reason this post was made was because you banned me for posting that screenshot in my comment but the only thing that screenshot said was your stance on the word bro!

Just to be clear—you weren’t banned for saying “bro.” The issue was that a private message was taken and posted publicly.

You came into my DMs using your stance as a moderator. That’s no longer a private communication between two individuals, that’s you as a moderator flexing your position and saying “Do this or else.”

My intent really was to keep it between us—to quietly ask you to ease off without shaming you in public.

You then responded to my DM (Which throws everything about your point of Piefed.social not allowing you to get responses into question) saying why you disagreed.

Here’s the entire conversation I can see from my side:

https://imgur.com/a/OYiL1pA

You can test this yourself: start a private message on piefed.social with someone on a remote server. You won’t get their reply. DMs only work if both parties are on piefed.social.

All of that is fine. It’s just you making your stance on the rules clear.

Exactly. And rules around civility can’t spell out every possible insult or slur—it’s contextual. “Bro” is one of those words that, in my personal experience, has almost always been used in an uncivil way.

Trying to outlaw the word bro will only backfire because people will just say it more.

If someone uses language I’ve explained is offensive to me, that tells me they’re not interested in mutual respect—and that makes community-building impossible. Participation isn’t an entitlement. Freedom of association means I can choose who I interact with. The fact we’re still talking shows I don’t think you’re beyond reaching an understanding.

Like I cannot stand when people use certain turns of phrase and find them personally aggravating but I’m not going to go out of my way to threaten someone with moderator action, DM multiple people about their downvotes and then ban someone for clarifying my own position.

My approach has always been to try for dialogue before taking any harsher step—to explain why I find something uncivil and give someone a chance to see where I’m coming from. That’s what I was trying to do with you.

Did I communicate that perfectly? Probably not. And the fact that piefed.social’s DM system is half-broken definitely didn’t help.

To be honest, I’m not sure what exactly I’d be apologizing for.

For me, the word “bro” has always carried negative weight. Every time it’s been directed at me, it’s come with bad intent—either as a way to dismiss me (as OP even admitted) or as a forced, insincere familiarity from someone looking to take advantage. In my experience, no one who’s called me “bro” has ever done so kindly.

So I’d ask you to put yourself in my shoes: how would you handle it? I’m not asking rhetorically—I truly want to know. Maybe I am too sensitive to that word, but from where I stand, every use of it has been tied to toxicity. And I don’t want to encourage that in the communities I care for.

The fact that people now throw “bro” at me in unrelated threads only reinforces my point—it’s being used to harass, not to build friendship. That’s why I see it as a toxic word I don’t want in my spaces.

I reached out to you privately because I was hoping we could sort things out between ourselves instead of it spilling into public. Unfortunately, private messaging on piefed.social is broken right now—I can send messages, but I can’t receive replies.

I want you to know my goal was never to antagonize you or make you upset. In fact, I put a lot of thought into writing that message as kindly as I could—even asked ChatGPT for help—because I know I sometimes struggle with tone and interpersonal communication. That’s part of being autistic, and I try to be upfront about it so people understand where I’m coming from.

I just wish we’d had the chance to work toward some common ground together. I really do believe we could have found a better way forward.