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 [email protected] (though i’m still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
God I love this petty bullshit, Lemmy is so cool lol. It’s two hours mate, go for a walk
if i’d been on a walk, i might have missed it entirely, then, if the same admin took offense to my continued use of the site, they’d be able to say i’m a repeat offender.
i thought it to be important to understand the actual acceptable use, so i could use the site without wondering if any comment or report might end up getting me banned, and i pro-actively established my honest uses with the admin before i joined. now that is in question, and, yea, i do think the admin that banned me is power tripping a bit, since none of the other admins took action.
Coming back to this thread, I do think some of your comments were inflammatory. If you were to receive a ban, it should have been for trying to bring fights in the comments (but even that is ambiguous at best). I agree that the ban for a comment was too much. An admin shouldn’t be conflating one such action with overall behaviour. As for “repeated bad-faith behaviour”, it is not so far out to ban you I think. People should be responsible for their own actions.
given the guidance i’ve been given from, now, 3 admins, i’m just going to find another instance.
And nothing was learned whatsoever, it seems. Good luck on your instance hunt.
i learned my behavior is no longer within the bounds of the acceptable use policy for db0.
Eh, the part about your pre-join discussion is irrelevant as any given community may well have more restrictive standards than the instance, and it’s a benefit that admins not intervene in cases that aren’t egregious and/or in violation of instance policies.
That being said, I think you got it right, a 2 hour ban is so borderline as anything at all, that it doesn’t merit much of anything here. It was definitely unnecessary, but it’s so minor that calling it power tripping seems dubious.
Has the mod in question said anything about the temp ban beyond what’s shown? That’s just personal curiosity more than anything relevant, tbh.
My take? If the action of a single mod is “chilling” your use of the rest of the instance, that’s a you thing entirely.
Yeah, the action was unnecessary, but it was also effectively meaningless, so it’s one of those things you just shrug off and move on while blocking the community.
Edit: leaving this up for context with the rest of the thread, but I missed a very important fact, that this was an admin action, not a mod action on a community. Ignore the fuck out of this drivel, please.
the ban was by a db0 admin, not a community mod.
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.
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.
they were relying on that for their initial claim, and never backed off the very strong, but unsupported, claim. the evidence they brought later does not support that claim.
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.
that’s not the situation we were in.
anarchy for me but not for thee
ignorant jokes aside, i think i might be interested in your consumer opinion. maybe ill find the referred read
to db0s credit, he is not asserting authority in this case, though one of his admins clearly did… he encouraged me to bring it here or to the instance governance community
It’s a big of a weird case innit? I think that incivility should be allowed, but I also see that a pattern of behaviour where someone goads people to get upset in order to report them for incivility is manipulative and against anarchist ethos. You got to be able to take what you’re dishing out. When I answered your email I didn’t anticipate that you would be crying to the mods when you got people heated, yanno?
I don’t think any of us admins would mind you having strong opinions on some matters and holding your ground, even if it would upset others, but this constant pattern of trying to manipulate situations to get people sanction by hierarchical power (mods) I feel is approaching /crossing an ethical line.
I believe this pattern behaviour is what the mod is objecting to, not your light trolling and strong opinions.
so when people become abusive, I’m just supposed to tolerate that?
my goal isn’t to goad. I leave plenty of comments where I simply correct the misinformation, and there is never any followup. which is great because now anyone reading those comments knows something closer to the truth.
and since the governance of communities does, as a practical matter, require mod or admin action, how else am I supposed to deal with the abusive behavior?
You can always tell them that you don’t like how they’re interacting with you and disengage. People will get upset at your opinions of veganism, but being upset isn’t “abuse”.
One could do the same pattern of behaviour with anti-Trans essentialist arguments and “just asking questions”, and then report Trans allies who get upset at it. most trans/ally mods would ban someone doing this tactic for it, but liberal mods might end up banning the other party for “incivility”.
I suppose I can try that, but it’s common for people to double down on misinformation in a comment where they start hurling invectives.
I’m instance shopping, but if this is the standard for behavior on your instance I can abide that til I find a new home.
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.
I never asked for extra leeway. I never thought I had any kind of agreement with db0 other than a shared understanding of the acceptable use policy. now you have some say in the interpretation of that policy, and you disagree with what was previously understood.
I know we can’t all agree about everything, but there needs to be some clarity about what is acceptable, and what isn’t.
and it’s a two way street. capricious moderation isn’t acceptable to me. if that’s what I can expect, then I will have to go somewhere else.
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)
I didn’t report the admin. I reported a user on a different instance.
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 have no way of knowing which admin did the ban
borderline bad-faith arguments you’ve made in the past
either it’s bad faith or it’s not. and i’d be surprised if you could point to any such interaction, since i rarely make an independent argument on this topic. mostly, i call into question the validity of others’ arguments.
That’s not how this works. Perhaps you’re familiar with the concept of JAQ? You don’t need to make positive claims to argue in bad faith. In fact, the avoidance of making any positive claims can often be indicative of bad-faith discussion.
JAQ is effective precisely because it often comes along with plausible deniability. It’s established as bad faith because it’s a pattern, even when most individual instances can look rather innocuous.
Perhaps you’re familiar with the concept of JAQ?
my objections to the claims made are based in fact and good scientific practice.
Send the link to the discussion and the screenshot of your comment
the issue isn’t my comment: nothing was removed. here’s the whole thread
I’m not the same person you replied to, but the link doesn’t work for me and neither do your images. It might be on my end though
It works for me, both people seem passionate about their positions.
OP did an accusation that the other was lying once.Otherwise was civil?I think op mildly broke rule one on the civility rule, but the 2 hour ban was mislabeled .( edit it was the other commenter and not op)TL;DR intellectual slap fight,
probably the mildest of infractions for civility. Have no clue if that caused the ban or not( edit and someone tried to shut down op)OP did an accusation that the other was lying once.
my response was a direct quote from the parent comment
Oh yea, I did not read it accurately. Sorry, am sick today.
In that case PTB and you did not deserve it, the other should have been rebuked, if at all. Obviously someone did not like what you said and gave you the ultimate downvote
Mod is biased. There’s no 2 ways around it
it was an admin ban.
