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?

  • enkers@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Perhaps you’re familiar with the concept of JAQ?

          my objections to the claims made are based in fact and good scientific practice.

    • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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)