I was in an incident that led to people complaining about me here and by extension in Ask Lemmy, one which I explained my perspective on elsewhere. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by a certain Blaze to share it in YPTB, only for those in charge there to give what amounted to a signal of disregard for it and to take it elsewhere. Going by their own words, I then shared it in !fediverselore@lemmy.ca as the only close alternative available, which, as a part of their own “rules subtext”, sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because “YTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebar”.
The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word “false”, and he even alluded to that after it began to be discussed elaborately, albeit before using an appeal to the masses (story of my life) and say “most people seem to understand”, which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the “the truth we all wanted to speak” remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with “I can spot rules broken by the other person’s thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mine” and got only thumbs down for it and no responses, yet when I actually dissected the rules piece by piece in front of him to point out that any rule I supposedly broke wasn’t there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a “fair point to be honest”, the mod then delved into the concept of “unspoken rules” as an excuse for himself and said he didn’t want to “rules-lawyer”, which not only disproves what he said about “specific posting guidelines” being “in the sidebar” that supposedly explained what I did wrong, but proved a point I commonly mention about people in different places including here always being uncritical and unwilling to see things for themselves and just taking peoples’ word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypher’s last reply, intellectual =/= intelligent). A part of that is it also suggests, by extension, that the quantity of thumbs down you garner is unreliable as consistently meaning anything, unless the rule is actually to apply gladiator logic and say a thumbs down signals mercy, as indicated by the very Roman-esque culture around here. I guess all this time, I was being praised and didn’t realize it?
This idea of “unspoken rules” and “reading between the lines” seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether you’re akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to ask… hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldn’t read the “unspoken rules” or anticipate mod discretion, what if I were to go to the places I have authority over and ban everyone who says or has said anything positive or supportive about Luigi Mangione or what he did? Would I be able to accomplish this without being called a PTB? After all, that is how this all started, and again, that would be an “unspoken rule” on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldn’t it? Those are the terms.
I await your choice.
The fact that Lemmys love Luigi so much is cringe. The guy murdered someone in cold blood. Celebrating him is gross, even for anarchists. He’ll go to prison for the rest of his life. Like he deserves.
I’m sure with so many idolizing him and planning to “luigi” others and plan of a “resistance” has most of Lemmy on government watchlists now. WTF guys?
That’s MY opinion. Others are free to have theirs, even tho it seems really strange to me.
We don’t think about you lol
Why? As a defense?
And I don’t care.
There will be no “revolution.” There will be no masses of people out to “eat the rich.” This won’t make millionaires and billionaires run scared for their lives. The jury won’t even debate very long, friend.
Nothing will happen. Luigi will spend the rest of his life in prison. And in 10 years he’ll be a trivia question.
This huge movement that you think you are being a part of, and that you think he started, only exists in this echo chamber.
Lemmy can keep going on with their vague promises of “arm yourselves and wait for the moment!”
That moment won’t come.
The people that you think are going to rise up, won’t. They’re gonna go back to their hum-drum but higher-than-average jobs, play pokemon, and talk about weed and fucking video games.
Keyboard warriors who make more than the average person in the US, bitching about being lower class. Nothing will fucking happen. lol
And you know I’m right about all of this. And that’s why you’re angry.
Fuck me, this dude loves to hear himself talk.
This word soup is fucking trash. Let me do everyone here a favor:
This post is highly verbose, filled with tangential points, and jumps between topics, making it difficult to follow. Here’s a breakdown of what the person seems to be saying:
-
The Incident: The poster was involved in an online situation where their behavior led to complaints in various forums (e.g., Lemmy, Ask Lemmy).
-
Their Defense: They shared their perspective on the incident in another forum or blog and were encouraged by someone named Blaze to post it in a specific community (“YPTB”). However, moderators of YPTB rejected their post and directed them to share it elsewhere.
-
Actions Taken: Following the moderators’ advice, they posted it in another community (“!fediverselore”), which they claim has some precedent for allowing such discussions. Despite this, the moderators from YPTB showed up there to criticize them for not following the original community’s “specific posting guidelines.”
-
Rules Debate: The poster argues that the supposed “posting guidelines” they were accused of breaking either don’t exist or weren’t clearly stated. They tried to dissect the rules piece by piece to show they didn’t violate any, and even Blaze agreed with them.
-
“Unspoken Rules”: The moderators, according to the poster, eventually justified their criticism by referring to “unspoken rules” or norms not explicitly stated. This concept frustrates the poster because it undermines their defense and supports what they see as a subjective or inconsistent enforcement of rules.
-
Broader Grievance: The poster feels ostracized and believes that the community or moderators operate under a “groupthink” mentality, where dissenting views (like theirs) are dismissed or punished. They also criticize the practice of using downvotes or negative feedback as a measure of validity or correctness.
-
Hypothetical Question: They sarcastically propose a scenario where they could ban everyone in their own spaces for supporting someone named Luigi Mangione, claiming this would be no different from how the moderators are applying their discretion under “unspoken rules.” They are questioning the fairness of such norms.
-
Final Thoughts: The post ends with an open-ended challenge or provocation, suggesting that the community or moderators’ logic is flawed and asking how they will respond to this critique.
TL;DR:
The poster feels unfairly treated due to vague or non-existent rules being used to criticize their actions. They believe the moderators and community enforce norms subjectively, based on group consensus or unspoken rules, rather than clear guidelines. They see this as hypocritical and are challenging the logic behind it. The post is laden with frustration, sarcasm, and an air of intellectual superiority.
And there is the issue. The way you shortened it simplified it in a way that several important details and specifications were left out. I said it as short as I could without doing that, which is what you are referring to as “tangential” and containing “jumps between topics”.
They also criticize the practice of using downvotes or negative feedback as a measure of validity or correctness.
So do the mods here, but it’s never enforced, in fact their PSA asking for courtesy with people giving things thumbs down has the most thumbs down of anything in the community.
Have you not considered a majority of those downvotes are likely done ironically…? Seems natural to me that a post asking people not to downvote irresponsibly would get bombarded with them. It’s like putting a “DO NOT PUSH” sign over a big red button.
Yeah, but if it was an action where your membership in a community was at stake, you’d think it would be akin to someone saying “ban me, daddy!”
Your lack of nuance and sense of humor is why people call you a PTB and why you’re frustrated that they don’t do the same to me.
Who said I was frustrated they don’t do the same to you? Me bringing something up like I have does not reflect frustration, if anything I would be indifferent and only sighing at the double-standardish aspects of much of what is going on. Not sure what you mean by nuance or a sense of humor; the latter is rather subjective and abrupt to downplay someone over. Humor is a skill much like not having dyslexia is a skill.
You don’t have to come to out and say it. It’s obvious by your actions. And yes, I know you don’t get what I mean about nuance and humor. Kinda my point really.
I know what nuance and humor typically mean. Which is why I pointed out that humor is subjective, i.e. there have been times people say I can be humorous, yet I’m not invalidating your opinion of my humor. Nuance, on the other hand, typically means complexity, depth, etc. and my willingness to analyze matters like wealth abuse case-by-case by dissecting the lives of individuals involved, for example, often leads me to wonder if people who say “down with all billionaires”, as has been the case for those advocating copycats of the CEO attack, themselves have any nuance. Generally speaking though, I for one am not one to shame anyone just because of things like lacking nuance or humor.
Wasn’t trying to shame. Just to explain.
I assume you mean something else by “nuance” than I alluded to. That would be undetermined as of the explanation, as long as you’re saying (perhaps randomly) that I lack it.
Treat rules with too much humanity and you get a lot of human errors. This is something I try to avoid, in fact I’ve recently added a rule guide to the groups I help out in and I can only wonder how anyone would call it non-nuanced. That (the avoidance of excess humanity) doesn’t mean I’m not human or don’t have moments of being considered humorous.
-
YDI
The comment from @ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net on your original post before it was removed hit the nail on the head imo:
I think the way you talk around the issue (e.g. “a man named after a certain plumber”) really demonstrates an underlying understanding that you’re in the wrong here: you’re avoiding direct confrontation with him and his motives in order to paint this as a simple murder. You linked to excuses about how Brian Thompson was actually innocent, because denying life saving medical coverage isn’t technically the same thing as personally murdering them, despite having the same effect. You paint agreement with his actions with pledging direct allegiance to him personally.
There are legitimate arguments around not lionising his actions (as Hexbear discussed at the time), but you’re just getting upset about civility and direct violence disrupting the indirect violence of capitalism.
Let’s get real here. The State has a monopoly on violence in most countries. That’s one of the ways they keep control of the population. That’s why it’s perceived as such a threat to the State when ordinary people use violence to challenge the status quo. The State made it perfectly legal for people to like Brian Thompson to deny life saving treatments and procedures from the sick and dying in order to turn a larger profit margin. That is an example of state-sanctioned violence. All those involved should be in prison and held accountable. But they never will be, because State is organized around protecting the rich and powerful from the consequences of their deeply immoral, unethical and (ought to be illegal) acts that turn a profit. Don’t forget that slavery was legal and Nazi concentration camps were legal at the time. That’s why your moralizing position rings hollow. Because all you are doing in effect is defending the right of the state to continue with it’s immoral agenda of exploiting the sick and poor for profit, without ever having to accept any consequences for it.
When the justice system is corrupt, when the laws are written by lobbyists, when politicians from both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by corporations, what other option do we have to resist the abuses of the rich and powerful? This is why people consider Luigi a bit of a folk hero. Because he gave people a bit of hope that real change was possible, and that (at least occasionally) the rich and powerful might get what’s coming to them.
On another topic, your original blog post was imo not in keeping sidebar rules, especial rule 1:
Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
It seems to me you are more upset that basically nobody here agrees with your position on this topic, rather than because of any PTB issues.
So your whole defense for this whole ordeal is… political and based in rhetoric?
Imagine if they denied nobody. Anybody with so much as colorblindness could get coverage. There does have to be a line somewhere. That’s why insurance is a contract. And people read these, and if they agree, they sign them.
Nevertheless, even if someone denies Brian Thompson was there to change, those who advocate violence would have to square that with the fact the bad aspects of the system wasn’t even his doing. That’s not just an excuse, that’s literally how half of businesses work.
In any case, the mods elsewhere would agree with me, as would people in literally any other community, as well as the law, which the fediverse is bound by, like it or not. So it’s not something where “basically nobody here agrees”. Does the fediverse feel like standing by this opinion anyways? We’ll see where that leads in the eyes of the state, and although I don’t simp to the state (thus the part about Nazis fails, because I was going by ethics, not law), I won’t flinch if the fediverse goes full tiktok.
I’ll also say that action taken towards someone in a community is either up to the discretion of its managers or it isn’t regardless of the written rules, and if the defense of everyone here is that I was banned because it is, then I am not the PTB if I use the same logic in my communities, no matter what people here complain. The only things “upsetting” to me are the double standards and the selective regard people hold the TOS.
I’ll just quickly remind you this is literally an Anarchist server, so it’s unlikely you’re gonna find much sympathy for your views here.
Many of us aren’t based in the US. So when you say “the law” which law specifically are you talking about?
I honestly can’t follow what your complaint is any more. Were you actually banned from anywhere or did you just get your feelings hurt by having your blog post removed from this community?
It’s not at all clear to me that your original post of any of this post meets the Rule 1 criteria: Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
It’s odd to see me the one accused of having my feelings hurt.
Events in order…
- The initial messages here were complaints about me. Technically their feelings were hurt.
- I initially went away to talk about my perspective. I wasn’t dissatisfied about that. It was Blaze, who is like the fediverse peacekeeper at this point, who told me to share it here.
- Upon sharing it here, I was silenced even though it didn’t break any written rules. Which Blaze agreed with later on. I was told in the response to share it elsewhere. My feelings were not hurt, as shown by the fact I complied.
- When I complied, the mod of !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com who told me to go elsewhere with it came to me and made a fuss. That’s where the rules were spoken about. It was that mod who told me he would rather I talk about it here. Again, my feelings were not hurt during that, as shown by the fact I complied about that too.
- Here we are.
By law I mean a few places. The World instance is based in the EU. The Lemm.ee instance is based in Estonia. The ML one is based in Russia. The new LemmyUSA one is based in the US. In all of these nations, there is legal caution around the topic. And this kind of thing inspires the TOS. This is what I uphold.
You say you don’t know if I follow rule one as if your partner mod didn’t encourage me to start this discussion after he removed the other thing, which I’d say fits the definition of what rule one asks for.
Ok I’m sort of following along here.
- The initial messages here were complaints about me. Technically their feelings were hurt.
- I initially went away to talk about my perspective. I wasn’t dissatisfied about that. It was Blaze, who is like the fediverse peacekeeper at this point, who told me to share it here.
Ok got it, so you were the accused PTB in the original post here.
- Upon sharing it here, I was silenced even though it didn’t break any written rules. Which Blaze agreed with later on. I was told in the response to share it elsewhere. My feelings were not hurt, as shown by the fact I complied.
In what way were you silenced? Nobody banned you from here or stopped you participating in the original discussion according to the modlog. So no PTB there. In fact you were encouraged to simply post your response in the original discussion thread and db0 even offered to sticky it there so that it would get sufficient visibility.
But you wanted a completely separate post to complain that nobody took your side in the original discussion, and you didn’t get your own way about it. But the best place for your response was in the original post, along with all the context.
- When I complied, the mod of !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com who told me to go elsewhere with it came to me and made a fuss. That’s where the rules were spoken about. It was that mod who told me he would rather I talk about it here. Again, my feelings were not hurt during that, as shown by the fact I complied about that too.
The so-called fuss, which was just responding to your questions & comments:
- Here we are.
Yes, here we are. So let me sum up.
- You were posted about in YPTB for banning people for supporting Luigi Mangione. The community rendered its judgment and most folks thought you were being a PTB.
- You then wrote a confusing blog post about how you were right to ban those people, and wanted to post it in a second YPTB post. This second post did not meet our community rules and was removed. Those rules have now been repeatedly explained to you and clarified. You were offered a “right of reply” in the original post with a stickied comment. It was suggested to you that if you want to make the post, do it somewhere else.
- You came back here to complain about db0 removing your (second) post, as db0 suggested you should do if you feel it was a PTB move. Unfortunately you then confused the hell out of everyone, me included, by writing about it in an incredibly confusing and disjointed way.
So the only topic of THIS post per point 3 should be about whether is was justified to have your second “right of reply” post removed according to our sidebar rules. Your assertion seems to be that db0 was power tripping by doing that.
I hope this clarifies for everyone. And I think the removal of your second post was completely warranted by the community rules because it was about you justifying yourself, more than anything else.
In what way were you silenced? Nobody banned you from here or stopped you participating in the original discussion according to the modlog. So no PTB there. In fact you were encouraged to simply post your response in the original discussion thread and db0 even offered to sticky it there so that it would get sufficient visibility.
The original discussion was done. So, in effect, it was dismissive to say “go to that dead discussion and make your point”. The whole point of a perspective is to allow both sides to be side-by-side. So I chose the other option the other mod suggested, to go to !fediverselore@lemmy.ca with it. He did suggest that as one of his suggestions.
But you wanted a completely separate post to complain that nobody took your side in the original discussion, and you didn’t get your own way about it. But the best place for your response was in the original post, along with all the context.
It wasn’t about “getting my own way”, it was about mentioning things the other people seemed they could not square together. You make it sound personal. Again, even Blaze mentioned my route seemed to make more sense.
The so-called fuss, which was just responding to your questions & comments:
It was still kind of fussy for someone who brought the idea up. Not hostile, but questioning.
Here are some corrections to your summary.
You then wrote a confusing blog post about how you were right to ban those people, and wanted to post it in a second YPTB post.
There was a lot more factored in that led me to saying it like that, but yeah. I made that “blog” to give to the other mods, which they said was fair and understandable. I gave it to Blaze because he took part in the first discussion. That’s when he told me to share it. So even though one could say I “wanted to post” it, it was also second-hand.
Those rules have now been repeatedly explained to you and clarified.
…if you could say that about an unspoken rule. Do I object? Technically, no, it’s your community. But it’s not like it wouldn’t have confused me, going by the rules. The other mod even had to explain it to Blaze.
Unfortunately you then confused the hell out of everyone, me included, by writing about it in an incredibly confusing and disjointed way.
I tried my best. In terms of typos and grammar, it’s fine and, I would thus say, calculatable. I did paraphrase it a bit too.
Your assertion seems to be that db0 was power tripping by doing that.
Not really just that. It seemed rather roundabout and double-standard-ish how this all turned out despite the fact I complied to everyone to the letter.
it was about you justifying yourself, more than anything else.
How do you think someone explaining their perspective works, especially when it was brought to light based on others’ advice? Of course someone explaining their perspective is going to justify themselves. And then, each time, I planned to leave it up to discussion and give everyone free will, albeit with the caveat that the ruling would determine my next course of action (practicing discretion in my own communities if the ruling placed emphasis on the !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com’s mods’ right to practice discretion, enforcing unspoken rules in my communities even in the face of people complaining here if the emphasis was on me not reading into unspoken rules, etc.).
There was no “unspoken rule” involved here. It’s literally the first community rule in the sidebar. If you’re just gonna make stuff up about being the victim of “unspoken rules” then this discussion might as well end here tbh. I’ll note that nobody else has misunderstood that rule.
If you didn’t feel willing or able to adequately express your position in the comments on the original post then that’s a shame, but them’s the breaks. Being a mod is a tough gig. You’ve now had the chance to have your say across multiple communities. And the offer is still open to pin your response blog entry to the original post.
Rule one says “post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)”.
I am a mod.
My discussion was about a ban.
Therefore, my post was “about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)”.
Unless there is something lost in translation, it’s deceptive to say I’m making anything up.
Whether or not nobody else has misunderstood it doesn’t mean it’s not capable of being misunderstood if there are parts of it that are more implied than written.
As for taking up a position in the replies of that thread, I was going by two peoples’ advice that did not rule out another thread. Take it up with them. If you truly still want me to go to that thread and state my position there, I will, once again, comply, wondering if I’m going to end up proving myself right and/or for this to be just another disdained step in this roundabout game you and the other mod have going.
I have no idea what you’re talking about or what your issue is. There’s a lot of words and oblique references but very little actual information.
You have no idea how much better your comment made me feel after having to re-read this post a handful of times to figure wtf was being complained about.
Not even in the links?
If you’re expecting each reader to undertake a research project to understand what’s going on, you are mistaken. That’s your job in writing the post. Summarize the situation (with citations if appropriate).
What do you think I did?
This could all be understood without the links, I should point out. Sentences being long doesn’t make something not make sense.
Unquestionably the aforementioned (for posterity, the length of sentences) can be demonstrably shown not to inherently manifest itself as without sense, rather it is the wilful extension of the content of the post and obfuscation of the meaning behind via superfluous verbiage and lexical tomfoolery.
Or
No, sentences being long doesnt necessarily make them not make sense. But length and word soup, both without reason, makes it harder to parse, without reason.
I understood both of those just fine, even understanding the first one before even attempting the second one. Not saying this to throw shade on anyone, but it wasn’t impossible if I stayed with it because you’re supposed to be steady with it.
When saying something complicated (not because of its word choice but because of its premise), is it not typical or natural to tend to choose what one says based on what will expand more easily and what one considers accurate? Suppose you were describing an attitude. You could say “they have a lot of hate”, with “hate” being a recognizable word. Or you could say “they have a lot of disdain”, which is more specific than “hate” but which might be more accurate. You could choose a word for the vibes, the simplicity, the accuracy, the generalization, the speed, etc. and I tend to choose precision because of transparency and because I am anti-lazy.
The problem comes when someone is confused and I offer to paraphrase and they give me the cold shoulder due to displeasure (as well as saying they don’t understand something to be avoidant, which, and I’m serious when I say this, you can often guess based on how they do the first thing and inconsistently exaggerate the issue just to dominate the vibes). I am not entitled to anything, none of you are entitled to anything, and I try to make things as easy as I can and be negotiative (quick note, let’s use this word negotiative as an example… I literally couldn’t fit that in any other way and still have the effect I was aiming for), but then the reaction turns into a weaponized fad rather than something genuine, and I can prove this. Again, transparency. That guides a lot of my habits.
Paragraph 1:
The second version is, obviously, easier to read and understand, and thus more accessible and a better way to get your point across. Its not that your post is impossible to understand, its that it is harder to understand (and, to read, and to gain context for - a 5 minute screen recording scrolling through a thread?) than it should be for no gain.
Paragraph 2:
Yes, you make choices based on “what will expand more easily and what one considers accurate”, undeniable fact. But an equal part of the writing process is making those same choices with the reader in mind. You can maintain precision while still making your communication more easily understood and succinct. These are not in opposition to one another, they are in service of the same goal - communicating with others.
Paragraph 3:
That is a problem, for sure. I make no debate about the existence of those who behave wilfully ignorant. I agree with 90% of what you wrote in this paragraph, but:
You say transparency guides your habits, but I hope that you can accept feedback that the way you are communicating in the OP and your linked post are not resulting in transparency, but opacity.
It wasn’t for a lack of trying.
You have got to condense this down, use some periods. Run it through chat gpt maybe. But it’s nearly incomprehensible.
I agree. I can parse most texts regardless of content and difficulty, but i had to read this multiple times and jump through hoops to get a hint of what happened.
- Make a timeline of events (who did what when and where?)
- Define your grievance for us to judge after timeline
- Don’t redirect to outside sources, at least not inline - list the links at the end of the post
- Cut out the flavor text (Blaze does not need an adjective every time he’s mentioned, even tho Blaze probably likes it)
- Break the text up visually into more paragraphs
- Less stuff in parenthesis, cut it out or integrate it if important
you can add the stuff that you removed AFTER everyone knows the gist of what happened.
Same here tbh, i am looking to see how others read it before chiming in.
If you have difficulty understanding it, I can paraphrase if it helps. Which parts are hard to understand?
What are you asking the community to opine on specifically. I can’t connect the dots between what you are setting up and the last para.
All throughout everything that has been happening, I have accused of not following “unspoken rules”. For example, I am told there are rules not listed on the side.
I’m also told there are norms of this place I have violated. I have vowed to uphold the community rules and the TOS wherever I’m in charge. One of these is to apply disciplinary measures to material that supports Luigi Mangione. But as I was doing this, everyone started complaining. They made a discussion here talking about it. I universally got a PTB grading from everyone.
This is where people started saying I was violating norms and “unspoken rules” and saying I don’t “read between the lines”. Whenever I explain something at length, I am told I have violated unspoken rules of verbal articulation. Whenever I have shared my perspective, I’m told I have violated unspoken rules of wherever I share my perspective.
If I ask a question about an unspoken rule, I get only thumbs down and no response. Ironically, this was in response to the mod of this community who confronted me in my relocated discussion saying I was violating rules that were actually spoken. So I then personally picked apart the rules to show I wasn’t violating any, and he then changed his reasoning and said it was an unspoken rule, and that “exceptions to this are at my discretion in the benefit of the community health” [sic]. And I thought “your discretion? So when I exercise discretion, I’m a PTB, but when you do it, it’s fair play?”
The whole “unspoken rules” thing is just a weapon at this point. Saying I am misunderstood, when I have absorbed everything that is spoken, certainly comes off that way.
So then that leads to the last part. I don’t mind what ruling I get. But I was asking, what if I responded differently depending on the option? Specifically, I was asking… if everyone rules in favor of the mods here and rules against me for questioning someone’s discretion and for having banned people for calling for more of what Luigi Mangione did (and for violating unspoken rules), would I be a PTB if I did the same thing? Would I be a PTB if I went by my own discretion, enforced my own unspoken rules, and started banning everyone who says anything apologetic about Luigi Mangione from the places I have authority in? I am merely emulating this community’s example, after all.
And by extension, if I’m ruled to not be in the wrong, does it not go against previous authority here? Not that this wouldn’t be a relief.
All throughout everything that has been happening, I have accused of not following “unspoken rules”. For example, I am told there are rules not listed on the side.
This much passive voice in the first sentence alone is why people are tuning out. Honestly, it sounds like whining to me.
Whining as in the tone, or whining as in the complaint or observation that I encroached on a rule I didn’t know existed comes off as unreasonable?
I have vowed to uphold the community rules and the TOS wherever I’m in charge. One of these is to apply disciplinary measures to material that supports Luigi Mangione.
Ok, so there is an order to mod anything favourable to Luigi but the public does not respect this rule or agree with it. Y’all can mod however you want but expecting people to accept it without criticism is silly.
Can you provide link to this unspoken rule exchange? I check the original thread, and I can’t find “unspoken” mentioned.
Was it advised to you that you should have known better than to censor pro Luigi speech due to public sentiment?
Why is it I am in the wrong for criticizing people who do as I say I might do, but those same people, i.e. this community, seems justified in criticizing me for the same thing? Double standard much?
I can’t find “unspoken” mentioned.
Nobody uses the exact wording. But this is a theme, and the biggest example of this is in the proof of one of the messages of mine that got removed, when I was blamed for not picking something up from this community’s rules that is not specified.
Was it advised to you that you should have known better than to censor pro Luigi speech due to public sentiment?
If anything, the opposite would have been the case. The fact this is being held up against me is why I’m pointing out how much of a double standard it is. My experiences have paralleled yours directly, though the double standard aspect is the only one I’ve been complaining about.
Nobody uses the exact wording. But this is a theme, and the biggest example of this is in the proof of one of the messages of mine that got removed, when I was blamed for not picking something up from this community’s rules that is not specified.
Edit: So the removal reason is included above as well as the relevant rule. It’s literally the first community rule in the sidebar.
'm also told there are norms of this place I have violated. I have vowed to uphold the community rules and the TOS wherever I’m in charge. One of these is to apply disciplinary measures to material that supports Luigi Mangione. But as I was doing this, everyone started complaining. They made a discussion here talking about it. I universally got a PTB grading from everyone.
This reminds me of the “I was just following orders” defense at Nuremberg. Lay with dogs get fleas. You’re upholding the status quo of state sanctioned violence and wondering why people have a problem with that. Gee I can’t imagine.
The law binds but does not protect the underclass and protects but not binds the ruling class. The UHC CEO murdered millions by denying healthcare but that’s totally ok because there’s a mountain of paperwork and administration between the CEO and the poor schmuck who died from a lack of healthcare.
We need more Luigi’s and less people like you in this world.
Denying help =/= harm.
Anyone who is making the argument that Brian Thompson can be equated to a Nazi has never both read and signed an insurance contract before.
So the “just following orders” defense does not apply, especially as a part of all of this is the fact other people are calling for praise for Luigi Mangione and for copycats to happen, which technically means, if anyone, many of you are “just following orders”.
No flat out you’re fucking wrong. Those ghouls killed my father. I hope you get to suffer the same fate, like the rest of conservative idiots it’s not real until it happens to you.
“My discretion” pertains only to giving an exception to the rules.
It’s still a tangible stipulation that can go both ways.
I did all of that, actually. The first people here don’t seem to have difficulty.
The first people here don’t seem to have difficulty.
I was the first person to comment here and I explicitly pointed out that I don’t like your writing style because I had difficulty parsing it.
There were at least two people before you, the first of which being @sunzu2@thebrainbin.org.
I don’t see those comments, so I’ll chalk that up to federation issues. My mistake.
Lenny, you got the same problem as I do: writing huge walls of text, with really long sentences and paragraphs, that are really hard to parse. People lose track of what you’re talking about, so simply paraphrasing excerpts won’t help; you probably need to restructure the whole thing, if you want to be understood.
To make it worse, you’re redirecting the reader over and over, both through links and through indirect references.
This is on-topic here because I don’t think that db0 was power-tripping, but I don’t think that you deserved it. I think that it was just miscommunication; under a quick glance your post linking to buzzly.art doesn’t seem to be about rule enforcement, it sounds more like a rant plus request for advice.
The whole thing is so complicated that I have doubts it would have been possible.
Objectively, “Luigi did nothing wrong” could be defending what he allegedly did, but could also be supporting the idea that he’s been falsely accused.
I also agree with the mod saying your initial post didn’t fit this community given the written rules on the sidebar, without factoring any “unspoken rules” or whatever the fuck you’re babbling about.
As an aside, I really dislike your rambling writing style.
I’m nobody, and my opinion isn’t especially relevant. But since you asked, I think you’re wrong for the initial ban and having your last post removed was the right call by the mod here.
I guess here we would have our first answer of who would be voted off the island should most of the people rule in favor of the !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com mods.
Seems like the right place to bring the complaint, but I’m not gonna click forty links to figure out what you are actually complaining about.
Cliff notes buddy. Maybe one link to follow. 250 characters or less.
Especially when a bunch of them are videos. I see that, I’m immediately hitting the back button. I have precious little mental energy these days, I can’t afford to spend too much of it on my petty internet drama.
If I didn’t include them, this would’ve been a lot longer. I’m sure that would’ve helped nobody. Plus much of it entails proof of what went down, which is important in case anyone were to question anything.
What you are saying is that you don’t think your ire is worth investing in sufficiently to create a condensed, easy to digest version of it. Which is fine.
But if you signal that your ire isn’t worth investing in, what makes you think that I will on your behalf?
I’m not saying I wouldn’t, I’m saying I couldn’t.
You can either invest the time to do so and potentially receive support and comrades that understand your struggle. Or you can do what ever it is you are currently doing which further isolates you. No one is going to do this thing for you.
I can’t imagine anyone could do this for me. I don’t expect anyone to. I did it as best as I could. It just happens to be complicated. This was also encouraged of me, it’s not like I simply came by and slammed something in front of everyone and was like “there”.
The user, shinigamiookam, is grappling with the challenges of navigating a community where both written rules and unwritten norms (unspoken rules) coexist. Here’s a structured summary of their situation and thoughts:
Situation Overview : The user has been accused of not adhering to "unspoken rules" within the community, leading to negative feedback and being labeled as PTB. They enforce written rules (community guidelines and TOS), including taking action against those supporting Luigi Mangione, which resulted in pushback. Challenges Faced : The user feels misunderstood, as they are following established rules but facing issues due to unwritten norms. Mods have applied discretion arbitrarily, changing their reasoning from written rules to unspoken ones after the user pointed out errors. Query and Reflection : They question whether enforcing their own set of unspoken rules, similar to mod behavior, would lead to a different outcome or if they'd still face backlash. They seek community feedback on the justification of such an approach and its potential consequences. Conclusion : The user is seeking clarity on whether adopting a more discretionary enforcement of norms would help them avoid being seen as PTB or if it would still lead to negative outcomes. The core issue revolves around the tension between strictly following written rules versus adapting to community norms that aren't explicitly stated.In essence, shinigamiookam is exploring whether aligning with unwritten community standards through their own discretion could change how they’re perceived and treated within the group.
Thank you for this summary. I found it difficult to follow the original. It would be useful to have a similar list from OP about the specific mod actions they are complaining about, because most of this seems very vibes based and mostly revolves around them expecting people to agree with them, but finding the opposite.
This proves my point about self-expression as it doesn’t grasp the whole complexity or even all the necessary parts.
It doesn’t prove shit dude. You were just too lazy to put in the effort to summarize.
I did put in the effort. What you see is the best I could do. To insist otherwise is a bit scrupulously entitled. Nobody here is obligated towards anyone, and nobody typically ever is, though many of the criticisms here exist in a way that seem like the people felt a void must be filled showing we are.
I mean, if that’s the limits of the effort you are capable of mustering, why even bother griping out it in the first place? If this request is beyond the scope of even trying, why even bother?
No one’s asking for your kidney, just for you to condense your thoughts and issues. Your responses throughout reflect a simple laziness, and I do insist, that doesn’t warrant effort from anyone else. You talk about entitlement, but you are the one catching feels over the fact that you did a shit job of communicating an issue, and when asked to reflect and summarize, insisted it was impossible, an effort beyond your worldly powers, that we extend ourselves on your behalf because you simply cannot be obliged.
Give us all a break from your impotence then, and keep it to yourself next time.
Trying and failing =/= not trying
Barely trying and then refusing to engage with people litterally interested in understanding you is basically intentionally failing. If I had to warrant a guess, would guess that this kind of self sabotaging behavior is part of a broader pattern.
“Boo hoo nobody gets me 😭. No I won’t explain my issues or out out effort to meet the (very mild) requests of those interested in offering support. The world is against me.!”
refusing to engage with people litterally interested in understanding you
I’ve been the one asking which parts people don’t understand, ready to paraphrase, and I have, but there was only one time when someone genuinely answered instead of leaving the question alone except to give thumbs down.
If I were to ask you questions like “what parts don’t you understand” or “can you give me what stands out”, what would your answer be? For those who don’t have one, there you go. I’m the one trying to work with everyone, most people here have just shunned even that, sometimes saying nothing and something responding with “boo hoo” sentences like that (for the record, “the world” isn’t against me, in fact I’m in several of the mod-exclusive servers and they are complimenting my stance/approach… as opposed to hysteric laypeople).
Do you see me resorting to jabs? Would it be a reach to guess that, in your words, this behavior is a part of a broader pattern?
I am monitoring this thread.
me too ive got your 6
not yourself today?
lots of potential here but i was told im not supposed to instigate flamewars anymore
hues du iwwerluecht ënnert den Fersen vun dengen Ënnerdrécker eraus ze kommen?
wa’s de mech froes konstantine ze killen maachen ech et mee nëmmen wanns de mech an d’utopia kino féierst
Et huet eng anstänneg Bewäertung, also firwat net?
lmao wat fir e screenshot
awer wéi kanns de eng noriicht op lëtzebuergesch liesen an denken ech schwätzen iwwer e beschissen theater zu frankräich amplaz vum fabulesche een zu lëtzebuerg
