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.
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.
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?
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.
Brah, I’m sorry that happened to your father. But you can’t just go around saying OP should die just because they disagree with you. Not cool at all.
No, that’s not what I said. I said I hope they get to suffer like I did - watch their loved one be denied proper medical care due to insurance and die from it.
Sorry that hurts your precious sensibilities. Conservatives/liberals lack empathy unless it happens to them.
Thanks for the clarification.
Bold of you to assume I’m conservative just because I’m not advocating for everyone’s idea here of revolution. I can’t speak for your anecdotal experiences, but the idea is new to me they could just kill someone’s father, and, supposing that did happen, that isn’t to say it was Brian Thompson who killed your father. Insurance is not an absolute monarchy.
This is the whole just following orders.
DENYING HEALTHCARE IS MURDER.
You are a conservative even if you don’t think you are.
How would you define a conservative, then?
And how do you think healthcare worked centuries ago? Where would you draw a line between what is acceptable to deny and what isn’t? Like, do I get funded if I have so much as bad eyesight?
Being close to Canada, which is a nation credited with universal healthcare, one of the things you learn is it has become so much of a nightmare to them they have denied immigration to the nation by people with disabilities for five decades now because they “don’t want burdens”. By everyone’s logic, one might say Canada has committed a 50-year genocide. It goes to show the oddity of not drawing the lines we should.
Centuries ago I’d be dead from the current dental infection I’m dealing with.
You’re such a fucking chud I don’t even want to waste time with your dumbass.
Most of the universal healthcare countries deny immigration to disabled people because they haven’t paid into their healthcare system via taxes.
I’m blocking your dumbass. Keep wondering why everybody hates you. Chud.
Spoken as if you hadn’t read what I provided.
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?
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.
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.
Edit: So the removal reason is included above as well as the relevant rule. It’s literally the first community rule in the sidebar.
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)”.
Is there something I am missing that’s explicitly in the wording, or am I missing something that’s not in the wording (which would make me ask how this is my fault)?
You being a mod or not is irrelevant. Can you point to the specific part of your blog post that mentions a Mod being a Power Tripping Bastard (PTB)? Because all I’m seeing that’s vaguely related is:
Which just makes it sound like you are talking about yourself being the PTB, which has already been established.
You say that like I ever objected to receiving the grade of PTB. Sharing my perspective was not equal to an objection to the first discussion (which mentions the whole point, that I am a mod of !asklemmy@lemmy.world and that me performing my job led to all this) about me, in fact it would have welcomed the idea to be floated around from a new angle that I either was or was not a PTB. Which makes it weird you say that me being a mod is irrelevant, because me having my first attempt to share my perspective removed by the mods of !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com would have therefore been implicative of the fact it was relevant.
“My discretion” pertains only to giving an exception to the rules.
It’s still a tangible stipulation that can go both ways.