this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
88 points (87.3% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1174 readers
301 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
BPR.
You did the right thing by calling out OpinionHaver's hypocrisy. And you did it the right way - exposing why they were called a fascist, in a thread they do Reddit style "I dun unrrurstand" sealioning and "ackshyually" red herrings over and over to defend ethnic cleansing. If you only posted that and walked away, I'd be saying "PTB".
However that is not just what you did. You were consistently aggressive in that thread, and your mod history shows entries like "uncivil", "Derailing", "civility", "Rude/toxic", "history of netiquette violations", "consistent history of toxic behavior" across multiple instances. So even if the target was justified, you're still a problem user, and if a mod lets this sort of hostile user (like you) go rogue in a comm, the comm becomes a shitfest.
Plus you're a single "I can only guess" away from witch hunting = calling the mod "genocide apologist" on weak grounds (removals from a single thread). If you want to accuse someone, do it like you did towards OpinionHaver.
You, sunzu2 and OpinionHaver were derailing the thread. The mod should've either nuked the whole comment chain or left it alone; by selectively deleting you+sunzu2's comments but not OpinionHaver's, the mod is arbitrarily giving them a political voice in an allegedly "no politics" comm, but not you or sunzu2.
OpinionHaver was making claims that did not pass basic scanning of his comment history.
I linked up his comment for context. I don't think that's derailing. That's how good discourse happens. In fact, it is my opinion, that these "rules" are generally used to censor content, which is what happened here at least in my opinion.
But sure, if entire comment thread got nuke, it would be harder for me to make these claims.
But week in, week out around here we see these patterns of censorship around topics that are sensitive to the regime but we still pretend as if these "mods" are "modding" and not censoring.
By far your comment is the least problematic of the bunch, and it's only a problem because it's in the middle of that ruckus - it is further derailing the discussion, even if not the one starting it.
Personally I'd keep it on, because I agree with you. For me it's a matter of transparency - if you remove stuff here and there suddenly nobody knows who said what. But I still see grounds for nuking the whole comment chain (including the top comment), to avoid a flamewar and make sure the rules are enforced.
Sadly you're right.
If an admin don't want to be called a genocide apologist he should ban genocide apologies
People enabling fuckheads are obviously bad, but should not be assumed to be themselves fuckheads. "A is shit" and "B is shit" does not mean "A is B".
This is important, because otherwise we end not blaming the enablers properly - they aren't like the thief who steals your junk, they're more like the braindead muppet who keeps the door open.
EDIT: ...nevermind, I retract my point. We're talking about LW; Zionist apologia goes rampant there. Even if OP themself didn't bring this up, it's common knowledge already.
What is this gibberish?
Did you see the edit? Now, here's your answer: no, it is not gibberish. I'll explain the reasoning.
If we stick to that thread alone, there are at least two possible explanations for why the mod acted that way:
There are more, but let's stick to those two. Both enable someone who's doing genocide apology. In both, the mod is being an enabler. But only #2 counts as condoning that genocide apology. #1 is simply being damn sloppy.
However, based on the mod actions in a single thread, we have no grounds to know if it's #1 or #2. And we shouldn't assume. You don't accuse people based on assumptions.
Here's where the edit comes in. What I said above doesn't apply because it's common knowledge that the LW admins+mods do jack shit against Zionist apologia. That's why I retracted my point - because it isn't how the mod acted in that thread, it's a consistent behaviour across multiple threads.
Is this clear now? TL;DR: I was saying "OP, bring up more evidence before you accuse someone", then "nevermind, the evidence is public knowledge".
I did paste verbatim screenshot and mod was well aware about the contest - defending IDF using human shields cannot be mistaken with anything else.
So yes, we have grounds - he was well aware.
Fair.
See edit.
No. I mostly only posted this genocide denier his own words. Calling someone defending use of human shields a "genocide apologist" is factual, not aggressive.
Firstly, this is irrelevant. Secondly when you get to the details, most of these comments are made by infamous feddit.org mods - who very recently came out of the closet and started banning reasonable criticism of Israel. Fill your gaps.
I am who I am. I say what I think.
See my other comment. I did paste screenshot of his disgusting defence of IDF, verbatim. This triggered the mod who called it "smear" and he doubled down on calling it "smear" again in this very thread. If calling a guy like this a "genocide apologist" is a smear for the mod, that's very telling about mod own views.
You're omitting the part where you call a third party "an idiot", and that your answers to the genocide denier were both passive aggressive as fuck. (Source, modlog.. For the pass-aggro Ctrl+F "sweetie")
It's arguable if your aggressiveness in this specific case was justified. But by claiming that you weren't being aggressive you are simply lying. And calling people stupid by proxy - do you expect them to buy your lie?
No, it is not. It shows that you'll likely to behave like an arse in any community that allows it. Mods can and should use a user's history to know how to handle them, once they violate the rules of a community.
Modlog, again:
None of those involves either the feddit.org mods or the Zionist Reich, but in all of those you're being aggressive towards other users. I could post another thousand examples, that modlog is full of that.
You are lying yet again.
You are a fucking arsehole, and someone without the dignity to admit they're a fucking arsehole.
The problem is how you say it. You're a fucking arsehole, clearly unable to voice your views without sounding like a pissy manchild. And also a liar based on the comment I'm replying to.
Please do a favour for everyone and go back to Reddit, you'll be in more suitable company there.
Well documented comment
Again, this is irrelevant. Not part of the exchange I have been banned for and it was a reply to him calling me an" embarrassment". For the context, it was a guy defending genocide denier. He also posted in this thread - I suggest you have a look.
Firstly I disagree with that. Secondly this is again irrelevant - being "passive aggressive" is not a bannable offence.
I completely disagree with that. None of my comments were aggressive.
It is completely and utterly irrelevant. You may be an angel in one community and the devil in another. If there was a Israel/IDF supporting community the guy I was responding to would be an angel.
Nope. Now click each of them for a context. I stand behind every single one of them.
Stop accusing me of lying.
Now, my answer to this should be "go and fuck yourself". But since you put your comments so nicely I am going to pat you on your head and just say "yes, sweetie" 😂
If anyone is aggressive here, including name calling it is you. Now, disengage.
I don’t see the hypocrisy you’re accusing me of here, but I’m more than happy to clear up any potential confusion. I’ve interacted with you here before, and I know that - unlike OP - you’re capable of debating in good faith. So if you genuinely see any logical errors in my reasoning or behavior that you think are worth criticizing, I’m open to hearing it.
I never heard an hypocrite admiting that is a hypocrite
Refer to this discussion FelixCress linked.
Up to your top comment ("I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here." [...]), you could say that you were just arguing semantics. However, your replies to leftytighty and Keeponstalin show otherwise:
What you said is, effectively, a defence of the IDF, by denying that that specific event counts as a specific war crime, and insistent (~twice) shift of the focus to Hamas' actions. Even if you say "I'm not defending IDF". It does give people good grounds to call you a fascist, so your comment in the other thread is hypocrisy.