Thanks for the clarification :)
spujb
joined 1 year ago
i went ahead and made the meta post so the discussion can be had lol: https://lemmy.cafe/post/13543724 mods have even gone on record that they will leave it up which is excellent.
Yeah this is also where I am more or less coming from. I think it’s good for it to be said in a meta post where the discussion is built for it.
This is an excellent point, added to the cons list in the body text
That’s kind of been my position too. Like I guess “people were posting low quality content” but if it’s no evidence of malice/rule breaking, what’s stopping people from just curating their feed and blocking users they see too much?
Still fifty-fifty on this for the record but I am glad there is more wholesome and constructive discussion on this still coming in :)
Valuable analysis ty
That’s an excellent point. Like, if we are going to have high-volume power users (which is an inevitability) it’s honestly arguably good and transparent for them to use single accounts that individual users can block—like at least they are known power users and it’s not being obfuscated.
I’m personally still fifty-fifty on the rule but this did sway me a bit.
Thanks for your input! It is valuable.
Re: your last paragraph. I’m literally just a third party user who was not involved in any of the conflict in any way, suggesting one potential resolution that at this point I still think could go either way.
It’s fair to assume that I was talking about myself but rest assured I have no personal investment here and my only commitment is to what is best for the community. :)
I certainly think the number of the limit is a key consideration and really makes it or breaks it.
Your comment is confusing because this is a petition post, not a rule change. I have no leadership role here. If anything changes there will most likely be internal mod communication and then an announcement post if the rule change is significant enough to merit it.
Thanks! Of course I never had any doubts about this being left up but I do find it funny the number of people who were rudely adamant that this post was impossible, impossible I tell you!
cc @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat @catloaf@lemm.ee I encourage you to add your input under this impossible post. :)
11
Summary:
- @Cat@ponder.cat was posting at a high volume to !news@lemmy.world
- there is no written rule on !news@lemmy.world about post volume
- there is no written rule on ponder.cat about post volume
- !news is the one single community Cat was this active in
- !news has no ponder.cat mods
- from my understanding, all rules Cat did break were unrelated to volume (correct me if I am wrong)
- ponder.cat admin @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat reaches out to Cat via comment and then DM essentially threatening account deletion if Cat doesn’t lower their activity level
- Cat understandably deletes their account because who wants that
Of course, PhilipTheBucket had the right to do this, but I also think it’s exceedingly bad form and people have a right to know that this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head like that.
Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here. Communication should be chosen before simple fist waving and threats.
I agree with this comment that this is a bait-provoked reaction. Next time I recommend:
- at the instance/admin level, the creation of instance rules about volume
- at the community level, advocacy for community rules about volume (i.e. “[Meta] Petition: Limit daily submissions to !news to ensure community quality”)
- avoid personal slapfights to get your way
- avoid escalation directly to account termination threats
Source: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587
There’s definitely some additional nuance (like a pronouns in bio/username situation) but this should cover the broad needs of anyone who is approaching this with good faith.
146
[low stakes post] am i missing something or is this comm enforcing rules against… acronyms?
(lemmy.cafe)
The community’s sidebar doesn’t list a single rule so I don’t know how they expect to get users to fall in line if it’s completely unspoken.
Anyway this is a rare case of a very tiny community where no one is getting hurt so it’s not a huge deal. But if you plan on discussing news using any kind of acronym I guess don’t go there lmao.
Thoughts welcome! Am I missing something?
view more: next ›
I saw this in the modlog and it also came off weird to me. It’s definitely BPR or PTB but you got the ban reason wrong? It says rule 6 right there, not rule 4.
So… I kind of see this? The original post was about the pope’s health. Your comment was removed along with a slew of other much less defensible and off topic comments so I can see how a mod might just go in there and remove them all for being off topic.
TLDR, you didn’t deserve a ban but I think you mischaracterize the reason for the ban and it’s not as serious as your title portrays it. Make those comments in a place where it’s relevant (i.e. under a post about sexual abuse) and you’d be a-ok I’d wager.