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 ārules subtextā, sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because āYTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebarā.
The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word āfalseā, 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 āmost people seem to understandā, which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the āthe truth we all wanted to speakā remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with āI can spot rules broken by the other personās thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mineā 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 wasnāt there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a āfair point to be honestā, the mod then delved into the concept of āunspoken rulesā as an excuse for himself and said he didnāt want to ārules-lawyerā, which not only disproves what he said about āspecific posting guidelinesā being āin the sidebarā 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 peoplesā word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypherās 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 didnāt realize it?
This idea of āunspoken rulesā and āreading between the linesā seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether youāre akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to askā¦ hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldnāt read the āunspoken rulesā 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 āunspoken ruleā on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldnāt it? Those are the terms.
I await your choice.
YDI
The comment from @ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net on your original post before it was removed hit the nail on the head imo:
Letās get real here. The State has a monopoly on violence in most countries. Thatās one of the ways they keep control of the population. Thatās why itās 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. Donāt forget that slavery was legal and Nazi concentration camps were legal at the time. Thatās why your moralizing position rings hollow. Because all you are doing in effect is defending the right of the state to continue with itās 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 whatās coming to them.
On another topic, your original blog post was imo not in keeping sidebar rules, especial rule 1:
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 isā¦ 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. Thatās 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 wasnāt even his doing. Thatās not just an excuse, thatās 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 itās not something where ābasically nobody here agreesā. Does the fediverse feel like standing by this opinion anyways? Weāll see where that leads in the eyes of the state, and although I donāt simp to the state (thus the part about Nazis fails, because I was going by ethics, not law), I wonāt flinch if the fediverse goes full tiktok.
Iāll also say that action taken towards someone in a community is either up to the discretion of its managers or it isnāt 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 āupsettingā to me are the double standards and the selective regard people hold the TOS.
Iāll just quickly remind you this is literally an Anarchist server, so itās unlikely youāre gonna find much sympathy for your views here.
Many of us arenāt based in the US. So when you say āthe lawā which law specifically are you talking about?
I honestly canāt 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?
Itās 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).
Itās odd to see me the one accused of having my feelings hurt.
Events in orderā¦
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 donāt know if I follow rule one as if your partner mod didnāt encourage me to start this discussion after he removed the other thing, which Iād say fits the definition of what rule one asks for.
Ok Iām sort of following along here.
Ok got it, so you were the accused PTB in the original post here.
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 didnāt get your own way about it. But the best place for your response was in the original post, along with all the context.
The so-called fuss, which was just responding to your questions & comments:
Yes, here we are. So let me sum up.
So the only topic of THIS post per point 3 should be about whether is was justified to have your second āright of replyā 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.
The original discussion was done. So, in effect, it was dismissive to say āgo to that dead discussion and make your pointā. 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.
It wasnāt about āgetting my own wayā, 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.
It was still kind of fussy for someone who brought the idea up. Not hostile, but questioning.
Here are some corrections to your summary.
There was a lot more factored in that led me to saying it like that, but yeah. I made that āblogā 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. Thatās when he told me to share it. So even though one could say I āwanted to postā it, it was also second-hand.
ā¦if you could say that about an unspoken rule. Do I object? Technically, no, itās your community. But itās not like it wouldnāt have confused me, going by the rules. The other mod even had to explain it to Blaze.
I tried my best. In terms of typos and grammar, itās fine and, I would thus say, calculatable. I did paraphrase it a bit too.
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.
How do you think someone explaining their perspective works, especially when it was brought to light based on othersā 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.comās modsā 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 āunspoken ruleā involved here. Itās literally the first community rule in the sidebar. If youāre just gonna make stuff up about being the victim of āunspoken rulesā then this discussion might as well end here tbh. Iāll note that nobody else has misunderstood that rule.
If you didnāt feel willing or able to adequately express your position in the comments on the original post then thatās a shame, but themās the breaks. Being a mod is a tough gig. Youāve 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 āpost only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)ā.
I am a mod.
My discussion was about a ban.
Therefore, my post was āabout bans or other sanctions from mod(s)ā.
Unless there is something lost in translation, itās deceptive to say Iām making anything up.
Whether or not nobody else has misunderstood it doesnāt mean itās 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 peoplesā 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 Iām 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.
That seems to me like a wilful misinterpretation. And we have clarified what it means to you multiple times now, if you were somehow unable to get the gist of it from reading other posts in the community. I think thereās plenty of context here now for people to make an assessment of whether db0 was power tripping in removing your post, so Iāll leave it at that.