this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
28 points (80.4% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

840 readers
320 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:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


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.


Relevant comms

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

So, I saw a report from one of my users. They reported:

https://ponder.cat/post/1594852/1813842

For the reason:

Unreasonable fighting with everyone in every simple post

I think that's ridiculous, so I talked with them about it. Posting private communications is frowned upon I guess, but long story short, they weren't receptive. I've decided to ban the account.

IMO the general culture on Lemmy is that users are entitled to their free account and everyone needs to be careful and circumspect about limiting that entitlement in any way, but I don't see it that way. I don't think it's a requirement for me to provide hosting space for anyone who wants to use my stuff as a jumping-off point for abuse of Lemmy's systems, and isn't apologetic or receptive when I talk with them about not doing that. The fact that it's in service of harassing FlyingSquid in particular is just icing on the cake, since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all (with this as an example).

AITA?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 24 minutes ago (1 children)

since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all

You don't end up as one of the two most talked about PTBs in this community with there being "no reason at all".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 minutes ago (1 children)

My general approach is to look into things, when one or a bunch of people claim that it's true. Often it is true. Sometimes it is not. Usually, the times when it is not are a lot more interesting.

I don't plan to abandon that approach and replace it with "if a whole bunch of people say something then it automatically must be true." That way is easier, of course, and you can go with it if you like. I'll stick to my approach.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 minutes ago (1 children)

The receipts are all there, if you care to look. Nobody has deleted them.

But in this case, despite your underhanded implication, let’s just admit you have a preconceived notion and aren’t interested in the many documented instances of FlyingSquid and jordanlund being assholes. You aren’t going to look into this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 minutes ago

Why are you talking to me about this? Pretty much every time it comes up, I ask people for examples, and then I go and look at them. I actually have a bookmark saved right now for a good example of FS being kind of a jerk that I found all on my own and thought might be relevant, at some point. Why did you come back to sort of hassle me about this on a week-old topic?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

Yeah. FS really seems to take a lot of heat. I think it’s because people have come to know that he will always defend himself. And when they repeatedly antagonize him- it always seems it’s for their entertainment.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 week ago

We've reached the next level peeps. Mods pre-emptively opening YPTB posts about their own actions! 😈

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Don't know that I would've banned someone for a single report, even if it was nonsensical. Sometimes, people have a bad day, and aren't thinking clearly.

Generally I'm quick with the banhammer about positions (ie genocide deniers o u t), but reluctant about attitudes. As someone who is miserable and tetchy myself, I know all about what it's like to snap - even at someone I don't like - and overstep the boundaries of good taste, norms, or constructive participation in a community.

BPR, I guess? I probably would've told them to fuck off, but a ban might've been an overreaction.

At the same time, operating on your gut to keep a place clean is often necessary to maintain your sanity. There are only so many hours in the day, and only so much energy you can spend reasoning or enduring people.

I dunno, man.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, I can see that. That's why I posted here.

Everyone draws their lines in slightly different places. I'm actually probably a lot more tolerant than most about "banned" points of view, or someone just being abrasive one day, since I do the same (on both counts). As long as at the end of the day they're open for some form of open communication about it. Explicitly rejecting the social contract or using Lemmy's buttons in a way they're not designed for, taking up moderators' time for frivolous stuff and refusing to stop when asked, explicitly rejecting the idea of backing up your reason for attacking someone when asked, I have a lot shorter fuse for.

I wouldn't have banned if they were at all receptive to the DM conversation about it, but as it is, I just didn't think I was doing anybody including them any favors by saying "Oh okay, keep doing what you're doing, you are welcome to a place on this network after a short time-out."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It sounds like most of the conversation we cannot see here, so we're only seeing your side here. Therefore take what I say with that grain of salt that we cannot evaluate what we do not see.

I would have offered them a warning first. Which, in the DMs, you did?

At that point, don't worry about it. I will bend over backwards to explain something to someone who's honestly trying, but if you are correct that they are not merely ignorant but rather obstinate, then I think it was the right call.

The fact that you are willing to be so transparent (with your own side of the conversation at least, which is all that you "own" so please don't think I'm mocking you here, I respect that) and also to receive correction yourself seals the deal, imho. You thereby protect people from abuse and in turn allow freedom to have discussions when toxic people are kept out of the room - it's like trying to discuss something when toddlers are screaming underfoot, it just isn't going to happen, yet it requires effort to carve out those spaces to remain welcoming to have discussions.

The rest is just details: FlyingSquid really can be quite abusive himself at times, though this may not have been one of them, and he is often quite fun to talk to (unless he gets triggered), plus a single report is not itself abuse, etc. I mentioned more in a response to Blaze.

After learning about everything that happened here, personally I would feel more rather than less comfortable making a post or even account on ponder.cat, if that phrasing helps explain what I mean. By keeping toxic people out, you allow space for people to post who otherwise would hesitate to, for fear of the toxicity that so very often results from doing so.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, I appreciate it.

And yes, it's weird that you have to take my word for the DM conversation without even being able to refer to the exact text. IDK, that's the rules of the community, and also I do think it's a little bit weird to expose private DM communication except in some very specific scenarios, none of which apply here (like if someone else is lying about the content of the communication).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Yup, and I only was dancing around that to be clear that the best we can evaluate here is to say "IF your assessment of those DMs is correct, THEN the conclusion seems warranted to me indeed".

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

One report is not report abuse. And I do often see FS arguing up and down a thread about nothing at all, so the report isn't off base either. If you think FS's behavior is inappropriate, you can remove the comments or ban him. If you think it's appropriate, then you can explain that to the user who reported it. You're not required to continue that thread, though.

If they continue reporting material that has been identified to them as non-rulebreaking, then that is report abuse and merits a ban.

So, YTPTB I guess?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think that's ridiculous, so I talked with them about it.

Well, there's your problem. One silly report? Reject, don't think about it again unless the reporting user gets increasingly uppity all on their own. You don't have to engage with everything (and I am fully aware of the irony of my saying that).

Now, what the user said after that in your private communications may have warranted a "GTFO," but you're right to not publish that. It'll have to be your judgment call there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I often agree with your positions on various things, Phil, at least to the extent that it seems that we're operating from a similar point of reference. That said, and in light of the nature of the private communications remaining private (as it should), there's only one conclusion that seems fitting.

PTB.

One instance of anything hardly seems like grounds for a ban. Repeat behavior certainly could justify that action, but in the absence of any pattern it seems like an overreach. There might well be further justification for a ban based on the direct messages; but, as you're submitting your own action for analysis, the only fair way to evaluate is on the grounds of what we are directly privy to. Anything else has to be viewed as simply your biased interpretation of the private conversation.

In the circumstance you describe the onus on the user is not to be "receptive or apologetic" to you in the private conversation, only to correct their usage of the report system. As presented, it reads as if they were banned because they did not show adequate respect for your authority, which is clear PTBehavior. Further, you attempt to bolster your point by painting Squid, a user who loves to try to win bad-take arguments by referring to their own mod status in other communities (essentially a PTB themselves), as undeserving of ire despite an extensive history of spinning out, losing the thread, and generally being a dick when it happens. Carrying water for someone who comes across as power-trippy does little to shift perception of your own actions away from that mark.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, I appreciate it.

The POV that banning for one report is a big overreach makes perfect sense to me. I talked about it a little bit below, you can search for "clear pattern" to see.

It wasn't that they were unapologetic. I've actually had people have hostile disagreements with me in communities I moderate, and it didn't even occur to me until later that I had some kind of power not to "get talked to that way" or disrespected or w/e. That kind of thing doesn't bother me except very occasionally. The issue was that this person refused to back up their reasons for wanting mod action against FS, and rejected my request to not use the report function that way. I do feel like someone needs to be receptive to someone asking them "I consider this against the rules, please don't do it on my server." Of course I was less polite than that. Also, maybe I am biased because of course my rules make perfect sense but someone else's might not, if I'm on their server and the roles are reversed. That's just how I see it though.

This whole thing of being officially a person with authoritah is new to me, hence posting here to ask about it. I take seriously the discussion about it, even if I might not agree with individual POVs or sound like I'm rejecting anyone who's trying to tell me I did wrong.

Further, you attempt to bolster your point by painting Squid, a user who loves to try to win bad-take arguments by referring to their own mod status in other communities (essentially a PTB themselves)

Maybe. In the little bit I've observed about FlyingSquid, it looks like they tend to get tangled up in long intense arguments which maybe they don't need to get tangled up in. That's sure not ideal, but it doesn't make them a bad person or a power-tripper. I think there was one time several months ago when they noted to someone they were in a long argument with that the person had a habit of breaking the community rules in some other posts, also, and now everyone keeps referring back to that one time as an example of how FS is terrible and threatened to ban the person just because they were disagreeing.

I've just noticed that there are all these disparate attempts to get FS banned, removed from mod status, and similar things, and when I looked into the "why" of them they tended to boil down to not that much of consequence. So I have sort of a hair trigger now for something along the lines of "okay THIS comment was perfectly fine but we all KNOW that this person is bad, because they are, and anything they say needs a moderator to step in and remove it," which to me is harassment unless the person's done something absolutely truly reprehensible. If someone is being awful all the time, just report the awful comments, they should be pretty easy to find.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Someone reporting something, you disagreeing with it being a reportable offense, and the user getting banned for it... a single mistake isn't abuse. If you had explained that doing it again would lead to a ban, and then they did, sure.

There's literally no way to take this other than PTB. Unless he threatened you in the DM, you're absolutely the one wrong here.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

I won't analyze this case, but: Abusing the report button is an issue. This forces you to do work to check it, clear it and so on. I can handle the reports in my communities (there are a few), but if I would be getting hundreds of reports every week, I would burn out quickly. People like to shit on mods, but most people don't know how many batshit insane people there are on the internet and that the best way to have a nice community is to keep them away.

[–] southsamurai 9 points 1 week ago

There's not an abbreviation for this in the community rules.

It isn't power tripping fully because the decision was made based on more than a single factor, and they are indeed reasonable rules.

But it is a tad much for a permaban on the first go on your instance. While I agree there are some people that do not give a fuck and stir shit everywhere they go, and I agree that it seems you were dealing with one, a temp ban is the go-to.

Since you can't/won't share private communications (and good on you for that), we can only go with what's available, and a permaban is too far based on only that for a first offense.

If their responses in private were bad enough, that's a judgement call, and it might change the matter. Since you don't have a history of wielding the hammer heavily, despite having every right to do so on own instance, I give you the benefit of the doubt as well. A single action does not a power tripper make. It's about patterns of behavior.

So, the specific action was low grade power tripping, but you aren't a power tripper.

Now regardless of that, I fully support preemptive bans as a valid tool. Someone has a history of abuse on other instances and communities, and starts the same behavior on another one, it is a valid option. It is, however not an opinion that is held by a majority, and I tend to give my opinion about that less weight here lately. I accept that a lot of people consider that a power trip most of the time. But I think preventing a pattern from forming in the first place is a good thing when done with care.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (5 children)

PTB majorly. You don't want to ban people for reports unless they're spamming false reports.

Otherwise you discourage reporting. Think of it this way, would you rather have them just not report things because you ban them or threaten to ban them for things you don't think are personally actionable.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mindbleach 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

Three-day bans are like spritzing a cat in the face. It's corrective.

Permabans should be reserved for diet Nazi shit. Truly beyond-the-pale, never-gonna-get-better assholerey.

... did you permanently ban someone for asking to have rules enforced, instead of starting shit verbally? Because if so, what the fuck.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

PTB

I don't get the ban over one report. Feels Gestapo.

Permaban should be reserved for bots and threat actors IMHO

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In this case, you were not the target of the reports, it was the community mods I guess?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

But if the purposes of the account was trolling and even stalking of a single other account, that would rise to instance admin jurisdiction?

Edit: this is getting so confusing. Here looks to be the banned account. The instance sidebar rules state:

All are welcome to this instance. Please no illegal content, no personal attacks, no misinformation, no bigotry. Other than that, go nuts. Be productive.

Emphasis mine. Where it gets really odd is that the post was to [email protected], and the target account likewise on Lemmy.world, and filing a report is not the same as a "personal attack". So yeah I see what you mean now. The only reason this report ended up visible was bc it was originally posted by Cat on ponder.cat. However, if I think about how people from Hexbear use Lemmy.ml alt accounts (cough Cowbee cough) to attempt to escape from moderation of posts on other instances, I can see the appeal of an instance admin getting involved.

The banned account makes personal attacks against people all the time - though here, in this case, filing a single report was not itself an "attack".

Essentially the person was banned for "general vibes" not matching the instance rules, though only noticed in the first place by filing this report.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Precisely. I know it's a lot to ask since everyone's volunteers, but I wish more instance admins would do something to address the issue when their users are openly being a pain in the ass. It's not reasonable to ask every mod to click away an unlimited number of frivolous reports, every user to block every unapologetic asshole, every mod to individually figure out the complete list of who the fight-pickers are, and so on.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Correct. I have nothing to do with the community, or the person being reported or the people handling the reports. I just saw the report because it originated from my instance.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You are not the asshole. Your logic is reasonable and self consistent.

since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all

I still have them labeled as an abusive mod for baiting someone into a debate then banning them from the community for engaging in that debate. So I think this user does look for fights, to be fair.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I still have them labeled as an abusive mod for baiting someone into a debate then banning them from the community for engaging in that debate.

When did this happen? I feel like they get sucked into long pointless debates the same as some people on Lemmy, but I feel like it's kind of mutual combat.

I know everyone brings up that one example from months ago when FS arguably threatened to take some kind of unspecified action against someone they were mid-argument with, but did they actually ban someone in that scenario? I have them pegged as more of just an argument junkie than any kind of PTB about it. Maybe I have missed / forgotten about some actual ban they handed out of course.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

argument junkie

Thats enough to see why they are polarizing across lots of people.

Here is the exact instance when I flipped the bit on them

I believe the mod in question is an abusive mod: I’ve seen them debate with someone in a conversation, bait them into sparring, then when the person responds, ban them for breaking the rules. That alone is moderator abuse, it’s not being objective, and an environment where the moderator tries to create ban incidents isn’t a friendly one to be in. For this reason I blocked every community where they are a moderator.

https://hackertalks.com/post/3884023/4550323

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Yeah. It's not ideal to have someone with that habit doing moderation. I just don't get how people jump from it to "PTB PTB he's awful."

I feel like, in general, people have to categorize as "good!" or "bad!", and FlyingSquid clearly gets in these bitter arguments sometimes which isn't a good thing to do, and so by default he turns into "bad!" and any bad thing about him becomes true. Like I say, I'm not saying he hasn't been banning people who argue with him, just I've never seen it in several times of checking what was behind people complaining about him. Every time that I remember, it basically boiled down to "He said a rude thing to this person! In a comment!"

I feel like maybe there was one that was recent that was a lot more of an actual PTB, so maybe I am wrong. I can't even remember the details.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] bestboyfriendintheworld 6 points 1 week ago (12 children)

I understand abuse of reporting to apply for repeated frivolous reporting, sending spam, or similar.

This report could simply be ignored until something else happens.

A user reporting something doesn’t know how the mods decide. Mods will always receive reports, where they don’t think taking action is necessary.

Think what‘s your definition of abuse of report button?

So: PTB

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is it a coincidence your username acronym is PTB? because I don't think this comm has been around as long as that username.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Having read through some of the comments that the user you banned posted lately, yeah I don’t blame you. Their replies are often needlessly rude and holier than thou, especially when replying to squid.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

If they knew that the comment did not break rules but reported it anyway, they were abusing the report function. A ban is arguably too harsh of a punishment, specially since it's a single event.

So I guess BPR? Potentially TDI (They Deserved It) depending on the DM interaction; if you included some warning and they kept insisting, certainly TDI.

load more comments
view more: next ›