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

  • lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    After the exchange I’ve had with spujb in this thread, I’m convinced of their bad-faith intentions for posting it. In that comment chain, I told them that I had not reported the thread for removal, which is still true at the time of this comment. However, let it be noted that the post is in violation of the sidebar rules, specifically

    • Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.

    and

    • Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.

    No sanction was imposed on spujb, they are fully a third-party to this matter. Their post title and body is deliberately inflammatory towards @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat and ponder.cat as a whole.

    Additionally, the post runs afoul of a post guideline:

    1. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).

    This post has all the markings of a punitive reaction by sbujb to criticism (both direct and via downvotes) levied against them in another thread on this comm. I am aware that this very comment could read that way as well; my justification is that I attempted to communicate directly with OP, whose response was the equivalent of sticking their fingers into their ears and singing off-key, loudly, while running away.

    In the event that I do make a formal report, I will use the preceeding text of this comment, and update the comment to indicate that I’ve done so. Absent that, any action taken on the post will be for reasons that do not involve a report from me.

    This community should be a tool against mod/admin authority and abuse, not a weapon to settle a grudge.

  • lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    24 days ago

    (Y)DI + this is an unmarked [META] post + no admin action was taken against the account + history of behavior + it looks silly to make a wholeass new thread after getting cratered to oblivion in the original one

    Phil’s “mistake”, if we’re insisting there is one, was not approaching the account-hopper with “You post a lot, and most of it is questionable trash. Please don’t shovel shit from this instance anymore if you want to remain.”

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    BPR. This could have been handled better but I don’t think that the admin was powertripping.

    EDIT: I’m changing my take to YDI / UDI (user deserved it). See discussion with the admin, his usage of power was 100% justified.

    IMO what Philip did wrong:

    • the issue was in a single community, so he should’ve let that community’s mods handle it. If the user was doing this shit across multiple communities it would be different.
    • lack of transparency on what’s considered [un]acceptable behaviour for ponder.cat users. A single “be nice” would be enough to justifiably get rid of Cat.
    • direct escalation, like OP said. Philip’s initial comment lecturing Cat doesn’t sound like an admin speaking officially; but when he does, it pops out of nowhere.

    In the meantime, look at all Cat’s replies in the linked thread: the user is not just being spammy, they are being uncooperative, belittling other users, and passive aggressive. This sort of behaviour should not be given a free pass, and I do think that, if Philip dug across Cat’s post/comment history, he would find more reasons to ban the user from his instance… at least if his instance had some rule against poor behaviour.

    Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here.

    A lot of those dictates boil down to “report, ignore, move on”. Reporting would do nothing, and ignoring would be bad advice - because bad behaviour tends to spread. Eventually you aren’t just blocking a single person, but a whole lot… or leaving the space because why bother. As such, users in communities with lax moderation tend to monitor each other’s behaviour a bit, and this is not a bad thing.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      24 days ago

      If the user was doing this shit across multiple communities it would be different.

      They absolutely were. See my longer comment elsewhere in the thread.

      I don’t plan to weigh in all that much here, among other reasons because I feel like it’s mostly all been said about this situation at this point.

      Other random response: Mine is a tiny instance (basically a glorified self-host), I was well aware of the context of what Cat was doing, partly because I was steadily getting reports about it. This was just the one situation that led me to decide something actually had to be done, or else I was enabling them to pollute the wider community in ways that the wider community was really being vocal that they didn’t want.

      The hostility and belittling of other users who were telling them to cool it really rubbed me the wrong way also, yes. I left them alone initially because I thought maybe they were just sort of clueless about good participation on Lemmy but at the end of the day, what’s the harm, and it’s the mods’ business not mine. Once people are trying to have a reasonable conversation with you and you’re being hostile and snarky at them, your benefit-of-the-doubt level drops to a whole new type of category.