And then he misrepresented what I said after banning me:

  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
    254·
    4 days ago

    Based on the information provided ITT and the OP, YDI; potentially YDM.

    You went overboard with “that doesn’t make you look ignorant” because most people will interpret it as insulting, regardless of being true or false. On itself, that wouldn’t warrant a ban, only a mod warning; and that’s exactly what the mod did.

    Then you kept going. Even after the mod warning. You deserved that 1d ban, and probably more. (To be frank I don’t even see a 1d ban as a punishment, it’s more like giving time for everyone to chill their heads.)

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m no saint, and I’ve probably said the same shit you said a thousand times. But in those situations you need to learn when to back off.

    EDIT: based on this message, YDM for sure. Yes, the mod is also behaving a bit like an arsehole, but you’re going full pass-aggro there.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
      72·
      4 days ago

      edit: hijacking a comment near the top to say that the PTB here has stepped down as mod after their co-mods called them out in response to DMs from multiple different users complaining about the PTB’s actions. Huge thank you to the other mods.

      I just want to point out the comment I made that’s visible in the part of the thread you linked there. I got banned for that comment, before I could reply with the evidence (of comments that I had reported, and which are still standing) that prove Wren is a liar when they claim not to have insulted anyone:

      And that’s before you get into the fact that they started the whole argument. With some exceptionally bad-faith idiotic whataboutism. Whether OP deserves it or not, that mod is clearly abusing their powers by provoking a reaction and then jumping on the provocation as an excuse to ban dissenting views.

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        5·
        4 days ago

        I mentioned it in another comment chain, but IMO both Nay and Wren (as a user) were at fault; so while the way Wren as a mod handled Nay was correct, his behaviour as a user was really bad, and part of the reason Nay was rude - this sort of escalation takes two users*. So yes, I’m aware Wren is no voice of justice here.

        About your ban, the modlog claims it to be due to “report harassment”. It might be bullshit, it might be accurate, dunno; I’d need to see the reports to take any meaningful conclusion. At least your messages (here and here) look fine for me; they’re a bit on the rougher side, but both were still within the acceptable IMO.

        *before someone calls me out on my own behaviour: yes, I’m aware I do the same sometimes. It’s also bad - I’m not pretending to be a saint either.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          72·
          4 days ago

          It might be bullshit

          I mean, that mod has piped up in here claiming I reported “all their comment” (a lie) and that I did it in response to them disagreeing with my comment (another lie). So to me the answer is pretty obvious.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          62·
          4 days ago

          Because you didn’t like my response to your comment, you reported everything I said in the thread

          Nope. I reported a bunch of your comments that were at least as bad as, if not worse than, those that got Nay banned. I reported comments that deserved to be removed by mods because they broke the same rule that someone else got banned for.

          And then I made my publicly visible reply to your comment. And then you replied and banned me before I had any chance to respond to your lies.

          But try again. “No need to lie.” Projecting much?

          edit: to be clear: even if you don’t agree that your comments shouldn’t have been removed (which really shouldn’t be your call to make: any mod with integrity will recuse themselves from moderating an argument that they are a part of and let another mod handle it, and that goes doubly when it comes to their own non-mod-related comments being reported), they were made in good faith because I sincerely believed they broke the rules. If you think someone deserves to be banned because they disagree with your moderation philosophy, I’m not sure you’re fit to be a mod.

            • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
              61·
              4 days ago

              Because you reported all of them at the time of your ban

              No. I reported maybe 5 or 6. I posted a few of them in my initial comment in this thread for context. You had made at least double that in terms of total comments. I reported the ones that were obviously breaking the rules, in my view.

              if in your opinion, any mod should recuse themselves from arguments

              No. You can have arguments. But you should not then take moderation action against the people you are arguing with. You should recuse yourself and allow your co-mods to deal with it. I was a mod of much more active subreddits than any Lemmy community for years before I quit Reddit, and in my opinion it’s a pretty basic rule to follow to ensure you do not get into exactly the situation you now face.

                • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
                  4·
                  4 days ago

                  What’s ridiculous is that you baited a user with your incredibly poor behaviour and then banned them for reacting it your bait, and expect people not to call you out for it.

    • Nay@feddit.nlOPEnglish
      73·
      4 days ago

      I can respect that. Perhaps leading by example would have prevented some of the escalation though. He might want to give himself a ban for being uncivil.

      Help me with the initialisms, though?

      YDI: You deserved It? What’s YDM?

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        161·
        4 days ago

        YDI: you deserved it. YDM: you deserved more.

        Given the whole content of the thread I feel like 5d for each would be fair - it’s long enough to not make it look like a slap on the wrist, but short enough to acknowledge “once the ban is over you’re welcome here, but please behave better”.

        Perhaps leading by example would have prevented some of the escalation though. He might want to give himself a ban for being uncivil.

        100% agree on that. It’s the mod’s responsibility to set up the civility standards in a community, and Wren themself set the bar really low. You need to be way more cool-headed in a comm you mod than one you don’t.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      97·
      4 days ago

      Ignorant is insulting other users in a community that explicitly forbids it.

      Stupid is failing to take the hint, doubling down and earning a temp ban, and then going after the mod in PMs.

      Let me ask you a question… You’ve seen sports, right? I mean, maybe not as a fan or anything, but you’ve seen basketball, football, baseball, games, right? Even a tennis match?

      You ever, once, see someone yell and scream at a ref and have the ref go “You know, you make a salient point, I changed my mind.”? No. You know why? Because then EVERYONE will do it.

      • kbal@fedia.io
        121·
        4 days ago

        You are the one who started off the stupid argument in a pointlessly combative way, based on trite caricatures of complex and controversial topics, then used your mod powers to delete the responses of the guy you picked a fight with for no better reason than that they said something “unhelpful.” It’s not what I would call ideal behaviour for a community moderator.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          62·
          4 days ago

          This is how these particular subs are managed. Mods flame, then claim rule abuse, then ban. This toxic turd should be removed from all forms of moderation across all subs.

          • Nay@feddit.nlOPEnglish
            94·
            4 days ago

            If your point is strong, why do you continue to distort the interaction?

            Ignorant does not mean stupid or asshole. You said “we both know what you meant” when you clearly didn’t. Your feelings were hurt due to what seems to be insecurity, and you took a derogatory read of it.

            And you still can’t answer the question at the heart of it all.

            I called you out and you power tripped and then tried to act hard in DMs.

            • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
              7·
              4 days ago

              Ignorant does not mean stupid or asshole.

              What matters here is that people will interpret “ignorant” as an insult, and you have other ways to convey the same (e.g. “uninformed”, “clueless”, etc.)

              Note: I actually agree with your argumentation in the thread. The issue is tone. It’s because of that tone I think you deserved it.

              • Nay@feddit.nlOPEnglish
                53·
                4 days ago

                Ffs dude, I don’t want an argument. I want my actions to be truthfully represented.

                If you really feel justified why are you misrepresenting the situation? It’s all on record anyway.

                You -feel- like I called you stupid and asshole, and you used your modding privileges accordingly.

                If I’m being ignorant, I prefer to have it called out so I can learn.

      • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
        9·
        4 days ago

        As a user you were also behaving poorly there; in fact your interaction with the OP sounds like two children “waaaaah, I asked you first!!11one” at each other. I’m not also blind to the blatant straw man you set up right off the bat, and that Nay was actually spot on when they asked “What -is- communism to you?”. I might agree with the way you handled Nay as a mod, but frankly? If I saw both in one of my comms I’d be giving both the same short end of the stick.

          • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
            7·
            4 days ago

            I don’t feel I behaved as properly as I maybe should have, but I was within the rules.

            Nah. t’s clear that you were not being civil in that conversation: for example

            • when asked for a definition, you gave your subjective takes on that economic system as if it was a definition
            • “and yet they are” = “NO U”. It’s simply contradicting what someone else says, without adding new info.

            Those things might not be overtly aggressive, but they rub people off the wrong way; that is not civil behaviour IMO.

              • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
                41·
                4 days ago

                It’s absolutely civil behavior

                Nah. You’re being clearly belittling through the whole thread. Too eager to voice your own opinion, but un-eager to dialogue.

                [Before someone distorts the above, be aware plenty communists also do this sometimes. Including myself.]

                I was asked for MY definition of it. And I gave it.

                What you did is perhaps easier to see from the other side. Pretend you asked a communist their definition of communism, and they answered one of those two things:

                1. “Communism is a post-socialism system, where class hierarchy ceased to exist, acc. to Marxist theory”.
                2. “Communism is a system that solves all plagues of capitalism, re-enabling freedom for the population, so you don’t need a Luigi Mangione dirtying his hands.”

                #1 is giving you a definition. #2 isn’t. What you did there was way closer to #2 than to #1.

                And by the context it’s clear Nay asked for your equivalent of #1 - because it’s known communists and non-communists use the word “communism” to refer to different things.

                I speak on authority of my opinions of things because I get to do that.

                Someone’s opinions can lead them to adopt one or another definition, but the definition itself is not an opinion; they’re two different cans of worms. One should not be misrepresented as the other.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    3·
    4 days ago

    Kinda corny demanding that someone “explain the difference between Capital/Social/Communism and Authoritarianism”. Not even a coherent demand. I wouldn’t ban over it though.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    109·
    4 days ago

    Wren is a sockpuppet that was given mod authority something like 24-48 hours after account creation.

    They are deeply deeply toxic.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      93·
      4 days ago

      Mod accounts are typically created specifically to be mods. I did the same thing. They asked me to be a mod from my lemmy.one account and I thought it was weird to be modding lemmy.world from lemmy.one so I spun up this account and it was made a mod.

      Same thing happened with another mod (who has now been de-modded). That was a legit case of PTB where they started making unilateral changes to the community without consulting the other mods.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        145·
        4 days ago

        I’m not entirely sure, but I was incredibly suspicious of this account getting modded almost immediately upon creation. My suspicion was squid, but I no longer believe that.

        And maybe a sockpuppet isn’t the right term. Maybe smurph or alt. Regardless, it’s an account that you should be deeply, deeply suspicious of.

        Political memes as a sub was captured as an echo chamber by Wren and Squid. You shouldn’t post there.