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?
So, in your view, FlyingSquid is a superior class of user that cannot be interacted with negatively without being banned for it? I was lightly on the PTB side before, but I guess you’re just straight up authoritarian and favoring specific users.
Observing when there’s a repeated pattern of harassing one user, and taking responsive action against a request for sanctions against that user that doesn’t even pretend to be justified, is in absolutely no way making them a “superior class of user.”
If this user had “interacted negatively” with whoever, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because I wouldn’t have noticed and probably wouldn’t have cared. The user requested mod sanctions against FlyingSquid. It’s hard for me to read “I’m going to report some totally harmless comment because everything FlyingSquid says is wrong” any way other than “FlyingSquid shouldn’t be allowed to make comments because they pick fights.” Okay, the reporting user picks fights, and now they’re not allowed to make comments. Sounds like the type of social contract they were advocating for, a second ago. Right?
The paradox of tolerance is real, man. Everyone can have their opinion about whether I’m right or wrong, but I came out of this conversation concluding that I did the right thing.
Oh gosh, ew. I can’t believe you spent the previous paragraph saying FS isn’t special, or in a different category, and then immediately said this.
I was on your side until this, even though we can’t see the DMs and one instance of behavior that you don’t like is definitely more “warning” territory than banning territory. I think there’s room for vibes-based moderation, especially on an instance you host, but you’re openly admitting you give FS special treatment, and then in the same breath, saying that you aren’t.
PTB, and also gross. If you can’t see why special moderation action to protect someone from “harrassment” when you wouldn’t extend that protection to someone else isn’t fair, I don’t know what to tell you. Rules apply evenly to everyone, no matter how much you like somebody.
You misunderstood my statement. If this user had “interacted negatively” with FlyingSquid, or anyone else, I wouldn’t have noticed or cared. The thing that made it different was that it wasn’t just a negative interaction, it was a request for sanctions, and also the pattern that the request fits into.
I have no particular opinion about FlyingSquid as a person. I don’t think I have ever had even a single interaction with them. If I have, I have forgotten.
The issue is whether there is a clear pattern. Nothing about the target of the pattern. Some people have been telling me that, if it was repeated reports, that would be one thing, and the fact that it was a single report means I overreacted. That’s fair, I guess, but my argument is that there are repeated reports of this type, and there’s no particular guarantee that any account that pops into existence and then instantly starts filing more of them isn’t part of it. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt by talking to the person, and they rejected my attempt, so by default they fall into part of that pattern. Whether or not it is justified to put them there (since it’s impossible to tell one way or another). I don’t think that on a network that’s inherently anonymous, we need to extend indefinite courtesy to every new account that “they must be new, they get extra leeway until it’s ironclad that they’re causing problems on purpose and not going to stop.”
Absolutely I would. I’m pretty sure I have made comments in this exact community along those lines (defending someone I really don’t care for, because my read of the situation is that they were 100% in the right in whatever particular scenario). I can try to dig up examples of you’re interested to see them.
Okay but in the OP here you have the opinion that FlyingSquid is someone who needs protecting.
Emphasis mine.
You’re not being objective about it and you’re arguing with anyone who points that out.
You don’t have to be objective about this on your own instance. But you came here to ask if YTA and yes, you are.
The users saying the issue is if there is a clear pattern aren’t arguing in support of whether there is a clear pattern of the world conspiring against one user. They’re saying moderation action is supposed to come down on someone, someone, with a clear pattern of misbehavior. Permabans for rules or harrassment require more than one incident of being a nuisance. Otherwise, they call for a clear but stern warning.
If I’m the mod, or admin, and someone reports Stamets (I’m sorry hon I was just trying to think of someone I favor) for rule breaking when he didn’t, just because a bunch of other people have been harassing assholes to him isn’t enough justification to ban that one person!
Now again, vibes-based moderation is fine. It’s your instance. It’s your little hamlet, and you’re the ruler. But as for whether this is objectively fair or not, the answer is no. And if this combative attitude is what you took to that user in DMs, then I can see why they escalated to a point where you had to ban them.
I think everyone is someone who needs protecting. My point is that things are happening to FlyingSquid that are not happening to the average person, which means I react differently when another instance of that same thing happens. It’s not based on any particular special class I put FlyingSquid in, because pretty much the only thing I know about him is the pattern of people criticizing him for things that seem to me to be made up, and me looking into it and seeing at most like 20% justification for it and often 0%. Like in this case.
It sounds like you’re saying that I’m an asshole, and being biased, if I do that. All I can really say is we’re going to need to agree to disagree.
I addressed this exact point pretty clearly in the comment you’re replying to. It’s a pretty critical part of my response, because like I said, what you’re saying is a pretty fair point.
I’m not super friendly all the time online. I’m actually trying to work on it. But honestly I don’t feel like I need to be super-friendly to someone who’s using my hosting to spew bullshit into the network. I was civil about it, maybe a little bit curt, a lot like what you see in these comments yes. If they decide it needs to escalate because of that because I didn’t put any heart emojis, then IDK what to tell them other than “bold strategy Cotton” et cetera.
You asked for judgment. I gave it.
I think you came here to get a pat on the ass and have people agree with you, not to hear dissenting opinion.
You seem set in your ways, so good luck. What communities do you moderate? I’m just going to block and move on if this is the policy there 🤷♂️