I was in an incident, which I explained elsewhere, that led to people complaining about me in YTPB and by extension in Ask Lemmy. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by those to whom I shared it to share it in YPTB only for those in charge there to give what amounts to a signal of not caring about said perspective, just the one that is there. So I’m going to share it here instead.
As someone who knows Person F personally, but won’t mention their name here for privacy’s sake, their problem wasn’t so much that their comment was removed (for understanding’s sake, as you said, which is understandable), but that they were removed from the community entirely, even though it was only three days. Can you justify that, when there was no crime committed and Person F only happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
There is no option, as it stands, to remove people from only part of a community, unless I misunderstand you.
Considering the whole context, where two other people were removed for reasons, the alternative would have been to just ban those two people and risk receiving complaints on their behalf about the fact the response wasn’t evenly distributed (It was the temporary ban of Person F I was referring to when I said I did it “for understanding’s sake”, referring to the fact I made it only three days which have ended a day ago, not the removal of the comment).
Person F, although it’s not inaccurate to say they may have spoken in the wrong place at the wrong time, hence the fact it was as temporary as it was, still said something that, given the serious matter and its different steps, could not be ignored.
Look, I gotta be real here.
I’m not sure why, but your ability to write things that can be understood is not great.
I’ve been going though the things you linked, other comments and such, and it’s a jumbled mess. I know that’s not going to be easy to take without it feeling like some kind of attack, but there it is.
I run into a problem where something works right in my head, but once it’s out loud or on screen, it doesn’t scan right. Normally I’ll go through and edit things into a better state, but even that doesn’t work out every time, and I’m a published author. So I completely get where you’re doing your best and it’s just not working. Langage be herd to rite, you dig?
I’m coming into this with wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, and maybe figure out what the issue is, but I keep running into trouble having to guess what you mean. Even this post is jumbled to the point I’m not certain exactly what you’re saying.
Which means there’s a decent possibility that no matter what you meant, the way you went about saying things was just not clear enough.
For real, go back and try looking at your words and see if there’s a better way to write it out, it might help.
The truth we all wanted to speak💀🙏
You say that like it’s the end of the world. You could be like the other person who said that here and ask for something to be paraphrased, as could also have been asked to an AI given it’s grammatically correct. I don’t know if the issue was fixed, but they haven’t said anything, and the reaction seems to be satisfactory enough that the combination of things cited as causing this (culture, neurodivergence, and the level of nuance in the situations behind something) don’t seem to have taken hold. Though due to all of this, I wonder how intellectual one could call this community, which mentions an interest in philosophical/political manifestos and sometimes CS Lewis content but suggest they wouldn’t understand the syntax norms in them (which probably wouldn’t be understood by an AI, since it’s semantic correctness that matters while everything else is a matter of viewer calculation), and many sometimes do pretend to not understand something as a way to avoid having to say it was onto something (and, in the words of an author I like, they cannot deny/justify it), which is also why someone else had a similar exchange when he started a discussion that mixed things we both wanted to get across. I experience this often, and the susceptibility to people misunderstanding me is rarely consistent with everything else (as in selective), especially when I ask “what part do you not understand” and all I get are a barrage of thumbs downs with no actual response, so take that as you may (though a few times I learned often that, in this massive pool of knowledge, I’m communicating with people in the middle of a smoke who warned nobody, something further suggested by the fact those who understand me the best just happen to be those under the legal drug age, as odd as that sounds but which some of the cross-community reactions this week reveal).
Give me a sentence and I will elaborate on everything surrounding it.
My guy, you gotta learn to use paragraphs.
Maybe take a step back and consider if perhaps people are alienated from you not because they are inferior to you intellectually, but because you treat them as if they are. Your comment is a rambling mess that uses a tone and vocabulary that does not endear you to anyone.
Who ever said I thought people were intellectually inferior to me? Like who? I’m the last person to do that (heck I cheated my way out of my high school finals), I’m just saying people shouldn’t give up once something gets too elaborate. That and maybe work with me when I try to negotiate or work my way to a resolution. You know, as opposed to giving nothing more than a thumbs down to questions that try to address the thing people are stumped by.
When you say “that does not endear you to anyone”, a thought that comes to mind is the possibility of how many people are judging a book by its cover, and/or thinking they can read between the lines when whatever is between them is all in their head. Especially in a world where people complain of culture shock, it’s kind of inconsiderate in its own way.
I wonder how intellectual one could call this community
I get you may be neurodivergant, though I have no idea how/why or to what degree, but what normally happens here is that people ‘read between the lines’. I’m not certain reading between the lines i necessary here because you have been pretty blatant.
You’re basically saying the community is pretending to be intelligent by latching onto certain media. You also say, very clearly, that the community is incapable or parsing that medias content.
which mentions an interest in philosophical/political manifestos and sometimes CS Lewis content but suggest they wouldn’t understand the syntax norms in them
Intentional or not your message is clear; you believe the community are less intelligent than you, aren’t “true” fans of the media, and couldn’t understand that media even if they were fans.
That could be true, you might be the smartest person in the room, though I have my doubts.
I have the pleasure of being friends with several individuals who are at least one deviation above myself on the intelligence scale and they communicate differently, but that doesn’t mean your communication style is good, or that people will be receptive to your attitude.
I am so so sorry I’m not able to have an opinion on this. If it’s not too much trouble (and I understand if it is) could you edit this for readability? I clicked through to your link and I reread the first paragraph like five times and it is not sticking.
Would you mind maybe copy-pasting it here (I have readability set up for Lemmy but not for those exterbal sites)? Or giving a TL;DR? I know my asking is an imposition so just ignore me if any of that’s too much.
E: I’ll check again later. I’m even on my medicine and I am struggling. Might just need to sit this one out.
I assume you mean the explanatory one, as opposed to the archive and the two threads. I can paraphrase.
The first paragraph is just a lead-up and not that important to the rest, but it’s a disclaimer mentioning I was given mod abilities and that I work to avoid misusing it and that I always hope I have all the pieces together before making a ruling on a situation. It’s also a disclaimer to make sure nobody misinterprets the issue, since the reaction to the controversy is so frantic that, even if you aren’t saying anything that would raise red flags, simply exploring the topic is like walking a thin line.
The rest is me talking about my intent and everything that happened.
YTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebar. It’s not there to be your soapbox in general. I get that you want to say your piece, but the space for that is the comments of the OP, or another community like this. However you can make a YTPB post about the removal of your post if you feel it doesn’t go against the comm rules and shouldn’t have been removed from YTPB.
So does this community, which OP also breaks.
Rule 1: Any drama must be posted as an observer, you cannot post drama that you are involved with.
that is the comments of the OP
Could we maybe consider adding a new thread when the OP reaches a certain number, like 75 comments? That post has 95 comments, OP addding this post as one comment would have been drown and visible to no one.
I don’t see why to make a new thread just to extend the discussion on a PTB judgement. I do see the point of allowing someone to be able to make a counterargument, so in the interest of fairness, I can arrange that the official counter-argument from the targeted mod is stickied to the target post. But I feel that just opening new threads on the same subject without linking them to mod actions is just going to make a drama haven instead.
What rule does it break by the way?
The rules say…
- Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s). (it was about a ban)
- Provide the cause of the sanction (e.g. the text of the comment). (that’s exactly what I was doing)
- Provide the reason given by the mods for the sanction. (I did that, and in fact this explains what I was saying about the other person having broken more rules than me, because their rundown was inaccurate)
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily. (I didn’t, in fact the only private communication I used was to prove to you I was asked)
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers. (I’m that person, so naturally the rule was upheld)
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades. (again, did not break this rule)
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that. (I didn’t do that… but others are doing it to me and you don’t seem to mind)
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc. (certainly did not break this rule)
And yet when I try to ask or bring up how the rules were broken, I get lots of thumbs down but no answers, almost as if there is none. Hence I said the Y might as well be removed.
Fair point to be honest. Seems like there’s a rule missing about “only create one thread per mod sanction”
I don’t want a hundred rules that nobody ends up reading except rules lawyers looking for loopholes. I’m not trying to stifle discussion, but I am trying to prevent becoming a drama comm. I don’t this to be a soapbox for people to make threads and counter-threads endlessly.
It breaks rule 1
Rule one says “post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)”.
I am a mod.
It was about a ban.
Therefore it was “about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)” as rule one says.
It doesn’t say the discussion itself can’t be from the mod. It just states the action in question must be “from mod(s)”.
Unless there is something lost in translation here, that is.
If not, you might as well have said “I simply don’t like you” as the reason, and you being in charge there, I would’ve accepted my fate, even if I still would’ve spoken about it somewhere.
It’s nothing to do with you. I don’t know you at all. I don’t play rules-lawyer games. The rules have been clarified to you now and most people seem to understand them as well that posts have to be in AITA style about a mod action affecting them. Exceptions to this are at my discretion in the benefit of the community health.
I gave you already an alternative option to pin your reply to the OP. If you think I’m being a PTB, feel free to make a post about it in YTPB.
Yes, both positions are understandable. There should probably be a debate somewhere (not specifically on !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) about what is allowed or not regarding Luigi on LW. That would probably clarify things for everyone.
you can make a YTPB post about the removal of your post if you feel it doesn’t go against the comm rules and shouldn’t have been removed from YTPB.
That would be interesting to be honest.
I can spot rules broken by the other person’s thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mine.
