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 thatās ridiculous, so I talked with them about it. Posting private communications is frowned upon I guess, but long story short, they werenāt receptive. Iāve 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 donāt see it that way. I donāt think itās a requirement for me to provide hosting space for anyone who wants to use my stuff as a jumping-off point for abuse of Lemmyās systems, and isnāt apologetic or receptive when I talk with them about not doing that. The fact that itās 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?
I probably have a little different view of the social contract and responsibility of communication than other people. Again, not trying to repost someoneās private communication, but when I asked them more or less āWhatās the justification for this report?ā they werenāt open to trying to justify it, just told me to do my own research. More or less. To me, probably more than other people, thatās a huge sin. You need to have reasons for what you say, you need to be open to defending it if someone semi-politely asks you to, especially when your statement is calling for sanctions from authority or anything like that. Itās part of being responsible with your communication and building a good community to be a part of.
Like I said, it helps that my perception is that there is ārepeatedā harassment of FlyingSquid in various forms. It means that any single report, even if it comes from an account that hasnāt been doing any of it, forms part of a pattern of spam like youāre talking about. But, I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, and talk to the person and see if they were open to saying āThatās a fair thing to ask me, I take it seriously, here is my defense of what I did / what I said.ā Again thatās just my view on integrity of communication. I might disagree or agree with the defense, and either one is mostly fine, but if someoneās like āitās not my responsibility, I just spew statements into the world and itās your problem to figure out if they are bullshit or not, without my help,ā they instantly go to the bottom of my shit-list. And, if theyāre already on thin ice because weāre having the conversation because theyāre using my volunteer hardware to violate Lemmyās norms and thatās why weāre having the conversation in the first placeā¦
I would have simply dropped the matter at that point and ended the conversation.
A short ban as a warning for wasting time is okay as well, I guess.
The issue here is the person is wasting your time.
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 youāre just straight up authoritarian and favoring specific users.
Observing when thereās a repeated pattern of harassing one user, and taking responsive action against a request for sanctions against that user that doesnāt even pretend to be justified, is in absolutely no way making them a āsuperior class of user.ā
If this user had āinteracted negativelyā with whoever, we wouldnāt be having this conversation, because I wouldnāt have noticed and probably wouldnāt have cared. The user requested mod sanctions against FlyingSquid. Itās hard for me to read āIām going to report some totally harmless comment because everything FlyingSquid says is wrongā any way other than āFlyingSquid shouldnāt be allowed to make comments because they pick fights.ā Okay, the reporting user picks fights, and now theyāre 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 Iām right or wrong, but I came out of this conversation concluding that I did the right thing.
Oh gosh, ew. I canāt believe you spent the previous paragraph saying FS isnāt special, or in a different category, and then immediately said this.
I was on your side until this, even though we canāt see the DMs and one instance of behavior that you donāt like is definitely more āwarningā territory than banning territory. I think thereās room for vibes-based moderation, especially on an instance you host, but youāre openly admitting you give FS special treatment, and then in the same breath, saying that you arenāt.
PTB, and also gross. If you canāt see why special moderation action to protect someone from āharrassmentā when you wouldnāt extend that protection to someone else isnāt fair, I donāt 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 āinteracted negativelyā with FlyingSquid, or anyone else, I wouldnāt have noticed or cared. The thing that made it different was that it wasnāt 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 donāt 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. Thatās fair, I guess, but my argument is that there are repeated reports of this type, and thereās no particular guarantee that any account that pops into existence and then instantly starts filing more of them isnāt 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 itās impossible to tell one way or another). I donāt think that on a network thatās inherently anonymous, we need to extend indefinite courtesy to every new account that āthey must be new, they get extra leeway until itās ironclad that theyāre causing problems on purpose and not going to stop.ā
Absolutely I would. Iām pretty sure I have made comments in this exact community along those lines (defending someone I really donāt 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 youāre interested to see them.
Okay but in the OP here you have the opinion that FlyingSquid is someone who needs protecting.
Emphasis mine.
Youāre not being objective about it and youāre arguing with anyone who points that out.
You donāt 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 arenāt arguing in support of whether there is a clear pattern of the world conspiring against one user. Theyāre 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 Iām the mod, or admin, and someone reports Stamets (Iām sorry hon I was just trying to think of someone I favor) for rule breaking when he didnāt, just because a bunch of other people have been harassing assholes to him isnāt enough justification to ban that one person!
Now again, vibes-based moderation is fine. Itās your instance. Itās your little hamlet, and youāre 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. Itās 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 youāre saying that Iām an asshole, and being biased, if I do that. All I can really say is weāre going to need to agree to disagree.
I addressed this exact point pretty clearly in the comment youāre replying to. Itās a pretty critical part of my response, because like I said, what youāre saying is a pretty fair point.
Iām not super friendly all the time online. Iām actually trying to work on it. But honestly I donāt feel like I need to be super-friendly to someone whoās 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 didnāt put any heart emojis, then IDK what to tell them other than ābold strategy Cottonā 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.
100000% this. There is literally NO consideration of any of the points brought up, simply OP pontificating around everyone elseās thoughts and coming to their own conclusion every time. It literally always comes back to ābut itās my instance,ā which nobody has actually disagreed with.
Moderate your own instance however you want, but they asked for a judgement and the consensus is nearly-unanimously against them.
You seem set in your ways, so good luck. What communities do you moderate? Iām just going to block and move on if this is the policy there š¤·āāļø
flat-out, I tell people not to dm me, even mods who have a problem with my reports. i do make an exception for my admins, but thatās it.