this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
67 points (91.4% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

846 readers
168 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 

This one is both upsetting and weird.

So there was a user on ponder.cat who's been spamming posts. Like a lot. 58 per day, on average. Not 58 comments. 58 posts.

I started seeing a little scattering of reports about it, mostly just figured it was the mods' business to deal with, and then finally today I actually really took a look at what they were doing and realized it was way over the top. Pretty much everyone in the comments agreed when someone brought it up.

A 25 day old account with 1,400+ posts? What the actual fuck? My entire goddamn feed is this one account...

Touch grass. Good lord. You're carpet bombing multiple communities with repeats of the same crap.

The user was not receptive.

lol.

I guess people here do not know how to block an account.

:)

Is that a compliment or a rant?

May I introduce you to Lemmy block function.

If you don’t like my posts then block me and you will never see them again. As simple as that.

That's a bunch of bullshit. The voting was about as you would expect. I said to the user:

That's not how it works. If you're interfering with the average Lemmy user's experience, you don't get to claim it doesn't count because each individual person would be able to block each individual problematic account, if they wanted to have a good experience. Honestly, these people have a point. You have been posting an average of 58 posts per day. That's too much. I post a ton, and that's about 10 times more than me, and I've gotten multiple complaints about posting too much in particular communities. The handful of times it's happened, my reaction was "Oh my bad what sounds like an acceptable level" and then to more or less stick to an acceptable level. Getting snarky with people who are asking you to cool it is very bad. Please stop posting so much. Anything about 10-15 posts per day starts to feel really excessive to me. Definitely don't be dismissive about people's complaints to you about it.

They rejected my suggestion, so I sent them a DM that was a little more direct about it: Stop doing this if you want to keep your account on my instance.

Then, for some reason, they deleted their account on their own.

Well, that was weird, but at least it's all resolved and we can all get back to what we were doing. Or wait... what's happening now?

I wasn't expecting "making sure we make a safe space for the spammers by banning people who complain about spam" to be an important moderation duty, but I guess in the bizarro world that is !news@lemmy.world moderation philosophy, it makes perfect sense.

https://lemmy.world/modlog/1347

@Ghyste@sh.itjust.works

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 19 hours ago

PTB, the mods in !news@lemmy.world are really aggressive power-trippers in this current day and age. That's why a hands off approach like what certain servers do where they "choose not to interfere with communities" is not a good approach. Even Reddit has a Moderator CoC. Instance admins can and should hold communities to a certain standard of moderation and ban or reassign moderators which don't or abuse their power.

[–] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I always assumed cat@pondercat was an unmarked bot for your instance.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 12 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I started thinking I should talk with them or ban them or something because they would make me look bad. I actually did send them some DMs recommending that they tone it down, without much result. They solved the problem for me though before I had to decide what to do.

[–] Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Sounds to me like some moderator wanted those unreliable sources and pieces of propaganda slipped in.

Definitely PTB.

Wow, look at the last removal from that timeframe in the modlog. Someone literally just said they think the other person might be a spam bot and got their post removed for it. There's definitely a mod with an agenda there.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 14 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Honestly? I think you're right.

With the exception of MBFC bot, every one of these weird disconnects that has arisen between the lemmy.world moderators and the overwhelming majority of the users of lemmy.world, has followed the pattern of "someone is posting propaganda and bullshit, everyone hates it, and the LW moderators are lecturing everyone about how they really need to accept that it's here to stay, because it is allowed, and people who are vocal about having a problem with it are going to get banned." You can see the official mod explanations down below for why this particular (pretty minor TBH) decision was the way it was. The explanations are objectively not true. So what is the actual explanation for the decision?

I've observed on Reddit what happens when clearly bad-faith moderators take over a space to clear the way for it to become a little propaganda home. I think we're observing here the beginnings of that process, where at least some of the mod team is actively working to make a safe space for the propaganda, and they've become ensconced enough to be able to mandate a certain amount of propaganda be part of the space. I actually didn't see Cat's postings as being all that propaganda-y, but there certainly was some amount of it in among the general spam and clutter.

Honestly I think the root of the issue is the whole design where the space is "in the control" of some particular person to do whatever they want with it, and that person has to be a volunteer and so there's always a crushing shortage of people to do it, so it's going to work 100% of the time for someone who wants to put effort into controlling the space to be allowed to have free rein, after a while.

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago

Reminds me of UniversalMonk - the combative tone, the posting patterns. Not necessarily the same person but definitely following the same playbook.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I slept 3 hours last night so I haven't processed everything in this post yet but I do have one thought. Your complaint was that they post a lot and should "touch grass". Sidenote, I don't think that it was necessarily the best foot to put forward by just openly throwing shade like that in the first message as an admin... Again, Idk where the hell I stand on any of this at the moment because I can't remember how to circulate my own blood.

But.

If you have that issue with their posting habits I am genuinely wondering what you think about people like myself or Picard Maneuver then. Not meant to be snide or sarcastic. I am genuinely curious with no emotion attached to it other than curiosity itself.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 12 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I didn’t tell them to touch grass, that was one of the users that was sort of arguing with them in the comments. My first involvement was the long and serious comment that I quoted last. I’ve been trying to be less of an asshole online, and that message keeping the sarcasm out of it and just being straight with them about what was going on, was a good example.

It wasn’t just that they post a lot, it’s a very spammy collection of articles including some from open propaganda sources like RT.com. My main concern with them was the volume but also the low quality of the posts, but I left it alone as not my business until there was widespread complaining from users coupled with total disregard on their part for what the users were saying about it.

You and The_Picard_Maneuver are completely fine. Usually I like when people post a lot. The only exception is what it’s all low quality or just-to-full-space stuff, which certainly isn’t you.

To give a frame of reference, you and The_Picard_Maneuver both make about 5 posts a day it looks like. This person made over 10 times that many (58 per day average) and people were actively asking them to cool it, and they were sort of snarking back at the people who were making the request. Y’all are fine.

[–] Stamets@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

To give a frame of reference, you and The_Picard_Maneuver both make about 5 posts a day it looks like.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 6 points 18 hours ago

Ha. I just added up posts over the lifetime of your account. I just looked over the last couple pages and you might do a little more than that in the recent past. Dude, you're fine. It's largely meme content in meme communities. If you were posting RT.com to the meme communities and often to multiple communities with all the same story from RT.com it would be a little more of an issue. Like I say, it wasn't the volume (although that certainly was a factor), it was more that they were putting all kinds of unreliable or explicit-propaganda stuff that was drowning out the news that was not that.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

Oh hey, I was wondering if this might show up here.

I will admit that I was aggressive in calling them out, but I'd seriously had enough of scrolling through All and seeing nothing but their name on everything, on top of seeing the same post on 3-5 different communities.

Language aside, I believe my concerns were reasonable enough and clearly stated. Power users of that nature can control what everyone on this platform is exposed to, potentially manipulating opinions and injecting disinformation. Lemmy is still small enough that a handful of people could potentially influence the entire user base. Vigilance is key.

My remaining concerns are 1) There are still other accounts with identical behavior that have not been addressed and 2) I have seen accounts like this one cycle through instances, and I expect we'll see a new account begin the same behavior from somewhere else soon enough.

Quite amusing that Cat deleted their account though. Exactly the sort of behavior you'd expect from someone just innocently posting content, right?

Beyond that, I could see a temp ban for my language. But 15 days? Yeesh. It was actually removed a short time ago so I guess another mod got a look at things.

Here's the ban explanation, basically saying "spammers and suspicious activity is a-okay, and how dare you say anything about it"

[–] BomberMan9865@sh.itjust.works 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

Quite amusing that Cat deleted their account though. Exactly the sort of behavior you’d expect from someone just innocently posting content, right?

Because an admin threatening to ban you for being too active is surely something that makes you feel warm and welcome there. /s
This is the kind of reductive, uncharitable take you see on the VAC forums on Steam, I'm surprised you're expressing such a baseless bad-faith claim here about said person, not a good look for you.

I'm not surprised they deleted their account upon threatening to be banned for being too active, I would probably do the same thing. Especially with my past experiences with @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat, he seems like a pompous uptight control freak. Not the kind of person I want having access to my email address and my last known IP logins.

If you don't like me saying any of this about you @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat you know exactly what to do about it 🔨

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Because an admin threatening to ~~ban~~ tempban/limit you for ~~being too active~~ spamming

FTFY

It's usually a mods job to help control spam. Deleting your account the moment someone points out your iffy spamming is, in fact, suspicious. I always found it so on my forum back in the day, anyway

[–] BomberMan9865@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

You do sound exactly like those trolls on the VAC forums I don't need to put up with assholes like you on Lemmy, blocked.

So glad you're not my admin, I bet you'd dox me for calling you out.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 27 minutes ago

Lol, stupid and easily upset

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat -4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

This take is wild, man.

Spamming: “Being too active”

Responding to user reports, after a long time of deciding they weren’t my business and ignoring them: “control freak”

Explaining the norms of the network this person is participating in, and backing up the consensus of the users of said network to try to address a problem: pompous bad faith reductive uncharitable threatening

You can think whatever you like obviously but this is some Peggy Noonan shit.

“How can you possibly say you DON’T WANT notifications about goods and services in your inbox, don’t you like getting activity? And messages?”

[–] BomberMan9865@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 hour ago

So let me get this straight, you think that I'm a rightoid because I disagree with you and would never want to share a server with you because you bullied and scared someone into deleting their account? Go fuck yourself Phillp I have nothing more to say to you. I didn't like you when I met you and I like you even less now.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 11 points 22 hours ago

"You can interact with the fediverse how you like. Also, we're banning you for interacting with the fediverse in a way we don't like."

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I will admit that I was aggressive in calling them out

Dude, you're fine. Full stop.

Lemmy.world is the only instance that does this super-weird moderation philosophy of actively refusing to take action against people who are obviously objectively pissing off the vast majority of people, but then taking action against users who get understandably pissed and react in any way that's "uncivil." It's bizarre and unnatural. They also like to send condescending messages about how we're the weird ones, if we have a problem with it, and they've figured it all out from their higher perspective, and everything they did was right.

Don't let them gaslight you into thinking that it was wrong to be irritated about it. It is better if people speak up about people causing problems. Since the mods are committed to not doing anything about it for some ridiculous reason. IDK, I've ceased trying to understand what's behind it and just don't much participate in lemmy.world anymore. I only even became aware of this situation because I saw reports about spam that was coming from one of my users.

I can be a cockhead sometimes, but neither you or I was being in any way unreasonable anywhere in that thread. You're allowed to have human emotions, including irritation. If you want my conflicted-of-interest opinion.

  1. I have seen accounts like this one cycle through instances, and I expect we’ll see a new account begin the same behavior from somewhere else soon enough.

Yeah. Being able to make new anonymous accounts and be as much of a cock as you want until someone's motivated to fix you individually after a long time of you getting the benefit of the doubt, which only solves the problem for a few minutes until you make a new account, is a problem. What the solution is I have no idea.

It was actually removed a short time ago so I guess another mod got a look at things.

I mean this is how it's all supposed to work. I don't think anyone needs to get 100% of the calls correct. They're all volunteers, they're doing an important job, it's not fair to jump down anyone's throat if they make a misjudgement through lack of information or not wanting to spend an hour getting up to speed, or anything.

Most of the reason I sound pissed off about it, above and beyond just a "hey I think someone should take another look at this", is the overall condescending tone of "we never did anything wrong, we know more than you" that accompanies every dogshit moderation decision like a little dollop of frosting on the turd. It seems guaranteed to ensure that they won't learn anything from any given instance where someone did mess up, because they already decided they're a special type of people who are empowered to come down and need to educate all the rest of us.

[–] 3dmvr@lemm.ee 9 points 16 hours ago

Pretty common irl, ppl that are constant problems get away with shit because its expected, anyone retaliating because they reached their breaking point looks insane in comparison

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago

Right there with you on all of this. I actually just said as much in reply to Java's comment to you.

To summarize: "They did nothing wrong and we knew nothing about it".

  • The first part of that statement is false.
  • The second part of that statement is either 1) false 2) admission that they don't pay a bit of attention to communities they signed up to pay attention to, or 3) indication that they're buried and need more assistance with moderating (to be charitable)

And trust me, if speaking out like this is the only thing that results in action being taken I'll continue to do so, though it would be nice to see that change.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›