this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
34 points (82.7% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1155 readers
369 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 9 months ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
34
Goat just banned me for... misinterpreting my words and accusing me of a lie? (lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz)
submitted 2 days ago by communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Literally explained how the two things I said make sense together and he banned me for "not manning up to lying"

...Ironically in doing so, he did not man up about his falsehood, which is that I said contradictory things.

all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

It's because you continue to argue with users even after they've asked you to stop. You've had multiple reports, and you've also made multiple reports of your own.

If you're reporting the person you're arguing with, and they're also reporting you, then it's not very productive, is it? So to satisfy your urge to argue, I engaged with you until you said nonsense about what Marx said, and I countered with a direct quote from him. But despite that, you ignored it and changed your phrasing, and made a thread to brigade, as you often do.

And all bans are temporary anyway, even now you're unbanned and free to resume arguing. Bans on the community work with a warning first, then a ban, but bans only last 24 hours, and each subsequent infraction doubles the amount. You may request an unban at any time, which you never did. No other community on Lemmy is as lenient. None of your comments are removed. I also get a lot of DMs and a lot of harassment from Tankies, they've even tried to dox me a few times. MOG is the only active community that stands against them, and I've seen every method they use, which you are using. From the community's perspective, you are one of these tankies, and as moderator, I have to put the community first before a single user.

You also messaged me 15 different times to continue arguing, often within the same 24 hours of your ban. What do you expect me to do when you ignore your ban, just to argue directly? What do you expect me to do when you report every user you're arguing with? What do you expect me to do when you don't know what no means? You can't control yourself. As I said multiple times, you're not looking to argue but instead to harass, which you are right now doing by making this thread.

You are a sealion. You were banned for harassing multiple users. And the fact you report them when they argue back shows that you don't actually care to engage, but just to sling mud. -- Again, you're unbanned with no comments removed

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Interesting.

It’s because you continue to argue with users even after they’ve asked you to stop. You’ve had multiple reports, and you’ve also made multiple reports of your own.

Give me even one example of this, i did it to you because you falsely accused me of something, which of course, i have the right to explain myself.

If you’re reporting the person you’re arguing with, and they’re also reporting you, then it’s not very productive, is it?

Yeah, I did report you before I realized you were a moderator, because you were arguing in terrible faith.

So to satisfy your urge to argue, I engaged with you until you said nonsense about what Marx said, and I countered with a direct quote from him.

You countered me with a direct quote that had nothing to do with what I said... that did not in fact contradict anything I said. I said marx did not give a specific implementation of communism, the quote you gave INCLUDES A STATE, and is thus, obviously not an implementation of communism. He never claims to give an implementation of communism, he's just giving a description of a country that might someday become communist, not one that is currently. It's well-known in circles of marxist scholars that marx never gave a specific implementation of communism.

But despite that, you ignored it and changed your phrasing, and made a thread to brigade, as you often do.

I did not ignore it, I explained precisely why it was incorrect, and i'm obviously right about this, it's very straightforward logic

at the end of history there will be no state, communism is the end of history, therefore that is not an implementation of communism because it has a state doing things.

You also messaged me 15 different times to continue arguing, often within the same 24 hours of your ban. What do you expect me to do when you ignore your ban, just to argue directly?

Yes, because you falsely accused me of lying and I wanted to clarify that I did not in fact lie, and that anybody could easily see that you are arguing in bad faith. I wanted you to unban me because my ban was not justified.

What do you expect me to do when you report every user you’re arguing with?

I have only ever reported you.

What do you expect me to do when you don’t know what no means?

Retract your false accusations, man up to the fact that you were wrong.

As I said multiple times, you’re not looking to argue but instead to harass, which you are right now doing by making this thread.

Nope, this thread is looking for justice to you harrassing ME. I gave a friendly informational post about communism, you harrassed me for it, anybody can see that. That's why you're universally getting a PTB.

You are a sealion. You were banned for harassing multiple users.

That's false, I was banned for this interaction with you, point to the other users i harassed. Give even one example.

And the fact you report them when they argue back shows that you don’t actually care to engage, but just to sling mud.

You got reported because your arguments were so bad that I genuinely believed you were trolling me, only for me to be incredibly shocked that you are a moderator.

And the fact you report them when they argue back shows that you don’t actually care to engage, but just to sling mud. – Again, you’re unbanned with no comments removed

I have engaged with EVERY SINGLE claim that has been made in a civil and calm manner. Find even one example of a point i have ignored or not addressed, i challenge you.

I think sealioning is a nonsense excuse you're peddling because you want your arguments to just go your way by force. You didn't even go "don't these points contradict?" and give me the opportunity to explain myself, you just instantly banned me. I think that's a very convenient excuse for you. A sealion wouldn't reply to all of your points openly, and directly, they would avoid your points and bring up random unrelated nonsense. I did not ignore anything you said, and you falsely accused me of things and harrassed me, that's why you're here, for being a PTB. And this is easily and demonstrably NOT your first time here.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 4 points 21 hours ago

Clear PTB.

I didn't read the whole comment chain because it's rather long, but goat is consistently building straw men over what you and LibertyLizard said. For example, going out of his way to mix both meanings of the word "communist", then as LL explained both things he idiotically answers it with "if u now you're arguement is semantics, y r u even arguing?".

And... speaking on general grounds, this sort of moron who's eager to oversimplify complex matters is always a dead weight in any sort of discussion, and is best ignored as you address other users. If you must answer them, clipped/short replies like "I already addressed this" are often good.

[–] flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I did read the whole thing, and this is PTB.

Only because, as a mod, you don't just ban someone because they keep arguing with you. On dbzer0, we have the disengage rule- if mods want to ban someone for arguing, they should implement that.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Multiple users made reports on him, and he also made reports on them. Most of which are 'arguing in bad faith' -- Both of them. What would you do when a user doesn't understand stop or move on?

[–] flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I'm glad you asked!

You stop replying.

It's that simple. If they're arguing in bad faith, if they're a troll, if they're a person who's unstable who's fighting because they get a kick out of it, all these things have the exact same result.

A fire starves without oxygen. Stop feeding the person by replying to them, and they'll often fade right out. I do it constantly. (Though I've been known to engage when my ADHD is acting up. Or when I hyperfocus on providing data in my replies.)

It's so insane to me that people have forgotten this, or they just choose to ignore it. Tell the person you're arguing with that you clearly don't see eye-to-eye, and you're not enjoying the discussion, so "feel free to reply, but I won't be answering." Done. The argument ends. If the other person replies lots of times, acts up, starts fighting other people, it proves they're a problem person. If they let it die, as most people tend to, then who cares? No further action needed.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I did stop replying, but then Communist started DMing me. There were also the reports on him, and by him.

[–] flicker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 hours ago

You mentioned that already. If you are arguing with someone, you can stop.

Other people reporting them for being rude, while they're arguing with you, doesn't actually support your action. I know it feels like it's not fair that a regular user can argue with you, and you're supposed to take it, but that comes with the territory of being a mod.

If someone is tilting you, or annoying you, or arguing and you are making no progress, you need to learn to disengage and move on. You don't need to reply to someone just because you believe they're wrong. People will always be wrong on the internet.

[–] NewDark@hexbear.net 17 points 2 days ago

PTB, he will ban you if he's taking an L in a discussion.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago

PTB, and a frequent one at that.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What a PTB. Clearly has an anticommunist axe to grind.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works -5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not explicitly anti-communist. I'm suspicious of them because communism is unrealistic.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, that really doesn't track and has nothing to do with your duties as a mod.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

That seems like an opinion that should have nothing to do whatsoever with moderating.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The craziest part for me is that i was just explaining what communists believe, i didn't even endorse them, and he decided it was an argument that needed to be crushed, and I don't think anybody who knows anything about communist philosophy would disagree with any of the things I said. He doesn't have an axe to grind against communism, just his imaginary, completely undefined and arbitrary version of it that is comprised of whatever he doesn't like.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Ehhh, technically you broke the rules, and a temp ban is an acceptable and appropriate action to take. Edit: to be clear, your comments could be interpreted as apologia under existing rules. It looks like it could go either way the further up the thread it goes, but by the end, it veers closer and closer to the standards of apologia set in the community sidebar.

But..

The mod's responses in the thread were way out of acceptable lines when acting as a mod. Also against the rules in the way it was done.

So, PTB for sure, but only because the mod made it personal. If they had simply reminded you of the community rules, and applied the temp ban as a cooling tool, it would be YDI.

If you're gonna be a mod and interact in the community, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard. It's not easy to do, but it's necessary.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have not committed any apologia, I just explained what communists believe, I at no point endorsed tankiesm

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That's why I edited the comment.

The way you argued it could be taken as apologia. I have no way of knowing your intent, only what you wrote. All I (we) have access to is the thread.

It sucks, but sometimes, no matter how hard you try, shit may not read the same to everyone. People may use inaccurate words, or inaccurate usages, they may just be stupid, or have an axe to grind.

There was a point where that came up, a disagreement over what you meant vs what the mod in question thought you meant. I can't view both this and the original thread to copy/paste a direct quote, so the basic exchange was about whether or not there was a semantic disagreement. So both of you were aware that there was a fundamental barrier in communication.

One of the mistakes made by goat was that they never, that I saw, told you "I am a mod, what you are saying is breaking a community rule". They made their arguments as a user. Hence it being a power trip no matter what else went on.

I agree you weren't endorsing authoritarianism. At most your were pointing to it as a flaw in the specific nations discussed. But, unfortunately, there were other sections that could go either way. Again, I reference my edit that it could be interpreted that way.

This is where it gets sticky for this community, c/ptb. There's a point where discussing the original subject goes off topic here. So there's a limit to how much I'll go into it. That being said, I agreed with the point I think you were making. I just can't ignore for this purpose that the early part of the exchange was open to interpretation, and as both of you got more (for lack of a better term) annoyed with each other that goat crossed the line of acceptable mod behavior, and you got a bit more adamant in defending your position.

Again, this is me crossing past what's on topic for this community, but the way they have the rule written regarding apologia is not good. It could be worse, but it's phrased in a way that's a little too vague. That's why the later parts veer closer and closer to their definition. Their definition is like an ant lion hole. If you're already debating a point around authoritarian nations, as soon as there's a disagreement, one person or another is going to have to defend their stance. Any defense could be deemed apologia after a point in that process, even when it may not be anything other than a passing point in an overall discussion.

It's a badly constructed rule, imo. But, within that, you did cross the big, blurry line it represents. Were you wrong? No. But that's not the point here.

If goat had straight up said, "yo, I'm a mod, you're breaking a rule, stop it", it would be on you entirely after that point, no matter how bad that rule is. But they didn't. And then they kept arguing the points with you, over a decent number of comments where they could have acted as a mod and given you the warning as a mod.

Does that phrase it better? I don't want you or anyone to get the impression that I think the mod action taken wasn't over the line; it was. I'm trying to explain why that is, which includes that some mod intervention would have been appropriate, just not what was done.

Which, one last step into off topic, in the hopes that it might help any further discussion of this particular subject. Sometimes, when a conversation isn't going well, insisting on defining something the way "you" (as in any individual making an argument) see it can be counterproductive, even when that definition is the most accurate one. Sometimes, shrugging off someone else's inaccurate usage of a term or idea isn the only way to progress in a discussion that isn't being mediated by a neutral party. Being right is only useful if being right is the goal you start with (and it's fine to do so!). If the goal is to talk about a subject, being right is less useful than being on the same page.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

He explicitly stated that being a communist is not against the rules, and I at no point endorsed or recommended even one authoritarian thing, even going so far as to clarify that I am not a marxist communist and disavowing tankiesm in clear words.

i do not think there is any argument to be made that there was any apologia at all. If I was to explain the beliefs of nazis that would not be apologia.

furthermore he didn't ban me for apologia, he banned me for "lying"

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, I see that the way I rephrased doesn't match with how I intended it to read.

I'm not sure how to say it in a way that both points out that during the discussion goat was saying that you were using apologia, even though goat didn't use that word directly that I recall; and still explains why goat was still out of line.

My goal was to point out the details of the situation that were probably the basis of the mod decision. This was to establish a framework where the mod decision could be evaluated as objectively as possible. That's why I edited in the extra section.

I'm not sure what else you want from me. There is an upper limit to how many attempts I'll make to rephrase things to match your preferred wording on the matter. Tbh, this is that limit.

I explained why I felt the mod action was PTB. Part of that was the possibility that they took your words as apologia. Some of those comments are written in a way that could be interpreted as such, if a mod is using very vague standards.

If that doesn't make my intent clear, I'm sorry, but you'll have to just accept that we don't have the same goal, and that I already agreed that the mod action was out of line, PTB.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don't think there's any chance apologia was the basis of the decision, he explicitly stated it was because of the lie he pointed out meaning I was arguing in bad faith, when I pointed out that he misinterpreted it and explained what I meant he banned me again for replying to his false allegations.

I don't think there's room for interpretation, he just didn't like losing an argument and wanted to silence me. He did check me for apologia sentiment and I did as he wanted, when he couldn't ban me for apologia he decided my arguments were in bad faith and gave me a terrible reason, I think in creating this framework to make an "objective" statement you have given him far far too much credit.

the only thing I want is the acknowledgement that I did not in fact technically break the rules. I don't think there's even a way to interpret what I said as apologia honestly. Even if there was, that would at best account for one of the two bans.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The last comment is such an eye roller. If they don't want to see comments from you then they should block you.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Normally I would, but can't as mod.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Couldn't handle not blocking so you banned them? Pathetic.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works -3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's a bad idea for a mod to block a user, because then I'd never be able to see anything they do.

Besides, it's always a temp-ban, it isn't even active anymore

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 6 hours ago

You shouldn't use mod powers because you're not allowed to use non-mod ones.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

That doesn't really apply to mods, because then they can't see any comments from that person in their communities. Stupid design, imo

[–] Lurkerino@hexbear.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Damn I glanced over at the comments there and none of them interact with any of the arguments, they live in perpetual cognitive dissonance reinforcement.

Just the same 4 frases over and over again, none of them have done the slightest research, specially not out of CIA aproved propaganda.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

they're not even arguments they're just simple statements of fact, i'm not even saying the beliefs are good, these are communist beliefs, factually. There's nothing to argue.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 days ago

PTB always has been lol

[–] qaz@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Could you perhaps include your original comment? The link isn't loading for me for some reason.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world -4 points 2 days ago

It is loading for me. He was arguing with a mod over Marx and communism, pissed him off and get 48h ban. Unnecessary in my view (and a power trip, mod shouldn't use his powers as a mean of discussion) but the OP was somehow annoying.

[–] rob299@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

From some of what I could tell the mod, goat likely thinks of communism as dictatorship due to various countries in history. I think an ideology should be based plainly on the ideology itself and people should't judge an idealogy just based off of how it was abused.

If an ideology itself at its core is encouraging dictatorship then people won't want to associate or talk in good faith. Even if it isn't, if an ideology has a bad reputation, no one will want to risk it even if someone tells them that a variation is better.

I do believe the mod 'goat' might had had a negative bias against communism. Many do, and it's just due to the association. Perhaps communists, and idk if you agree with this or not, but perhaps communist should start fresh, and create a newer, modern, and improved ideology for todays times. I believe for that as long that communist keep using the communist name with a bad rep, the chances of it going anywhere are minimal.

[–] goat@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago

It's not so much a negative bias, but moreso that a lot of tankies call themselves communist as a way to weasel out of their extremism. -- I'm not a tankie, I'm just a humble communist, honest!

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That would make sense if he hadn't explicitly stated being a communist is not against the rules.

he clearly is open to the possibility of non authoritarian communism and just believes the definition can't exclude it for some reason.

[–] rob299@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago

He banned you for a what seemed like a lot of different issue, but most notably, from you just saying your viewpoint (or the way you phrased your responses) and I don't see a ban justified for this, however if there is even one rule you are actually violating they can ban you. I didn't see anything personally wrong with the conversation on your side, you were mostly calm seeming and decent.

I think that the definition could exclude authoritarianism. However, the way it ended up implemented in popular examples people may point to, is what people see communism as being like. Possibly that's what he might had felt about it as well base don some of his responses .

I don't think correcting this perception of communism would require a specific type or form of communism, but rather just simply do vanilla communism upfront. What I mean by that is, without centralized authoritarianism. Communism by definition, is suppose to be stateless, and classless and a lack of currency. (lack of currency can be hard to achieve for imported goods, so I wouldn't be as upset over that one not being perfect day one.) however, classless and stateless as a foundation shouldn't be difficult. Achieving it in peace with everyone around might be another story, but actually applying it seems simple.

If some countries had actually applied it, then the issue was, there wasn't a large number of them applying it this way and because of that, communism is known for being authoritarian to many, when it is not suppose to be like that.