lemonmelon

Lots of people enjoy it on eggs.

After the exchange I've had with spujb in this thread, I'm convinced of their bad-faith intentions for posting it. In that comment chain, I told them that I had not reported the thread for removal, which is still true at the time of this comment. However, let it be noted that the post is in violation of the sidebar rules, specifically

• Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.

and

• Don't harass mods or brigade comms. Don't word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.

No sanction was imposed on spujb, they are fully a third-party to this matter. Their post title and body is deliberately inflammatory towards @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat and ponder.cat as a whole.

Additionally, the post runs afoul of a post guideline:

3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don't de-obfuscate mod names).

This post has all the markings of a punitive reaction by sbujb to criticism (both direct and via downvotes) levied against them in another thread on this comm. I am aware that this very comment could read that way as well; my justification is that I attempted to communicate directly with OP, whose response was the equivalent of sticking their fingers into their ears and singing off-key, loudly, while running away.

In the event that I do make a formal report, I will use the preceeding text of this comment, and update the comment to indicate that I've done so. Absent that, any action taken on the post will be for reasons that do not involve a report from me.

This community should be a tool against mod/admin authority and abuse, not a weapon to settle a grudge.

To anyone who made it this far: "tired of this boring conversation. blocked." in a reply made in the conversation itself almost universally means "I'm tired of you putting a spotlight on my bullshit and I don't know how to handle it."

I'm not confused: you made a post about a post, discussing matters brought up in the post, after getting dumpstered by downvotes in the post you subsequently made a post about. If that's not meta, then it better not have kids with meta or we'll end up with the Habsburgs all over again. You seem to have a blind spot with regards to how that comes across, which is fair.

If you intended to simply be informative, you lost the plot by titling your thread as you did. I'd consider that an honest mistake if you hadn't avoided any mention of the other thread and your involvement in it. It's in bad faith, and it's a bad look.

Wordle 1,345 4/6*

⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨
⬛⬛🟨⬛⬛
⬛🟨⬛🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

It's a meta post, you didn't mark it as such. Nothing more, nothing less. If I thought the post should be removed, I would have reported it for removal. The metatude (It's a word now. I invented it. Probably after someone else already did, but they're not here, are they?) of the post is noteworthy, so I noted it. You could have done already, and still can even now.

Nobody is suggesting this "magical immunity" you've referenced. This smacks of shitstirring, which has its place, but in this case looks reactionary. My previous assessment stands.

Connections
Puzzle #623
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨

(Y)DI + this is an unmarked [META] post + no admin action was taken against the account + history of behavior + it looks silly to make a wholeass new thread after getting cratered to oblivion in the original one

Phil's "mistake", if we're insisting there is one, was not approaching the account-hopper with "You post a lot, and most of it is questionable trash. Please don't shovel shit from this instance anymore if you want to remain."

Goddamn, Phil, I didn't know you roasted coffee.

Strands #356
“Here we (don't) go again”
🟡🔵🔵🔵
🔵