spujb

joined 1 year ago
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -1 points 41 minutes ago

This is an excellent point, added to the cons list in the body text

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -1 points 49 minutes ago

That’s kind of been my position too. Like I guess “people were posting low quality content” but if it’s no evidence of malice/rule breaking, what’s stopping people from just curating their feed and blocking users they see too much?

Still fifty-fifty on this for the record but I am glad there is more wholesome and constructive discussion on this still coming in :)

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -1 points 54 minutes ago

Valuable analysis ty

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 0 points 56 minutes ago

That’s an excellent point. Like, if we are going to have high-volume power users (which is an inevitability) it’s honestly arguably good and transparent for them to use single accounts that individual users can block—like at least they are known power users and it’s not being obfuscated.

I’m personally still fifty-fifty on the rule but this did sway me a bit.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -1 points 1 hour ago

Thanks for your input! It is valuable.

Re: your last paragraph. I’m literally just a third party user who was not involved in any of the conflict in any way, suggesting one potential resolution that at this point I still think could go either way.

It’s fair to assume that I was talking about myself but rest assured I have no personal investment here and my only commitment is to what is best for the community. :)

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -1 points 1 hour ago

I certainly think the number of the limit is a key consideration and really makes it or breaks it.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -1 points 1 hour ago

Your comment is confusing because this is a petition post, not a rule change. I have no leadership role here. If anything changes there will most likely be internal mod communication and then an announcement post if the rule change is significant enough to merit it.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Thanks! Of course I never had any doubts about this being left up but I do find it funny the number of people who were rudely adamant that this post was impossible, impossible I tell you!

cc @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat @catloaf@lemm.ee I encourage you to add your input under this impossible post. :)

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

haha :) if the post gets taken down i’m fine with it but i maintain its relevance to community dialogue. i also notice you have dropped your initial claims that “it’s unmarked meta” because of course that claim was never a true criticism.

i am here only as a reporter of behavior. i don’t even know what “punitive reaction” you are talking about. (oh i got some downvotes somwhere? well this post got some upvotes so…)

to me, a threat of a sanction is just as valid subject to be commented on as a sanction. previously, i have also created posts about admin inaction (dereliction) entirely and the posts were also left up, which leads me to believe community mods are with me. here’s an example: https://lemmy.cafe/post/12745277

(unblocked obviously, because you are funny)

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 0 points 1 hour ago

notice how there still isn’t a meta tag because it would make the post a lie :) that’s because i use the internet to have fun and participate in community, not to let mean users boss me around because they know how to use insults. blocked.

ps i made an actual meta post you should go leave your comments on it.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -5 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

two separate topics.

  • admin threatens account deletion (this post)
  • mod bans admin for bringing the discussion directly to the comments instead of engaging in community engagement for change (other post)

tired of this boring conversation. blocked.

 

Posting this because no one else seems to want to, and it’s a discussion worth having outside of drama or personal conflicts. I’m undecided and can see both sides, but it’s important to address.

Potential benefits of a limit:

  • Frequent posters hold significant influence and could, in theory, push misinformation or propaganda (though I haven't seen evidence of this it’s a fair concern).
  • A community dominated by one or two voices might discourage new members from participating.
  • Encouraging quality over quantity could increase the value of individual posts.

Potential downsides of a limit:

  • Could reduce overall community engagement.
  • If set too low, it might discourage meaningful participation from well-intentioned members.
  • It could inadvertently encourage the (mis)use of alt accounts.

These are some pros/cons but certainly not all! I encourage more discussion below.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe -3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I think I would be 100% fine with this progression if there had been a meta post. Your instincts are good they just have some holes.

 
 

Summary:

  • @Cat@ponder.cat was posting at a high volume to !news@lemmy.world
  • there is no written rule on !news@lemmy.world about post volume
  • there is no written rule on ponder.cat about post volume
  • !news is the one single community Cat was this active in
  • !news has no ponder.cat mods
  • from my understanding, all rules Cat did break were unrelated to volume (correct me if I am wrong)
  • ponder.cat admin @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat reaches out to Cat via comment and then DM essentially threatening account deletion if Cat doesn’t lower their activity level
  • Cat understandably deletes their account because who wants that

Of course, PhilipTheBucket had the right to do this, but I also think it’s exceedingly bad form and people have a right to know that this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head like that.

Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here. Communication should be chosen before simple fist waving and threats.

I agree with this comment that this is a bait-provoked reaction. Next time I recommend:

  • at the instance/admin level, the creation of instance rules about volume
  • at the community level, advocacy for community rules about volume (i.e. “[Meta] Petition: Limit daily submissions to !news to ensure community quality”)
  • avoid personal slapfights to get your way
  • avoid escalation directly to account termination threats

Source: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587

 
 
 
 
 

There’s definitely some additional nuance (like a pronouns in bio/username situation) but this should cover the broad needs of anyone who is approaching this with good faith.

 

The community’s sidebar doesn’t list a single rule so I don’t know how they expect to get users to fall in line if it’s completely unspoken.

Anyway this is a rare case of a very tiny community where no one is getting hurt so it’s not a huge deal. But if you plan on discussing news using any kind of acronym I guess don’t go there lmao.

Thoughts welcome! Am I missing something?

 

For some reason whenever someone posts any news about Pixelfed one of the top comments is usually along the lines of “no dark mode, no use.” Boy do I have good news for those users!

Like the rest of the Fediverse, and unlike corporate media, there are multiple apps you can use! Examples:

This is also useful for users who have qualms about the Pixelfed dev’s more… distasteful? behavior (example I found today) and don’t rock with rewarding it, kind of like how a lot of Lemmy users might block or defederate the flagship .ml instance.

view more: next ›