Regarding the admin in question making the statement that your prior conversation with db0 “wasn’t with them” - fuck that noise. That attempt at rationalization alone is enough for me to call their action an abuse of power. I was in agreement with their thought process up until that statement, but using that as a justification reads as “I have authority and what I say goes.” More than one admin on this instance has served as an illustration of the corrupting nature of authority.

That being said, you come off as the type of person who has far too often avoided, by virtue of hiding behind a screen, being punched in the in the fucking mouth for your cowardly behavior. If you know you’re an abrasive asshole, don’t be a craven little shit on top of it. Starting static and then hiding behind a hierarchy when you get your little feelings hurt in return is some real bridge-dwelling bullshit. You deserve the action that was taken, regardless of the piss poor “clarification” given by the admin in question. If that little wrist slap, which is far less than you ask for in consideration of the way you engage with others, is enough to make you tuck your tail and scurry off to find a new viaduct to settle under, good fucking riddance.

Easiest PTB so far.

I appreciate your willingness to respond and engage on the subject. I understand your position, and that it makes sense to you. I personally feel that there is a degree of overreach involved when action is taken based on behavior that happens outside of an instance, but I also acknowledge that defederation is a more severe version of the same action. That causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for me, which makes me wonder if I’m viewing it all wrong.

For now, I still believe that your method is beyond what I consider to be a reasonable exercise of authority. That’s not a slight on you; I have always gotten the impression that all of your actions are taken with the intent of doing what you believe is best for your instance. Our philosophies just differ somewhat when it comes to exercise of authority. I find you and db0 to be the most intellectually honest of the larger instance admins with regards to how you go about the business of adminning, for whatever that’s worth.

Thanks again for engaging, I hope everyone else sees that you do your best to be consistent to your instance values.

Proposing a very specific limit on posts referring mod/admin actions taken against users on LBZ that directly fall afoul of their instance rules regarding very specific gatekeeping might have some value. The subject has been hashed and re-hashed too fucking much. Their rules are their rules, breaking those rules on the instance is clear YDI. Breaking those rules elsewhere and having action taken against you is arguably PTB. I’m in favor of the idea of putting that on wax.

Purging previous discussion is no good, and even the proposal, coming from a community mod as it does, rubs me the wrong way. It shouldn’t, because you have just as much right to propose a change as any other community member, but it puts me on edge.

There is value in what’s been said already, even if some of it is highly disagreeable. Suggesting removal of that record for any reason invites future discussion of the same, IMO. Not everyone who will ever be a member of this community is a member now. If we’re going to consider making a rule about this whole mess, best to leave the roadmap that led us here intact.

Potential yes to a well-defined rule of specific, narrow scope. Hard, hard no to retroactive application of that rule.

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.

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.

(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.

Much respect to Steven Monacelli for the work put in, and the Observer for publishing the piece.

Disbarring this sack of shit would be a step in the right direction. The bias displayed is bad enough but putting thar aside, the complete lack of opsec is also concerning. This fool really thought they were being surreptitious and clever. Beyond being relieved of any judicial duties, any security clearance they have ought to be immediately reviewed.

Clear PTB.

Doubly bad because Stamets seems pretty cool from what I’ve seen. This is some bullshit, though.

PTB. AFAIK, RTFM N/A. NGL, NIMBY! YMMV, TTYL.

I often agree with your positions on various things, Phil, at least to the extent that it seems that we’re operating from a similar point of reference. That said, and in light of the nature of the private communications remaining private (as it should), there’s only one conclusion that seems fitting.

PTB.

One instance of anything hardly seems like grounds for a ban. Repeat behavior certainly could justify that action, but in the absence of any pattern it seems like an overreach. There might well be further justification for a ban based on the direct messages; but, as you’re submitting your own action for analysis, the only fair way to evaluate is on the grounds of what we are directly privy to. Anything else has to be viewed as simply your biased interpretation of the private conversation.

In the circumstance you describe the onus on the user is not to be “receptive or apologetic” to you in the private conversation, only to correct their usage of the report system. As presented, it reads as if they were banned because they did not show adequate respect for your authority, which is clear PTBehavior. Further, you attempt to bolster your point by painting Squid, a user who loves to try to win bad-take arguments by referring to their own mod status in other communities (essentially a PTB themselves), as undeserving of ire despite an extensive history of spinning out, losing the thread, and generally being a dick when it happens. Carrying water for someone who comes across as power-trippy does little to shift perception of your own actions away from that mark.

Self Portrait of the Artist as a Serpent, from their Larval Period. A prolific period for them, they mostly worked in various greens during this phase before a lacuna. After this brief dormancy, they truly spread their wings, branching out into bold, splashy colors.