this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
58567 readers
4709 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What was wrong with them removing your comment? You were being annoying π€·ββοΈ
Their response seemed perfectly measured to someone being needlessly pedantic.
The "down" was definitely edited after the fact.
You're definitely right. But without any sort of context, just the screengrab with the title corrected, it makes OPs rant seem even more pointless.
It could have been one word if they were genuinely confused: "...Shuts?"
Or if they were smart enough to realize it was an error:
"There's a word missing..."
Yes, their comment was extremely annoying, both in tone (whining) and content (TL;DR: "pls spoonfeed me basic reading comprehension"). If the mod simply removed the comment, or issued an official warning, it would be 100% warranted.
However, what the non-mod user is saying ITT about moderator abuse is still spot on. The mod in question answered to the whining in tone, tried to cover their own arse with content removal, and then went to whine in Mastodon about the events, or the fact that there's transparency functionality in Lemmy (the mod log) against the exact same behaviour that they showed there.
So it's a case where both sides were wrong but given their relative positions the mod being wrong is a bigger deal.
I agree with you, but what does a moderator do once they engage with the user other than remove the whole interaction? They deleted the whole thread, not just their opposition.
Seems like the the whining on mastadon about transparency was more because this guy is following them around harrassing them via public modlog screenshots, when on any other forum it wouldn't even matter... unless it actually mattered.
In this situation, my view is OP made a mess, pissed jannie added to the mess, OP feigned shock, pissed jannie thought better and cleaned the mess up.
Yet OP here is still trying to stir the pot like the mod was silencing their opinion or something. It was a worthless comment.
You think before engaging. And if you fuck it up, you apologise to the community (not to that specific user) for what you've done wrong. But unless the content is sensitive (for example, the other user posted something illegal), you keep it alone, at most you lock it.
Lemmy is too small and this snafoo is so pointless that I think a community apology would be hilarious.
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Having some weirdo follow your posts around calling you manipulative and toxic for months is just... its too much. It's a linux gaming forum, some social ineptitude is to be expected. Users shouldn't feel entitled to continuously attack a mod who "mod abused" them with the assault equivalent of a light shove.
It's just the most insulated privileged non-problem, my god.
It doesn't need to be something fancy. Just an "EDIT: I apologise to the community for sounding abrasive. I'm a mod here so my behaviour should be better than that, my bad." I think that it's important because users take moderators of their respective communities as role models on how they're allowed/disallowed to behave, so if the mod doesn't at least mention that they fucked it up, other users might see it and think "OK, that's valid behaviour here, even the mod does it. Time to go rogue."
Yup, full agree with that. And based on interactions with the user in this thread, they're being clearly disingenuous, mincing words to play the victim. The mod was in the wrong but that's, as you said, too much.
100% Yeah you're right. I was imagining a public apology An edit is appropriate. Still, this dude puts socker players to shame with how he cries foul.
Baseless accusation. Got any proof?
yes. this thread lol
Then based on that logic you're harassing me. You can't even follow your own logic.
Sure, based on that logic, I'm harrassing you...for a day.
Not the 3 months you've been going for.
Me: occasionally brings up information for people to be aware of whenever I happen to see the website linked.
You: constantly tries to berate me with terrible logic and even admits to harassment.
Yep. Totally the same.
Yes I am mercilessly abusing you. My harrassment knows no bounds. You are subject to my will and must continue to engage with me. The badman who disagrees with you on the internet.
My shift ends in 10 minutes. After that I promise not to think of you ever again. You will be safe from me.
It's your right to have an opinion on whether or not you think I was annoying. However, the rest of that is just wrong and needlessly rude. My comment was only to point out how many different ways the title could be interpreted without being explicit in what happened. There is no need to be so rude with your wild assumption. I just found the title to be mildly frustrating due to being vague because of the missing word, and I thought I would express that. Does that warrant moderation action? No. It breaks no rules and there was no intent to be disrespectful, nor is there any real tangible proof of any disrespectful intent.
I absolutely agree with you but it didn't really need to be said did it?
You 100% understood what the title was saying, so complaining that the title was ambiguous, and barely so, was pointless wasn't it?
Clearly everyone else agreed since you were downvoted.
I don't agree with you, but you can think all you want about how annoying or pointless my comment was. That is no excuse for their response, then they doubled down and tried to hide it by abusing their moderator powers. That's the only part of this that matters.
No it wasn't, but perhaps you could admit that your behavior did have a little bit to do with the response. It wasn't totally out of the blue was it, and you were equally in violation of the sub's rules.
I made no claims about my comment being perfect. I meant no disrespect or anything, even though I didn't articulate myself perfectly to display that. Making a comment about an article's title does not break any rules.
But none of that is the point here. Moderators are held at the very least the same standard as anyone else. As a moderator, they handled such a mild situation very poorly and lashed out, which is already evidence of being unfit to be a moderator. After being downvoted a handful of times they deleted their comment. Then later deleted my comments to even further hide it. My comments broke no rules. Someone else asked what happened and I responded with an answer of the situation, and they deleted that comment as well. They were absolutely abusing their admin to hide their embarrassment.
yes they appeared to be masterminding a coverup to rival watergate
This truly is the most non-drama I've ever seen. Everyone involved is behaving like a complete moron over literally nothing at all.
Your argument is "they only committed a little bit of mod abuse. You need to let it go!"
They sarcastically replied to you and then removed the whole thread. Not just your reply
3 months ago.
Toughen up.
Conveniently leaving out quite a bit of important information there to twist the narrative.
Why are you so adamant on trying to attack me throughout this thread? Do you really not have anything better to do? Get a life.
I didn't think I needed to restate the facts this far in the thread.
Does it bother you that someone sees through your story?
Afraid of others forming an opinion against yours?
3 minutes...
What you are doing is pathetic
Shift done. You no longer exist in my head. Bye bye.
Hope Liam or whatever gets the same treatment in yours someday.
Bye kiddo
I could write a full wall of text explaining everything wrong with your comment, but to keep it short:
Cut off the crap. You aren't fooling anyone here by playing the victim.
Don't bother.
Didn't you leave Lemmy?
Yeah I would ban 24 hours and continue with life.
Pointlessly snarky comments are one of the worst parts of Reddit and Lemmy and I fully support mods putting a stop to that. I guess the important part is to be transparent about it
But if it was transparent you wouldnt be able to see it
Now that I've willfully misrepresented what you said, I am eager for your reply so i can pointlessly be an asshole about it!
/assholesnark.
"Annoying" is subjective, and there is no rule against being perceived as being "annoying" in the community rules.
The only rule is to be respectful, which they did not follow at all, then tried to hide it.
Nothing they did appears to have negatively altered the quality of the comments or discussion.
Respect is also subjective. Your initial post seemed to be mocking and disrespectful for no apparent reason. I'd argue the comment section is more respectful with your remarks gone.
Objectively, it appears they were right to delete their account. You're stalking posts mentioning their site and complaining about this nothing burger.
I would also distance myself from pedantic harrassers and focus on literally anything else productive if I were them.
Are you Liam in disguise or something? Why are you trying to make up shit like I'm "stalking" posts mentioning their site? I'm a user of Lemmy just the same as anyone else and when I see posts that bring up this toxic person's site, I can easily help inform people of their gross manipulative behavior.
There isn't even some grand "toxic" or "manipulative" coverup. The mod deleted the whole interaction because it was pointless and rude from both of you. It added nothing.
The jannie took out the trash and you're still harrassing them about the subjectivity of annoyance and respect. Y'know who makes that subjective choice? The mods.
I have no ties to this, but I am in opposition to this neat little narrative you appear to be creating tossing out buzzwords like toxic, gross, manipulative without evidence to back it up.
I've provided plenty of evidence, and there is more to be found if you feel like you need it. Do you really expect me to provide an exhausting dissertation on every single detail of the situation? I provided just enough to back up my claims. If you feel you need more, that's on you and it's available for you to find. That does not warrant your baseless accusations.
baseless...sure... you haven't been buthurt for months or anything... copypasting your narrative... oh... wait
So, because I copied my messages from before explaining the situation in an attempt to educate people about the toxic behavior of the website owner? Should I have wrote a whole new comment instead? Should I just keep quiet and let toxic people not reap the consequences of their actions?
Okay, bud.
Each time burying the lead that the mod abuse was against you.
I didn't even know who you were until I realized the username in the screenshot matched.
Have you ever heard that there's 3 sides to every story? I've seen yours. I think it's a whole lotta nothing.
Your inability to let it go after months.. It all tells me everything I need to know about why this means so much to you, and why you're still doing this.
Educator...okay.
This keeps you up at night.
Lol your argument is that the mod abuse is somehow okay because it wasn't against someone else?
Why should any amount of mod abuse be okay, forgotten, or 'let go'?
You've spent way too much time arguing a shitty position that really has no effect on you. Then you say I need to ' let it go'?
The irony is too sad to be funny. I feel sorry for you.
My argument is that you first appear to be a nuetral reporter when, in reality, you are a biased participant.
Also... This is night 1 of me thinking about this.
There won't be a night 2.
This is night 80 for you.
Don't project.
So, the facts are somehow not facts because of the source they came from?
You're insane.
No. The facts are not facts because they're opinions. You present your "facts" through the lens of a neutral party, and you are clearly anything but neutral.
You make a claim hoping to get the hivemind on your side. You dump screenshots showing your embarrassing behavior and count on the fact that 60+ people won't even stop to verify or form their own opinion.
The sad part is that you're right. You can say anything and if it aligns with their preconceived narrative, they'll upvote and keep scrolling.
Which is exactly why you bury the lead, because if you said outright from the beginning that it was against you, well then people would be alerted to your inherent bias and actually form their own opinions.
The facts are presented as neutral because they exist and are neutral.
The moderator deleted messages to hide their negative response, including messages that broke no rules citing a non-existent rule for the reason. They found out that the mod logs are public after they were called out for misusing their moderator powers by deleting messages that broke no rules. Then immediately deleted their account and complained about it on mastodon, very clearly stating that their issue was that mod logs are public.
If you think that those facts somehow change because of the context, then that's on you. You're just flat wrong.
Also it's "bury the lede" π
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_paragraph#Spelling
lol
You just can't help being pedantic. They're both correct.
The moderator got tired of this platform because it enables people who feel they were slighted to critique their every move. Mod logs don't have to be public. I think it's fine to disagree with that as a moderator. Mod abuse has been caught for decades without it, none of your argument hinged on the public mod logs other than the mastadon post where he shared annoyance that you were bothering him with them. Moderators are free to moderate with the tools and platform they want. He resigned, so fucking what.
He was snarky back at you. Big whoop.
This is an insular 1st world problem you are experiencing. Stemming from a bruised ego. This guy is not manipulative or toxic. You're overreacting.
Looking through your comments you do plenty of "dishing it out". But this is how you react when someone sarcastically replies to you then nukes the thread? You must have paper skin.
Whether you consider it whining, depends upon the tone you read it in.
I just read that comment and didn't feel annoyed enough to even give a downvote and the mod's reply seemed far too annoying.
The username on the other hand...