I was in an incident that led to people complaining about me here and by extension in Ask Lemmy, one which I explained my perspective on elsewhere. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by a certain Blaze to share it in YPTB, only for those in charge there to give what amounted to a signal of disregard for it and to take it elsewhere. Going by their own words, I then shared it in !fediverselore@lemmy.ca as the only close alternative available, which, as a part of their own "rules subtext", sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because "YTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebar".
The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word "false", and he even alluded to that after it began to be discussed elaborately, albeit before using an appeal to the masses (story of my life) and say "most people seem to understand", which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the "the truth we all wanted to speak" remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with "I can spot rules broken by the other person’s thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mine" and got only thumbs down for it and no responses, yet when I actually dissected the rules piece by piece in front of him to point out that any rule I supposedly broke wasn't there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a "fair point to be honest", the mod then delved into the concept of "unspoken rules" as an excuse for himself and said he didn't want to "rules-lawyer", which not only disproves what he said about "specific posting guidelines" being "in the sidebar" that supposedly explained what I did wrong, but proved a point I commonly mention about people in different places including here always being uncritical and unwilling to see things for themselves and just taking peoples' word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypher's last reply, intellectual =/= intelligent). A part of that is it also suggests, by extension, that the quantity of thumbs down you garner is unreliable as consistently meaning anything, unless the rule is actually to apply gladiator logic and say a thumbs down signals mercy, as indicated by the very Roman-esque culture around here. I guess all this time, I was being praised and didn't realize it?
This idea of "unspoken rules" and "reading between the lines" seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether you're akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to ask... hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldn't read the "unspoken rules" or anticipate mod discretion, what if I were to go to the places I have authority over and ban everyone who says or has said anything positive or supportive about Luigi Mangione or what he did? Would I be able to accomplish this without being called a PTB? After all, that is how this all started, and again, that would be an "unspoken rule" on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldn't it? Those are the terms.
I await your choice.
@shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee has poor writing and reading comprehension. I am not sure why he is trying to mod.
I have never had this much hard time understanding somebody on fedi esp after they had opportunity to clarify their position. I can't tell if OP is doing this on purpose as this is an effective dilatory tactic.
I think we figured it out in the end.
English is not my family's first language, and I am, in a way, neurodivergent. Nevertheless, I communicate with the full rules of English in mind. No typos, no grammatical mistakes, nothing which would be jibberish. The sentences are long, so what? They still work. I have made them as simple as possible while acknowledging the complexity of the situation. I provide citations/links to split the load on what would otherwise be more burden for listeners. I have seen people before communicate as I do, and I understand them. I have seen a lot of people understand me as well. What you see is the best that it could possibly be given the circumstances, and even then, it shouldn't be too hard to understand, as long as it can all be gathered, using the proper reading rules (just as there are rules on what makes a valid message, there are rules on how to internalize it). And yet none of this has a bearing on moderation worthiness.
Of note, there is also a bit of skepticism that comes into play, because I have seen many people claim to not understand something because it means they don't have to address that something someone says demonstrates they were wrong about something. I give the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean I'm not raising an eyebrow at the idea that, even when I ask "what don't you understand", nobody answers except with thumbs down. My mindset is negotiation and literalism, and for some reason, everyone else's is to appeal to norms and psychology.