before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com
i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:
and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you'll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.
it was less than 2 hours. it's almost not worth discussing.
but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.
db0 has said he doesn't want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com (though i'm still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
Insufficient information. The ban mentions report abuse. Did you report your interlocutor? If so, how many times, and for what.
I'm tending towards YDI because I've witnessed some of the borderline bad-faith arguments you've made in the past, but this specific instance perhaps seemed a bit mild for a ban just from the conversation alone, so I'll reserve judgement for now.
Just FYI you can't report someone more than once, you can report multiple of their comments but no comment more than once. It would be stupid and PTB to punish someone for reporting multiple of their comments, as it is beneficial to point out violating content. Maybe if he reported a hundred comments sure but two, three, or seven is not reasonably report abuse.
yes. for incivility, to the best of my recollection, but since lemmy doesn't let you review your own reports, i can't say i recall perfectly
indeed we’ll have to rely on your memory. do you remember how many times you reported this admin (even across separate comments count) and whether you have reported others multiple times in the same sitting? i would ping the admin somewhere (here or in a thread you might start in /0 governance)
I think a better way would be to just ask the db0 admins since they can see all the reports that went down.
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com Maybe you could provide the exact copies of the reports made by @nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com, obscuring the resolver if necessary (though since I can see who banned him in t.lemmy.dbzer0.com I'm not sure how much privacy that would give).
I think we might want to do a governance post at that point.
Yeah I agree, @nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com OP a governance post is probably the best thing to do about this, it'll bring the most clarity here, especially since this case is about the instance itself.
If anyone does this, please make it a non-voting thread first as things are a biy vague still I believe.
Don't Lemmy modlogs only tell you who received the action (i.e. who was banned), even on Tesseract?
Nope Tesseract shows the mod who did it when you're logged in to the instance you're viewing it from. I believe some apps also show the mod names as well, I know Photon and Voyager do.
Interesting you see that. For me (logged in on my db0 alt) on Tesseract there is a moderator column but it's empty even for local actions and Photon doesn't even give me a moderator section.
See if you can see it on your dbzer0 account now. I just added you as a mod to the modeveryone community.
ooooh indeed. hypothesis confirmed.
now time to unleash the FURY of AA TUBE upon a DEFENSELESS community with its PLUNDER TROVE that is TWO THREADS! /j
That's weird, maybe a bug or maybe it requires you to be a mod to see it?
I didn't report the admin. I reported a user on a different instance.
I have no way of knowing which admin did the ban
Oh yeah, I forgot about that Lemmy modlog quirk. I really wonder why that's not open to users if the purpose is transparency. Mbin's modlog tells you who initiated the action, though the "tradeoff" quirk is you can't see the reason provided, plus I would probably have to leaf through pages 12–18 to find that action. A post at governance will probably have the admins of db0 find out who did it and investigate.
it's possible I reported the user two or three times, but it might have been only once.
Lemmy reports can only go through once, you can't report someone multiple times unless you use multiple accounts.
... or report separate comments
I mean you can report multiple comments, but as I said in my other comment about that unless you reported like 50 comments (common sense says that reporting multiple comments in a discussion thread wouldn't be anywhere near report abuse thresholds) it would be PTB to ban someone for reporting multiple comments in a discussion. You want people to report violating content and not be worried about action for that, sometimes violating content spans multiple comments at once.
That would be PTB from the admin, especially for an instance-wide ban.
either it's bad faith or it's not. and i'd be surprised if you could point to any such interaction, since i rarely make an independent argument on this topic. mostly, i call into question the validity of others' arguments.
That's not how this works. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of JAQ? You don't need to make positive claims to argue in bad faith. In fact, the avoidance of making any positive claims can often be indicative of bad-faith discussion.
JAQ is effective precisely because it often comes along with plausible deniability. It's established as bad faith because it's a pattern, even when most individual instances can look rather innocuous.
I think they mean they’re transparently objecting and from their own concern. JAQ is a way to avoid accountability and appearances of a position and can be from any kind of faith: good or bad.
my objections to the claims made are based in fact and good scientific practice.