this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
255 points (98.9% liked)
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
1845 readers
439 users here now
This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.
Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.
Posting Guidelines
All posts should follow this basic structure:
- Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
- What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
- Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
- Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
- Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.
Rules
- Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
- Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
- Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
- Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
- Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
- You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
- If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.
- Keep the comments in YPTB posts about the moderation action itself, not about the general topic in which the moderation took place.
Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.
Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.
YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.
Some acronyms you might see.
- PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
- YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
- YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
- BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
- CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.
Relevant comms
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
BPR - I tried to look at this from both points of view. Both parties have had beef in the past, so tempers are going to be quick on both sides.
Rimu could have done things differently, but AGPL is AGPL. There's no requirement to provide attribution unless the license is specifically modified. The PyLova license doesn't add that requirement from what I can tell. The creator(s) of PyLova are getting a little too upset about this, so it's a reasonable reaction to delete a comment that isn't really made in good faith.
If they would like attribution in the code, why don't they act like adults and reach out?
No. The AGPL requires declaring alterations to the code. You cannot alter the license. And you must attribute the original author.
Rimu did not declare alterations and attempted to remove attribution.
You seem pretty sure of that, but I don't see any of that in the actual AGPL license.
Section 5
This has already been debated on the internet and I'm not an expert so I'm giving up. I guess it boils down to what is a "copyright", and if the source in this case (PyLova) has a copright notice that needs to be copied over. That's beyond my expertise.
Edit:
Read this if you want to, but I'm not completely convinced that I'm right
Thanks. I'm trying to understand where you're seeing the requirement to give attribution still.
I read this section as "if you use code from an AGPL project (PyLova in this case), then you need to:
a) have a dated commit on the project that is using it (PieFed)
b) keep the license the same
c) the entire project (PieFed) now falls under this license (it does)
d) have legal notices about it being AGPL, unless the original source (PieFed, then PyLova, then PieFed again) don't have them.
Then there's a paragraph about aggregate projects and how the AGPL license doesn't automatically spread to all parts of those projects.
So I'm still confused where it's required to say "Mia was the author". All it's saying is "this is AGPL code -- keep it AGPL and make the code available for others to see."
Oh, I didn't realize you meant the attribution. Section 5 is about declaring changes. Attribution comes from including the original license, which should have a line like
"Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>", per the AGPL text.It doesn't look like PyLova changed this when forking, because the top of the license file attributes the project to the FSF, and the bottom of the file attributes it to rimu. So both projects screwed this part up, because piefed should contain a line like "portions of this software copyright 2026 rimu atkinson", and after picking the changes from PyLova, piefed should have "portions of this software copyright 2026" whoever is the author of the portions used.
It's a common practice and one of the few "moral rights" recognized in the Berne Convention:
Edit to add: Death to Copyright Laws!
because Rimu blocked us for making the fork in the first place. we tried to reach out when we offered him patches for the zero-days that .ML user dropped, and he refused them before copy/pasting them to Piefed and purging the Piefed Matrix channel of anyone who called him out for being a manbaby. even MrKaplan said he was out of line when he admitted that he did it that way specifically so that Mia did not get credit for the code SHE wrote. these were bugs that had existed in Piefed, PyLova devs fixed them, and we offered them as a peace offering to Rimu since he was mad we forked his software.
well, he burnt that bridge. now, if anyone wants to see further Piefed security vulnerabilities, they can just watch the PyLova changelog. we're not going to go out of our way to help him fix his shit anymore, and we're not going to keep security patches on the down low just to protect him and his shoddy fucking code.
MrKaplan does seem like the most level headed person in this from the little bit that I've read, but that doesn't make him the AGPL police.
On the topic of "should the comment have been deleted", I still see it as BPR. The overall tone wasn't in good faith, combined with previous beefs. You can't be surprised that the comment was deleted.
a BPR on a post Rimu lied in to gether sympathy from idiots. we don't need to be level-headed, we didn't start this fight and we aren't the ones who keep dragging the drama back up. we're not the narcissistic loser who can't stand that he isn't in control of his little fiefdom anymore or that people aren't fawning over him like he demands. we also aren't the ones who purged our communities of everyone who didn't pass a Trump-style loyalty test.
Rimu can get fucked. PyLova is now beyond his control, headed for a hard fork, and has more features and better security than Piefed ever did or ever will. and since he's pulling this shit, I'm considering rewriting the entire thing from scratch so we can use a license that requires attribution. so that the next time he uses patches we wrote to fix his shoddy code, he has to prominently display attribution to us since I know that will piss him off to no end.
You don't need all that. Just put a blurb for copyrights and license in each file, then it's against the licence to remove it.
From what I've heard from others around here, attribution is required with AGPL as long as the author puts a copyright in somehow. Beyond that I'm clueless, but this whole thing seems like people got really worked up over their own mistake. Lesson learned, I guess.