Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1849 readers

474 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

!fediverselore@lemmy.ca

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

unruffled@anarchist.nexus

256

Rimu instantly deletes comment showing other side of story (feddit.uk)

submitted 1 day ago by Andy_R@feddit.uk to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

145 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Rimu recently started a new rant thread. I copied the response of the person they had targeted and in less than a minute Rimu had deleted the comment.

This is the comment Rimu did not want people being able to see: https://feddit.uk/post/53824748/26875911

This is the thread I shared it on: https://feddit.uk/post/53824747

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Section 5

[–] walden@wetshav.ing -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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

"5". Conveying Modified Source Versions.

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to "keep intact all notices".
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

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."

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.