this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025

-1 points (0.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1714 readers

49 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.

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

-1

A short ban, probably not worth discussing, but which has created a significant chilling effect on my use of my host instance (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 10 months ago by nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hi, I am the PTB that banned this user for 2 hours. As what was explained to you in the appeals channel, you've been trolling for months and when the person you troll gets mad, you report them for things like 'incivility.' You've done this many times to multiple users for months. That is why you were banned, not because of a specific thread and report. This was a warning to you to knock it off, as was explained to you.

It was not made known to other admins that you had contacted db0 in advance of making your account that you were using your account just to do things like this. It makes a lot more sense now why there was this leeway. I thought trolling other users was against the rules, but it seems the rules are muddy about it. We have often been warning people through 1 day bans to knock things off. So your timeout seemed appropriate.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

so, one of us is mistaken about whether my conduct is acceptable. but which of us is it?

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Your conduct is off-putting and should be discouraged, to say the least. Hence a 2 hour ban. Db0's agreement with you was not made with me. It seems like you want it to be a rule that the db0 instance is a safe haven for trolls, effectively putting it at risk of being defederated by other instances.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I would not characterize my conduct as trolling. the restriction given by db0 to avoid going into liberal (or, implicitly, vegan) spaces and stirring the pot is one that didn't honestly need to be voiced. I like to discuss particular topics, but I am respectful of the rules of communities.

but if, as this is the case, someone is spreading outdated information in a climate community, and I correct them, and they violate the rules of that community, and I report that community rule violation, that is not trolling as I see it.

edit: if my conduct is not acceptable, this implies correcting misinformation should be discouraged, as should reporting community or remote instance rule violations. that I should let misinformation go unchallenged, or accept abusive behavior for correcting it, or both. I don't think that is the standard we should be setting.

[–] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

"this implies correcting misinformation should be discouraged"

"I report that community rule violation, that is not trolling as I see it"

"I am respectful of the rules of communities"

This is a small snippet of your history. It's a 2 hour ban, you can either chill or not, up to you.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (28 children)

I'm not antivegan, but I am anti-consumer activism

Just because animals cry out and try to run away when you hurt or try to kill them doesn't mean they feel pain or want to live

What a disengenous asshat. I can't stand these people who are all like, "My only problem with your cause is I don't think you're persuing it the right way," but then they very obviously disagree with the cause and are just saying that shit because they aren't willing to defend their actual positions.

load more comments (28 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

You gave zero information to go off of but judging from what I saw from the comments, YDI.

You said about the other person:

You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.

But you were dead wrong about the point being discussed, you kept insisting that their evidence was outdated when they were referring evidence beyond the paper you were talking about. If anything, the other person was remarkably patient with you, and if you were decent you'd own up to having egg on your face and apologize to them. Instead, you reported them for correctly calling out your BS, and are now here whining about a two hour ban.

Personally, I find your whole thing of staying within the letter of "civility" while going "I'm not touching you" and talking down to everyone incredibly annoying, worse than if you just told people to go fuck themselves. If it were up to me I'd issue a permaban, but I don't think we have an abbreviation here for "the mods didn't go far enough."

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lol, come up with an abbreviation then 😅

[–] SoftQuartz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago

YDM - "You Deserved More"

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

that reply is a direct quote from the comment to which I was responding

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but the difference is that they were right. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Saying "Go fuck yourself" can be perfectly called for and justified in certain contexts, but extremely uncalled for in others. They had basis to say that, because you were fucking wrong. You did not, because you were fucking wrong.

From what I'm seeing, there's a consistent pattern of behavior of trying to hide behind language, civility, and tone while being disingenuous as fuck and acting in bad faith.

Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn't even relying on. The pro-vaccine person would be perfectly justified in getting frustrated, accusing the other person of lying or operating in bad faith, etc. But if the antivaxxer did the same - even if they parroted the exact same language - they would be completely unjustified and out of line, even moreso than they already were. So no, you don't get to hide behind this "it was a direct quote" excuse, because you're the one who was out of line. You don't have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they're right and you don't have a leg to stand on.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

but the difference is that they were right.

we both had some things we were right about, but the comment to which i initially responded was peddling outdated information, and, yea, i didn't click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

and, yea, i didn’t click on one link, and i admitted it when it was pointed out.

"Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person's evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense."

Yeah, no. You were talking out of your ass, realized you were talking out of your ass, but then didn't let up when you did. You're even still pushing the offense now, by making this thread to complain about it. You don't escalate an issue like this when you've got that much egg on your face. The other person was 100% correct, the fact that there was a minor flaw in the evidence presented by the person you initially responded to does not give you license to ignore other evidence, and it certainly doesn't give you license to ignore other evidence and then go on the offensive. You are extremely out of line and acting like a narcissist.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago

“Yes I went full offense despite no reading the other person’s evidence and the shit I was saying was wrong and completely uncalled for, but I eventually realized my mistake, and then continued my offense.”

this is a straw man. and i wasn't wrong: what i said is it is no longer the acamedy's position that a vegan diet can be healthy at all stages of development, and i've been right this whole time.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Did you report your interlocutor?

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

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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)

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

it's possible I reported the user two or three times, but it might have been only once.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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).

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don't Lemmy modlogs only tell you who received the action (i.e. who was banned), even on Tesseract?

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago

That's weird, maybe a bug or maybe it requires you to be a mod to see it?

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago

See if you can see it on your dbzer0 account now. I just added you as a mod to the modeveryone community.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think we might want to do a governance post at that point.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments