I'll feed you a bit, as a treat.

The only disingenuity or dishonesty in our exchange so far is your willful misinterpretation of what would be, in context, antithetical. In this discussion, it is anything in diametrical contrast to the letter and spirit of the community you were banned from. It is not for you to be the arbiter of what is or is not perferred there.

The community in question and others on LBZ practice a form of extreme acceptance. It is codified in the mtf community sidebar in the statements:

This is a supportive community...

and

...disrupting the safety of this space for trans feminine people is unacceptable and will result in moderator action.

and

Gatekeeping will not be tolerated.

and

Please be kind and respectful to all.

Your removed "challenge" to the tone of the original post falls in direct opposition to the stated guidelines for being allowed to contribute there. Even the recreated, possibly sanitized version you have presented here is clearly beyond what many LBZ communities find acceptable. Further argument to the contrary, coupled with your attempts to personally disparage anyone who does not agree with your erroneous position, only solidifies the notion that you are not operating in good faith.

If everyone is presenting a similar version of the same reasoning, that does not necessarily imply a hive mind; sometimes it just means you are an asshole.

If a hypothetical trans person were to feel that the actions and attitudes of !Transfem@lemmy.blahaj.zone were too pandering, said HTP would be more than welcome to cease association with that community.

You posted a comment that went contrary to, if not the letter, the spirit of the rules of the community. Your unsolicited negativity was deemed detrimental to the curated experience there.

I have little doubt that the same sort of comment made by anyone else, be they trans or cis, masculine, feminine, or neuter, would be handled by an equivalent invitation to no longer take part in a community that they expressed such an antithetical attitude toward the general spirit of.

At best, BPR; I tend to believe that you commented with the intention of crying foul about the action that you already knew would result. Otherwise you were not cognizant of the climate in the community you commented in, and therefore YDI.

In other words: if you shit in the punch bowl, do not be surprised when you are kicked out of the party.

should we just purge all mods of LW communities because someone says so?

Of course not. But you equally shouldn’t frame this situation as some completely arbitrary complaint made by the platonic default user.

There is a clear pattern of abuse, arrogance, and animosity over a substantial span of time. Individuals from the .world admin team have observed and commented on some of these actions on multiple occasions. None of what Stamets collected and organized in his post was new information hitherto unknown by you all.

As you are the one commenting now, I will assume that you speak for the .world admin team as a whole. I appreciate that you collectively wish to make a calculated and informed decision, and I understand the time burden that comes with volunteer efforts. Ultimately, however, instance administration is not a court of law. Moderation is not a livelihood. The only consequences of relieving Jordan of his volunteer burden are community outrage and hurt feelings. He can't sue you to be reinstated or win a judgement for lost wages.

While I applaud your desire to foster the appearance of keeping everything above board and within the boundaries you all have put in place for yourselves, I must also deride what appears to be unintended hypocrisy: It sounds as if you all have decided what needs to happen and are now engaged in finding the narrative that fits the rules and gets you to your predetermined outcome.

Ubi pus, ibi evacua, not ubi pus, regula consule.

There are behaviors and incidents from months ago cited in the OP. How slow is slow enough for you? What's the acceptable time frame to have a retrospective look at a moderator's poor track record?

The majority of actions and interactions Stamets included are in the public record. The one bit of inside knowledge appears to be something .world staff would be privy to. How much advance notice do you need in order to comment?

Most people are reading these incidents for at least a second time right now, having seen them when they were initially called out as well. Most members of this community follow conversations in this community closely. Most participants understand that responses come after calls, hence the term "call-and-response."

I do wonder how often you've encouraged Jordan to be slower and more considerate in his exchanges.

Any pro-Israel post is currently a de facto call for genocide.

You literally asked for it.

"Now I'm removing it just to spite you." is such a clear self-report of mens rea that it borders on satire. The question of whether or not there was a rule infraction to begin with is utterly moot after a statement like that.

Why even try to rationalize it now? Go ahead and label your actions as PTB in this thread. At this point, it's probably the most honest move you can make.

From the article:

Director Kaouther Ben Hania's re-enactment tells the story of six-year-old Hind Rajab, who was killed along with her three cousins, aunt, uncle and two paramedics who had come to their aid after their car was fired on by Israeli forces in Gaza City in January 2024.

The piece, primarily about the film's reception at a festival, is very definitive on who killed Hind Rajab, her family, and the first responders. It is also clear about the IDF's initial claim that they weren't involved and their subsequent "further investigation" stance.

Absent any compelling reason or evidence of this proposal arising organically from the community rather than springing to life fully-formed from the forehead of an admin, no. Unless something is broken, it need not be repaired.

I appreciate the care you've put into this. By choosing a neutral tone, you have created a framework that allows for opposing viewpoints to exist in discussions of the topic so long as the participants stay within established guidelines. I believe that this approach is an even-handed way to limit fanaticism and promote acceptance.

Perfection, though sometimes alluring, is an exhausting pursuit. What you've accomplished is realistic, immediately applicable, and amendable. In my opinion, that is infinitely more useful than the ever-fleeting notion of attainable perfection.

Well done, in both the creation of the document and in your personal effort to not allow perfectionism to stand in the way of something good.

Proposing a very specific limit on posts referring mod/admin actions taken against users on LBZ that directly fall afoul of their instance rules regarding very specific gatekeeping might have some value. The subject has been hashed and re-hashed too fucking much. Their rules are their rules, breaking those rules on the instance is clear YDI. Breaking those rules elsewhere and having action taken against you is arguably PTB. I'm in favor of the idea of putting that on wax.

Purging previous discussion is no good, and even the proposal, coming from a community mod as it does, rubs me the wrong way. It shouldn't, because you have just as much right to propose a change as any other community member, but it puts me on edge.

There is value in what's been said already, even if some of it is highly disagreeable. Suggesting removal of that record for any reason invites future discussion of the same, IMO. Not everyone who will ever be a member of this community is a member now. If we're going to consider making a rule about this whole mess, best to leave the roadmap that led us here intact.

Potential yes to a well-defined rule of specific, narrow scope. Hard, hard no to retroactive application of that rule.

After the exchange I've had with spujb in this thread, I'm convinced of their bad-faith intentions for posting it. In that comment chain, I told them that I had not reported the thread for removal, which is still true at the time of this comment. However, let it be noted that the post is in violation of the sidebar rules, specifically

• Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.

and

• Don't harass mods or brigade comms. Don't word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.

No sanction was imposed on spujb, they are fully a third-party to this matter. Their post title and body is deliberately inflammatory towards @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat and ponder.cat as a whole.

Additionally, the post runs afoul of a post guideline:

3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don't de-obfuscate mod names).

This post has all the markings of a punitive reaction by sbujb to criticism (both direct and via downvotes) levied against them in another thread on this comm. I am aware that this very comment could read that way as well; my justification is that I attempted to communicate directly with OP, whose response was the equivalent of sticking their fingers into their ears and singing off-key, loudly, while running away.

In the event that I do make a formal report, I will use the preceeding text of this comment, and update the comment to indicate that I've done so. Absent that, any action taken on the post will be for reasons that do not involve a report from me.

This community should be a tool against mod/admin authority and abuse, not a weapon to settle a grudge.