[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago

I may just accept that invitation.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago

However generally I really dislike sockjacketing people without solid evidence, like this.

I feel the same way, and seeing it happen in the body of a governance post is disheartening. I have had serious qualms about most of the recent governance posts, and about the direction that some of the admin team seem determined to steer the ship.

I think it would be inaccurate to characterize it as the instance catering to the wrong voices. However, I am starting to accept that the climate has changed and might no longer be right for me. I believe there are many others who feel similarly.

I have long been of the opinion that the administration of any instance based around the core tenets that dbzer0 still claims should be undergo voluntary, regular rotation. Absent that, the situation is primed for the entrenchment of power and establishment of de facto hierarchies. This is true for both the admin team becoming accustomed to holding a certain level of authority, and for the userbase growing comfortable and complacent with a shift in the admin role from "caretaker" to "leader".

I question whether I am ignoring clear signals in favor of hope.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago

Generally speaking, I avoid reference.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I'll add whatever to my comments that I wish, thank you kindly. Excellent job of repeating my sentiment that it isn't the time and place for that discussion, terrible follow through on the concept. Police yourself, not me.

I could be mistaken about the defederation from the other side. I saw someone else's comment suggesting that it had taken place, and I did not care enough to find out further if it had or had not. It does not change my stance that we should not defed.

Edit: By the by, the source of "as I understand it" is my own understanding. I would have assumed that was clear, I suppose I'm doubly mistaken.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 5 days ago

Disagree, on the basis that capital/lowercase do not inherently change a word. The word is still the same word, despite the case of the first (or any) letter. Spoken aloud, would there be any difference? Is there any way to discern the case of any part of the word in such a circumstance, or are they equivalent? Attempting to dictate case is, at best, performative.

That said, I typically don't refer to Grail at all. I see little benefit in doing so. I can't imagine many interactions that would enrich either party.

This, however, is not the place for discussion of such. It is a place to ponder defederation. As much as I dislike Grail and find prescriptive casing to be an exercise in ridiculosity, I do not see ample reason to persue defederation. As I understand it, the point has become halfway moot, as defed has occured from the other direction.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 3 months ago

The powertrip here is less the application of the rule and more the total unwillingness to adapt the rule. It's being used as a tool against legitimate news from legitimate sources. It could be confirmation bias, but I do not recall seeing widespread enforcement of this particular rule by moderators other than Jordan. If that is erroneous, then it's my mistake, but based on that I believe the inclusion of Substack in that list to be Jordan's pet contribution.

If the other mods feel the same way, perhaps they'll make that known.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 7 months ago

You literally asked for it.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"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.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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:

  1. 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.

view more: next ›

lemonmelon

joined 1 year ago