#GuessTheGame #1153

🎮 🟥 🟥 🟩 ⬜ ⬜ ⬜

#GameNavigator
https://guessthe.game/p/1153

🕹️🔑 Gamedle (keywords mode): 10/07/2025 🟥🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜> https://gamedle.wtf/keywords

🕹️ Retro Game Trivia — 2025-07-09
🎯 Flawless! No mistakes!
🔥 Letter Streak: 1
🔢 Attempts: 5
💡 Clues used: 0

🟨🟨🟨·🟨🟨🎯

🧠 Guess this retro game

👉 Play it at https://retrotrivia.games/
#RetroTrivia #GuessTheGame #RetroGaming

Resoundingly PTB behavior. If there were any doubts, they were stymied five thousand words in, obliterated in ten thou, and effectively torn apart at a subatomic level as the evidence further piled on.

It looks like you saw the most detailed and thorough documentation of PTBs to be posted here to date and chose to leap straight into the conversation, ten toes up and no care for a catch net, on the side of the PTBs. That might not be your intent, but that's definitely the impression you've created.

Is that a trait typically assigned to them, or just a self-claimed virtue? In either case, the facade has always seemed flimsy and of poor construction.

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.

(Y)DI + this is an unmarked [META] post + no admin action was taken against the account + history of behavior + it looks silly to make a wholeass new thread after getting cratered to oblivion in the original one

Phil's "mistake", if we're insisting there is one, was not approaching the account-hopper with "You post a lot, and most of it is questionable trash. Please don't shovel shit from this instance anymore if you want to remain."

Much respect to Steven Monacelli for the work put in, and the Observer for publishing the piece.

Disbarring this sack of shit would be a step in the right direction. The bias displayed is bad enough but putting thar aside, the complete lack of opsec is also concerning. This fool really thought they were being surreptitious and clever. Beyond being relieved of any judicial duties, any security clearance they have ought to be immediately reviewed.

I often agree with your positions on various things, Phil, at least to the extent that it seems that we're operating from a similar point of reference. That said, and in light of the nature of the private communications remaining private (as it should), there's only one conclusion that seems fitting.

PTB.

One instance of anything hardly seems like grounds for a ban. Repeat behavior certainly could justify that action, but in the absence of any pattern it seems like an overreach. There might well be further justification for a ban based on the direct messages; but, as you're submitting your own action for analysis, the only fair way to evaluate is on the grounds of what we are directly privy to. Anything else has to be viewed as simply your biased interpretation of the private conversation.

In the circumstance you describe the onus on the user is not to be "receptive or apologetic" to you in the private conversation, only to correct their usage of the report system. As presented, it reads as if they were banned because they did not show adequate respect for your authority, which is clear PTBehavior. Further, you attempt to bolster your point by painting Squid, a user who loves to try to win bad-take arguments by referring to their own mod status in other communities (essentially a PTB themselves), as undeserving of ire despite an extensive history of spinning out, losing the thread, and generally being a dick when it happens. Carrying water for someone who comes across as power-trippy does little to shift perception of your own actions away from that mark.