FYI - the owner of this site, gamingonlinux, was a mod on the !linux_gaming@lemmy.ml community until they were caught abusing their moderator powers. Then they deleted their account and complained on mastodon that it’s stupid design that mod logs are public.
Nothing they did appears to have negatively altered the quality of the comments or discussion.
Respect is also subjective. Your initial post seemed to be mocking and disrespectful for no apparent reason. I’d argue the comment section is more respectful with your remarks gone.
Objectively, it appears they were right to delete their account. You’re stalking posts mentioning their site and complaining about this nothing burger.
I would also distance myself from pedantic harrassers and focus on literally anything else productive if I were them.
Are you Liam in disguise or something? Why are you trying to make up shit like I’m “stalking” posts mentioning their site? I’m a user of Lemmy just the same as anyone else and when I see posts that bring up this toxic person’s site, I can easily help inform people of their gross manipulative behavior.
There isn’t even some grand “toxic” or “manipulative” coverup. The mod deleted the whole interaction because it was pointless and rude from both of you. It added nothing.
The jannie took out the trash and you’re still harrassing them about the subjectivity of annoyance and respect.
Y’know who makes that subjective choice? The mods.
I have no ties to this, but I am in opposition to this neat little narrative you appear to be creating tossing out buzzwords like toxic, gross, manipulative without evidence to back it up.
I’ve provided plenty of evidence, and there is more to be found if you feel like you need it. Do you really expect me to provide an exhausting dissertation on every single detail of the situation? I provided just enough to back up my claims. If you feel you need more, that’s on you and it’s available for you to find. That does not warrant your baseless accusations.
Yes, their comment was extremely annoying, both in tone (whining) and content (TL;DR: “pls spoonfeed me basic reading comprehension”). If the mod simply removed the comment, or issued an official warning, it would be 100% warranted.
However, what the non-mod user is saying ITT about moderator abuse is still spot on. The mod in question answered to the whining in tone, tried to cover their own arse with content removal, and then went to whine in Mastodon about the events, or the fact that there’s transparency functionality in Lemmy (the mod log) against the exact same behaviour that they showed there.
So it’s a case where both sides were wrong but given their relative positions the mod being wrong is a bigger deal.
Yes, their comment was extremely annoying, both in tone (whining) and content (TL;DR: “pls spoonfeed me basic reading comprehension”). If the guy simply removed the comment, or issued an official warning, it would be 100% warranted.
It’s your right to have an opinion on whether or not you think I was annoying. However, the rest of that is just wrong and needlessly rude. My comment was only to point out how many different ways the title could be interpreted without being explicit in what happened. There is no need to be so rude with your wild assumption. I just found the title to be mildly frustrating due to being vague because of the missing word, and I thought I would express that. Does that warrant moderation action? No. It breaks no rules and there was no intent to be disrespectful, nor is there any real tangible proof of any disrespectful intent.
I don’t agree with you, but you can think all you want about how annoying or pointless my comment was. That is no excuse for their response, then they doubled down and tried to hide it by abusing their moderator powers. That’s the only part of this that matters.
No it wasn’t, but perhaps you could admit that your behavior did have a little bit to do with the response. It wasn’t totally out of the blue was it, and you were equally in violation of the sub’s rules.
I agree with you, but what does a moderator do once they engage with the user other than remove the whole interaction? They deleted the whole thread, not just their opposition.
Seems like the the whining on mastadon about transparency was more because this guy is following them around harrassing them via public modlog screenshots, when on any other forum it wouldn’t even matter… unless it actually mattered.
In this situation, my view is OP made a mess, pissed jannie added to the mess, OP feigned shock, pissed jannie thought better and cleaned the mess up.
Yet OP here is still trying to stir the pot like the mod was silencing their opinion or something. It was a worthless comment.
Seems like the the whining on mastadon about transparency was more because this guy is following them around harrassing them via public modlog screenshots
I agree with you, but what does a moderator do once they engage with the user other than remove the whole interaction?
You think before engaging. And if you fuck it up, you apologise to the community (not to that specific user) for what you’ve done wrong. But unless the content is sensitive (for example, the other user posted something illegal), you keep it alone, at most you lock it.
Lemmy is too small and this snafoo is so pointless that I think a community apology would be hilarious.
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Having some weirdo follow your posts around calling you manipulative and toxic for months is just… its too much. It’s a linux gaming forum, some social ineptitude is to be expected. Users shouldn’t feel entitled to continuously attack a mod who “mod abused” them with the assault equivalent of a light shove.
It’s just the most insulated privileged non-problem, my god.
Lemmy is too small and this snafoo is so pointless that I think a community apology would be hilarious.
It doesn’t need to be something fancy. Just an “EDIT: I apologise to the community for sounding abrasive. I’m a mod here so my behaviour should be better than that, my bad.” I think that it’s important because users take moderators of their respective communities as role models on how they’re allowed/disallowed to behave, so if the mod doesn’t at least mention that they fucked it up, other users might see it and think “OK, that’s valid behaviour here, even the mod does it. Time to go rogue.”
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Having some weirdo follow your posts around calling you manipulative and toxic for months is just… its too much.
Yup, full agree with that. And based on interactions with the user in this thread, they’re being clearly disingenuous, mincing words to play the victim. The mod was in the wrong but that’s, as you said, too much.
Pointlessly snarky comments are one of the worst parts of Reddit and Lemmy and I fully support mods putting a stop to that. I guess the important part is to be transparent about it
Mod abuse is mod abuse, regardless of the level. They clearly felt embarrassed for needlessly being mean and getting caught for it after trying to hide the fact.
Then they tried to excuse it on their mastodon.
If they’re willing to go through all that for something so minor, they would absolutely be willing to do the same to hide worse behavior.
Pointing something out is not inherently being a dick. It did not warrant the response, particularly a response that clearly breaks the rules of the community they were trusted with the responsibility to manage.
I’m boosting this and the screenshots too, but just thought I’d point out for quick scrollers that it does not seem as dramatic as this comment initially lets you believe.
I mean it’s awkward, but just seems more like your usual social awkwardness/incompetence than malicious behavior as such.
I agree that the main interaction was mild, but if they were willing to go this far to try to hide this, then that shows how low the bar is for them to try to manipulate things to their favor and liking with the trust that was given them as a moderator.
I really dislike that guy. I was interested in his website but lost interest because of him. I already forgot why I started disliking him. But this just adds to that.
Exafuckingly, no moderators should be offended by what I said, it’s a truism.
Transparency is just the first step, there should not be “a” moderator, it is a collective duty that all must participate and that none of us can be trusted alone with.
You seem very hurt about that one interaction you had with him months ago. If you’re gonna comment that under every gamingonlinux article you’ll have a lot to do.
It has nothing to do with “being hurt”. They showed the kind of scummy person they are.
They showed that if they were willing to go this far to try to hide this, then that shows how low the bar is for them to try to manipulate things to their favor and liking with the trust that was given them as a moderator.
I don’t like the idea of that kind of person reaping the benefits of their site being linked to on the platform they tried to manipulate.
I don’t like the idea of people not facing the consequences of these kinds of actions.
I think people should know who this person is, since they showed their true self and then tried to hide it.
I’d rather have that than have moderators bringing their shitty reddit leftover mentalities and think they can throw tantrums anytime someone critiques their post title. I mean homie was a moderator, who quit the site entirely as his reaction to the same interaction you are criticizing homie here for his reaction after bringing up a relevant commentary about the individual from the post.
Edit: Plus!, how often does anyone on the internet ever actually follow up a real live relevant to the post anecdotal account AAAAAAND follow up with empirical evidence lol.
FYI - the owner of this site, gamingonlinux, was a mod on the !linux_gaming@lemmy.ml community until they were caught abusing their moderator powers. Then they deleted their account and complained on mastodon that it’s stupid design that mod logs are public.
lemmy.ml doing .ml-things
What does this comment mean. No other communities have bad moderators?
You really should look it up since you’re on the site. Make your own mind up about if you want your account to be associated with people like that.
Oh they absolutely do, but ml has a reputation for being particularly poorly moderated
And it’s a behaviour that stems from the admins who’ll ban users from the entire instance if they disagree with their opinions.
It’s the only instance I have blocked at my account level so I don’t see their communties.
Do you have any sources for this?
Deleted comment:
I called them out for not following their own community rules:
and they deleted their account.
Yep, they had proof.
What was wrong with them removing your comment? You were being annoying 🤷♂️
Their response seemed perfectly measured to someone being needlessly pedantic.
The “down” was definitely edited after the fact.
You’re definitely right. But without any sort of context, just the screengrab with the title corrected, it makes OPs rant seem even more pointless.
It could have been one word if they were genuinely confused: “…Shuts?”
Or if they were smart enough to realize it was an error:
“There’s a word missing…”
“Annoying” is subjective, and there is no rule against being perceived as being “annoying” in the community rules.
The only rule is to be respectful, which they did not follow at all, then tried to hide it.
Nothing they did appears to have negatively altered the quality of the comments or discussion.
Respect is also subjective. Your initial post seemed to be mocking and disrespectful for no apparent reason. I’d argue the comment section is more respectful with your remarks gone.
Objectively, it appears they were right to delete their account. You’re stalking posts mentioning their site and complaining about this nothing burger.
I would also distance myself from pedantic harrassers and focus on literally anything else productive if I were them.
Are you Liam in disguise or something? Why are you trying to make up shit like I’m “stalking” posts mentioning their site? I’m a user of Lemmy just the same as anyone else and when I see posts that bring up this toxic person’s site, I can easily help inform people of their gross manipulative behavior.
There isn’t even some grand “toxic” or “manipulative” coverup. The mod deleted the whole interaction because it was pointless and rude from both of you. It added nothing.
The jannie took out the trash and you’re still harrassing them about the subjectivity of annoyance and respect. Y’know who makes that subjective choice? The mods.
I have no ties to this, but I am in opposition to this neat little narrative you appear to be creating tossing out buzzwords like toxic, gross, manipulative without evidence to back it up.
I’ve provided plenty of evidence, and there is more to be found if you feel like you need it. Do you really expect me to provide an exhausting dissertation on every single detail of the situation? I provided just enough to back up my claims. If you feel you need more, that’s on you and it’s available for you to find. That does not warrant your baseless accusations.
Yes, their comment was extremely annoying, both in tone (whining) and content (TL;DR: “pls spoonfeed me basic reading comprehension”). If the mod simply removed the comment, or issued an official warning, it would be 100% warranted.
However, what the non-mod user is saying ITT about moderator abuse is still spot on. The mod in question answered to the whining in tone, tried to cover their own arse with content removal, and then went to whine in Mastodon about the events, or the fact that there’s transparency functionality in Lemmy (the mod log) against the exact same behaviour that they showed there.
So it’s a case where both sides were wrong but given their relative positions the mod being wrong is a bigger deal.
It’s your right to have an opinion on whether or not you think I was annoying. However, the rest of that is just wrong and needlessly rude. My comment was only to point out how many different ways the title could be interpreted without being explicit in what happened. There is no need to be so rude with your wild assumption. I just found the title to be mildly frustrating due to being vague because of the missing word, and I thought I would express that. Does that warrant moderation action? No. It breaks no rules and there was no intent to be disrespectful, nor is there any real tangible proof of any disrespectful intent.
I could write a full wall of text explaining everything wrong with your comment, but to keep it short:
Cut off the crap. You aren’t fooling anyone here by playing the victim.
Don’t bother.
I absolutely agree with you but it didn’t really need to be said did it?
You 100% understood what the title was saying, so complaining that the title was ambiguous, and barely so, was pointless wasn’t it?
Clearly everyone else agreed since you were downvoted.
I don’t agree with you, but you can think all you want about how annoying or pointless my comment was. That is no excuse for their response, then they doubled down and tried to hide it by abusing their moderator powers. That’s the only part of this that matters.
yes they appeared to be masterminding a coverup to rival watergate
No it wasn’t, but perhaps you could admit that your behavior did have a little bit to do with the response. It wasn’t totally out of the blue was it, and you were equally in violation of the sub’s rules.
Didn’t you leave Lemmy?
I agree with you, but what does a moderator do once they engage with the user other than remove the whole interaction? They deleted the whole thread, not just their opposition.
Seems like the the whining on mastadon about transparency was more because this guy is following them around harrassing them via public modlog screenshots, when on any other forum it wouldn’t even matter… unless it actually mattered.
In this situation, my view is OP made a mess, pissed jannie added to the mess, OP feigned shock, pissed jannie thought better and cleaned the mess up.
Yet OP here is still trying to stir the pot like the mod was silencing their opinion or something. It was a worthless comment.
Baseless accusation. Got any proof?
yes. this thread lol
Then based on that logic you’re harassing me. You can’t even follow your own logic.
You think before engaging. And if you fuck it up, you apologise to the community (not to that specific user) for what you’ve done wrong. But unless the content is sensitive (for example, the other user posted something illegal), you keep it alone, at most you lock it.
Lemmy is too small and this snafoo is so pointless that I think a community apology would be hilarious.
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Having some weirdo follow your posts around calling you manipulative and toxic for months is just… its too much. It’s a linux gaming forum, some social ineptitude is to be expected. Users shouldn’t feel entitled to continuously attack a mod who “mod abused” them with the assault equivalent of a light shove.
It’s just the most insulated privileged non-problem, my god.
It doesn’t need to be something fancy. Just an “EDIT: I apologise to the community for sounding abrasive. I’m a mod here so my behaviour should be better than that, my bad.” I think that it’s important because users take moderators of their respective communities as role models on how they’re allowed/disallowed to behave, so if the mod doesn’t at least mention that they fucked it up, other users might see it and think “OK, that’s valid behaviour here, even the mod does it. Time to go rogue.”
Yup, full agree with that. And based on interactions with the user in this thread, they’re being clearly disingenuous, mincing words to play the victim. The mod was in the wrong but that’s, as you said, too much.
Yeah I would ban 24 hours and continue with life.
Whether you consider it whining, depends upon the tone you read it in.
I just read that comment and didn’t feel annoyed enough to even give a downvote and the mod’s reply seemed far too annoying.
The username on the other hand…
Pointlessly snarky comments are one of the worst parts of Reddit and Lemmy and I fully support mods putting a stop to that. I guess the important part is to be transparent about it
But if it was transparent you wouldnt be able to see it
Now that I’ve willfully misrepresented what you said, I am eager for your reply so i can pointlessly be an asshole about it!
/assholesnark.
Thanks! Not quite as wild as I was expecting (kind of surprised this was enough to push them to delete their account)
Probably decided “fuck this” and quit volunteering instead of dealing with drama llamas.
Mod abuse is mod abuse, regardless of the level. They clearly felt embarrassed for needlessly being mean and getting caught for it after trying to hide the fact.
Then they tried to excuse it on their mastodon.
If they’re willing to go through all that for something so minor, they would absolutely be willing to do the same to hide worse behavior.
Not gonna lie he was right about the shuts thing. It’s not a common phrasing but totally legit and you did seem kinda dickish when you pointed it out.
Pointing something out is not inherently being a dick. It did not warrant the response, particularly a response that clearly breaks the rules of the community they were trusted with the responsibility to manage.
It was snarky. Some people interpret it as rudeness. He’s still a shithead for sure.
No snark was intended, but I can see why people could interpret it poorly. I won’t claim to be perfect at communicating over Lemmy comments.
That’s one of the things I love in lemmy. Moderation transparency.
Fuck that guy.
I’m boosting this and the screenshots too, but just thought I’d point out for quick scrollers that it does not seem as dramatic as this comment initially lets you believe.
I mean it’s awkward, but just seems more like your usual social awkwardness/incompetence than malicious behavior as such.
Look at the screenshots few comments down. That was a shitty mod. They can have those back at reddit.
I agree that the main interaction was mild, but if they were willing to go this far to try to hide this, then that shows how low the bar is for them to try to manipulate things to their favor and liking with the trust that was given them as a moderator.
I really dislike that guy. I was interested in his website but lost interest because of him. I already forgot why I started disliking him. But this just adds to that.
All moderators should be assumed to be abusers. Acab
Well yeah that’s why the mod log is public. It’s a feature not a bug
Exafuckingly, no moderators should be offended by what I said, it’s a truism. Transparency is just the first step, there should not be “a” moderator, it is a collective duty that all must participate and that none of us can be trusted alone with.
You seem very hurt about that one interaction you had with him months ago. If you’re gonna comment that under every gamingonlinux article you’ll have a lot to do.
It has nothing to do with “being hurt”. They showed the kind of scummy person they are.
They showed that if they were willing to go this far to try to hide this, then that shows how low the bar is for them to try to manipulate things to their favor and liking with the trust that was given them as a moderator.
I don’t like the idea of that kind of person reaping the benefits of their site being linked to on the platform they tried to manipulate.
I don’t like the idea of people not facing the consequences of these kinds of actions.
I think people should know who this person is, since they showed their true self and then tried to hide it.
I’d rather have that than have moderators bringing their shitty reddit leftover mentalities and think they can throw tantrums anytime someone critiques their post title. I mean homie was a moderator, who quit the site entirely as his reaction to the same interaction you are criticizing homie here for his reaction after bringing up a relevant commentary about the individual from the post.
Edit: Plus!, how often does anyone on the internet ever actually follow up a real live relevant to the post anecdotal account AAAAAAND follow up with empirical evidence lol.