The mod banning these users is the same mod who made the posts they downvoted. This is mod abuse, turning the downvote button into an auto-self-ban button.
The message is “If you disagree with me, you will be banned”
Monitoring and banning users for using lemmy as intended to signal boost your opinion should be grounds to have all mod privileges removed. This behaviour undermines the integrity of the server and the wider fediverse.
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
We don’t need Reddit’s power tripping back
Do you really expect the platform that lets anybody form their personal power tripping fiefdom to inexplicably not draw those people in? No centralization doesn’t mean you’re free of the particular flavor of power tripping you experienced, it means there are many cells of various levels of power tripping with little to no oversight.
My hope for the Fediverse is, sure. We can just allow people to be sad little kings of their sad little hills. If it’s enough of a problem, everyone else can go to some other community, possibly on some other instance.
The federative structure of the fediverse means that your average community moderator is way more accountable than a subreddit moderator is on reddit, to be fair.
In theory maybe, but have we actually seen a community migrate away from a sub or the admins step in because of power tripping?
Onehundredninetysix and the Trek meme split.
The 196 mitosis was due to mods literally closing the sub, what caused the trek split?
Actually, due to some mod shenanigans, they tried to close the community to move it to a less trans-friendly instance, where the use of neopronouns would not be enforced. The community said no and formed a new community on their original instance, got new mods, hookers, and blackjack.
https://lemmy.cafe/post/12094663
As for the Trek split, here’s a long, detailed, long post about it…
That mod is also literally the only active user in that group. Your post is the most attention it’s ever got.
And this is the second time in just over a day that I’ve seen moderators abusing the ability to monitor how people vote.
This behaviour undermines good faith participation. Users should not be afraid of copping bans for using the downvote button as they feel is appropriate.
This behaviour undermines good faith participation. Users should not be afraid of copping bans for using the downvote button as they feel is appropriate.
As a moderator, I can see who votes on what and how in my community. But it is not my job to really do anything with that information (except if I notice a brigading attack / vote manipulation, then I might keep an eye on users for that). So I don’t even look at them. The community hasn’t been brigaded yet, and since its a moderately low traffic community, it would be pretty obvious if that ever happened.
But votes are information that normal users should definitely not be able to see at all. Eventually, sooner than later most likely, it will lead to “User X voted ‘wrong’ on Y” posts. You and I both know Lemmy users cannot be trusted to be mature enough to not do that kind of Fecal Flinging, especially from the comfort of online anonymity, and once that starts it’s not going to stop.
Users upvote or downvote posts for ten million different reasons. Nobody should feel like they can’t vote how they want on a post for fear of a moderator ban or other users yelling at them. If they are engaging in vote manipulation, its a different story, but people doing that are not only using a single account, so they know what they are doing and should expect nevative consequences. I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, just adding on that beyond a moderator’s ethical duty regarding (not) taking action for vote activity, normal users should also be held to the same ethical duty.
Yes and no.
There are accounts who genuinely do go around downvoting en masse without any contributions. When I was growing my community, I caught about 5 accounts - some with no post history, and no contribution history on my community doing it. They also had a long mod log history of bans for doing it elsewhere.
So I banned them because they kept burying new posts. That is my right.
But votes are information that normal users should definitely not be able to see at all.
Votes on Lemmy are public. lemvotes.org exists, and Friendica and mbin both expose votes, and then obviously it’s decently simple (though not super-trivial like those three methods) to set up your own instance and look over all the votes.
You might feel that there should be a special category of “lesser” (you say normal) user that is unable to see votes, even though another category of user is able to. We could talk about that philosophically, but regardless, normal users can see votes. Vote accordingly. The error lies with the Lemmy UI being designed in a way that doesn’t make it clear to people that their votes are not fully private.
So it’s literally just Elon.
deleted by creator
Rule #0.0
Don’t hurt moddy-woddy’s fee-fees.this but as an actual legitimate rule, more explicit version of “don’t be a dick”
I made the list!
I upvote most of threelonmusketeers’ posts (voyager confirms my votes are net +44) , but my down vote finger gets itchy when I see a string of pro Elmo content.
Not sure about that specific case.
Yeee, I’m in this pic and I like it! Good job me 🫶
If you don’t like a community’s content, ignore/block it. Why are you downvoting a bunch of stuff?
because downvoting is one of the central actions pivotal to the kind of social media that Lemmy/piefed/reddit is.
Yeah, that’s great for flagging spam or stuff that’s not relevant to the community it’s posted in. Downvoting content that’s good for a community just because you don’t like the community is like the godbotherers that yell at people about sin during pride celebrations. Don’t be like them.
Downvoting a toxic community is also a valid use of your downvote. Reddit has several examples (gamersriseup, the_donald, fatpeoplehate, among many more examples).
Think of it like concerned citizens yelling at the westboro baptist church for being hateful pieces of shit.
An analogy can really color an argument eh? I don’t usually engage in that kind of rhetoric, I find it undermines the conversation by overtly engaging with peoples emotions.
Oh hi, this post is about me!
I’m experimenting with the moderation policy for niche communities described by @jet@hackertalks.com.
@TheDude@sh.itjust.works, do you have any issues with this?
That is some total whackjob reasoning.
A community means EXCLUDING people who don’t share a interest.
The actual fuck? This is the dumbest take I’ve seen in a while (yeah, including all the commentary around the Charlie Kirk shooting), and they try to justify it as being a rephrasing of “A community is for people who share an interest”?
This is just an unhinged way of justifying isolationism and silencing critics. It reads like it was written by the mods of r/conservative. Go touch some fuckin’ grass, dude.
Hi I’m the wackjob, communities are places around the topic, and they’re focused on people who want to talk about that topic. If you go to the chess club and you want to talk about motorsports, it’s not going to be great for people. You be asked to leave eventually. Especially if you keep revving your bike in the chess club.
Hey. Just wanted to say that you banned me from a number of communities I only voted on with no notification. I only found out because I randomly checked the mod log one day. Trying to police participation by bans via voting behavior puts a chilling effect on the greater Lemmy community and creates an echo chamber with no critical examination of what is being posted. Also, it’s a pretty cowardly way to mod.
Were any of those communities you were interested in having a positive interaction with?
I honestly don’t remember. But I shouldn’t have my voice censored simply for disagreeing with something that was posted. The entire point of the voting system is so that quality content reaches the widest audience.
Also, how do you define a “positive interaction?” If I disagree with what’s posted but provide polite criticism, is that a positive or negative interaction? IMO, if I’m not flinging shit at the walls and insulting users, or otherwise violating the rules of said community, that feels like a positive interaction to me.
Also, how do you define a “positive interaction?” If I disagree with what’s posted but provide polite criticism, is that a positive or negative interaction? IMO, if I’m not flinging shit at the walls and insulting users, or otherwise violating the rules of said community, that feels like a positive interaction to me.
Yeah, i would broadly agree, polite criticism is the bulwark of a good discussion forum and positive.
What you’re demanding is that everyone interact with your community “appropriately” and on your terms, but that your interaction with the larger community yours is a part of is not allowed to be questioned or criticized in the way all other communities are. That’s some one-sided bs.
Yes one side of the door is for the community members, the other side of the door is for everyone else.
I’ve explained my philosophy comprehensively here: https://hackertalks.com/post/13884733
If you can find something inconsistent in that i’m happy to hear about it.
I read it. It’s not good and neither are your analogies. There is no “door” if your community is on the front page of lemmy at large. You are taking advantage of the open nature of the service to openly publish your content while pretending that it’s “only for you” and demanding that anyone that sees it outside of your community abide by your personal rules. If that’s what you want, then a platform like lemmy is the wrong one for your community.
I respectfully disagree, allowing a tyranny of negativity to rein simply because people have a niche belief - like AI, or diets, or religion, or politics isn’t good for lemmy. It stifles the growth of lemmy, because everyone has some niche interest that should be part of the fediverse.
If every single part of the fediverse is for open referendum, that’s going to chill lots of participation; it’s much easier to hate many things, then to be so interested in something that you stick your neck out and brave the negativity.
If you really want to rage against some content, cross post it and have at it.
It is not reasonable to demand that every user that disagrees with a post publish their own counter-post. It’s excessive, inefficient, and is antithetical to how the fediverse functions. Post voting is the bare minimum of participation. If that’s still too “chilling”, this is simply the wrong forum for what you’re looking for, and trying to force the whole platform to bend to what you want it to be is just selfish.
What if i go to a motorsport club, but someone is revving is bike in the middle of a public speech, covering what they are saying? I should be able to downvote the revvig guy because I don’t like his ‘posts’.
With your logic, the moron should keep disturbing the speech and i would get booted off the club because I disliked his behavior.
Nobody’s forcing you to go to communities you don’t like. You can block them. In fact moderators of those communities are working hard to provide content. If you only want to be negative with that content it sounds like it’s a perfect idea to block it.
If you very much want to rage against content, you’re welcome to repost it someplace else and then have your say in a different community. But you don’t have the right to use the original community. If you behave well you’re welcome to most communities to participate. If you don’t behave well you’re not. It’s very simple
You don’t understand. In my example, i WANT to be in that community, but a single actor is being a jerk, so i let him know he’s a jerk.
The actual fuck? This is the dumbest take I’ve seen in a while (yeah, including all the commentary around the Charlie Kirk shooting), a
So trans communities should keep TERFs around ?
Can you identify a TERF from a single downvote? Or even 3 or 5 downvotes and no comments?
Punishing users for their individual votes is mod abuse and vote manipulation. You are removing the voting rights of users who dislike your content.
The only acceptable grounds for banning a user based on their votes would be using a sock puppet to vote on a single post or comment multiple times.
If people think your posts are shit, they should be allowed to express that without fear of phantom banning. Suck it up, or delete your account.
The only acceptable grounds for banning a user based on their votes would be using a sock puppet to vote on a single post or comment multiple times.
What about if someone entered the community to mass downvote everything? Or did so every day?
If people think your posts are shit, they should be allowed to express that without fear of phantom banning. Suck it up, or delete your account.
If I made a metal music community, and an account came in every day to downvote every post because they don’t like metal - would I be justified in banning them for that?
What about if someone entered the community to mass downvote everything? Or did so every day?
That’s fine, if the post is legitimately popular, the upvotes will outweigh the downvotes. That’s how all of this works, and how it has always worked.
If I made a metal music community, and an account came in every day to downvote every post because they don’t like metal - would I be justified in banning them for that?
No, that would be an abuse of your mod powers. Conversely, how many downvotes do you think a user should be allowed before you can ban them for disagreeing with you?
That’s fine, if the post is legitimately popular, the upvotes will outweigh the downvotes. That’s how all of this works, and how it has always worked.
No, this doesn’t apply to small and growing communities. Or niche communities of specific interests. When I started up my community, many posts wouldn’t get many votes - and an early downvote or two could easily sink a new post from trending at all, leaving it to languish to nowhere.
No, that would be an abuse of your mod powers.
Based on what?
Conversely, how many downvotes do you think a user should be allowed before you can ban them for disagreeing with you?
It’s not about numbers specifically. People downvote in my community now - and I see the same names whenever I check from time to time, but they also upvote and contribute - so I am not that bothered. I have only banned a handful of users for this behaviour since I started. Each one of them did nothing but downvote everything, and never contributed at all to the community.
Each one of them did nothing but downvote everything, and never contributed at all to the community.
Downvotes are a contribution, they are just the kind of contribution you don’t like. based on this, I don’t think you area good fit for modding; you should probably look to pass your role on to someone who can moderate responsibly.
Downvotes are a contribution, they are just the kind of contribution you don’t like.
I fail to see the valuable contribution of an account that has literally never posted on the community they are downvoting in, never even posted on the fediverse, quietly downvoting every single post in a community. It is nothing but vandalism that hurts the growth of new communities.
based on this, I don’t think you area good fit for modding; you should probably look to pass your role on to someone who can moderate responsibly.
By your logic almost every single community moderator on the fediverse is not a “good fit for modding” because they too, will ban accounts for spam-downvoting on their communities.
Replying here as it’s higher the thread , but the other person you were replying to just seems to be sealioning.
Also, a 3 months old account with 3 posts, 2 about moderation issues, seems like an alt looking to stir up drama.
You can express yourself. You can make a post in the community and engage in a dialogue. You can make a post another community, such as this one, complaining about the original community. You can make a new community where you just complain about the other community. You’re free to express yourself. But for people who want to participate in the community it should be for them
this is “downvote trolling”….
basically if you have a community that a lot of people hate, people will come in and downvote everything… some will even subscribe and downvote everything.
so, obviously “the boring company” will get a lot of musk hate (and i hate musk).
but yeah, if someone never participates in a comm and just shows up to downvote totally on-topic posts it makes sense to ban them….
…
i’ve been permanently shadowbanned from communities i totally liked and agreed with for making a comment that reasonably stated a disagreement with a post… banning for downvote trolling makes sense… even though i do hate Elon Musk….
(the whole boring company community should be deleted because it’s a company owned by a literal Nazi).
