The people in charge of YPTB asked to be their own judges, so I have come

I was in an incident that led to people complaining about me here and by extension in Ask Lemmy, one which I explained my perspective on elsewhere. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by a certain Blaze to share it in YPTB, only for those in charge there to give what amounted to a signal of disregard for it and to take it elsewhere. Going by their own words, I then shared it in !fediverselore@lemmy.ca as the only close alternative available, which, as a part of their own "rules subtext", sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because "YTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebar".

The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word "false", and he even alluded to that after it began to be discussed elaborately, albeit before using an appeal to the masses (story of my life) and say "most people seem to understand", which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the "the truth we all wanted to speak" remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with "I can spot rules broken by the other person’s thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mine" and got only thumbs down for it and no responses, yet when I actually dissected the rules piece by piece in front of him to point out that any rule I supposedly broke wasn't there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a "fair point to be honest", the mod then delved into the concept of "unspoken rules" as an excuse for himself and said he didn't want to "rules-lawyer", which not only disproves what he said about "specific posting guidelines" being "in the sidebar" that supposedly explained what I did wrong, but proved a point I commonly mention about people in different places including here always being uncritical and unwilling to see things for themselves and just taking peoples' word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypher's last reply, intellectual =/= intelligent). A part of that is it also suggests, by extension, that the quantity of thumbs down you garner is unreliable as consistently meaning anything, unless the rule is actually to apply gladiator logic and say a thumbs down signals mercy, as indicated by the very Roman-esque culture around here. I guess all this time, I was being praised and didn't realize it?

This idea of "unspoken rules" and "reading between the lines" seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether you're akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to ask... hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldn't read the "unspoken rules" or anticipate mod discretion, what if I were to go to the places I have authority over and ban everyone who says or has said anything positive or supportive about Luigi Mangione or what he did? Would I be able to accomplish this without being called a PTB? After all, that is how this all started, and again, that would be an "unspoken rule" on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldn't it? Those are the terms.

I await your choice.

105 comments

Fuck me, this dude loves to hear himself talk.
This word soup is fucking trash. Let me do everyone here a favor:
This post is highly verbose, filled with tangential points, and jumps between topics, making it difficult to follow. Here’s a breakdown of what the person seems to be saying:
The Incident: The poster was involved in an online situation where their behavior led to complaints in various forums (e.g., Lemmy, Ask Lemmy).
Their Defense: They shared their perspective on the incident in another forum or blog and were encouraged by someone named Blaze to post it in a specific community ("YPTB"). However, moderators of YPTB rejected their post and directed them to share it elsewhere.
Actions Taken: Following the moderators' advice, they posted it in another community ("!fediverselore"), which they claim has some precedent for allowing such discussions. Despite this, the moderators from YPTB showed up there to criticize them for not following the original community's "specific posting guidelines."
Rules Debate: The poster argues that the supposed "posting guidelines" they were accused of breaking either don’t exist or weren’t clearly stated. They tried to dissect the rules piece by piece to show they didn’t violate any, and even Blaze agreed with them.
"Unspoken Rules": The moderators, according to the poster, eventually justified their criticism by referring to "unspoken rules" or norms not explicitly stated. This concept frustrates the poster because it undermines their defense and supports what they see as a subjective or inconsistent enforcement of rules.
Broader Grievance: The poster feels ostracized and believes that the community or moderators operate under a "groupthink" mentality, where dissenting views (like theirs) are dismissed or punished. They also criticize the practice of using downvotes or negative feedback as a measure of validity or correctness.
Hypothetical Question: They sarcastically propose a scenario where they could ban everyone in their own spaces for supporting someone named Luigi Mangione, claiming this would be no different from how the moderators are applying their discretion under "unspoken rules." They are questioning the fairness of such norms.
Final Thoughts: The post ends with an open-ended challenge or provocation, suggesting that the community or moderators’ logic is flawed and asking how they will respond to this critique.
TL;DR:
The poster feels unfairly treated due to vague or non-existent rules being used to criticize their actions. They believe the moderators and community enforce norms subjectively, based on group consensus or unspoken rules, rather than clear guidelines. They see this as hypocritical and are challenging the logic behind it. The post is laden with frustration, sarcasm, and an air of intellectual superiority.
- And there is the issue. The way you shortened it simplified it in a way that several important details and specifications were left out. I said it as short as I could without doing that, which is what you are referring to as "tangential" and containing "jumps between topics".
  They also criticize the practice of using downvotes or negative feedback as a measure of validity or correctness.
  So do the mods here, but it's never enforced, in fact their PSA asking for courtesy with people giving things thumbs down has the most thumbs down of anything in the community.
  
  Your lack of nuance and sense of humor is why people call you a PTB and why you're frustrated that they don't do the same to me.
  
  Have you not considered a majority of those downvotes are likely done ironically...? Seems natural to me that a post asking people not to downvote irresponsibly would get bombarded with them. It's like putting a "DO NOT PUSH" sign over a big red button.

I have no idea what you're talking about or what your issue is. There's a lot of words and oblique references but very little actual information.
- You have no idea how much better your comment made me feel after having to re-read this post a handful of times to figure wtf was being complained about.
- Not even in the links?
  
  If you're expecting each reader to undertake a research project to understand what's going on, you are mistaken. That's your job in writing the post. Summarize the situation (with citations if appropriate).

YDI
The comment from @ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net on your original post before it was removed hit the nail on the head imo:
I think the way you talk around the issue (e.g. “a man named after a certain plumber”) really demonstrates an underlying understanding that you’re in the wrong here: you’re avoiding direct confrontation with him and his motives in order to paint this as a simple murder. You linked to excuses about how Brian Thompson was actually innocent, because denying life saving medical coverage isn’t technically the same thing as personally murdering them, despite having the same effect. You paint agreement with his actions with pledging direct allegiance to him personally.
There are legitimate arguments around not lionising his actions (as Hexbear discussed at the time), but you’re just getting upset about civility and direct violence disrupting the indirect violence of capitalism.
Let's get real here. The State has a monopoly on violence in most countries. That's one of the ways they keep control of the population. That's why it's perceived as such a threat to the State when ordinary people use violence to challenge the status quo. The State made it perfectly legal for people to like Brian Thompson to deny life saving treatments and procedures from the sick and dying in order to turn a larger profit margin. That is an example of state-sanctioned violence. All those involved should be in prison and held accountable. But they never will be, because State is organized around protecting the rich and powerful from the consequences of their deeply immoral, unethical and (ought to be illegal) acts that turn a profit. Don't forget that slavery was legal and Nazi concentration camps were legal at the time. That's why your moralizing position rings hollow. Because all you are doing in effect is defending the right of the state to continue with it's immoral agenda of exploiting the sick and poor for profit, without ever having to accept any consequences for it.
When the justice system is corrupt, when the laws are written by lobbyists, when politicians from both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by corporations, what other option do we have to resist the abuses of the rich and powerful? This is why people consider Luigi a bit of a folk hero. Because he gave people a bit of hope that real change was possible, and that (at least occasionally) the rich and powerful might get what's coming to them.
On another topic, your original blog post was imo not in keeping sidebar rules, especial rule 1:
Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).
It seems to me you are more upset that basically nobody here agrees with your position on this topic, rather than because of any PTB issues.
- So your whole defense for this whole ordeal is... political and based in rhetoric?
  Imagine if they denied nobody. Anybody with so much as colorblindness could get coverage. There does have to be a line somewhere. That's why insurance is a contract. And people read these, and if they agree, they sign them.
  Nevertheless, even if someone denies Brian Thompson was there to change, those who advocate violence would have to square that with the fact the bad aspects of the system wasn't even his doing. That's not just an excuse, that's literally how half of businesses work.
  In any case, the mods elsewhere would agree with me, as would people in literally any other community, as well as the law, which the fediverse is bound by, like it or not. So it's not something where "basically nobody here agrees". Does the fediverse feel like standing by this opinion anyways? We'll see where that leads in the eyes of the state, and although I don't simp to the state (thus the part about Nazis fails, because I was going by ethics, not law), I won't flinch if the fediverse goes full tiktok.
  I'll also say that action taken towards someone in a community is either up to the discretion of its managers or it isn't regardless of the written rules, and if the defense of everyone here is that I was banned because it is, then I am not the PTB if I use the same logic in my communities, no matter what people here complain. The only things "upsetting" to me are the double standards and the selective regard people hold the TOS.
  
  I'll just quickly remind you this is literally an Anarchist server, so it's unlikely you're gonna find much sympathy for your views here.
  Many of us aren't based in the US. So when you say "the law" which law specifically are you talking about?
  I honestly can't follow what your complaint is any more. Were you actually banned from anywhere or did you just get your feelings hurt by having your blog post removed from this community?
  It's not at all clear to me that your original post of any of this post meets the Rule 1 criteria: Post only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s).

You have got to condense this down, use some periods. Run it through chat gpt maybe. But it’s nearly incomprehensible.
- I agree. I can parse most texts regardless of content and difficulty, but i had to read this multiple times and jump through hoops to get a hint of what happened.
  Make a timeline of events (who did what when and where?)
  Define your grievance for us to judge after timeline
  Don't redirect to outside sources, at least not inline - list the links at the end of the post
  Cut out the flavor text (Blaze does not need an adjective every time he's mentioned, even tho Blaze probably likes it)
  Break the text up visually into more paragraphs
  Less stuff in parenthesis, cut it out or integrate it if important
  you can add the stuff that you removed AFTER everyone knows the gist of what happened.
- Same here tbh, i am looking to see how others read it before chiming in.
  
  If you have difficulty understanding it, I can paraphrase if it helps. Which parts are hard to understand?
- I did all of that, actually. The first people here don't seem to have difficulty.
  
  The first people here don’t seem to have difficulty.
  I was the first person to comment here and I explicitly pointed out that I don't like your writing style because I had difficulty parsing it.

Lenny, you got the same problem as I do: writing huge walls of text, with really long sentences and paragraphs, that are really hard to parse. People lose track of what you're talking about, so simply paraphrasing excerpts won't help; you probably need to restructure the whole thing, if you want to be understood.
To make it worse, you're redirecting the reader over and over, both through links and through indirect references.
This is on-topic here because I don't think that db0 was power-tripping, but I don't think that you deserved it. I think that it was just miscommunication; under a quick glance your post linking to buzzly.art doesn't seem to be about rule enforcement, it sounds more like a rant plus request for advice.
- The whole thing is so complicated that I have doubts it would have been possible.

Objectively, "Luigi did nothing wrong" could be defending what he allegedly did, but could also be supporting the idea that he's been falsely accused.
I also agree with the mod saying your initial post didn't fit this community given the written rules on the sidebar, without factoring any "unspoken rules" or whatever the fuck you're babbling about.
As an aside, I really dislike your rambling writing style.
I'm nobody, and my opinion isn't especially relevant. But since you asked, I think you're wrong for the initial ban and having your last post removed was the right call by the mod here.
- I guess here we would have our first answer of who would be voted off the island should most of the people rule in favor of the !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com mods.

Seems like the right place to bring the complaint, but I'm not gonna click forty links to figure out what you are actually complaining about.
Cliff notes buddy. Maybe one link to follow. 250 characters or less.
- Especially when a bunch of them are videos. I see that, I'm immediately hitting the back button. I have precious little mental energy these days, I can't afford to spend too much of it on my petty internet drama.
- If I didn't include them, this would've been a lot longer. I'm sure that would've helped nobody. Plus much of it entails proof of what went down, which is important in case anyone were to question anything.
  
  What you are saying is that you don't think your ire is worth investing in sufficiently to create a condensed, easy to digest version of it. Which is fine.
  But if you signal that your ire isn't worth investing in, what makes you think that I will on your behalf?

The user, shinigamiookam, is grappling with the challenges of navigating a community where both written rules and unwritten norms (unspoken rules) coexist. Here's a structured summary of their situation and thoughts:
undefined

Situation Overview : The user has been accused of not adhering to "unspoken rules" within the community, leading to negative feedback and being labeled as PTB. They enforce written rules (community guidelines and TOS), including taking action against those supporting Luigi Mangione, which resulted in pushback. Challenges Faced : The user feels misunderstood, as they are following established rules but facing issues due to unwritten norms. Mods have applied discretion arbitrarily, changing their reasoning from written rules to unspoken ones after the user pointed out errors. Query and Reflection : They question whether enforcing their own set of unspoken rules, similar to mod behavior, would lead to a different outcome or if they'd still face backlash. They seek community feedback on the justification of such an approach and its potential consequences. Conclusion : The user is seeking clarity on whether adopting a more discretionary enforcement of norms would help them avoid being seen as PTB or if it would still lead to negative outcomes. The core issue revolves around the tension between strictly following written rules versus adapting to community norms that aren't explicitly stated.
In essence, shinigamiookam is exploring whether aligning with unwritten community standards through their own discretion could change how they're perceived and treated within the group.
- Thank you for this summary. I found it difficult to follow the original. It would be useful to have a similar list from OP about the specific mod actions they are complaining about, because most of this seems very vibes based and mostly revolves around them expecting people to agree with them, but finding the opposite.
- This proves my point about self-expression as it doesn't grasp the whole complexity or even all the necessary parts.
  
  It doesn't prove shit dude. You were just too lazy to put in the effort to summarize.

I am monitoring this thread.
- me too ive got your 6
  
  not yourself today?

The fact that Lemmys love Luigi so much is cringe. The guy murdered someone in cold blood. Celebrating him is gross, even for anarchists. He'll go to prison for the rest of his life. Like he deserves.
I'm sure with so many idolizing him and planning to "luigi" others and plan of a "resistance" has most of Lemmy on government watchlists now. WTF guys?
That's MY opinion. Others are free to have theirs, even tho it seems really strange to me.
- We don't think about you lol
  
  Why? As a defense?
  
  And I don't care.
  There will be no "revolution." There will be no masses of people out to "eat the rich." This won't make millionaires and billionaires run scared for their lives. The jury won't even debate very long, friend.
  Nothing will happen. Luigi will spend the rest of his life in prison. And in 10 years he'll be a trivia question.
  This huge movement that you think you are being a part of, and that you think he started, only exists in this echo chamber.
  Lemmy can keep going on with their vague promises of "arm yourselves and wait for the moment!"
  That moment won't come.
  The people that you think are going to rise up, won't. They're gonna go back to their hum-drum but higher-than-average paid jobs, play pokemon, and talk about weed and fucking video games.
  Keyboard warriors who make more than the average person in the US, bitching about being lower class. Nothing will fucking happen. lol
  And you know I'm right about all of this. And that's why you're angry.

105 comments