I appreciate your willingness to respond and engage on the subject. I understand your position, and that it makes sense to you. I personally feel that there is a degree of overreach involved when action is taken based on behavior that happens outside of an instance, but I also acknowledge that defederation is a more severe version of the same action. That causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for me, which makes me wonder if I'm viewing it all wrong.

For now, I still believe that your method is beyond what I consider to be a reasonable exercise of authority. That's not a slight on you; I have always gotten the impression that all of your actions are taken with the intent of doing what you believe is best for your instance. Our philosophies just differ somewhat when it comes to exercise of authority. I find you and db0 to be the most intellectually honest of the larger instance admins with regards to how you go about the business of adminning, for whatever that's worth.

Thanks again for engaging, I hope everyone else sees that you do your best to be consistent to your instance values.

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.

 undefined

    
Connections
Puzzle #625
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨

  

This one deserves any criticism it receives.

I've always been in the "different word each day" camp, but I think there are many here who have a set starter.

Lots of people enjoy it on eggs.

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.

To anyone who made it this far: "tired of this boring conversation. blocked." in a reply made in the conversation itself almost universally means "I'm tired of you putting a spotlight on my bullshit and I don't know how to handle it."

I'm not confused: you made a post about a post, discussing matters brought up in the post, after getting dumpstered by downvotes in the post you subsequently made a post about. If that's not meta, then it better not have kids with meta or we'll end up with the Habsburgs all over again. You seem to have a blind spot with regards to how that comes across, which is fair.

If you intended to simply be informative, you lost the plot by titling your thread as you did. I'd consider that an honest mistake if you hadn't avoided any mention of the other thread and your involvement in it. It's in bad faith, and it's a bad look.