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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
