Summary:

  • @Cat@ponder.cat was posting at a high volume to !news@lemmy.world
  • there is no written rule on !news@lemmy.world about post volume
  • there is no written rule on ponder.cat about post volume
  • !news is the one single community Cat was this active in
  • !news has no ponder.cat mods
  • from my understanding, all rules Cat did break were unrelated to volume (correct me if I am wrong)
  • ponder.cat admin @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat reaches out to Cat via comment and then DM essentially threatening account deletion if Cat doesn’t lower their activity level
  • Cat understandably deletes their account because who wants that

Of course, PhilipTheBucket had the right to do this, but I also think it’s exceedingly bad form and people have a right to know that this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head like that.

Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here. Communication should be chosen before simple fist waving and threats.

I agree with this comment that this is a bait-provoked reaction. Next time I recommend:

  • at the instance/admin level, the creation of instance rules about volume
  • at the community level, advocacy for community rules about volume (i.e. “[Meta] Petition: Limit daily submissions to !news to ensure community quality”)
  • avoid personal slapfights to get your way
  • avoid escalation directly to account termination threats

Source: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587

  • lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      two separate topics.

      • admin threatens account deletion (this post)
      • mod bans admin for bringing the discussion directly to the comments instead of engaging in community engagement for change (other post)

      tired of this boring conversation. blocked.

      • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        tired of this boring conversation. blocked.

        The ol’ Spubj “sticking my fingers in my ears and running away”. Classic.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          notice how there still isn’t a meta tag because it would make the post a lie :) that’s because i use the internet to have fun and participate in community, not to let mean users boss me around because they know how to use insults. blocked.

          ps i made an actual meta post you should go leave your comments on it.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.”