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
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
and
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:
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.
True. Also, no sanction was imposed on the original user in question either. This entire issue is because of a message I sent the user explaining the issue with their behavior, and explaining what the consequence would be if they didn’t stop. At no point did I touch any moderation controls anywhere in this interaction.
haha :) if the post gets taken down i’m fine with it but i maintain its relevance to community dialogue. i also notice you have dropped your initial claims that “it’s unmarked meta” because of course that claim was never a true criticism.
i am here only as a reporter of behavior. i don’t even know what “punitive reaction” you are talking about. (oh i got some downvotes somwhere? well this post got some upvotes so…)
to me, a threat of a sanction is just as valid subject to be commented on as a sanction. previously, i have also created posts about admin inaction (dereliction) entirely and the posts were also left up, which leads me to believe community mods are with me. here’s an example: https://lemmy.cafe/post/12745277
(unblocked obviously, because you are funny)
deleted by creator