Making sure you're not a bot!
quokk.au
  • Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?

A mod in !onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone

  • What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?

Deleted comment comment on Healthy ruleationships in 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Reason: Rude and excessively confrontational × 32

  • Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entries (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).

📸

  • Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).

notice my jovial “⚡”🔗

  • Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Removal of a very cordial & jovial explanation of my anarchist stance regarding monogamy was misread as “rude and confrontational.” I ended conversations respectfully, not expecting backlashes of monogamists in what I thought was a very sarcastic post “Healthy ruleationships.” All I want is the comments returned. The thread can stay locked if the community wishes, and I will not engage in it anymore.

That is all.

  • Ada@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    17·
    21 days ago

    You’re subject line is needlessly conflating a community and an instance… This was a community mod action, not a blahaj instance action.

    • alapakala@quokk.auOPEnglish
      15·
      21 days ago

      Is a lighting emoji not a signifier of jovial² intent?

      🥰🤣👌²

      then stop downranking what everyone can see ¯\(ツ)/¯²

      please¹ read the 🧵. I already answered this question, twice.

      You can also pick up a book. But thank you for disengaging.🙇¹

      Never. That shaming culture is alive and well in 21c, and Monogamous domineers exist, still.

      Ah.¹ Learn some anarchism.

      Then keep on educating yourself on dominant state monogamist enforcement oppressions, and leave my sexually liberated polycule alone. Mcpisce²?

      TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today: I don’t really know if I agree that sexually inclusive relationships are any less fickle then we wouldn’t have never seen this picture, at all. In a restaurant, with a branded theme.

      You have to admit the theatrics are unnecessary, no?¹

      I personally think it’s perfectly fine if two consenting adults want to agree to enter a monogamist relationship.

      Then don’t use law, or theatrics to reinforce this🙃

      To me I would more attribute it to people being messy bitches about their personal business. Yet bigamy is illegal, in all US states.

      Meaning that the majority do force monogamy on others against others. So it is a public business. A public industry. Making billion of dollars, every year.

      You are really making me feel my age.

      Then please¹ educate yourself some more, because I am older than you, and I can still keep up😊¹

      ¹Cordiality

  • Glytch@lemmy.world
    7·
    20 days ago

    YDI, you came in hot attacking anyone who didn’t agree with your very narrow views on monogamy and polyamory. At no point were you cordial or jovial, just angry. And now you continue to dig your hole here by whinging about deleted comments? Touch grass and move on.

  • AzuranAurora@piefed.caEnglish
    6·
    21 days ago

    I read the whole thread before your comments were removed, and you weren’t being as cordial and jovial as you think you were. The discussion came across as rather heated and didn’t seem like anyone involved was really listening to what the others were saying. I don’t believe the moderator was being a PTB by removing your comments, just doing their job in this case. If they had outright banned you instead, then that’d be a bit much as you weren’t being outright hostile or saying anything warranting a ban.