before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com
i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:
and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you'll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.
it was less than 2 hours. it's almost not worth discussing.
but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.
db0 has said he doesn't want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in [email protected] (though i'm still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
Hi, I am the PTB that banned this user for 2 hours. As what was explained to you in the appeals channel, you've been trolling for months and when the person you troll gets mad, you report them for things like 'incivility.' You've done this many times to multiple users for months. That is why you were banned, not because of a specific thread and report. This was a warning to you to knock it off, as was explained to you.
It was not made known to other admins that you had contacted db0 in advance of making your account that you were using your account just to do things like this. It makes a lot more sense now why there was this leeway. I thought trolling other users was against the rules, but it seems the rules are muddy about it. We have often been warning people through 1 day bans to knock things off. So your timeout seemed appropriate.
This comes off like "NSRXN made them break the rules" which is ridiculous.
People need to be responsible for their own actions.
so, one of us is mistaken about whether my conduct is acceptable. but which of us is it?
Your conduct is off-putting and should be discouraged, to say the least. Hence a 2 hour ban. Db0's agreement with you was not made with me. It seems like you want it to be a rule that the db0 instance is a safe haven for trolls, effectively putting it at risk of being defederated by other instances.
I would not characterize my conduct as trolling. the restriction given by db0 to avoid going into liberal (or, implicitly, vegan) spaces and stirring the pot is one that didn't honestly need to be voiced. I like to discuss particular topics, but I am respectful of the rules of communities.
but if, as this is the case, someone is spreading outdated information in a climate community, and I correct them, and they violate the rules of that community, and I report that community rule violation, that is not trolling as I see it.
edit: if my conduct is not acceptable, this implies correcting misinformation should be discouraged, as should reporting community or remote instance rule violations. that I should let misinformation go unchallenged, or accept abusive behavior for correcting it, or both. I don't think that is the standard we should be setting.
"this implies correcting misinformation should be discouraged"
"I report that community rule violation, that is not trolling as I see it"
"I am respectful of the rules of communities"
This is a small snippet of your history. It's a 2 hour ban, you can either chill or not, up to you.
What a disengenous asshat. I can't stand these people who are all like, "My only problem with your cause is I don't think you're persuing it the right way," but then they very obviously disagree with the cause and are just saying that shit because they aren't willing to defend their actual positions.
can you link this?
I'm fascinated by this worldview in which we can suffiently ascertain the workings of an animal's mind by observing their behavior when it comes to trying to avoid feeling pain, but not when it comes to trying to avoid dying.
That is, assuming that's your genuine position and you're not just playing games.
understanding pain does not require the understanding of the potential for mortality.
I don't think I've ever seen a better example of someone fitting the label of
what I said is true
No it isn't. We can tell animals don't want to die in the same way we can tell they don't want to feel pain, by the fact that they try to avoid it. We don't need to prove that they're able to "abstractly conceptualize nonexistence" or whatever to establish that fact.
Your arguments would be a lot more coherent if you rejected the idea that we can tell what's happening in a creature's mind by how they react. Of course, then you could apply the same logic to humans and it would be solipsism, but at least solipsism is a coherent, internally consistent idea, unlike your bullshit.
this probably isn't the correct forum to discuss the finer points of veganism, but i'm willing to continue here if you can start affecting a congenial tone.
Fuck no. Absolutely fucking not.
oh have a nice day
Hope you get banned harder next time 👍
disengage
pain avoidance is very different from death avoidance, in that avoiding death requires that you understand that you, yourself, might die. we call this understanding "personal mortality" and we don't have proof non-human animals understand personal mortality, so we cant possibly have proof they want not to die. to the best of our understanding, they are death-agnostic.
Survival instincts are incredibly well documented and proven beyond a doubt, you are completely wrong.
if you can't provide any proof that non-human animals understand personal mortality, this is just handwaving.
This is the same as saying that we can't say animals want to avoid pain unless we can prove that they're capable of conceptualizing pain in the abstract, it's spurious bullshit.
frankly, I don't care for debate at all. id rather you read what I say, understand it is true, and upvote.
Yeah, that's even more debate pervertry, with a side of narcissism. "Um, acktually, I don't want to debate, I just want everyone to agree with me 🤓"
when i'm saying something factual, getting pushback indicates a level of cognitive dissonance that i find, personally, annoying.
Yeah, and other people feel the same way when what they say is factual and what you're saying is a load of bull.
they may feel that way, but I know what I'm saying is True
Right, because you're a narcissist and incapable of ever admitting (or even convincing of the possibility) that you're ever in the wrong, even in cases where you very clearly are.
Honestly I'm not at all convinced that you actually believe half the things you say, it's just a bunch of rhetorical positioning. Your actual belief is opposition to veganism and then you reach for any words or positions that allow you to attack it, even if they make no fucking sense or require you to ignore evidence and hyperfocus on random specific points while ignoring the bigger picture. It's bad faith debate pervertry of the highest level.
no. "skepticism", maybe, but i'm not opposed to it.
Yes, you very clearly are.
Maybe "unopposed" in the sense that you don't want to literally force meat down vegans throats, but you are certainly opposed in the sense that you will reach for any argument, no matter how spurious, to argue against veganism, and are actively trying to persuade people not to be vegans.
I don't understand why you people always feel the need to play games like this. I suppose it's a standard motte-and-bailey tactic, take a more minor position rhetorically because it's easier to defend, while you privately hold a more extreme position that you don't want to submit to critique. It's bad faith and cowardly, you should want your real beliefs to be critiqued. But you're more concerned with "winning" than the truth.
i'm only concerned with the truth.
never. i don't care if you are vegan. i only care if you spread spurious arguments to promote it.
Debate pervertry. Hiding your beliefs and only caring about your rhetorical positioning.
disengage
do you expect someone with the handle of OBJECTION to disengage? no, this is what they live for
this isn't what you banned for, and I think it's inappropriate. this smacks of poisoning the well.
the clarity I'm looking for would say how often you plan to ban me, how long I can expect those bans to be, and what you will ban me for.
i have objections to each of the examples you've raised, but they are red herrings, since they could not have been the reason for a ban, or i would have been banned when they occurred.
I never asked for extra leeway. I never thought I had any kind of agreement with db0 other than a shared understanding of the acceptable use policy. now you have some say in the interpretation of that policy, and you disagree with what was previously understood.
I know we can't all agree about everything, but there needs to be some clarity about what is acceptable, and what isn't.
and it's a two way street. capricious moderation isn't acceptable to me. if that's what I can expect, then I will have to go somewhere else.