Comment on User "threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works" is banning users for downvoting his posts.

threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• Coupable@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Punishing users for their individual votes is mod abuse and vote manipulation. You are removing the voting rights of users who dislike your content.

  The only acceptable grounds for banning a user based on their votes would be using a sock puppet to vote on a single post or comment multiple times.

  If people think your posts are shit, they should be allowed to express that without fear of phantom banning. Suck it up, or delete your account.

  source

  • Skavau@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The only acceptable grounds for banning a user based on their votes would be using a sock puppet to vote on a single post or comment multiple times.

    What about if someone entered the community to mass downvote everything? Or did so every day?

    source

    • Coupable@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      What about if someone entered the community to mass downvote everything? Or did so every day?

      That’s fine, if the post is legitimately popular, the upvotes will outweigh the downvotes. That’s how all of this works, and how it has always worked.

      If I made a metal music community, and an account came in every day to downvote every post because they don’t like metal - would I be justified in banning them for that?

      No, that would be an abuse of your mod powers. Conversely, how many downvotes do you think a user should be allowed before you can ban them for disagreeing with you?

      source

      • Skavau@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        That's fine, if the post is legitimately popular, the upvotes will outweigh the downvotes. That's how all of this works, and how it has always worked.

        No, this doesn't apply to small and growing communities. Or niche communities of specific interests. When I started up my community, many posts wouldn't get many votes - and an early downvote or two could easily sink a new post from trending at all, leaving it to languish to nowhere.

        No, that would be an abuse of your mod powers.

        Based on what?

        Conversely, how many downvotes do you think a user should be allowed before you can ban them for disagreeing with you?

        It's not about numbers specifically. People downvote in my community now - and I see the same names whenever I check from time to time, but they also upvote and contribute - so I am not that bothered. I have only banned a handful of users for this behaviour since I started. Each one of them did nothing but downvote everything, and never contributed at all to the community.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • BlueEther@no.lastname.nz ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    hear hear

    source
• Warl0k3@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  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 (including all the coverage of 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.

  source

  • Skavau@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Not speaking to the particular community in the OP, but this can be valid in non-political contexts. If I made a metal music community, and an account came in every day to downvote every post because they don't like metal - would I be justified in banning them for that?

    Would it be fair minded to downvote like that?

    source

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Sure but that’s not what’s happening. The criticism isn’t for banning sock puppets or banning accounts for brigading, it’s for banning accounts that downvote “on-topic posts”, evidently even a single time. What you’re describing and what the mod in question is doing are distinct behaviors, as is what you’re describing and the concepts laid down in Jet’s “guidelines”.

      source

      • Skavau@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I'm not referring to the specific community here. Community moderators can justifiably and unjustifiably ban accounts for their voting behaviour. I was just asking if you think its ever appropriate to ban someone for their voting behaviour.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • hanrahan@slrpnk.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The actual fuck? This is the dumbest take I’ve seen in a while (yeah, including all the commentary around the Charlie Kirk shooting), a

    So trans communities should keep TERFs around ?

    source

    • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Can you identify a TERF from a single downvote? Or even 3 or 5 downvotes and no comments?

      source
    • ech@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      That’s not “not sharing an interest”. That’s being actively antagonistic and arguably harmful to the community. For at-risk communities, that’s a hard line to parse sometimes and it’s understandable for moderators to be less lenient in their decisions. A community about a money sink by the world’s richest idiot doesn’t really have the same concerns.

      source
• allo@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  hi i love this idea and have a niche community on lemmy.world that id like to remove the phantom downvoters from. I see under each post where it says Show Votes and i click it and get this. heres an example.

  Image

  but if i touch a person it just brings me to their account.

  If someone has never said anything in the community, how can I block them from that community? thank you!

  source

  • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I don’t think you can do it from the standard Lemmy UI, but you can use Tesseract front-end (tesh.itjust.works) to ban/unban a user by searching for their username.

    source
• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  moderation policy for niche communities

  That’s a whole lot of mental gymnastics to try to justify enforcing toxic positivity.

  source

  • ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The coward’s way: don’t explain why you did what you did clearly, just obfuscate/point towards some “guideline”. 🙄

    source
• allo@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  cool idea :)

  source
• ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  You can be on topic and have the wrong take, so wrong that people simply think it’s not productive to the conversation and as such the downvote is warranted. What are you doing, my guy?

  source
• TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Everyone has issues with it. You’re abusing the concept of the fediverse with such power tripping

  source