I was in an incident that led to people complaining about me here and by extension in Ask Lemmy, one which I explained my perspective on elsewhere. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by a certain Blaze to share it in YPTB, only for those in charge there to give what amounted to a signal of disregard for it and to take it elsewhere. Going by their own words, I then shared it in !fediverselore@lemmy.ca as the only close alternative available, which, as a part of their own ārules subtextā, sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because āYTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebarā.
The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word āfalseā, and he even alluded to that after it began to be discussed elaborately, albeit before using an appeal to the masses (story of my life) and say āmost people seem to understandā, which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the āthe truth we all wanted to speakā remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with āI can spot rules broken by the other personās thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mineā and got only thumbs down for it and no responses, yet when I actually dissected the rules piece by piece in front of him to point out that any rule I supposedly broke wasnāt there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a āfair point to be honestā, the mod then delved into the concept of āunspoken rulesā as an excuse for himself and said he didnāt want to ārules-lawyerā, which not only disproves what he said about āspecific posting guidelinesā being āin the sidebarā that supposedly explained what I did wrong, but proved a point I commonly mention about people in different places including here always being uncritical and unwilling to see things for themselves and just taking peoplesā word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypherās last reply, intellectual =/= intelligent). A part of that is it also suggests, by extension, that the quantity of thumbs down you garner is unreliable as consistently meaning anything, unless the rule is actually to apply gladiator logic and say a thumbs down signals mercy, as indicated by the very Roman-esque culture around here. I guess all this time, I was being praised and didnāt realize it?
This idea of āunspoken rulesā and āreading between the linesā seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether youāre akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to askā¦ hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldnāt read the āunspoken rulesā or anticipate mod discretion, what if I were to go to the places I have authority over and ban everyone who says or has said anything positive or supportive about Luigi Mangione or what he did? Would I be able to accomplish this without being called a PTB? After all, that is how this all started, and again, that would be an āunspoken ruleā on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldnāt it? Those are the terms.
I await your choice.
Why is it I am in the wrong for criticizing people who do as I say I might do, but those same people, i.e. this community, seems justified in criticizing me for the same thing? Double standard much?
Nobody uses the exact wording. But this is a theme, and the biggest example of this is in the proof of one of the messages of mine that got removed, when I was blamed for not picking something up from this communityās rules that is not specified.
If anything, the opposite would have been the case. The fact this is being held up against me is why Iām pointing out how much of a double standard it is. My experiences have paralleled yours directly, though the double standard aspect is the only one Iāve been complaining about.
Edit: So the removal reason is included above as well as the relevant rule. Itās literally the first community rule in the sidebar.
Rule one says āpost only about bans or other sanctions from mod(s)ā.
I am a mod.
My discussion was about a ban.
Therefore, my post was āabout bans or other sanctions from mod(s)ā.
Is there something I am missing thatās explicitly in the wording, or am I missing something thatās not in the wording (which would make me ask how this is my fault)?
You being a mod or not is irrelevant. Can you point to the specific part of your blog post that mentions a Mod being a Power Tripping Bastard (PTB)? Because all Iām seeing thatās vaguely related is:
Which just makes it sound like you are talking about yourself being the PTB, which has already been established.
You say that like I ever objected to receiving the grade of PTB. Sharing my perspective was not equal to an objection to the first discussion (which mentions the whole point, that I am a mod of !asklemmy@lemmy.world and that me performing my job led to all this) about me, in fact it would have welcomed the idea to be floated around from a new angle that I either was or was not a PTB. Which makes it weird you say that me being a mod is irrelevant, because me having my first attempt to share my perspective removed by the mods of !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com would have therefore been implicative of the fact it was relevant.