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.
There was no āunspoken ruleā involved here. Itās literally the first community rule in the sidebar. If youāre just gonna make stuff up about being the victim of āunspoken rulesā then this discussion might as well end here tbh. Iāll note that nobody else has misunderstood that rule.
If you didnāt feel willing or able to adequately express your position in the comments on the original post then thatās a shame, but themās the breaks. Being a mod is a tough gig. Youāve now had the chance to have your say across multiple communities. And the offer is still open to pin your response blog entry to the original post.
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.
Unless there is something lost in translation, itās deceptive to say Iām making anything up.
Whether or not nobody else has misunderstood it doesnāt mean itās not capable of being misunderstood if there are parts of it that are more implied than written.
As for taking up a position in the replies of that thread, I was going by two peoplesā advice that did not rule out another thread. Take it up with them. If you truly still want me to go to that thread and state my position there, I will, once again, comply, wondering if Iām going to end up proving myself right and/or for this to be just another disdained step in this roundabout game you and the other mod have going.
That seems to me like a wilful misinterpretation. And we have clarified what it means to you multiple times now, if you were somehow unable to get the gist of it from reading other posts in the community. I think thereās plenty of context here now for people to make an assessment of whether db0 was power tripping in removing your post, so Iāll leave it at that.
@shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee has poor writing and reading comprehension. I am not sure why he is trying to mod.
I have never had this much hard time understanding somebody on fedi esp after they had opportunity to clarify their position. I canāt tell if OP is doing this on purpose as this is an effective dilatory tactic.
I think we figured it out in the end.
English is not my familyās first language, and I am, in a way, neurodivergent. Nevertheless, I communicate with the full rules of English in mind. No typos, no grammatical mistakes, nothing which would be jibberish. The sentences are long, so what? They still work. I have made them as simple as possible while acknowledging the complexity of the situation. I provide citations/links to split the load on what would otherwise be more burden for listeners. I have seen people before communicate as I do, and I understand them. I have seen a lot of people understand me as well. What you see is the best that it could possibly be given the circumstances, and even then, it shouldnāt be too hard to understand, as long as it can all be gathered, using the proper reading rules (just as there are rules on what makes a valid message, there are rules on how to internalize it). And yet none of this has a bearing on moderation worthiness.
Of note, there is also a bit of skepticism that comes into play, because I have seen many people claim to not understand something because it means they donāt have to address that something someone says demonstrates they were wrong about something. I give the benefit of the doubt, but that doesnāt mean Iām not raising an eyebrow at the idea that, even when I ask āwhat donāt you understandā, nobody answers except with thumbs down. My mindset is negotiation and literalism, and for some reason, everyone elseās is to appeal to norms and psychology.
As I said, consider what Blaze said too. And I did as you asked.