11
Summary:
- @Cat@ponder.cat was posting at a high volume to !news@lemmy.world
- there is no written rule on !news@lemmy.world about post volume
- there is no written rule on ponder.cat about post volume
- !news is the one single community Cat was this active in
- !news has no ponder.cat mods
- from my understanding, all rules Cat did break were unrelated to volume (correct me if I am wrong)
- ponder.cat admin @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat reaches out to Cat via comment and then DM essentially threatening account deletion if Cat doesn’t lower their activity level
- Cat understandably deletes their account because who wants that
Of course, PhilipTheBucket had the right to do this, but I also think it’s exceedingly bad form and people have a right to know that this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head like that.
Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here. Communication should be chosen before simple fist waving and threats.
I agree with this comment that this is a bait-provoked reaction. Next time I recommend:
- at the instance/admin level, the creation of instance rules about volume
- at the community level, advocacy for community rules about volume (i.e. “[Meta] Petition: Limit daily submissions to !news to ensure community quality”)
- avoid personal slapfights to get your way
- avoid escalation directly to account termination threats
Source: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587
This is a separate issue entirely. The fact the admin got “ahead of the bullet” by making a PTB post about the reaction to their action doesn’t mean they are magically immune from discussion of the actions that started things, that being slapfights and direct account termination threats.
Nobody is suggesting this "magical immunity" you've referenced. This smacks of shitstirring, which has its place, but in this case looks reactionary. My previous assessment stands.
Spujb is notorious for shit stirring.
Is that what people do once shit posting no longer scratches the itch?
Asking for a friend obviously
Calling this an unmarked meta post reads to me as a call for this post to be removed. I apologize if that is not your goal. But if it is you are wrong. I am literally just here to document admin behavior that I believe could be improved upon.
It's a meta post, you didn't mark it as such. Nothing more, nothing less. If I thought the post should be removed, I would have reported it for removal. The metatude (It's a word now. I invented it. Probably after someone else already did, but they're not here, are they?) of the post is noteworthy, so I noted it. You could have done already, and still can even now.
heard but no. it’s not a meta post as it clearly is about actions that happened before whatever is described in the other post, and outside this community.
you seem confused about what meta means; meta posts are about the community itself.
thank you for your input but if i added the meta tag it would make this post worse, not better.
I'm not confused: you made a post about a post, discussing matters brought up in the post, after getting dumpstered by downvotes in the post you subsequently made a post about. If that's not meta, then it better not have kids with meta or we'll end up with the Habsburgs all over again. You seem to have a blind spot with regards to how that comes across, which is fair.
If you intended to simply be informative, you lost the plot by titling your thread as you did. I'd consider that an honest mistake if you hadn't avoided any mention of the other thread and your involvement in it. It's in bad faith, and it's a bad look.
two separate topics.
tired of this boring conversation. blocked.
The ol' Spubj "sticking my fingers in my ears and running away". Classic.
To anyone who made it this far: "tired of this boring conversation. blocked." in a reply made in the conversation itself almost universally means "I'm tired of you putting a spotlight on my bullshit and I don't know how to handle it."