DISCLAIMER: this is not my content that was removed, I just came across it in the modlog and found it to be absurd. If it’s not allowed, I totally understand.
Reason removed was because it’s unrelated.
Unrelated……
The guy was illegally deported without due process. And yet for some reason, suggesting so is somehow “unrelated” to a meme that is trying to say that because he is affiliated (no charges were ever filed against him for gang-related activity) with a gang, he is by default, guilty.
What’s ironic, is that the entire point of the meme is that the bullshit about him being in MS-13 is unrelated to the fact that people want accountability for this administration illegally deporting a man without due process.
This mod has definitely chosen the correct name.
And even taken into consideration that the instance is essentially a troll haven for wayward 4Chan refugees, they should still have to adhere to the rules of common sense.
That’s with a simple text search; I found 503 results and picked those comments out of the first 21 of them. There were quite a lot. Some from pretty high-profile people, it wasn’t all just random idiots. But yes it was an extremely common point of view.
As for the rest of your comments NSRXNs reply seems to have covered it.
You absolutely had a heated conversion in a thread that you heavily moderated. You removed my comments because I refused to debate with you, because you had removed my comments in a prior post for being off topic.
The reason for removal:
Off topic.
And it was after I told you I didn’t want to continue debating with you.
Yet it was YOU that started it.
This is an absolute example of PTB. Either moderate and stay out of it, or participate and let someone else moderate. Doing both is a bad look man.
As a moderator, you shouldn’t be sharing your political bias in a community whose purpose is to illustrate bias and overextended authority amongst moderators.
Someone needs to make a community where this type of this is left to the users.
Fun fact: I didn’t remove your comments, it was db0. You noted those threads had gone off topic, and I agreed with you about it and disengaged. But I hope you got it off your chest.
Fun fact… yours weren’t removed.
Disengage rule
Riiiight. Amazing how convenient it was that when I said I’m not discussing it, you kept on- yet my comments were removed and yours weren’t.
Admit there’s a bias here. It’s no big deal. It’s just easier when everyone knows and there’s no confusion as to who can say what.
Please read this, and respect it in future: Disengage rule
Since you’ve broken the disengage rule I should really take some mod action, but no doubt it would just add to your victim complex, so let me spell it out for you:
The reason you’ve had comments removed for being off topic in the past is because the threads were off topic for the original post subject. The comments db0 removed on this post were also off topic. So let’s put that to bed.
The comments removed for bad jacketing were doing exactly that. You accused someone of being MAGA because they disagreed with you about something. Twice. If you’d bothered to check their post history, it’s clear they are nothing of the sort. It was reported as such and I took the appropriate mod action which was to remove the comments.
Re the accusation of bias, I can’t speak to why db0 decided to leave some of my comments intact when removing the off topic content. You will have to ask him.
I actually agree with you that my comments were also off topic, because they were posted in response to your (and others) existing off-topic comments. I’d be perfectly happy to remove them myself if that’ll satisfy your ego. I don’t really care either way. Sometimes we remove off topic threads when they get too heated, but if they are mostly harmless then there’s not much harm in leaving them alone. It’s a judgment call, we don’t always get it perfect.
Remember this is an anarchist instance full of pirates, leftists and neurodivergent folks. If you want “professional” reddit-style moderation, maybe stay on lemmy world, cause it ain’t coming here. And our users mostly like the way we run the instance, and the fact admins get involved in communities, so your opinion on the matter carries little weight here. If you come visiting, you have to agree to play by our rules and our culture like everyone else. You can also expect your position to be challenged when you make a political comment on our instance that we find objectionable. If you don’t want that to happen, then maybe pick another topic to discuss? Or use the disengage rule.
So, one can essentially say whatever they want, and the. use the disengage rule- and no one can respond to them or risk mod action? I had no clue that was a thing. Appreciate you allowing me a pass on it.
The problem I have here is my previous comments- the one in the other post, where very much ON topic as they lent credibility to the posts claim as a similar action by the same mod happened to me.
Yet it was deemed “off topic.” While in the same post, there were tons of comments that had nothing to do with the post, yet they were allowed.
Coincidentally, they happened to align with your bias. So I hope you’d undershot this for me curios if there was a trend. I saw this happen again here.
So I was simply making this known as a confusion and as a means of checking the content.
That you essentially claim to have anarchist rules of engagement certainly lends to this making more sense as by the nature of anarchy, they’re subject to change on a whim.
I’m understand now how and why this all happened. And there’s no need to beat this horse further.
Thanks.
Wait, let me get this straight. You’re removed about mod abuse in a thread in /c/yepowertrippingbastards
You understand this is an anarchist space. It’s not lemm.ee or lemmy.world.
You’re crying mod abuse in db0. I love it.
So you’re following me around now? I always wanted a pet troll!
Hey everyone, this person got WAY bent out of shape because I dared to post an opinion on PizzaCake. They got insulting and had their shit removed and now- I get to have a pet troll.
How fun!
Oh, and if you didn’t know, YPTB is the best place to call out mods. It’s kind of the point. Unless you’re here to validate the fact that the mods are above the rules of the community. In that case, no, it’s not anarchy-
That’s authoritarian.
You chose to follow me here. Let’s see how this becomes my fault.
Oh, yeah, like I say I very much agree with you about making an argument and then not backing it up being bullshit. I actually would really like if that was an across-the-board rule that drew mod action when people violated it. It’s way too accepted on Lemmy to just spout off whatever’s in your head and then wander away or get offended if someone asks you to back it up. I’m just saying that deciding that rule as a one-off and applying it to a person on the opposite side of an active argument you and NSXRN are in (whether or not your comments were close enough to this person’s comments to be “in that thread” is, to me, not relevant) is pretty authoritarian of you.
Ok I suppose maybe you are right in this case.
Sweet! Yes very occasionally and completely by accident it does happen.
😂
The comment that started this accusation said:
Wasn’t there also the slight issue of many not bothering to vote at all or not willing to vote for the more democratic candidate over Israel or something? So much drama in the states…
which prompted the response:
Yeah all those “gEnOciDe” trolls have mystically vanished since then …
and a furth explanation:
There was a specific crowd pretending only democrats could have responsibility for it and that Trump could not be worse
to which i said:
you’re making that up.
and the rest of the thread has been bickering about whether, in fact, they made that up. the accusation is that, since the election, the people opposed to genocide who wanted to exert electoral pressure, who were also people who were pretending only democrats could have responsibility AND that trump could not be worse, have since disappeared. i know that’s a lot of commas. lets make this a bit clearer:
the accusation is that
there are people who
and that those people
what you provided was evidence that, in fact, those people don’t exist, and to the extent that people who met criteria a-c may have existed (it’s still not clear they held this belief prior to the election), they did not, also fulfill criteria (e).
so despite your aptitude for verbosity and markdown syntax, your comment is, also, not evidence.
edit: i made a few syntactic edits to this, but as i’m now reading it for the 12th time or so, i don’t actually think we have evidence of anyone fulfilling criteria c in addition to a and b.
That’s nice. I was responding to a very particular exchange, different from the one you picked out to look at, which said:
Nobody is making up the crowd that pretended only Democrats could have responsibility for it and that Trump could not be worse. Some of them are still around, (and still! saying the same thing for some fucked-up reason, as per my examples) some are gone. I gave some examples of that crowd.
I don’t really feel like a protracted exchange where you move goalposts around and introduce totally random qualifications like “in order to exert electoral pressure on the Democrats” when in fact the lack of that is a big part of why I object strongly to the whole operation. Where, something like the “uncommitted” movement is at least organized in a fashion where it seems like it could produce an improvement, by putting pressure on the Democrats, so that sounds fine. Just not voting for Democrats and hoping they’ll figure it out and move to the left seems pretty much guaranteed to give us something along the lines of the catastrophe that happened. Which is why I am opposed to it.
Anyway feel free to tell the people in Gaza or immigrants in the US or any international student or Ukrainian or and so on about your theory and how pleased you are, now that it’s succeeded, and aren’t they proud of you.
this accusation of bad faith is itself bad faith
you’re putting word in my mouth.
I never said you had said you were pleased about it. I said you should be pleased about it, now that it’s had the absolutely 100% predictable result, and you should be proud to tell all the people scared or suffering because of it how this was an impact of your master plan to improve the Democrats, and how well it’s working, and how important it was for you so you could accomplish your goals.
it’s also met my theory, or anyone else’s. it’s a charicature made up by democrat party apologists. it’s a strawman.
What was your theory for how refusing to support the Democrats was going to produce an improvement in the world, then? Tell me.
I can’t speak for others. I was hoping their candidate would back off of supporting Israel and their sitting president would follow suit. it didn’t happen so I don’t know why you’d think I or anyone else would be pleased, or think it worked, or that that Democrats aren’t responsible for their own failures
Super realistic. Absolute master stroke. And look how well it worked. I apologize for ever have criticized you or your strategy.
yes they are, and if that weren’t the case you would have been able to show it