So, I saw a report from one of my users. They reported:

https://ponder.cat/post/1594852/1813842

For the reason:

Unreasonable fighting with everyone in every simple post

I think that’s ridiculous, so I talked with them about it. Posting private communications is frowned upon I guess, but long story short, they weren’t receptive. I’ve decided to ban the account.

IMO the general culture on Lemmy is that users are entitled to their free account and everyone needs to be careful and circumspect about limiting that entitlement in any way, but I don’t see it that way. I don’t think it’s a requirement for me to provide hosting space for anyone who wants to use my stuff as a jumping-off point for abuse of Lemmy’s systems, and isn’t apologetic or receptive when I talk with them about not doing that. The fact that it’s in service of harassing FlyingSquid in particular is just icing on the cake, since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all (with this as an example).

AITA?

  • mindbleach
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Three-day bans are like spritzing a cat in the face. It’s corrective.

    Permabans should be reserved for diet Nazi shit. Truly beyond-the-pale, never-gonna-get-better assholerey.

    … did you permanently ban someone for asking to have rules enforced, instead of starting shit verbally? Because if so, what the fuck.

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Quoting myself from elsewhere:

      Some people have been telling me that, if it was repeated reports, that would be one thing, and the fact that it was a single report means I overreacted. That’s fair, I guess, but my argument is that there are repeated reports of this type, and there’s no particular guarantee that any account that pops into existence and then instantly starts filing more of them isn’t part of it. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt by talking to the person, and they rejected my attempt, so by default they fall into part of that pattern. Whether or not it is justified to put them there (since it’s impossible to tell one way or another). I don’t think that on a network that’s inherently anonymous, we need to extend indefinite courtesy to every new account that “they must be new, they get extra leeway until it’s ironclad that they’re causing problems on purpose and not going to stop.”

      “Reports of this type” being, reports about comments that we both acknowledge are totally innocuous, because of who it is that posted them.

      I feel comfortable defining “doubling down on their right to report anything one particular user ever posts, wasting everyone’s moderation time and harassing the user in question” as “never-gonna-get-better assholery.” It’s not beyond the pale, but I also don’t feel obligated to put up with it. IDK where people got the idea that any random person who makes a new account deserves abundant good faith and due process even while doing their best to demonstrate they don’t deserve it.

      • mindbleach
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If this person wasn’t creating new sockpuppets before, they will now. You’ve taught them any misstep can have permanent consequences - and not done any favors for how they interact with mods or admins.

        Nobody’s talking about infinite second chances. You did a one-strike permaban for ‘hey please look at this’ followed by ‘why wouldn’t I report things?’ Make it a week. Make it a month. Give them any reason not to dump the brand-new account you just diminished.

        If this is a random person with a new account, they don’t know who the fuck Flying Squid is. Inferring conspiracy is obviously not a firm enough basis for instant permanent consequence. Slap them when you might not, or slap them harder than you would, on that suspicion. But it is only suspicion. Certainly you can’t talk about this individual having a pattern of harassment, because one action is not a pattern.

        • Universal Monk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          If this person wasn’t creating new sockpuppets before, they will now.

          Exactly.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          If this is a random person with a new account, they don’t know who the fuck Flying Squid is.

          They claimed that FlyingSquid was a known user to them that is always getting in fights with everyone, and so it makes perfect sense to just report any comment by him, even if the comment is totally harmless, because he’s always getting in fights with everyone and so every comment needs to be reported.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            And that’s a fatal flaw, which can’t be corrected, right?

            Yeah PTB, why use a water spray to train a cat when you could use a pistol