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.”
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.
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.
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.
(Y)DI + this is an unmarked [META] post + no admin action was taken against the account + history of behavior + it looks silly to make a wholeass new thread after getting cratered to oblivion in the original one
Phil’s “mistake”, if we’re insisting there is one, was not approaching the account-hopper with “You post a lot, and most of it is questionable trash. Please don’t shovel shit from this instance anymore if you want to remain.”
Goddamn, Phil, I didn’t know you roasted coffee.
Clear PTB.
Doubly bad because Stamets seems pretty cool from what I’ve seen. This is some bullshit, though.
PTB. AFAIK, RTFM N/A. NGL, NIMBY! YMMV, TTYL.
I often agree with your positions on various things, Phil, at least to the extent that it seems that we’re operating from a similar point of reference. That said, and in light of the nature of the private communications remaining private (as it should), there’s only one conclusion that seems fitting.
PTB.
One instance of anything hardly seems like grounds for a ban. Repeat behavior certainly could justify that action, but in the absence of any pattern it seems like an overreach. There might well be further justification for a ban based on the direct messages; but, as you’re submitting your own action for analysis, the only fair way to evaluate is on the grounds of what we are directly privy to. Anything else has to be viewed as simply your biased interpretation of the private conversation.
In the circumstance you describe the onus on the user is not to be “receptive or apologetic” to you in the private conversation, only to correct their usage of the report system. As presented, it reads as if they were banned because they did not show adequate respect for your authority, which is clear PTBehavior. Further, you attempt to bolster your point by painting Squid, a user who loves to try to win bad-take arguments by referring to their own mod status in other communities (essentially a PTB themselves), as undeserving of ire despite an extensive history of spinning out, losing the thread, and generally being a dick when it happens. Carrying water for someone who comes across as power-trippy does little to shift perception of your own actions away from that mark.
24-hour Time Cube‽
After the exchange I’ve had with spujb in this thread, I’m convinced of their bad-faith intentions for posting it. In that comment chain, I told them that I had not reported the thread for removal, which is still true at the time of this comment. However, let it be noted that the post is in violation of the sidebar rules, specifically
and
No sanction was imposed on spujb, they are fully a third-party to this matter. Their post title and body is deliberately inflammatory towards @[email protected] and ponder.cat as a whole.
Additionally, the post runs afoul of a post guideline:
This post has all the markings of a punitive reaction by sbujb to criticism (both direct and via downvotes) levied against them in another thread on this comm. I am aware that this very comment could read that way as well; my justification is that I attempted to communicate directly with OP, whose response was the equivalent of sticking their fingers into their ears and singing off-key, loudly, while running away.
In the event that I do make a formal report, I will use the preceeding text of this comment, and update the comment to indicate that I’ve done so. Absent that, any action taken on the post will be for reasons that do not involve a report from me.
This community should be a tool against mod/admin authority and abuse, not a weapon to settle a grudge.