Comment on Ban for upvotes is real here?
normal_user@hexbear.net 19 hours agoImagine going to communities that sometimes literally have rules like “not being a liberal”, in a lemmy server made specifically for people to discuss a specific type of socio-economic structure, and then being mad when you get banned for not following the rules.
On some of those communities, your opinions are not welcomed, that’s way people get banned.
If the mods were to become softer on bans, every post would have the same infinite discussion about the same thing over and over again. If I wanted to see an endless amount of liberal takes, I would just use one of my backup accounts on other lemmy servers.
Lemmygrad and Hexbear have a different scope, they are mostly for people who don’t want to get on internet fights all the time, and in order to preserve the good vibes, unwanted people get banned. No reason to be surprised about it.
DesolateMood@lemm.ee 16 hours ago
Let’s take a look at one of those posts (since you obviously didn’t)
The comment in question is in response to a post that says “Capitalism is the root of evil” and says
This person’s comment was removed and they were banned from the community, with the only explanation being “Rule 1”
Now the mod who banned this person was Dessalines, who is an admin for .ml, not a mod for the Memes community, so I’m not sure if they are referring to the Meme community’s rule 1 or lemmy.ml rule 1, so let’s take a look at both.
Lemmy.ml Rule 1:
Memes Rule 1:
Is the fog starting to lift yet or are you still going to be intentionally dense about why people don’t like you?
normal_user@hexbear.net 7 hours ago
First of all, rule number 1 on Lemmy.ml is:
Obviously the comment might not fall within the unwanted behaviours directly listed on rule 1 but I have taken a look at the Code of Conduct and I can say that, like every code of conduct, it’s worded in a way so that a whole lot of things could fall under it.
Also looking at the banned comment, let’s keep in mind that it was responding to a meme on the meme community. But the comment is written in a way so that the author makes it clear that their position, their ideas, are superior to that of the poster of the meme.
This first statement is an opinion of the person that commented, but it is phrased like it’s a fact that everyone should know.
If the author of the comment wanted a nice and civil discussion, he should have provided some sources for this statement.
Again, this second phrase is also phrased like a statement. It’s also trying to dismiss the existence itself of democratic centralism and, without understanding how countries that implement it work, the commenter says that those countries are “oppressive” and “run by bad people”.
Did this person provide any sources for their claim ? No, why then is the next phrase in the comment the following:
As you can see from this last line of the comment, the author is trying to bait a debate.
He is saying that if you disagree with the bunch of made up, unsourced, statement the author believes in, you have to explain your reasoning.
This is not a way to engage in a healthy debate, you don’t make a response based on propagandized assumptions, with no source to back them up, and then pass the microphone to the other side.
I personally believe then that the Rule 1 in question might actually be the one from the community itself:
In no way was the author of the comment proposing his world view and trying to engage in discussion in a nice and civil way, especially when he knew that most people in .ml would disagree with them.
You actually did the same thing with your own comment. You are trying to make your position seem superior as you bait me into debate. How ? Well, I’ll keep it short by only talking about the end of your response:
This way of phrasing your request to debate on this, is clearly made in a way so that it insults the opponent, it is supposed to make the person responding look dumb, “dense”, and you as the enlightened, “fogless”, individual with the better opinion.
That’s way I probably am not going to reply again if you respond to this comment, you don’t seem to want a nice discussion on way that person was banned, but are instead trying to bait a debate where you phrase your response so that you don’t actually have to read mine, to actually understand where I’m coming from, because you feel enlightened, while my position is “fogged” and “dense”.