74 year ban in a community I never posted or commented in
Context: PugJesus often spams low quality posts across the dozen or so communities they mod, apparently downvoting low effort spam on my frontpage is trolling. The only other action in the modlog is a different ban for 74 years for "Mass downvoting innocuous content," so it definitely seems they are just banning people that dislike their spam. Glad we're not missing out on the reddit mod experience here.
185
Comments196
This is why piefed implemented an anonymous voting option, so power tripping mods can't ban you for down voting their posts.
Wasn't that option removed eventually due to it breaking social aspects of federation?
Yes, instead it was replaced with an option to have votes federate or not.
Yes, and some of us mods had automated banning proxy voting a little before the feature retirement
One could always curate their own feed instead.
I do, but I also like going on all to see what is out there. Unfortunately it can get buried when the same person is spamming a dozen submissions in a couple hours.
Just block him?
It's a pretty bad idea to down vote everything the mod of a community posts, even if it deserves it
I think if you’re downvoting posts just because you feel the person sharing them is spamming, especially in a community you don’t contribute to, you should just block the person instead of putting a metaphorical thumb on the scale in community you don’t care about.
I don’t see any specific rules for the grimdank community, but piefed.social does have this instance rule:
I could see a case for arguing it’s vote manipulation, although I feel that’s kind of a reach. I just find it weird to get annoyed that someone is posting too much in a shitpost meme sub. Browsing the All feed and getting annoyed with that feels akin to going to a club and being annoyed there’s loud music. Just block the poster bothering you and move on.
It's not forbidden, but also don't act surprised when whoever you're downvoting excludes you from their community, which shouldn't be a big loss to begin with.
Are you not familiar with pug?
I am, I’ve never run into any issues with them personally.
Well I find that hard to believe, but that's not quite what I asked. I said are you familiar with them. More specifically how they post. Because you must know they post like 150 posts a day. Spamming simultaniously all across multiple communities usually very low effort brain rot quality posts. It is extremely easy to end up down voting a lot of their posts. In fact if you have any Integrity you probably are going to end up down voting a lot of their stuff.
Now I certainly agree that blocking them is the easier, and far more intelligent, option. However if you don't pay attention to who's posting things it's very easy not to realize you're down voting the same person over and over. And I don't think most people do. Unless they have that user tagged or something.
Then block the user.
Blocking pugjeasus is the best move anyone on lemmy can do
Edit to add: He posts almost exclusively to the communities he mods.
I just told them to go away and no speak to me. They have so far and they haven't banned me from anything yet.
He doesn’t ban people who share his politics https://lemmy.world/modlog?userId=640406
Care to elaborate on what I can only assume is some passive aggressive insult?
You share the same political beliefs as PJ and he actively seeks an echo chamber. Why would he ban someone likely to agree with him or upvote his content? Even if you don't directly engage with him you might comment favorably on someone else's posts even and he can get his fix. Almost all of his energy is driven to political content is why this matters.
That's not an insult to you, at least not from me.
What political beliefs are those exactly? Be specific not vague and repetitive.
Sounds like an insult to me but I also didn't ask you and you also didn't get exact either nor how you've developed a understanding of my political beliefs from the modlog of all places.
That user was one of the first that I blocked. Blocking users has made a greater positive impact on my feeds than blocking communities.
The first user I remember blocking was the Lemmit bot that just reposted everything from Reddit, I think including comments.
Oh god, that was also one of the first users i blocked alongside a few other bots and pugjesus
I'm gonna be blocking someone, but it ain't gonna be PugJesus.
I didn’t know I had at least 23 accounts 🤔
oh i assumed this meant you were born in '23. congrats on making it to 102 btw
Ugh, Pugjesus, no surprises here
Why is all the drama always about one guy. I think this is at least the third "front page" post I have seen involving drama with this guy in just a few months.
Can't we just implement some reasonable go touch grass cooldown period. No modding or posting from that account or IPs associated with his account for 90 days.
If its a problem as soon as he's back then 180 days next time.
What's your experience with them?
They post a lot of content in some historical artifact community, and they seem very cordial and nice there. Might even be Swedish, but not sure about that.
You're not surprised about what exactly, out of curiosity?
To me? Nothing. However I have seen many people post getting bans from them for super petty reasons, like downvoting a post.I have also seen this person be a point of contention a few times in some more shitposty places. So I just tend to avoid commenting on anything they post.
Never would've guessed they had an ego this fragile. Disappointing.
I like the historical artifacts posts AND I've seen PG be a dick. I try to encourage the good in him through positive reinforcement.
Unfortunately, my experience with social media has been that a lot of the most visible posters often are touchy, and can be a little domineering where they can. I look at his history posts, like the art ones, etc. However, unless I specifically have something to say that fully within the confines of the subject, and not negative, I will not post. In other spaces I block them. This isn't necessarily PJ I am talking about either, this is a broader thing with these platforms. It is what it is I guess.
Sounds like an unfortunate phenomenon. People who post a lot on social media, especially online communities, might have limited social lives compared to people who don't post a lot. And thus they might... define themselves a little bit, by the success of their posts? Perhaps? That's what I'm thinking. And so they become very defensive and protective of their online presence and it's a fragile thing for them if it's a large part of who they are.
I post a fair bit compared to the average user, but that's only because I recently moved away so my social life is absolute shit right now.
I've interacted with quite a few of the top posters here, most have been pretty chill if not genuinely motivated to build communities, at least in my experience. But, I agree that spending too much time on social media can be unhealthy. I had a near breakdown and had to cut myself off years ago when I was a monster of a teenage moderator, so I try not to judge too harshly and stay aware of my mood on here.
Aside from what has already been said a lot of that history is stuff on the caliber of "Rome invented roads!".
The communities I'm subscribed to have a lot of interesting things, like the historical artifacts one. But it is often just pictures... You have to ask for more info, but it's usually provided after that.
But I can imagine what you're saying as well. 😅
There are definitely treasure troves of interesting things in wikipedia. Asking for more info or context though often risks this kinda thread, unfortunately.
He's banned me from all his communities. Power tripper and disingenuous in how he engages
Another squid!
PugJesus has always rubbed me the wrong way. He always inserted whataboutisms in rambling ways which put the onus on you to figure out his esoteric points. Then you try to answer what you think he's trying to convey, and he just roasts you on that instead.
Very bad faith mod/Lemming that should be avoided should you care for your mental health
PTB/CLM.
I think that "Mass downvoting" is a valid reason for a community ban, but I would expect a temp ban if it is not a repeating behavior.
But it isn't trolling by itself. That bad qualified ban could have a bad impact in others mods or admins evaluating the OP behavior.
May be in the future, communities should choose who can vote (subscribed, instance members or any user) and then only been show in the corresponding feeds. But I suspect that most of the mods that ban downvoters don't want that they community posts don't be shown in the All feed.
How do you see your ban reasoning?
In the modlog. Here is yours.
Heh, I stand by my words.
It seems lately they've at least stopped making a thing about throwing shitfits in communities they don't control and moderate.So as far as I am concerned: it's their mind palace. I wouldn't take their mod actions seriously or personally.Nevermind they must've seen this thread and my Local feed is now filling with MeanwhileOnGrad posts about users in this thread.
Just block PJ. They're a turbolib troll. You'll feel better not seeing the junk they crank out.
Meanwhile PugJesus is banned from db0 due to stalking and mass downvoting my account, and said the admins were abusing authority for banning him while he confessed doing it with joy.
What a joke of a person he is. At least he's started to into his own echo chamber instead of trying to convert spaces into his own. I remember when he would mass report people disagreeing with him, while giving citations that said he was wrong. The mods told him to stop reporting people who weren't breaking any rules, and he told them to do it anyways.
Needless to say, PTB.
I saw four such reports from him today. Two were ostensibly over someone being inadequately suspicious of a North Korean working for Amazon. The other two were ostensibly over people making political comments in an explicitly political post.
He also immediately screenshot the comment you're replying to after the thread was 2 days old. He's obsessed with people talking about his actions and thinks they're worse than the fascists in office he does nothing about.
There is an option in your settings so you don't see upvotes or downvotes.
None of these imaginary points matter. I couldn't imagine spending my time wringing my hands over how others vote. Or wasting my life looking up every comment and post, agonizing over who voted and how.
But its your life though, go nuts nutzos. Consider defederating if your skin is this paper thin.
(Lemmy is rad)
I am not speaking for the user who OP referred to here, but it's not about visibility but about the impact of downvotes in terms of trying to grow and maintain a community.
If someone who doesn't like metal music enters ![email protected] and downvotes every post there - and commits themselves to doing it to every new post, this hurts their visibility across the Fediverse. Would you not say its reasonable, in this specific hypothetical, for the community owner to ban a user who does that?
Yep, it's not about being offended by downvotes. It's about stopping users from drowning all the content in a community because it didn't spark joy for them.
If we couldn't ban for that, it would give folks free license to brigade. The women and trans communities would be sunk. There would stupid pissing contests between the Fuck AI and Pro AI people, and I hate them both. It's good they can just cut the fuse by banning each other so they can stay cozy in their homes. Everyone should get to be cozy and happy in their houses, where angry letters are to be expected, but hurling rocks at the windows is discouraged.
See, that's not what is happening, I'm not against the concept of the community, I think they are poor quality submissions for that community.
I'm not speaking for whatever you did. Just generally, there can be legitimate reasons for community owners to ban specific downvoters.
Sad almost exactly y this a few weeks ago. I post pictures of my cat and that's about it. I really don't understand people taking these numbers seriously.
Shame on the mods in this thread saying you deserved it, these disgusting hypocrites deserve to be banned themselves per their own reason. Never fret downvoting it is perfectly normal if someone has attached their self value onto upvotes it is not your responsibility to satisfy them. Upvote what you want, downvote what you want. Truly shame on anyone who thinks mods should be behaving this way.
It's context-driven. Small communities trying to build can get visibility hammered by random downvotes. Downvote trolls can be a problem for small communities trying to build up as they can successfully bury threads. I managed to discover the serial downvoters on my old television lemm.ee community and when I banned them (about 5 of them?) it had a huge impact. They didn’t all downvote /everything/ but they downvoted a lot of things, and they had no contribution to their names. Some of the accounts in question literally had no posting history. These accounts just existed to downvote.
Now, I wouldn’t just ban random accounts for occasional downvotes spread out over a time period - but if I kept seeing the same names on threads (and they never actually engaged with the community) with no discernable pattern of downvoting - that's a different story.
Now, did abbotsbury's behaviour justify that? I have no idea. I'm speaking generally.
And i'll tell you HHHHwhat, power tripping mods have significantly more negative effect on any community than any downvotes.
Does the situation I refer to above sound like power-tripping to you?
Yes. Take some responsibility, have some humility and harden the fuck up don't put yourself in a position of power if you are going to use that power when your feelings get hurt.
Has nothing to do with sensitivity. Just simply not wanting new posts to be buried because of random repeat downvoters who clearly have no interest in the community. My community is now long-past this, but it wasn't always.
Well heres progress. They are "repeat downvoters" and not (((trolls))) now?
I never called anyone a troll.
So what exactly makes them trolls? You can't just call someone doing their own thing a troll, that's nazi tier wrong. So are they doing it on purpose or are they trying to curate their own feeds by upvoting and downvoting content they see accordingly?
I didn't use the term "troll" - just that mass-downvoting of content in a community that you don't engage in is harmful to that communities health and stunts its ability to grow if its sustained.
Whether or not they're doing it to curate their feeds or not is irrelevant, the point is that it is unwelcome bulk downvoting that only harms the community. If they have no interest in it, and are never going to post in the first place, why would it matter if they're banned?
Buddy listen to yourself "why would it matter if they're banned?" and yes you did use the term (((troll))) as a way to justify your actions against individuals you disagree with. You shouldn't be expressing your opinions through moderation it's always going to be wrong.
You realise I'm not the person the OP is referring to, right? I'm just saying that mass-downvoting all posts in a community can be harmful to that community and thus sometimes is reasonable for the community owner to ban the person doing it if they have no other contribution and clearly just outright dislike the community.
Okay mass downvoting is bad - is mass downvoting something an individual expressing their opinions can do inadvertently or is it a malicious action by a malicious individual? Again you are trying to paint someone with a different opinion than you as deserving of mod actions.
Whether or not it is malicious or not isn't relevant really. The effect is still the same.
I mean, speaking broadly - that goes for all actions. If people abuse others or harass others or throw out slurs then I also regard that as "deserving mod action".
All I'm saying - and being outright open about it - that if someone mass downvotes the majority of posts they see coming from a specific community on the feed, that it's a perfectly legitimate reason for the community moderator to ban them for that.
YDI. My take is that, in general, if you tend to downvote certain communities a whole bunch then it shouldn't be surprising to you if you get banned from them. And I'm saying that as someone who has very little sympathy for PJ.
I need to see the posts in question to really give a judgement here.
Question, how come you don't just block them or the community or something, if you don't care to see their content?
If they saw someone consistently downvoting their posts, that's a decent reason to ban a user.
I don't know how many posts you downvoted, but I can't imagine why they needed to pay that much attention to it since their communities are established — unless you were downvoting new content before it had a chance to be seen. When the first vote is down it's much less likely to gain momentum.
I banned a couple users in the early days of my communities for downvoting posts back to back, every day. I figured if they didn't like anything I posted anyway but kept looking at it, I'd help them out with a red flag.
So I donno, maybe you deserved it, or maybe they pay too much attention to votes and over-reacted. Probably better to block them if you don't like their stuff.
edit: Werds n grammar
Yeah, an early downvote after 2 minutes can be fatal to a new post.
A downvote that comes in 4 hours after it was established after a dozen or so upvotes? Doesn't matter.
Often it's as much the timing of these votes by repeat downvote enjoyers as compared to the bulk.
https://lemvotes.org/user/[email protected]
IDK why you find the history memes stuff to be "low quality spam," it is one among the unique things about Lemmy that actually make me like it. It is the number one community on piefed.social for example. But definitely the accusation of mass downvoting seems to be pretty accurate. Do you do anything other than mass downvote popular content that you personally don't like?
(I actually agree that in general people shouldn't ban for this type of downvoting in most cases, that part I agree with you on. But this kind of absolute freakout and energy investment on your part about the history memes and artifact posts and etc, I think has a lot more to do with what's going on with you, than it does anything about the content itself. Why are you so mad about it?)
Going down my front page and down voting half of the posts because I think they're low-effort trash is not "mass downvoting." It's very literally engaging with the system exactly as it was designed and intended.
You know what is also using the system exactly as designed? Blocking the user or comm posting the content you don't like.
I don't like League of Legends. I'm not going to waste my time downvoting every post about it in the All feed. I'm going to block the LoL comm(s), and anyone who is only posting LoL news to the general gaming comms.
When it gets to the point where you're downvoting anywhere close to half of a community or user's posts, it's past time to just block them. You aren't personally responsible for curating the entire fucking fediverse, you're responsible for your own feed.
I find it hilarious that OP does not respond to logical arguments like this. Only facts supporting their existing viewpoint are presented, everything else is ignored.
Which is easy enough to deal with for just one account (block them), but since this seems a trend across many users, becomes a major problem that severely hinders if not outright halts any growth of the entire concept of the Threadiverse. 😭
I have the sneaking suspicion this is a lot of hay from people that don’t like Pug’s politics. This thread is pretty dumb even by internet drama standards.
Yeah it feels like a solution looking for a problem - being down on him and trying to find any excuse to do so. What's so funny is that I'm sure there are actual good reasons to do so (at least, if someone were targeting myself I know they could find good material to use - literally nobody is perfect:-), but this one seems just so genuinely dumb.
Which feels so very much like Reddit. Dayum, I had forgotten what it was like.
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. I had a nice hearty laugh at one of the ml admins criticizing pug for cultivating ideological bubbles, so it hasn’t been a total waste of time. I guess it takes one to know one?
That one seemed to me to miss the point entirely - like even if PJ was a PTB, overall (I have no idea), that's not what seems to be happening here, which is supposed to be the point of this post.
Which of course was presented without any evidence supporting OP's claim, and where they ironically provided a bunch of evidence to the contrary instead (e.g. admitting to mass-downvoting).
Freedom means that your rights end where someone else's begins, subject to the natural laws of the universe.
Except ofc to authoritarians who want what they want and also for no-one else to have the same, and where truth vs. falsehood depends on who said something rather than reality. "Freedom", along with every other word, means whatever they want it to mean in that moment of time, as a tool to achieve their objective.
On your frontpage, sure.
On "All", not so much. Other people need to be free to enjoy things even if you personally do not like them.
Banning people from communities who abuse the features of Lemmy is also a core feature of the platform, as intended, to help avoid the excesses that could otherwise happen.
The literal job of a mod is to curb excesses in favor of protecting the community, to keep it alive and welcoming to post content to.
One of the (MANY) reasons that I left Reddit was due to it not stopping the bot large-scale downvoting sprees that happened in smaller communities as they would get brigaded by larger communities. When you scroll down and see that EVERY single comment to a post, or every single post in a community, has 1-2 downvotes (and then a hard cutoff like when presumably it last ran), it was pretty clear to see what was going on. It made it feel less than friendly to post when brigaders just wanted to emotionally vomit upon everyone.:-(
Everyone here has the freedom to interact with a post... until a mod/admin curbs that freedom, for the sake of the larger community.
That happens in small unpopular communities here. I don't imagine you could run a pro Tesla community, for example
The meat eating community I'm part of attracts more down votes than it has members on almost everything
Ed. I just checked my community and it looks like either the bans are working, or lemmings have learnt to block communities they don't like
But if someone did try to run a Pro-Tesla community (whether limiting it to pre-2025 purchases or not), then I could well understand them banning every single user who did absolutely nothing whatsoever other than downvote. Brigading is against the TOS of many Lemmy instances iirc. As well as many communities too - e.g. it's #4 in this one.
And you could debate the morality of a Pro-Tesla community, but apparently this OP is talking about merely historical memes, at which point abusing the posters to that community (or possibly only PugJesus himself, that point was never clarified since zero actual evidence was presented beyond the admission that OP did in fact take part in personally brigading against many posts in that community).
Real "rebel without a cause" vibes here - someone downvoting purely to be a dick about it, so much so that they don't even realize that that is what they are doing, and all the more so continuing to double down despite most everyone telling them that fact.
(I personally would simply block any Pro-Tesla community and move on with my life)
Unpopular stuff gets voted to oblivion just with random drive-bys. It looks like brigading but doesn't need to be organised
OP admitted it was organized, as in targeted - that's the entire point of this post.
Random is fine, but when it becomes organized... well, that's when mods intervene to put a stop to it (or at least if they do, nobody questions that - except OP, apparently).
Sure. But why are you so angry about historical artifacts lol
It's like "here's a cool spear from the 13th century" "LOW EFFORT TRASH FUCK THIS ARJHGSEFJHSDGBFKJSDHFBGDSK NO I DON'T WANT TO UNSUBSCRIBE I WANT HIM TO SUFFER"
You clearly put a LOT more emphasis on a downvote than literally anyone else, if that's your thought process. It's one click.
I'm referring to all the sturm and drang in this community, and getting upset about simply seeing this type of content but refusing to unsubscribe to curate your own feed.
If it was just downvotes, I wouldn't be aware of it and we wouldn't be talking right now.
Hey its the guy people were accusing of being Pugs alt. Funny seeing you here.
Phillip somehow always defends Pug. He's done it before when Pug was proven to be doing shit. He's doing it again.
What's funny is Pug stalked my account and downvoted me and said that I was weird for finding it bad faith. But here he is banning someone for it.
I know he doesn't have ability to reflect but it's still wild.
OP has also gotten involved in the biggest controversy that exists on the Threadiverse, denying that tankies exist or are a problem (https://lemmy.world/post/37627013). I can't help but feel that these issues are somehow connected.
TBF, OP didn’t deny that “tankies” exist, and whether they’re a “problem” is a matter of opinion. For anti-communists, their existence is a problem.
Yeah. I suspect that there are people who make a habit of targeting particular "anti-tankie" or anti-troll users who are in a role of authority, and bullying them consistently to try to drive them away or at least ruin their reputation (with accusing them of being transphobic Zionists being for some reason the absolutely consistent go-to accusation). I think PugJesus is just the latest target.
It's a little hard to say, because banning someone for downvotes actually is kind of bullshit, but I suspect that the personal innuendos about PugJesus in this thread and their popularity in the voting mean that the overall bullying effort is working pretty well.
Sure, those people probably exist, but also "anti-tankie" is an extremely common position so you'd expect there to be more "victims" if that is what they are being targeted for. It's far more likely that PJ is instead just an insufferable person who makes bad posts and comments, and therefore there are many people that don't like them. PJ hasn't even been accused of transphobia or zionism in this thread, so I think your theory is pretty widely off mark.
Or, perhaps, they are just not liked for reasons other than politics.
If you don't post or comment in a community, why are you subscribed to it?
Do you know how many are lurkers on any given site? 90%
Much much much higher than that.
Probably. It's just a rule of thumb. . Say 10% of people using the
siteplatform have an account and 10% of them post/comment.So more like 99% lurk.
On corporate social media sites, lurkers still provide (ad) revenue, but on Lemmy they are leeches. They use our community’s resources while contributing nothing.
Hard disagree. And that kind of talk will not lead to this place flourishing.
What does a flourishment of non-participants get us but increased hosting costs?
What if Wikipedia had that attitude?
I'm not, I was viewing all. Sorry, "my frontpage" is probably misleading, I meant the all page on my device.
Oh. Well, if you don't want to see all, don't go looking at all and then get upset when you see all.
That's pretty ridiculous, obviously one can want to see an uncurated list while still judging the value of individual items, that's not mutually exclusive.
Sure, you can totally do that... and also a mod can totally ban someone who mass-downvotes all the posts in a community (rather than simply block it or the submitters). Actually the ball is entirely in your court there to decide what you want to do.
You may accept that you are going to be banned from communities that it seems you have no interest in seeing anyway, or you can start blocking them so that they do not show up in your All feed.
"Block early, block often" is practically the motto of Lemmy.
bc OP indicated that, saying "my frontpage" (emphasis added).
You missed the point. The word "My" implies the Subscribed feed, rather than "All". At least that is the most straightforward interpretation, which explains why the person you responded to thought that.
No, back when I used Lemmy I mostly used All. But then I did not call that "my" frontpage, unless I switched to Subscribed. Perhaps there is a language issue here, but the personal form of "my" implies a customization aspect, not the same shared set of posts that everyone sees across all of Lemmy (unless they block content, which OP seems not to).
Or at least it could imply that, which explains why the person you responded to might have thought that. There is a logical basis for doing so, I am saying.
Dude what is wrong with you? Debate pervert bullshit.
YDI. If you don't like a community block it; don't ruin it for everyone else by mass downvoting (which suppresses content to the detriment of the community). It'd be a different story if you were active in c/Grimdark, but you're clearly not.
I find it highly ironic that there are 3-4 comments questioning to the effect that "If you don’t post or comment in a community, why are you subscribed to it?", and all are highly downvoted.
I wonder what I'm missing. Groupthink possibly?
When did drive-by Karening become acceptable behavior on the Threadiverse?
...when it was developed with a front page that shows you communities you're not subscribed to? It's literally a core feature of the platform.
I do think this is how it was designed, otherwise a subscription to the community (or even activity) would be required for you to vote. This would go for up & down votes.
And it would clearly mean a lower engagement overall.
And if the upvotes don't disrupt the community then neither should the downvotes suppress then - that's a matter of algorithms for active/hot/etc.
Yes, I myself, & I suspect the majority, either upvote or don't vote on random posts in all, but downvoting something by your human self from one account (only) can't/shouldn't be that disruptive - and if more ppl do it, than that is just the message from the verse (a smol one tho, I suspect there aren't many such users).
But if some admins and/or mods want to microcurate their communities like homogeny is the main goal, then I guess the path of inclusiveness is out the window (I assume a downvote isn't like a fascists/bigoted rhetoric threatening inclusiveness itself tho).
Also I strongly believe we should include ppl who just vote & don't comment or post (not all can/are capable to engage further that a vote).
Downvotes do literally 'disrupt' a community though by reducing a community posts visibility. Sometimes that's legitimate in the sense that the post is in itself, based on the purpose of the community, ill-thought out, ill-devised, off-topic etc. Other times it's just based on the other users dislike of the community to the point where they downvote anything from that community they see. And we then are where we are. This thread.
Now OP claims that they just downvoted based on their perception of the quality, not based on the community itself - and maybe that's true, but from a moderators perspective, if you're downvoting most posts on their community and offering no context, they're just going to assume active community vandalism.
Yeah, I'm not saying it doesn't hurt the visibility, just that it's the same (but ofc opposite) with upvotes.
With that in mind folk could go aground banning folk that commit mass "commented but not voted in/on a post". Or (if the data was shared) "seen but not upvoted" bcs lower upvotes can really hurt a community.
Like, as a guideline (as described above), what should be the exact difference between not voting and downvoting to actively participate in fediverse?
I don't downvote posts that often (especially if a post is both low effort & not funny, which OP mentions, that just translates to me as a no-vote).
(And a step further I also posed the question if algorithms for visibly should be changed. Especially since "mass downvoting" isn't a common problem bcs of that, even if legitimate, it shouldn't noticeably affect a community. Basically all posts get at least a few downvotes, why not microadjust the instance's algorithm for active to account for that?)
Obviously banning people who don't vote at all, if you could see that data would be absurd because most people won't be upvoting or downvoting a given post.
All of this is context-based. I can only tell you my experience, when I was growing ![email protected] before lemm.ee shut down, the community collected about 5 frequent downvoters. None of these accounts ever upvoted. They never participated by posting or commenting. In a few cases, two of the accounts had no posting history on the fediverse at all. They existed purely to downvote. Whether because they didn't like television as a topic, or hated news articles being posted - I don't know. But they would, between them, always downvote posts and sometimes do so early - deprecating their visibility.
I think it's reasonable for a community moderator to decide that these accounts are unwelcome and ban them.
Rip lemm.ee, I really liked it there.
I think that in such cases, a few downvotes, the visibility should not be affected (like it is) bcs that's still engagement & it's to early to tell by the votes if it's a good or a bad post - so more of a systemic problem than user problem (unless that was very targeted, then bannaning them is good too).
It's probably because most people only read and vote.
We have caught up to become a mini-Reddit! Yay...
lemmy is literally reddit but federated. if you want an explicitly non-reddit experience, go micro-blog or something.
as long as you’re using reddit-likes, you’re gonna have an at least vaguely reddit-like experience.
Def groupthink and PugJesus haters
okey pj groupthink lover https://lemmy.world/modlog?userId=9590648
I don't know much about PugJesus (I guess I'm not involved in those communities) but there does seem a tribal mindset going on, as evidenced by lack of logical argumention being presented and rather merely a slew of downvotes and comments that miss (intentionally or otherwise) the most salient points. At least it seems that way to me.
That's unfortunately how it is on the internet. I thought it'd be better when I left Reddit for Lemmy but something's just don't change
YDI, it looks to me.
If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one - but why stand in the way of someone else who wants one? Or in this case, why not let those people in that community have their fun, without you continually raining on their parade?
Your "contributions" to mass downvote every post in that community (as you seem to freely admit doing?) were apparently unwelcomed, so the mod went to all that effort to detect you and act to defend the people that you abused. The Threadiverse needs MOAR content, not less, and they acted to make their environment welcoming to posters, at the expense of trolls who wish that they would simply cease to exist... yet don't bother to block the community themselves. If not troll, then why behave like troll? Well, now you know.
Also, you lied. You were corrected that "my frontpage" (emphasis my own) is NOT the same thing as the "All" feed. Yet that wording remains in your post for new people to continue to be swayed to your side of the issue, until they realize your misinformation. Well, now you know. (Edit: you also seemed to attempt a deliberate spread of misinformation by stating how you did not post or comment, while ignoring your mass contributions across many existing posts by other people.) (Such an act might get you banned from THIS community too, btw, especially if there are multiple infractions. Well, now you know.)
Rules exist for everybody, not only ever in your favor. Learn these and you will enjoy your experience much moar better-er-est. You truly do have the power to make yourself happier, rather than merely complain about not getting your way. Well, now you know 🥴.
No, I downvoted the 5-12 posts that were placed in front of me because they were submitted within hours of each other and therefore were shown sequentially.
Disagree, it needs better content, not more. You can upvote every post if you want, no one else is obliged to.
Voting on content is not trolling, it is a base mechanic of the platform. Are you trolling? You sure seem to be behaving like it
Yes, I addressed that, and that's not lying either way.
Voting is not posting or commenting.
Seems like you think any opinion you don't like is a lie or a troll, trolling confirmed. Now you know 🥴
FWIW, You've downvoted 432 posts from PugJesus so far (as seen from SJW anyway, there's probably more that never made it here).
I don't particularly care either way, but at some point, might wanna do yourself a favor and just block them altogether.
Either way, there shouldn't be much surprise at being removed from his shit (to you) communities.
I don't like sports content. Therefore I blocked all sports communities.
I don't live in the UK, or in Australia, or Canada, etc. Therefore I blocked all communities for individual specific places within those countries - London, Ontario, etc.
The difference is - and remember you asked us, we didn't just start DMing you out of nowhere - that I do not begrudge the very existence of those communities. If someone ELSE wants to discuss sports, then I believe that they should be free to do so. If someone ELSE lives in London, then same.
Maybe I misunderstood and you were trying to state that the content that you downvoted was not merely irrelevant to you personally, but objectively bad? If so, it might have helped to have included links to some good examples, if you want help from this community to obtain an external judgement check on that determination. The vast majority of people here cannot see what content you recently downvoted - and even you might not fully recall, since 5-12 is quite a range that leaves a lot in doubt.
But even if all that content was objectively bad, why be salty about being banned from a community that you claim to have no interest in seeing?
What it LOOKS like - and I could be wrong but again, I am not DMing you out of nowhere, you ASKED for people's opinions in this post - is that you would prefer that you be allowed to continue to shit on other people's content, and in a manner that overrides the consent of the members of that community (proffered via the mod acting on their behalf) to be so shit upon. Think about it. If I am not entirely correct then what I am saying still has a point to it nonetheless. Or if you would rather, block me. You do have all the power here, decide how you want to wield it.
silence troll, you are wrong again
Once again, no receipts, just "wrong"? Perhaps you could do us both a favor and simply block me, to avoid your having to be exposed to such facts that you seem to deem unpleasant?
Because you are a troll and I'm not engaging. You are clearly a very sad person desperate for interaction judging by how you are up and down this thread replying to people with debatebro nonsense. You are not worth the receipts.
Sorry that my allowing myself to get triggered and snarky got in the way.
You literally asked for our help though... and many people in this post have explained why you got banned. We're fine - you are the one feeling put upon, where your actions are causing consequences that you did not foresee. I hope that you feel more empowered now, you CAN ban people, and block whole entire communities, that you do not want to see content from - YOU are totally in control there!
I think you can be much happier, if you take ownership of your choices in life... and their projected outcomes.
Back again with the nonsense, begone troll.
I don't believe that someone that continues to intentionally spread disinformation in this community would be allowed to remain.
There are several rules that imply that misinformation/disinformation is considered poor form.
I find it highly interesting that I brought my own receipts at least:-).
As you have now stated and doubled down on the statement that OP has commented/posted in this Grimdank community, I would be very interested in seeing those receipts, as I haven't found evidence of this myself.
I never said that. I said "contributions", meaning mass downvoting. OP attempted vote manipulation - seemingly in good faith btw, thinking that this was good for the Threadiverse as a whole.
And now they are prevented from "contributing" further. But if they did not desire to contribute, then why this complaint post?
Edit: and the above needed no (additional) receipts, as it was directly stated by OP, even the very wording "Mass downvoting".
Saying my frontpage has absolutely nothing to do with subscriptions… you can literally customize lemmy to show you All, Local, or Subscribed, or if you’re using an app you can customize it even more. It has nothing to do with being subscribed, that’s your ignorance making you believe something that wasn’t true.
Also this has to be the trolliest comment in this thread. Downvoting spam and bad content is something that you absolutely should do.
There's a key difference. A subscribed member of the community has the right to downvote poor quality content, whereas drive-by downvoting via All is something else altogether.
I have not seen the content that OP downvoted, so I have no idea how poor-quality it might be. But why would that even matter? The mod defended the community from someone who, by OP's own admission, is neither a subscribed member nor someone who has ever contributed beyond, and again this is OP's very own wording in this post, "mass downvoting".
"mass downvoting" is a form of vote manipulation.
Let's even take for granted that OP did it entirely in good faith, thinking they were helping the Threadiverse. Okay then, but in that case why bother being salty about being banned, from a community they claimed to have no interest in contributing to?
It seems to me a case of play games, win prizes. Yeah OP can mass downvote, and yeah the mod can ban them as a result. And now we've all had this conversation about it.
Maximum friendliness would have been for OP to simply block the community, or perhaps the poster to it, and then not have to worry about seeing that low-quality content anymore. Instead, they seem to want the right to continue to downvote it despite not ever wanting to post or comment. But I am siding with the mod in this case that I might well ban someone for the same reason, if the only "contributions" they ever made were drive-by downvotes like that.
So now OP is banned, so they don't have to worry anymore about it, problem solved. In the future though, I did recommend blocking rather than mass-downvoting all posts in a community that they are NOT a member of.
Anyone has the right to downvote. Subscribing just means you want to see it in your subscribed feed, not that you somehow get more “rights” to vote. What a ridiculous notion.
No it is not. Get off your high horse. If I downvote every post from a specific user because it clearly doesn’t belong in a community, that is not vote manipulation. Yes it would be better if the content would get removed, but waiting for that to occur and in the meantime allowing upvotes to continue when people might not even realize the post is in the wrong community just warps what communities are for.
This was readily apparent for years on Reddit (probably still is). People that don’t pay attention to what sub something is on, and then they just upvote it because they like it. It makes it to the top of the subreddit, more people see it, think that’s what the community is actually about, and then join it thus warping the actual intention of the community.
I’ve made it clear why this is a terrible system.
You're completely missing the point. Downvoting bad content is entirely desirable, but what constitutes bad content varies by community and instance. For example, I think most of the stuff in memes communities is pretty shit content. So I don't subscribe to any. I don't go to All and think "well this isn't to my tastes, better downvote it all!"
If someone is actually spamming, not just turboposting, then report it and block it. If they're just posting a lot, maybe point it to them, report it if it's against the rules, and block them so you don't see their posts. Posting a lot of stuff to relevant communities is very rarely harmful behavior.
And the mod also has the right to ban people that mass downvote so... yeah, everyone has their "rights" here, until they don't anymore.
OP said something that could be interpreted to that effect, but we don't know? And fwiw, I did not interpret the OP as saying that, everything that I have said here presumes that the downvoting is not restricted to merely one user but rather than that content from that user is merely one example of many low-quality posts from that entire community. This post is very much lacking in these crucial details, upon which a proper judgement is predicated.
That said, what would that change? Whether one user or many, either way OP admits to mass-downvoting many posts in a community that they are not a member of. OP has the capability but no (protected) "right" to be able to do so. Someone made a post, someone else downvoted it, then a mod banned the OP, now OP is complaining about the situation here (without providing all the evidence necessary to fully understand, e.g. were all the downvoted posts from a single user or from multiple?). And since the ban was a direct drive consequence of the mass-downvoting, it makes total sense to me why the ban occurred?
Though it seems next to impossible to continue to discuss this, without an example of such a post to examine. All we have here is OP's word that the posts sucked ass - but OP in this very post has already been quite free with use of language, implying at first that they saw the content in their subscribed feed (that being the most natural interpretation of the phrase"my frontpage"), so I am unwilling to take OP's word on other matters that it was the burden of OP to have provided.
Hence my determination of YDI: mass-downvoting leads to bans, it's kinda known, so if someone wanted to have not been banned, it's extremely easy to avoid that fate by simply not doing the action.