Easiest PTB so far.

You seem to have come to the same conclusion I did, in a sense, but via a different route: the first option, imo, is to alert the instance admin as to what is going on within their instance. If they are unaware, they cannot stamp it out.

After they’ve been made aware, if they either choose to actively or passively condone such behavior then defederation is called for. If they continually “slip up” and such content falls through the cracks repeatedly after they’ve been made aware, that would also be grounds for defederation.

My stance is that the first course of action should be to actively push these bad actors out of spaces that they seek to take over rather than leave those spaces to them.

Voting against, as I don’t believe that jumping directly to talk of defederation is the best option. This stance by OP, along with their suggested method of handling the recent blahaj-related posts to YPTB, gives me pause with regards to their admin status. They have not crossed the line into authoritarian behavior or admin abuse, but it does feel that they are toeing that line.

It is good and justified to spotlight these issues and bring them up for discussion and consensus, which is what OP has done in both cases, but I question the extreme suggestions made in each circumstance.

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

• Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.

and

• Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.

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:

3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).

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.

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.”

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.