The people in charge of YPTB asked to be their own judges, so I have come

www.dailymotion.com

Dailymotion

I was in an incident that led to people complaining about me here and by extension in Ask Lemmy, one which I explained my perspective on elsewhere. Then, when sharing my perspective, I was asked by a certain Blaze to share it in YPTB, only for those in charge there to give what amounted to a signal of disregard for it and to take it elsewhere. Going by their own words, I then shared it in !fediverselore@lemmy.ca as the only close alternative available, which, as a part of their own "rules subtext", sometimes allows this, and the person, if not all of those who help with YPTB, proceeded to drop by anyways and scold me because "YTPB has specific posting guidelines in the sidebar".

The implication here is false, at least by my definition of the word "false", and he even alluded to that after it began to be discussed elaborately, albeit before using an appeal to the masses (story of my life) and say "most people seem to understand", which ignores consensus of me and the aforementioned Blaze (as much as the "the truth we all wanted to speak" remark ignores not everyone had that issue). Notice how I responded with "I can spot rules broken by the other person’s thread more easily than I can spot rules broken by mine" and got only thumbs down for it and no responses, yet when I actually dissected the rules piece by piece in front of him to point out that any rule I supposedly broke wasn't there, which even the person who recommended I make the discussion in the first place (the aforementioned Blaze) agreed was a "fair point to be honest", the mod then delved into the concept of "unspoken rules" as an excuse for himself and said he didn't want to "rules-lawyer", which not only disproves what he said about "specific posting guidelines" being "in the sidebar" that supposedly explained what I did wrong, but proved a point I commonly mention about people in different places including here always being uncritical and unwilling to see things for themselves and just taking peoples' word for things (and about that, to respond to Cypher's last reply, intellectual =/= intelligent). A part of that is it also suggests, by extension, that the quantity of thumbs down you garner is unreliable as consistently meaning anything, unless the rule is actually to apply gladiator logic and say a thumbs down signals mercy, as indicated by the very Roman-esque culture around here. I guess all this time, I was being praised and didn't realize it?

This idea of "unspoken rules" and "reading between the lines" seems to be a common theme here because everyone seems to think that concept is valid, and they think that whether you're akin to an outcast is defined by the norms you follow. This makes me curious to ask... hypothetically, if I get all PTB gradings from everyone because I couldn't read the "unspoken rules" or anticipate mod discretion, what if I were to go to the places I have authority over and ban everyone who says or has said anything positive or supportive about Luigi Mangione or what he did? Would I be able to accomplish this without being called a PTB? After all, that is how this all started, and again, that would be an "unspoken rule" on its own that can be chalked up to mod discretion, now wouldn't it? Those are the terms.

I await your choice.

You're viewing a single thread.

102 comments

Fuck me, this dude loves to hear himself talk.
This word soup is fucking trash. Let me do everyone here a favor:
This post is highly verbose, filled with tangential points, and jumps between topics, making it difficult to follow. Here’s a breakdown of what the person seems to be saying:
The Incident: The poster was involved in an online situation where their behavior led to complaints in various forums (e.g., Lemmy, Ask Lemmy).
Their Defense: They shared their perspective on the incident in another forum or blog and were encouraged by someone named Blaze to post it in a specific community ("YPTB"). However, moderators of YPTB rejected their post and directed them to share it elsewhere.
Actions Taken: Following the moderators' advice, they posted it in another community ("!fediverselore"), which they claim has some precedent for allowing such discussions. Despite this, the moderators from YPTB showed up there to criticize them for not following the original community's "specific posting guidelines."
Rules Debate: The poster argues that the supposed "posting guidelines" they were accused of breaking either don’t exist or weren’t clearly stated. They tried to dissect the rules piece by piece to show they didn’t violate any, and even Blaze agreed with them.
"Unspoken Rules": The moderators, according to the poster, eventually justified their criticism by referring to "unspoken rules" or norms not explicitly stated. This concept frustrates the poster because it undermines their defense and supports what they see as a subjective or inconsistent enforcement of rules.
Broader Grievance: The poster feels ostracized and believes that the community or moderators operate under a "groupthink" mentality, where dissenting views (like theirs) are dismissed or punished. They also criticize the practice of using downvotes or negative feedback as a measure of validity or correctness.
Hypothetical Question: They sarcastically propose a scenario where they could ban everyone in their own spaces for supporting someone named Luigi Mangione, claiming this would be no different from how the moderators are applying their discretion under "unspoken rules." They are questioning the fairness of such norms.
Final Thoughts: The post ends with an open-ended challenge or provocation, suggesting that the community or moderators’ logic is flawed and asking how they will respond to this critique.
TL;DR:
The poster feels unfairly treated due to vague or non-existent rules being used to criticize their actions. They believe the moderators and community enforce norms subjectively, based on group consensus or unspoken rules, rather than clear guidelines. They see this as hypocritical and are challenging the logic behind it. The post is laden with frustration, sarcasm, and an air of intellectual superiority.
- And there is the issue. The way you shortened it simplified it in a way that several important details and specifications were left out. I said it as short as I could without doing that, which is what you are referring to as "tangential" and containing "jumps between topics".
  They also criticize the practice of using downvotes or negative feedback as a measure of validity or correctness.
  So do the mods here, but it's never enforced, in fact their PSA asking for courtesy with people giving things thumbs down has the most thumbs down of anything in the community.
  
  Your lack of nuance and sense of humor is why people call you a PTB and why you're frustrated that they don't do the same to me.
  
  Who said I was frustrated they don't do the same to you? Me bringing something up like I have does not reflect frustration, if anything I would be indifferent and only sighing at the double-standardish aspects of much of what is going on. Not sure what you mean by nuance or a sense of humor; the latter is rather subjective and abrupt to downplay someone over. Humor is a skill much like not having dyslexia is a skill.
  
  You don't have to come to out and say it. It's obvious by your actions. And yes, I know you don't get what I mean about nuance and humor. Kinda my point really.
  
  I know what nuance and humor typically mean. Which is why I pointed out that humor is subjective, i.e. there have been times people say I can be humorous, yet I'm not invalidating your opinion of my humor. Nuance, on the other hand, typically means complexity, depth, etc. and my willingness to analyze matters like wealth abuse case-by-case by dissecting the lives of individuals involved, for example, often leads me to wonder if people who say "down with all billionaires", as has been the case for those advocating copycats of the CEO attack, themselves have any nuance. Generally speaking though, I for one am not one to shame anyone just because of things like lacking nuance or humor.
  
  Wasn't trying to shame. Just to explain.
  
  I assume you mean something else by "nuance" than I alluded to. That would be undetermined as of the explanation, as long as you're saying (perhaps randomly) that I lack it.
  Treat rules with too much humanity and you get a lot of human errors. This is something I try to avoid, in fact I've recently added a rule guide to the groups I help out in and I can only wonder how anyone would call it non-nuanced. That (the avoidance of excess humanity) doesn't mean I'm not human or don't have moments of being considered humorous.
  
  God damn you love to hear yourself talk.
  
  How so?
  
  rule guide (https://catbox.moe/c/6npple)
  
  24-hour Time Cube‽
  
  It always appears when we don't expect it!
  
  What is the meaning of that?
  
  Have you not considered a majority of those downvotes are likely done ironically...? Seems natural to me that a post asking people not to downvote irresponsibly would get bombarded with them. It's like putting a "DO NOT PUSH" sign over a big red button.
  
  Yeah, but if it was an action where your membership in a community was at stake, you'd think it would be akin to someone saying "ban me, daddy!"

102 comments