▲ 92 ▼ so... dubvee and dubvee tesseract shut down. (sh.itjust.works) submitted 1 year ago by Tweekerz@sh.itjust.works to c/fediverse@lemmy.world locked 38 comments fedilink hide all child comments i know you've all heard it before, but i didn't catch up, i was honestly a bit surprised when i was browsing and tesseract on dubvee shut down.
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (11 children) Yeah, not so nice for just downvoting a post of his though. Fediverse is better off without that kind of toxic behaviour. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I remember that in the YPTB room yesterday. Normally I'd be harsh on this stuff but it's the end of the instance anyway, we'd be wasting our breaths. Also, I was talking about how helpful he was to other admins, idk if he is a PTB in his own spaces :p permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Yeah, that's fair. I only see the interaction put in front of me, what's been posted, and anything I might catch in certain matrix channels. The only known interaction I had with PTZ directly was a ban and him giving me the finger. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (8 children) Why would you downvote that post though? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (7 children) The post was fine, the premise is wrong about the fediverse. That's why I downvoted and didn't interact further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago Hm, I see. Fair, to be honest. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) This fediverse experiment was a failure. The whole notion that the fediverse is a failure. Ptz is entitled to his opinion, but he couldn't be serious that everyone would hold that inflammatory opinion as well. I still stand by my opinion that the fediverse is better off without toxic admins like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children) Better phrasing would be "this experiment within the fediverse". His phrasing still comes across as the fediverse (as an experiment) being a failure to me. I've not seen fediverse used as an adjective before. It's the same reason I'm not on .ml and your instance (I saw how they ran things over on reddit) and try to limit interactions on the instances that are notorious for their heavy handed moderation. He can do whatever he wants, but so can I within the limits of the sh.itjust.works instance or even spinning up my own. That's the reason I think he got butthurt. He got called out for how he ran things in front of the fediverse, didn't like it, got mad, took his ball and went home and likely banned me and 5 other guys for his bad phrasing at best or his opinion at worst. He's free to do that and I believe that the fedivdrse is better for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I remember that in the YPTB room yesterday. Normally I'd be harsh on this stuff but it's the end of the instance anyway, we'd be wasting our breaths. Also, I was talking about how helpful he was to other admins, idk if he is a PTB in his own spaces :p permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Yeah, that's fair. I only see the interaction put in front of me, what's been posted, and anything I might catch in certain matrix channels. The only known interaction I had with PTZ directly was a ban and him giving me the finger. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Yeah, that's fair. I only see the interaction put in front of me, what's been posted, and anything I might catch in certain matrix channels. The only known interaction I had with PTZ directly was a ban and him giving me the finger. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago (8 children) Why would you downvote that post though? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (7 children) The post was fine, the premise is wrong about the fediverse. That's why I downvoted and didn't interact further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago Hm, I see. Fair, to be honest. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) This fediverse experiment was a failure. The whole notion that the fediverse is a failure. Ptz is entitled to his opinion, but he couldn't be serious that everyone would hold that inflammatory opinion as well. I still stand by my opinion that the fediverse is better off without toxic admins like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children) Better phrasing would be "this experiment within the fediverse". His phrasing still comes across as the fediverse (as an experiment) being a failure to me. I've not seen fediverse used as an adjective before. It's the same reason I'm not on .ml and your instance (I saw how they ran things over on reddit) and try to limit interactions on the instances that are notorious for their heavy handed moderation. He can do whatever he wants, but so can I within the limits of the sh.itjust.works instance or even spinning up my own. That's the reason I think he got butthurt. He got called out for how he ran things in front of the fediverse, didn't like it, got mad, took his ball and went home and likely banned me and 5 other guys for his bad phrasing at best or his opinion at worst. He's free to do that and I believe that the fedivdrse is better for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (7 children) The post was fine, the premise is wrong about the fediverse. That's why I downvoted and didn't interact further. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago Hm, I see. Fair, to be honest. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) This fediverse experiment was a failure. The whole notion that the fediverse is a failure. Ptz is entitled to his opinion, but he couldn't be serious that everyone would hold that inflammatory opinion as well. I still stand by my opinion that the fediverse is better off without toxic admins like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children) Better phrasing would be "this experiment within the fediverse". His phrasing still comes across as the fediverse (as an experiment) being a failure to me. I've not seen fediverse used as an adjective before. It's the same reason I'm not on .ml and your instance (I saw how they ran things over on reddit) and try to limit interactions on the instances that are notorious for their heavy handed moderation. He can do whatever he wants, but so can I within the limits of the sh.itjust.works instance or even spinning up my own. That's the reason I think he got butthurt. He got called out for how he ran things in front of the fediverse, didn't like it, got mad, took his ball and went home and likely banned me and 5 other guys for his bad phrasing at best or his opinion at worst. He's free to do that and I believe that the fedivdrse is better for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Blaze@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago Hm, I see. Fair, to be honest. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (6 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) This fediverse experiment was a failure. The whole notion that the fediverse is a failure. Ptz is entitled to his opinion, but he couldn't be serious that everyone would hold that inflammatory opinion as well. I still stand by my opinion that the fediverse is better off without toxic admins like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children) Better phrasing would be "this experiment within the fediverse". His phrasing still comes across as the fediverse (as an experiment) being a failure to me. I've not seen fediverse used as an adjective before. It's the same reason I'm not on .ml and your instance (I saw how they ran things over on reddit) and try to limit interactions on the instances that are notorious for their heavy handed moderation. He can do whatever he wants, but so can I within the limits of the sh.itjust.works instance or even spinning up my own. That's the reason I think he got butthurt. He got called out for how he ran things in front of the fediverse, didn't like it, got mad, took his ball and went home and likely banned me and 5 other guys for his bad phrasing at best or his opinion at worst. He's free to do that and I believe that the fedivdrse is better for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (5 children) This fediverse experiment was a failure. The whole notion that the fediverse is a failure. Ptz is entitled to his opinion, but he couldn't be serious that everyone would hold that inflammatory opinion as well. I still stand by my opinion that the fediverse is better off without toxic admins like this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children) Better phrasing would be "this experiment within the fediverse". His phrasing still comes across as the fediverse (as an experiment) being a failure to me. I've not seen fediverse used as an adjective before. It's the same reason I'm not on .ml and your instance (I saw how they ran things over on reddit) and try to limit interactions on the instances that are notorious for their heavy handed moderation. He can do whatever he wants, but so can I within the limits of the sh.itjust.works instance or even spinning up my own. That's the reason I think he got butthurt. He got called out for how he ran things in front of the fediverse, didn't like it, got mad, took his ball and went home and likely banned me and 5 other guys for his bad phrasing at best or his opinion at worst. He's free to do that and I believe that the fedivdrse is better for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Kirk@startrek.website 1 point 1 year ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children) Better phrasing would be "this experiment within the fediverse". His phrasing still comes across as the fediverse (as an experiment) being a failure to me. I've not seen fediverse used as an adjective before. It's the same reason I'm not on .ml and your instance (I saw how they ran things over on reddit) and try to limit interactions on the instances that are notorious for their heavy handed moderation. He can do whatever he wants, but so can I within the limits of the sh.itjust.works instance or even spinning up my own. That's the reason I think he got butthurt. He got called out for how he ran things in front of the fediverse, didn't like it, got mad, took his ball and went home and likely banned me and 5 other guys for his bad phrasing at best or his opinion at worst. He's free to do that and I believe that the fedivdrse is better for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children) Better phrasing would be "this experiment within the fediverse". His phrasing still comes across as the fediverse (as an experiment) being a failure to me. I've not seen fediverse used as an adjective before. It's the same reason I'm not on .ml and your instance (I saw how they ran things over on reddit) and try to limit interactions on the instances that are notorious for their heavy handed moderation. He can do whatever he wants, but so can I within the limits of the sh.itjust.works instance or even spinning up my own. That's the reason I think he got butthurt. He got called out for how he ran things in front of the fediverse, didn't like it, got mad, took his ball and went home and likely banned me and 5 other guys for his bad phrasing at best or his opinion at worst. He's free to do that and I believe that the fedivdrse is better for it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Kirk@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (3 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. I won't forget the mods of the star trek subreddit banning people for just criticizing Disco and Picard not for being woke or whatever other conservative dog whistles at the time, but for legitimate reasons. That's the behavior I avoid. I don't need a mod to protect me from differing opinions. It's the internet ffs. Then there was the crusade against all the "_trek" subreddits. Claiming harassment to get Reddit to shut them down so that no one with differing opinions about the shows could have a community was absolutely inexcusable. That's why I avoid your instance like the plague. It's also the best part of Lemmy and fediverse on the whole and what we agree on. No one person can control everything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children) Anyone banning for downvoting is incredibly petty or thin skinned, just my observation. If it wasn't for the instance shutting down, it would have made a good post on yptb. Reading other comment threads on this post support the thin skinned theory imho. I just happened to be browsing all when I found the post. Looking at my subs, I wasn't subscribed to any community there. What about in the context of mass-downvoters? I can't speak for Dubvee, but mass-downvoters do exist - and they can be corrosive for smaller communities trying to grow, as early downvotes of threads can effectively kill them. These are accounts that seem to primarily downvote and don't actually interact on-site, and have no real pattern to it. This kind of response has little to do with sensitivity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) In this instance there were 6 downvotes to 83 upvotes for over 93% positive rate in 3 days on an announcement community for an instance. If 6 is mass downvotes, then I suspect your are looking for any excuse to justify toxic moderation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Skavau@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago* Yeah, I am just speaking as a general principle - not whatever happened here. Mass downvoting isn't at all observed like that anyway. It's the behaviour from some individual accounts that repeatedly downvote different threads from a specific community. So you'd be looking at habits across threads. If in my community (for instance) someone was to come in and just downvote the entire first page, I'd probably ban them because that would just be a crude attempt to target it. And again: downvoting like that is worse for smaller communities trying to grow. permalink fedilink source parent