This is a FAF defederation vote for !multiverse.soulism.net. Note that I have tried to summarize views both for and against this proposal, rather than pushing a particular view. Please feel free to comment if you want to contribute your own thoughts and experiences.

The reason for this vote is that admins have been getting a lot of reports about Grail and Their instance from our users lately, but tbh I am not sure whether the reports warrant a ban or not. While most cases are more clear-cut, I wanted some more admin & community feedback on this one.


For context, the soulism instance is (for all practical purposes) a personal instance run by infamous fediverse "personality", Grail. Grail is suspected to be a recent alt of DroneRights aka HardlightCereal aka Exocrinous aka Dragon Rider aka Drag.

Grail, the current incarnation, is (imo) a liberal progressive masquerading as a leftist (a self-described "Anarcho-Antireal theorist" whatever the fuck that is). And I really don't think this qualifies as a "No true Scotsman" situation where it's arguable either way - it's immediately obvious from reading Their comment history.

I don't really want to rehash the extensive history of this user and Their alts in detail here, however I'm pretty sure long-term Lemmy users will be aware of at least some of these previous alt accounts, which have been almost universally banned. I'll try my best to summarize the issues below.


The case for defederation

Here's some recent examples/summaries of why the user is so problematic:

  • Concise summary of past trolling behavior: .
  • Recent YPTB post: Banned for Nuttin'
  • Recent example of Grail's electoralism and criticism of c/flipanarchy rules, including a claim that pugjesus isn't a turbolib πŸ˜‚ https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/63720883
  • More blue MAGA electoralism demonstrating that the user is about as "leftist" as Joe Biden

Recent examples of hating on / agitating against our instance:


The case against defederation

  • Grail is neurodivergent (trans and NPD afaik), so we should be willing to make some accommodations for Their behaviour
  • While some folks (including myself at the time, unfortunately) took the "DroneRights" account as an attempt to troll transgender folk with the "my gender is an attack helicopter" line, it could also have been a genuine attempt to advocate for xenogenders. There's no way to know 100% for sure what Their intentions truly were, but on reflection and with the benefit of time, I think it could be reasonably argued They should have been given the benefit of the doubt on that topic.
  • Just because this user seems to have a grudge against our instance and bad-jackets anyone to their left as politically "right wing" doesn't mean we should ban them. They are still entitled to express their opinion.
  • Given Grail's unique personality, is there anywhere else They would potentially fit in other than the Fediverse? Maybe we should cut Them some slack and just let users block Them individually.

Warning

Please do not attempt to re-litigate the topic of xenogenders in this post. Such comments will be removed as off-topic. As an instance, our policy is to respect personal pronouns, whatever they are. This is not a referendum on the validity of xenogenders. The topic of the post is clear - whether or not we should defederate from the multiverse.soulism.net instance. If you want to bring your own experiences into the comments that is fine, but please keep them pertinent to whether or not we should defederate from this instance / user on the basis of Their problematic behaviours, not on the basis of Their identity or pronouns.


Instructions

The proposal is:

We should defederate from the multiverse.soulism.net instance due to an extensive history of trolling by the main admin's alts, and due to the admin being openly hostile to our instance.

Please upvote this post to vote for defederation. Downvote to remain federated. This proposal will require a 2/3 majority to pass.

P.S., Please be sure to use Grail's preferred pronouns of "capitalised They/Them", so we don't have to remove comments for misgendering.

Edit: This will include banning Grail's alts as well, for clarity.

Purportedly the "Soulism" flag

top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (17 children)

Edit: due to this discussion here I am changing my vote to a yes

I have to veto this one. I honestly feel users can handle it. Especially since this seems to pertain to a single user. Defederation to me is absolutely last ditch absolutely no hope left measure and I don't feel this calls for it yet. I still see that user engaging in good faith and normal activities outside of politics comms so they seem to just be a lib.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    The specific examples show a pattern that's not stopping, across multiple instances. Now they have their own server this is our only method to deal with them.

    They are also the only contributor from their instance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (14 children)

    That kind of reinforces my point. They made themselves terribly easy to block. And I have to question even though we dont do this often, is this really the solution? Wall ourselves off and leave them to their devices? I'm not so sure. I could agree with either solution but as it stands currently it is super easy to block their instance and move on without defederation, and defederation is extremely serious. We don't want to create a bunch of little islands in the fediverse (I know this specific instance would not cause this, but over time defederation has the potential to do so).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (13 children)

    But they aren't easy to block. We rely on that instance owner to respect the protocol's semantics. They aren't respecting separate instances rules enough to not be banned, and there's no reason to believe they will maintain their same account to allow themselves to be blocked.

    If they weren't over 99% of that instances activity I might be convinced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (12 children)

    Maybe Lemmy doesn't have this and I have been on anarchist.nexus for far longer than I thought.

    HNTGoNk9pkJsdDA.jpg

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Yeah I guess thats a piefed only thing. My bad. I am unsure about my vote now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Something else to consider, if someone gets banned on their home instance and then unbanned, the unban deletes all bans on remote servers. An instance admin can unban themselves from other lemmy instances due to being able to access their own server with the ability to ban and unban.

    @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com I think that's an important consideration here. Grail could do something ban worthy here, then unban Themselves because They feel like it and we wouldn't know until Their posts started showing up here again, and they can repeat the process as much as we ban them. Defederation is the only way to actually stop that, and it's part of why it's customary to defederate a self-hosted instance when banning the person in charge of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    Sorry, not entirely familiar with this exploit, but wouldn't their next move be to start a new instance of their own simply to regain access to said unban loophole? πŸ€·πŸΌβ€β™‚οΈπŸ˜…

    Sounds like a slo-mo Whack-A-Troll, if so. πŸ€”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Creating new instances or changing domains can get around defederation, but since domains cost money it would be very slow and they lose their investment each time they are defederated. Which is probably why it doesn't get done often.

    Unbanning yourself locally as an admin is free and can be repeated over and over.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    That sounds like a horrible design oversight in AP? Why is that possible?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    i feel like a broken record here but I feel like defed on the back of "They could do this thing" is unreasonable.

    if that does happen I say we should defed immediately and I think a vote on "They unbanned Themself" would definitely pass.

    p.s. you missed a couple capitals near the end I think, unintentionally I'm sure

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    No opinion on this question given it’s none of my business, but I love seeing these governance posts in action. I really admire the system you all have here and appreciate how level-headed they always seem to be rather than the lynch mob discussions like these have the potential to be

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    personally i find they can be a bit groupthink-like though... not as in expression of dissent is socially suppressed, but as in expressed dissent on lynchmob topics is not objectively evaluated.

    like in the replies to https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/63525728/24345496, an unfortunately quite emotional comment that does argue against some evidenceβ€”replies saying that the person they're replying to should dieβ€”the users who had already voted before the comment either 1. argue such replies have no problem since the person they're replying to are bad; or 2. repeat the claims said evidence were used to back up without presenting their own evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Grail is nowhere near as annoying as Drag imho. However generally I really dislike sockjacketing people without solid evidence, like this. OTOH I do understand that trolls need to be dealt with summarily so avoid more damage to the communities. I just feel we don't need to try to connect them to previous trolls to do so.

    I'm going to abstain from this one as I am not particularly bothered either way.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    However generally I really dislike sockjacketing people without solid evidence, like this.

    I feel the same way, and seeing it happen in the body of a governance post is disheartening. I have had serious qualms about most of the recent governance posts, and about the direction that some of the admin team seem determined to steer the ship.

    I think it would be inaccurate to characterize it as the instance catering to the wrong voices. However, I am starting to accept that the climate has changed and might no longer be right for me. I believe there are many others who feel similarly.

    I have long been of the opinion that the administration of any instance based around the core tenets that dbzer0 still claims should be undergo voluntary, regular rotation. Absent that, the situation is primed for the entrenchment of power and establishment of de facto hierarchies. This is true for both the admin team becoming accustomed to holding a certain level of authority, and for the userbase growing comfortable and complacent with a shift in the admin role from "caretaker" to "leader".

    I question whether I am ignoring clear signals in favor of hope.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    We don't need rotations when we got admin recalls tbh. If people feel like the admins are doing a bad job they can always ask any of them to step down. Unfortunately there's nowhere near enough people who want to be admins to handle rotations

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    My experience with Grail was that They publicly expressed intent to brigade mine and similar communities as well as encouraged others to do the same and then decided to troll me in my DMs after I banned Them for it. I've also noticed they consistently promote electoralism and also engage in some really bad faith arguments and accusations, like conflating usage of AI with enslaving animals, which is pretty gross.

    Since they're the only admin on Their instance I say defederate, we would defederate if some other random troll was hosting their instance and violating our rules. It shouldn't be different if a person is a troll who is also trans or neurodivergent, I say that as someone who is trans-NonBinary and neurodivergent myself.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    well that is a much worse accusation than anything in the main post, do you have receipts of it?

    no worries if you don't want to make them, but if substantiated that might be enough to convince me to defed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I looked through my private messages and only found one of the DMs, it's possible the others were deleted:

    DM Trolling

    I'm having trouble locating the comment where Grail advocated for downvote brigading, if I can locate it I will update my comment. I don't think it was removed because it would've shown in Their modlog.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    On one hand, yeah they can be really annoying.

    On the other, all they're pretty much doing is talking about their voodoo reality shit (which often can be really funny) and politics in a way that's not too different from .world'ers.

    I did interact with this user directly and while my experience with them was negative, completely disappearing them for a wrong kind of LARP that's already prevalent in other instances and sometimes being annoying seems way too extreme.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    That's a yes from me. I would prefer some concrete evidence linking these accounts to confirm ban evasion, but that would require some collaboration between instance admins to basically dox the person.

    The general antagonistic nature, purity testing, lack of demonstrating any principles of anarchism tell me that this person is out to do just what they are doing, and whatever sort of reports that have been sent will keep being sent.

    We owe new users some sort of safety in the community. If we expect everyone to be fully informed and capable of discerning bad actors from ignorant ones, that's not fair to them.

    One person's neurodivergence is also not an excuse to distress others. Allowing that robs other people who may also be vulnerable from feeling safe, and gives the first person power over these other people.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    So wait, people are saying yes without even knowing if the accounts are linked at all? What is the point of federation if we are going to defederate instances without evidence.

    Especially since it was voted if one instance of the floatilla bans an instance the rest would have to as well I thought.

    Seems dangerous

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Not really. There's grail's existing post history, you go judge yourself on the comments that are there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    The link in the original post just says can't find this user when I click on it. Maybe they just defederated from dbzer0, not sure. If so I guess that solves your worries

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    If so I guess that solves your worries

    For now, until this blows over and they quietly re-fed w/ db0, no? Then, we're right back here again.

    Of course, I've yet to hear if they can simply start a new instance when their current one gets banned, and unban themselves again. 🀒

    Side question: How the fuck is this method even still an option for instance founders at this point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Of course, I’ve yet to hear if they can simply start a new instance when their current one gets banned, and unban themselves again. 🀒

    They could but they would be easily defederated again, and domains cost money so it would be a long game that They would ultimately lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • Yeah they could just rename their instance and come from another IP address. The only way you would get around that would be whitelisting instances instead of blacklisting them. Which overall would greatly hurt the growth and purpose of federation (in my personal opinion, others would disagree I'm sure).

    Sorry to use the trope of comparing to email, but it would be the same thing as you banning an email domain, and them creating a different one. Your filters don't know to block them. Hosting an instance from a dedicated IP that isn't identifying their home residence would be the preferred method for most I would assume.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Still accessible for me, might be something else

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago* (5 children)

    I mostly remember the controversy from the Exocrinus days and I am in support of defed. Cant believe this is getting hashed again.

    Neurodivergence set aside, They are a terrible troll that never, ever argued in good faith on any topic I saw Them engage with, and was just a huge pain in the ass of normal users and mods alike. Use of a single-user instance without registration limits for the owner opens the door for infinite alt accounts that cannot be realistically banned or controlled using normal mod tools, without filtering the entire instance. And that seems to be the entire purpose of this new instance- ban evasion.

    Also, as a neurodivergent myself, trying to lean on being different does NOT absolve a user of the consequences resulting from being a unrequited asshole trying to stir shit up. I'll respect Their pronouns for sure, but I'm still going to call Them a dick when They are being a dick. I understand needing to be diplomatic, Unruffled, but try not to carry too much water for the trolls.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    last paragraph is super based. people deserve basic respect even if they are a dick, and also deserve to be called a dick if they are being a dick.

    that said, I think your main argument is kinda a slippery slope fallacy. that's to say I think if we do end up having a flood of bad actors from this instance, we should poll this again with that as the reason why. i don't think defed because "They have the opportunity to flood bad actors" is reasonable, personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Is it really a slippery slope when its a slowly repeating pattern from a known bad actor?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    being as I haven't seen any evidence that these are all the same person, very yes.

    pretending for a moment that we're certain these are all the same person (I think it's likely) still yes. i see a young ND Trans person trying to find the identity that suits them much more than I see a malicious troll committing ban evasion, but maybe that's more me projecting than it is Them.

    i think a vote if They end up doing that with "They are unbanning Themself" would easily pass, I don't think we need to do it preemptively

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Use of a single-user instance without registration limits for the owner opens the door for infinite alt accounts that cannot be realistically banned or controlled using normal mod tools, without filtering the entire instance. And that seems to be the entire purpose of this new instance- ban evasion.

    what are u basing that claim on? what exactly suggests ban evasion? two of Their alleged alts were banned 2-3 years ago, and the last one isnt even banned on db0 right now from what i can tell (was also last active a month ago).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I blocked that whole instance shortly after the "Banned for Nuttin'" post in YPTB last week. defederating from anarchist comms because of not liking the content, listing the reason as "authoritarianism", then complaining when that mod issues a reciprocal ban is some pretty shitty behavior. but then, so is the constant badjacketing and insistence that only one kind of anarchism is the "right" one. I vote for FOR defederating.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    I've interacted with this person. I believe you even screenshotted conversation snippets I was involved either before or after in that thread. They are not capable of discourse.

    Grail is neurodivergent (trans and NPD afaik), so we should be willing to make some accommodations for Their behaviour

    As someone once told me, bad behavior is not excused by status (I'm paraphrasing the condition slightly). You have to own your actions and words on some level.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The major problem with lemmy is all the obnoxiously irritating people driving away the relatively ordinary ones.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    as is tradition in lefty and lefty adjacent spaces.

    some of the time we have to take it on the chin and act more welcoming to newcomers.

    others we have to dedicate some energy to explaining why and how we got like this, and that their complacency needs challenged.

    personally, it seems like right now we have more on the threadiverse of the former and less of the latter

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Disagree/remain federated.

    One, it seems like They dislike our instance. Let Them defederate on their end if They have a problem.

    Two, They are weird but other than not liking (some of) us, I think They're fine. They have strong opinions but I don't dislike Them. I can also forgive quite a lot. I'm used to seeing differing opinions online. It doesn't bother me. I've had vitriol thrown my way online for over 30 years for just standing for something. I've gotten used to it. Sure, there are some dangerous opinions out there, but we don't have to let them ruin our day. I understand if some people want to defederate with this individual β€” I'm not sure if capitalisation is needed there, sorry β€” but they can also block Them.

    Anecdotal, but I recall having a conversation with Grail about Their pronouns, but it wasn't about the pronouns themselves, it was about Their difficulty in getting them to show up. I think that was that person. Anyway, I thought it was odd that They want to use capitalised pronouns, and had a few thoughts about that which are not relevant, but ultimately I thought They were alright.

    I've blocked users who annoy me. I could tell you why, but my reasons are my own and I wouldn't expect others to agree with me.

    I disagree with defederation, but I'm not opposed. Because, like I have reasons that are personal to me, db0 and other users have reasons that are personal to them. So I do appreciate it being put to a vote. That's the right way to do it. But, I vote no. However, I have no petition for anyone to vote either way.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    If someone is annoying/frustrating and trolling you, then they are also causing those same disturbances to others such as your users. It is why I ban trolls that are negatively affecting others and do not align with dbzer0. Granted, most of my bans are bots. Grail was annoying for sure and I stopped replying to this user because I didn't want to get banned after seeing others mixing up the capitals. Yes, I struggled at first before realizing blahaj was right about this.

    Once Grail started comparing veganism with AI, I felt the troll became more obvious, too obvious. The suffering and deaths of real animals is not comparable to so called 'AI slavery'. This 'AI' is just a LLM spitting random auto-complete with no consciousness. I don't ask that our users become vegan, but to troll vegans and parrot antiveganism is just trolling leftists for no real reason (the hex was based yet again). I don't lose sleep over banning these trolls, YDM imo.

    I'm not sure if drag is Grail, I know drone rights was also PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES, but I could not tell for certain that Grail is drone rights (although they shared similarities for sure just like the other 2 you also listed). I also remember MindTraveler, what a fun (/s) person who was always angrily telling off people that Grail didn't like.

    Grail is neurodivergent (trans and NPD afaik), so we should be willing to make some accommodations for Their behaviour

    Lame copout. They troll and know what They're doing.

    Edited for grammar and info

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    The only time I interacted with this user was when They went by the name of Drag. At the time, it was the 2024 US General Election, and They were a big pain in the ass. I might have blocked Them then and there because I don't recall seeing Them again on Lemmy, or any of Their aliases.

    I have a brief snapshot of the user. They could be "normal" under any other context but politics, but I haven't seen it.

    db0 has a clear charter that is fundamentally political in nature. I don't have any confidence that this user won't monolothize our instance and force things to be political, without giving any of our users the benefit of the doubt that they're their own individuals which happen to align on politics. And of course, we have to put in extra effort to accommodate Their neurodivergency - which isn't to say we shouldn't accommodate them. All genders deserve (digital) dignity, respect, and inclusion. Just because someone is divergent in their gender doesn't give them a blank check to withhold that same right to others. There is a social contract of tolerance here, regardless of the actors and however different those actors may be.

    Another side of the conversation is what impact this person has on db0. If They're abusing their admin and mod powers on Their own instance, where people are free to post content according to the instance rules, what's to say that said content is given the same protections and said users are given the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy on db0? Is it within our power to protect those people from Drag or Grail or whichever name They go by? Are we the police of the Fediverse? I think db0 is the exact opposite. We allow freedom of thought, freedom of expression.

    I guess the question is if this user and Their instance prevents db0 from carrying out that mission.

    Still making up my mind myself!

    Edit: I'm abstaining from this one until we have evidence that these users are one and the same identity (or system of identities like with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) as others have pointed out). While single-admin users are suspect for the reasons people point out (e.g. users of their own instance can globally undo all bans on the Fediverse if they ban themselves on their own instance, then subsequently unban themselves), are there other instances out there that only have 1 admin and have a considerably large user base? I feel like we need to refine our rules regarding defederation for this reason or risk a larger exclusion from the wider Fediverse.

    Also, getting back to impact, how much impact does Grail/Drag have on the Fediverse compared to the Zionist instance we defederated from the other month ago (we did defederate right?)? There being a place on the Fediverse where individuals of a similar immoral ideology culminate to organize and execute broad actions (e.g. brigade) is different than one individual (or system of individuals as is the case with DID) setting up their own instance to ban evade. Sure db0 users may want nothing to do with either case, but one problematic user can be managed by db0 users compared to organized communities of problematic users.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago

    I'd like to clarify that MULTIVERSE is not a single admin instance. Our other admin is @mechoselachia and @goddessofspeed was previously an admin too. When it comes to big decisions like defederating fedinsfw, I consulted with the rest of the admin team before making the decision.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Without solid proof that the new instance admin is actually the same person, I would be very hesitant to defederate based on the behavior of the older accounts and the conjecture that the accounts are owned by the same person.

    Meaning, defederation should be based solely on the current account's behavior. I don't think I've encountered this account, and I don't especially feel like going digging. But if there have been reports flowing in, and the content reported justifies instance defederation, then it should be defederated.

    I haven't seen it myself, and since I don't really have time to do digging right now, I'll abstain from the vote.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I have not seen evidence of the infinite accounts thing happening from that instance. There's little harm in defedding only when we have the infinite accounts thing happening from that instance. (I've also replied additionally below: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/25559368)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Admittedly I haven't caught up on the drama about this particular user for a while, and admittedly it's worthy of note that when the drama was only about accounts named Dragonfucker, I did not find Their actions remotely worthy of an instance ban.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I'm just going to pop in and say that based on the interactions I've had with Drag, and the previous experiences I've had with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) individuals (or, systems of identities, within a single body)...

    I'm not a psychologist, I'm not formally diagnosing them, I'm just putting it here that I think Drag has DID.

    I say this because ... to me at least, it explains a good deal of their otherwise seemingly inexplicable behavior.

    I don't mean this as an attack, I mean it as a way of being able to understand, perhaps even sympathize with them.

    As to defederating or not, I am undecided.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Grail is neurodivergent (trans and NPD afaik), so we should be willing to make some accommodations for Their behaviour

    .... Should we? I'm sorry, but I don't care what or how you are. If you are a bald black lesbian rocker (hello Skin, how YOU doing) that's fine, don't care. If you are nice, you're nice. If you're an asshole, I won't tolerate you and I won't care if you're trans or neurodivergent or whatever the reason is.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I think the argument being made may perhaps be thus: If one assumes Me to be neurotypical, then I appear an asshole. However, with the knowledge of My identity, My behaviour is reframed. For example, one may assume I frequently fail to recognise people's faces because I don't care about others. However, when one knows that I'm autistic and have the face-blindness symptom, it becomes clear that I more often recognise people by voice and personality, and that I am not an asshole. My failure to obey typical manners is a disability, not a lack of care for others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I once read a post on Reddit by someone who was asking if they were the asshole for breaking up with someone for calling the police on them due to a traffic violation. Said person claimed it was a coping mechanism due to their autism and anxiety. This shows that you can understand a person, and why they do things due to being neurodivergent but they are still unacceptable, and possibly even unsafe.

    What Grail has been doing while not as extreme as that example, still falls firmly in the emotionally unsafe or asshole category. Things like promoting electoralism in anti-electoralist spaces and putting people down for not agreeing with Them. Things like comparing using AI with enslaving or killing animals. Things like encouraging people to brigade communities that They are personally against, then troll the mods in DMs when said mod bans them from all their communities for it.

    Knowing someone is neurodivergent means you can understand why they do things. It doesn't mean we accept them or don't hold the person accountable for doing something wrong. And it definitely doesn't exclude people from consequences of doing things that are wrong. And I am neurodivergent too, Autistic and ADHD, don't think I'm ignorant of the challenges we face. The thing is we also need to work to not hurt others with our coping methods or behaviors. I say that as someone who has hurt a lot of people emotionally in my past.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

    Hm, while this vote is technically passing, I have a concern about quorum. Do we really want to enforce a defederation with only 7 votes?

    Edit : wait lemme check the bot didn't die instead

    Edit2: nevermind the bot bugged out

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Also, dbzer0 should probably be concerned by Flatworm changing the proposal after several days of voting, which they said they were gonna do in this comment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Ah unruffled said, this ain't the supreme court. We don't fall for loophole. If people think they should allow your alts they can bring it up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I think of "Soulism" as some form of nihilism. Seriously!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [M, B] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

    Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/flatworm7591 Early Bird: a parrot, orangered colors Jolly Roger: an icon of pirate jolly roger skull wearing a hat, in orange-red, black and white colors A book with a loaf of bread in the cover  in orange-red, black and white colors Deck Hand: An icon of anchor crossed with two staves in orange-red, black and white colors First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color

    This is a simple majority vote. The current tally is as follows:

    • For: First Mate: a pirate ship's steering wheel, orangered color (3), Vouched: a minimalist compass icon. Orangered color (7), Powder Monkey: An icon of powder barrel in orange-red, black and white colors (1), MVP: a star icon, in orange-red, black and white colors (1)
    • Against: Salty Dog: An icon of two crossed cutlasses with a skull in the center in orange-red, black and white colors Powder Monkey: An icon of powder barrel in orange-red, black and white colors
    • Local Community: +0.1
    • Outsider sentiment: Positive
    • Total: +10.1
    • Percentage: 86.00%

    This vote will complete in 16.58 minutes

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    This is a simple majority vote

    @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com is this just a display error? the proposal says it needs 2/3 though we’re also past that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    What do you mean? The voting isn't done

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί
    1 comment in c/bloc@anarchist.nexus view that post