Good news! Trump is planning to point a huge amount of anger at the Democrats as soon as he gets into office. Jack Smith, Joe Biden, Laetitia James, and who knows who else will probably get federal charges which will probably succeed.
I'm glad to hear you are united with that anger. I'm sure it will help us maintain the two-party system. What's your next step, once those obstacles to the two-party system are cleared out of the way?
We are protesting the end of American democracy.
The time for infighting is done. I don't see what complaining about the DNC accomplishes at this stage.
I think you can apply the same thing to anyone from the DNC who wants to talk about Latino or Arab voters who didn't vote for the Democrat. It's all just irrelevant at this point. It's solidarity and survival time. I don't care whether you think it's this person's fault or this other person's fault.
I didn't even think about this. No, I don't consider UniversalMonk's participation in this post to be ban evasion. I'm fine giving him a chance to defend himself, if he wants to. It sounds like he's done now with what he had to say.
The decision to give him an account, while he's still arguing vociferously that there was nothing wrong with the conduct that got him site-banned before, is confusing.
I think some of it was for DM harrassment or posting fan fiction about other people on Lemmy.
Again, assumption. And no, none of that ever happened.
Modlog, search for "harassing."
Good to know, maybe I missed the tone in your text. I def took it as you were trying to ban me from this instance, lemm.ee, and sh.itjust.works because of what you thought of my previous behavior on an instance that I was banned from weeks ago. Since you are writing to all of the admins there.
That is exactly what I was trying to do, yes. Not for your behavior on the previous instances exactly, but for starting up the same behavior from new accounts since you'd already been banned for it, which is against the rules. I think I explained the commonsense reasons also.
And you can easily not “endure” me by blocking my name.
Part of the point of the violation here is that, if someone's already blocked your name, they now have to do it again for three new accounts, until you make more beyond those three.
I already think that trolling and saying that anyone who doesn't like it should just block you is unreasonable. Trolling and saying that anyone who doesn't like it needs to block every new account you make to keep trolling with when one gets banned is a whole different level.
Sending out ban notifications to dozens of users about bans in a community they've never heard of doesn't seem like good bot design.
I am unsurprised that a UniversalMonk fan would think that would be a totally reasonable thing to do, though, and at the same time that banning someone who managed to get an account ban from the least ban-happy instance there is when they make a new account and start doing the same stuff is somehow unreasonable.
Your ban is in the modlog. It's about halfway down, search for "pleasant".
I'm mostly relying on common sense here. Your participation in previous politics communities was incredibly obnoxious. The issue was never that you were talking about third parties and posting news articles. I don't even know all the details of why you were banned. I think some of it was for DM harrassment or posting fan fiction about other people on Lemmy. Now that you've been banned, you've made new accounts and went looking for new politics communities to start doing the same thing in, while seeking for exact clarifications about the rules that would let you carefully adhere to the letter of them so you could keep doing it, while the overwhelming majority of the community keeps asking you not to.
I'm not trying to be mean about it, and I'm not upset or anything. If you're interested in changing how you contribute so that you're a net positive to the community, let's talk. If you're planning to continue your current type of contributions, but trying to engineer ways around the rules with multiple accounts or whatever so that you can keep doing it, then the answer is no thank you.
As I said under the other post, I do believe this evasion was entirely unintentional, for the reasons you outlined. The part that was intentional was trolling in lemmy.world politics and some other communities until your whole user got banned, and then making new accounts and going looking for other politics communities to start up exactly the same antics in, explicitly affirming your plan to continue the same pattern of behavior. And, in the course of doing that, you managed to break some rules, set up to protect against that kind of behavior.
I'm not planning to set the bot up to notify dozens of users about their bans in a community they have never posted in and don't care about. Mostly it doesn't come up, because you have to be pretty obnoxious for the bot to ban you. Almost no one even close to that boundary even posts there, because almost everyone understands how to interact with other users without collecting hundreds or thousands of downvotes.
I get that you didn't get a notification, and so probably didn't know you were banned. You did know you were being obnoxious previously, and refused to stop doing it until it escalated to an account ban, and then made some new accounts and started looking for new places to do it.
I think admins and mods those new places can make the decision about whether that is ban evasion, or whether they want to let you do this all again until you inevitably get banned again sometime later. People have talked with you about why what you're doing is a problem. Why they would pick that second option is something of a mystery to me, but I'll leave it up to them. I'm just relaying the information.
It would be a different story if you were just misunderstanding something, and completely open to a conversation about why you keep getting banned and what you can do differently, but you're clearly more interested in figuring out the details of the rules so you can find ways around them and keep doing your same thing.
Fully agree. I'm finishing up a few replies to other people who had things to say about it, and then I plan to wash my hands of it.
This is a really good point. I was going to get sucked into replying after his innocent-faced reply, but there's really no point to it.
They were banned from [email protected] ages ago, and just now starting posting new stuff there under new accounts.
You could be charitable and say that they probably didn't understand how Pleasant Politics works, and had no idea that they were banned.
Or, you could say that this user has such a clear pattern of badly-intended participation that this is clearly in the spirit of ban evasion regardless.
To me, it would be different if they were coming with a post apologizing about trying to antagonize the whole community, and promising to be less toxic in their future interactions, and asking for a second chance. They're not doing that. The fact that they're not even bothering, just saying that they plan to continue the same obnoxious conduct as before, trying to innocently claim that they didn't mean anything by it, and avowing to skirt carefully within the letter of the law, would mean that common sense would motivate a ban regardless and they don't deserve any extra leeway when rules are broken, even if it was honestly unintentional in this case.
It's up to you. In my opinion no good can come of having this person involved for as long as they really want to defend their right to troll, but it's up to you.
After last week's post and talking with some people, here is my proposal for bringing transparency to the Santa bot. I can set it up to, every week, post a spot-check of some of its judgements, using this visualization format:
The bar code section at the top shows red for negative rank (downvotes), and blue for positive rank (upvotes). Time goes left to right, over the course of the past month, with a stripe for each impactful comment and post. Then, below the big red/blue bar code, there's a key with some other colors, linking particular sections to participation in particular threads.
In this case, you can see that there were some unpopular things said by this person, but outweighed by normal positive participation. This is generally what it looks like if someone posts controversial opinions but isn't trolling. You can see some red, but it's not a clear pattern. It's just that they say things sometimes that people don't like.
Compare that with this:
That's a pretty large amount of pretty bright red, and looking over the comments, what's garnering the downvotes isn't even their opinion. It is long exchanges bitterly attacking any person who disagrees with their viewpoint, and being noisy and abrasive in general. That's a lot more unpopular on Lemmy than a simple unpopular opinion. This user is banned by Santa. This is what I mean by "unpleasant," when I say "pleasant politics."
What I propose to do is to regularly post some of these breakdowns, along with example comments, for people who are just barely over the line on one side or the other. The goal is twofold:
Here is one of those snapshots, exactly as I would set up Santa to post it periodically. The goal is that by posting what things look like just on the good side of the line, and just on the bad side, it sheds light on where the line is and what it looks like.
Example comment, from 7 Takeaways From the Seemingly Endless Fire Season | While the Line fire burns in Southern California, what can we learn from how a changing climate has affected an expanding fire season?:
California is not a good example of wildfires caused by climate change. California is an excellent example of how not letting natural fires burn over the last few decades has created unhealthy forests full of dead tree/bushes that are now powderkegs waiting to go off.
California, especially things like redwoods, evolved to NEED a cleansing fire every so often. THAT is our natural climate and we have been fighting against THAT for years.
This isn't "climate change". This is "the climate isn't what we humans want so we tried to change it and now we're suffering the effects of that."
Example comment, from Craaaawling in my skiiin:
Bad taste then, bad taste now. No development or change in perspective. If this is you, you should be disappointed in yourself. Grow as you age.
Edit: hahaha people did NOT like this comment. They're BAD, guys. Whiny, cringey, melodramatic. It's music for a 12 year old.
Example comment, from Mexico will amend its constitution this weekend to require all judges to be elected:
Between these two options:
indulging in the delusion of neutral judges and letting the elite pick the ones who do the best job of pretending to be neutral while representing their interests
discarding the illusion of neutral judges and picking ones who openly state (and ideally have a record) that they will seek to pursue and enact justice as both they and the better part of the population interpret it
I think one of these is clearly superior for "promoting justice". Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. I already stated why.
But you yourself admitted that there may be no such thing as "neutral," "apolitical" justices. If there aren't, what good does pretending do?
Example comment, from People who hate fat people disguise their hate as science.:
why not hate them for both scientific reasons and viscerally?
Thoughts?
You aren't owed life, or shelter, food every day, or freedom from imprisonment from no reason. Or from torture. Nobody outside yourself has any obligation to create for you a system that you like.
We made all this up, all this justice, flawed or not. We create it every day. Except now it might be about to go away. We either get together and create and sustain it, or it can blow away like a fart in the wind.
That's realpolitik. Welcome to it, and congratulations.