FYI @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] and a few others
A rage bait post they just restored: https://lemmy.world/post/24282976. The initial removal was about rule 3 - no rage baiting. That rule has been removed.
Another rage bait comment against vegans: https://lemmy.world/comment/14535452
The bait post does read like a 9 year old just learned the words pipi, caca, boudin or something.
I might not have all the numbers because it’s a remote community (to me) and it seems the bans and some of these downvotes might not all have federated to us, maybe from a lack of SJW subscribers at some point in time.
Those I can see have single digits total votes, so that wouldn’t really meet my ban threshold even for a small community.I do ban mass-downvoters now and then on SJW. At some point, if your only interaction with a community is repeatedly, exclusively downvoting stuff, either learn to curate your feed or GTFO, but I do have a much higher bar than this.
Yeah no your war on this community is pointless. They are allowed to exist just like you and if you don’t like it you can hide them and move on.
Coming to the community, especially a small one, just to downvote without posting a single post/comment is antisocial as fuck so stuck your rage where the sun don’t shine, sweetie.
Your reference to “respectful dissent” shows you don’t understand what the rule means - it is to encourage participation, ie posting and commenting. Blanket downvoting has exactly opposite effect discouraging participation.
Well, this is one where the subject is kinda beat to death.
Blanket down voting is a shitty thing, and it is completely appropriate for mods to ban people that do it
However, they should have a definitive criteria for what thresholds they use to determine what is and isn’t blanket down voting.
Myself, I down vote stuff on there that’s either off topic for the place, or stuff that’s utter bullshit, and/or stuff that’s YouTube drek because the YouTube drek is never sourced well. A link to a video is way too likely to be bullshit when it comes down to fad, niche, or weird diets.
Which means I end up down voting more than I do otherwise.
And, there’s very rarely any posts worth engaging in.
By the apparent metrics, I should have already been banned. Which means that the apparent metrics don’t match what’s being used in practice.
However! I think that’s less PTB and more “clueless” mods that don’t have experience running a controversial community. The more controversial the subject is, the clearer you have to be with how, when, and why you’re going to take action, unless you want to end up on a community like this one, lol.
and/or stuff that’s YouTube drek because the YouTube drek is never sourced well.
I’ve noticed this pattern, I think its kinda rude, I take time to find a really good topical video on onboarding to carnivore and your downvoting it because its a youtube video, regardless of the quality of the video - in this case it was a board certified obesity doctor talking about starting carnivore? Did you even open the video before downvoting?
Conversational videos have value for people who are interested in the community theme
Not required to watch videos to vote on them.
They may be topical, and they all seem to be.
But the ugly truth is that nobody making a YouTube video on almost anything provides anything more than their word that they’re using well vetted information. When someone is making health claims, the standard is way higher than when they’re casually talking about RC cars, or juggling
You may not be aware, but even board certified doctors can be full of shit. Plenty of doctors choose to make and sell outright scam products, while using their licence as the basis for their claims.
Now, if it were possible for a doctor to prove via demonstration on video that their claims are up to date, best practices, like you can with a chemistry video, or a woodworking video, it wouldn’t fall under the drek category for me. I wouldn’t down vote.
But they rarely can when making health claims. When they’re making health claims that go against current best practices on diet, it is most definitely drek. You can’t provide access to studies and the data behind them in that format unless you’re sitting there reading the publications on screen.
Then, like you said, you took the time to find a topical video. You said nothing about finding a video, vetting its claims, finding opposing data and evaluating it. Which is the standard necessary when making health claims.
Why am I the arbiter of quality? I’m not the sole arbiter. But I am someone that has worked with bariatric patients, their doctors, their nutritionists. I’m someone that reads jama articles for fun, and tend to be willing to w ade through the jargon to understand why best practices are what they are.
So, a video making health claims is an automatic bad video because YouTube doesn’t have the structure to give citations. Well, a channel could actually provide links in the description, or even list the citations. I’ve never seen one that does, and it’s still not useful to expect that someone go to YouTube, then check for those citations, then go and find them. That’s a bad post, even when topical. It’s too many extra steps to find actual data to support a claim.
Conversational videos about health do not have value. That’s regardless of what the conversation is.
Seriously, have you not run into any of the numerous jackass doctors selling their shit via infomercials, or hawking their own products in their practice, or ending up losing their licence for ignoring best practices? Just being a doctor does not mean you can make claims on YouTube and get a free pass on backing your shit up on YouTube.
With all of that in mind, it would be a waste of my time to go and watch a video to individually evaluate it for voting on lemmy. The general state of YouTube as a source is so poor that it can be dismissed entirely. It’s like using Playboy magazine as a source because they interviewed a doctor.
Gonna have to say YDI here sorry. Blanket downvoting is a bannable offense in any community because it denegrates the platform as a whole.
I also want to apologize to the carnivore community for my previous assumptions about the diet as a whole. I had unquestioningly believed a post that labeled the diet as unconditionally dangerous, and I commented encouraging people who had that opinion to report the community. After doing more research, I realize I was mistaken.
While there are risks associated with the carnivore diet, and it certainly shouldn’t be marketed as “for everyone,” when approached mindfully and appropriately, the diet is not necessarily dangerous.
Gonna have to say YDI here sorry. Blanket downvoting is a bannable offense in any community because it denegrates the platform as a whole.
Ironically, I’m not even banned myself, as I participated (and generally don’t downvote that much anyway, whatever the community)
What isn’t really clear here is that users seems to have been banned for one single downvote? Seems a bit extreme.
Nope.
Only users not participating and either blanket downvoting multiple posts or downvoting specifically this ONE moderator’s post banning downvoting without participation were banned.
You are actually the best example here - you have participated and are not banned.
Coming to the community just to downvote is toxic. Since banned users don’t contribute, they have no interest being there.
You don’t like a certain community - block and move on with your life. Don’t behave like a dick.
i’m aware; i said YDI because thats the colloqualism in the sidebar. “you” means the modded users here :P
if you have evidence that it was truly a single downvote ban i would post that because that’s a real issue of algorithm manipulation — but way different from blanket downvoting bans.
How can mods or admins see this?
Votes are public information, its published on the activity feed protocol.
How can they see it?
With just two clicks. Or we can run queries directly on the database, for example to detect downvote patterns. And react if the downvote patterns seem like abuse.
Yeah, don’t go to communities you dislike and downvote everything. It’s a dick move. Just block them.
The initial removal was about rule 3 - no rage baiting. That rule has been removed.
Well, that explains why the posts were restored? Mods are allowed to change rules, right?
Hello @[email protected],
Do you know when the announcement will be made about the new “respectful dissent” policy? This seems to fall under this scope
You don’t understand what the rule means - it is to encourage participation, ie posting and commenting. Blanket downvoting has exactly opposite effect discouraging participation.
For people tired of this topic, feel free to hide the post, except if you’re on Lemmy.world which is still running on 0.19.3 (that feature was introduced later)
@[email protected] , @[email protected] , @[email protected] could any of you have a look at the votes on this post?
Another comment getting instantly 5 upvotes, and my post and comment getting 3 to 5 upvotes at a low traffic time seems suspicious
Hm… I’m not sure it is worth bothering too much about, honestly. That said:
There is a little bit of a suspicious pattern. Three different accounts, all active during the same short span of time (space of 6 minutes) during a quiet time, all giving one downvote to the post, and then a couple downvotes and upvotes in the comments boosting a particular point of view in slightly different ways.
One of the suspicious voters seems to be to be clearly a bad-faith political propaganda account, which is interesting. I have a theory that some of the political propagandists like to incite pointless drama related to specific mods, or specific hot-button issues like veganism, just to add noise and unpleasantness to the system, and give a vehicle if they want to attack some particular user or get them riled up to motivate moderator action against them.
Just a little bit of correlation doesn’t necessarily mean anything, of course. Sometimes random data contains stuff that looks like patterns but isn’t. On the other hand, two of those accounts are on the same instance, which means it’s easy to send a DM to one of the admins pointing it out so that they can check to see if they’re coming from the same IP or other indications that they’re the same person doing voter fraud.
Do you think it’s worth bothering? A small amount of voting fraud is kind of the nature of the beast, and it’s hard to be sure about this kind of thing.
Sucks to get down votes not relating to the community, doesn’t it?
Not really, just curious. This community is pretty closely followed, so I’m sure people are going to have a look anyway.
By the way, what do you think about the removal of the “no rage bait” rule?
Since you wont respond to DMs
You have 3 times now, indirectly called for a community I’ve been running to be removed (plus a bonus time after I left the mod team of a community). I’ve tried to discuss with you in DMs, but you don’t respond.
I think the recent politicking you have demonstrated shows we are no longer working collaboratively toward a lemmy for a diversity of viewpoints and communities.
You don’t owe me a response, but we have been collaborators in community building, so I would have liked the curtesy of some response to DMs.
Since our professional relationship has broken down, I can’t collaborate with you on [email protected] any more. I’ve transferred the community to your BoozeOrWater alt and left the mod team. You worked really hard in promoting that community, and by all rights it should be yours.
You have 3 times now, indirectly called for a community I’ve been running to be removed (plus a bonus time after I left the mod team of a community).
Can you explain a little more about this? Nothing I’ve seen under this post has been calling for a community to be removed, just explaining a particular moderator action that he disagrees with.
None of it is overt, but I’ve played politicks long enough to know when I’m being systematically undermined.
0
12 days ago: https://hackertalks.com/post/5695193/6088825 Whataboutism brought up over and over about the previous vegan drama when discussing the carnivore drama.
1
9 days ago : https://hackertalks.com/post/5728508/6124480
Seems fine on the surface, “Hey what if it can be proven unhealthy”,
Then poking people to prove its unhealthy https://hackertalks.com/post/5728508/6160432
2
3 days ago:
Copy pasting sunshines screed into the New Moderator message in [email protected] https://lemm.ee/post/52635163/17504025
Why? To resolve the Lemmy.world TOS health concerns (note he hasn’t done this to the vegan community). He did move it into a new post when requested, at this point he was not responding to DMs (or rather selective in responding to anything except about my questions of his questioning my community at every stage.
So in the post blaze made repeating sunshines screed https://lemm.ee/post/52660382 , I respond, but I think at this point sunshine had me blocked so they didn’t read or respond, so blaze pokes them. https://lemm.ee/post/52660382/17528261 (really trying to get a fight going I think)
3
This PTB thread about carnivore as well. (This is the bonus event, now that I’m no longer a moderator of that community)
During this I was DMing them saying I was feeling attacked that they kept trying to make a fight happen between the vegan community and the carnivore (basically only me) community over health concerns, and I didn’t get a response.
It’s clear they don’t agree with my niche community, that’s fine. Calling attention and creating situations where a new community has to justify itself isn’t great. Using a new community as a foil for some understated motive isn’t great (if that was the scenario).
As a individual lemmy user all of this is fine, but as someone I was collaborating with on a different community that isn’t good for me.
Since communication had broken down, and event 3 happened today, I thought it was best for me to untangle myself from the previous commitment.
As far as the actual zero carb carnivore people go, there are about 2 or 3 of us on lemmy that post and comment. Thats a huge amount of responsibility for a few shoulders, getting involved in other peoples agendas isn’t something I have the stomach for.
I think you’re very much overreacting here. Someone who says, truthfully, that you did thing X and they don’t agree with it doesn’t mean they are “systematically undermining” you. It definitely doesn’t mean that they’re calling for your community to be removed, even if some totally different person might come to a totally different conclusion that the true thing that you actually did might imply that as a possible remedy.
Personally, I see absolutely no reason why “I didn’t agree with the mod when they did thing X” would imply that the community should be removed. Has any community ever been removed, or anyone ever suggested it, based on any post here which are basically all the same type of “systematic undermining” of some mod activity?
You might be totally right.
My core issue is the communication stopped. I can’t co-run a community when the communication has stopped.
