So we’ve seen the complaints and the reports and boy oh boy are there complaints and reports.

I’ve discussed the account with the other mods and admins multiple times, and while we agree the volume is a lot, it doesn’t point to a botfarm or multiple people using the account.

Obsessive? Absolutely, but not technically rule breaking… Until today.

Today they indescriminately posted the same story three times from three different sources apparently solely to flood the channel showing a decided lack of judgement.

It’s a valid story from a valid source, the original has been kept here:

https://lemmy.world/post/21098916

The others have been removed as duplicates.

I’m also applying a 15 day temp ban on the account.

“15 days? That’s oddly specific! What’s in 15… OH!”

  • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    214·
    2 months ago

    I think this is balanced and fair. I don’t think they demonstrated any supremely shitty opinions, i.e. racism, bigotry, but their presence was incredibly annoying and they didn’t really participate in useful conversations and moreso used the reply box as a soapbox to say a lot of nonsense.

    Moreover, I think banning until the election shows an understanding and restraint by the administration team that is commendable.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      103·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, the typical line crossers, racism, bigotry, hatred, genocide denial, etc. get you on the fast track to a ban and they avoided all of that.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          101·
          2 months ago

          Genocide denialism and bigotry are WAY worse than just being uncivil. I’m fine with a chamber that doesn’t allow bigotry. If you think that makes it left-leaning, that says a lot more about the right than “free speech”.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              52·
              2 months ago

              There’s no hypocrisy in saying worse things are worse. That’s not a double standard. Bigotry isn’t an “opinion” and assholes of any stripe are better than people who engage in it. A lot of the people talking to Monk were assholes (that the majority agreed with), but I don’t get the impression you wish moderation had been stricter on them.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          2 months ago

          than there is for demonstrably antagonistic behavior. Lemmy is veering too strongly toward curating a list of acceptable opinions and too far away from enforcing civility standards, if you ask me. That’s a surefire way to create an ironclad left-leaning echo chamber.

          I would argue exactly the opposite.

          First of all, fuck “civility” rules, which in my experience (back on Reddit) tend to result in polite bad faith comments (sealioning etc.) being tolerated while comments calling out bad faith for the toxic behavior it is get removed.

          Second, facts are not opinions, and it’s hardly Lemmy’s fault if Colbert was correct about reality’s bias.