Summary:

  • @Cat@ponder.cat was posting at a high volume to !news@lemmy.world
  • there is no written rule on !news@lemmy.world about post volume
  • there is no written rule on ponder.cat about post volume
  • !news is the one single community Cat was this active in
  • !news has no ponder.cat mods
  • from my understanding, all rules Cat did break were unrelated to volume (correct me if I am wrong)
  • ponder.cat admin @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat reaches out to Cat via comment and then DM essentially threatening account deletion if Cat doesn’t lower their activity level
  • Cat understandably deletes their account because who wants that

Of course, PhilipTheBucket had the right to do this, but I also think it’s exceedingly bad form and people have a right to know that this admin is willing to go above the community mods’ head like that.

Internet etiquette has dictates for dealing with undesirable yet not rule-breaking behavior that was just ignored here. Communication should be chosen before simple fist waving and threats.

I agree with this comment that this is a bait-provoked reaction. Next time I recommend:

  • at the instance/admin level, the creation of instance rules about volume
  • at the community level, advocacy for community rules about volume (i.e. “[Meta] Petition: Limit daily submissions to !news to ensure community quality”)
  • avoid personal slapfights to get your way
  • avoid escalation directly to account termination threats

Source: https://ponder.cat/post/1731587

  • lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s a meta post, you didn’t mark it as such. Nothing more, nothing less. If I thought the post should be removed, I would have reported it for removal. The metatude (It’s a word now. I invented it. Probably after someone else already did, but they’re not here, are they?) of the post is noteworthy, so I noted it. You could have done already, and still can even now.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      heard but no. it’s not a meta post as it clearly is about actions that happened before whatever is described in the other post, and outside this community.

      you seem confused about what meta means; meta posts are about the community itself.

      thank you for your input but if i added the meta tag it would make this post worse, not better.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m not confused: you made a post about a post, discussing matters brought up in the post, after getting dumpstered by downvotes in the post you subsequently made a post about. If that’s not meta, then it better not have kids with meta or we’ll end up with the Habsburgs all over again. You seem to have a blind spot with regards to how that comes across, which is fair.

        If you intended to simply be informative, you lost the plot by titling your thread as you did. I’d consider that an honest mistake if you hadn’t avoided any mention of the other thread and your involvement in it. It’s in bad faith, and it’s a bad look.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          two separate topics.

          • admin threatens account deletion (this post)
          • mod bans admin for bringing the discussion directly to the comments instead of engaging in community engagement for change (other post)

          tired of this boring conversation. blocked.