

What impressed me was the way they faked when the message was sent. It said the message was a week old.
What impressed me was the way they faked when the message was sent. It said the message was a week old.
You’re 100% correct that a 15-day ban was too much. For some reason I had thought that wasn’t your first ban in news. Vegan and news have similar icons (based on colors and a quick glance). I apologize for that, and unbanned you a day ago.
We do allow [META] posts, when in good faith and on topic.
Allowing this to stay up.
You hit it on the head. We weren’t aware of this user, as we had 0 reports about them until today.
By the time we received complaints about your comments, the user in question (cat
) had already deleted their account.
I don’t have time to track down every post of theirs to check for sources. We tend to do that when people report posts.
The post that was reported that was submitted by cat
was this one:
https://a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/post/25907073
Nothing wrong with that post. The reason given in the report:
WTF is this power user stuff? That's a lot of freaking posts in less than a month
Again, prolific posting isn’t against any rule. The post didn’t break any rule. Why would I remove that?
Now, on to the reason I gave a temp ban.
Comment:
What the actual fuck? My entire goddamn feed is this one account…
Attacking the user for posting? You may not like them, but again, we only received one report on that user. Apparently their content, while aggressive, broke no rules, and upset nobody until today, according to my reports and mod logs.
Next:
Touch grass. Good lord. You’re carpet bombing multiple communities with repeats of the same crap.
Another personal attack against the user.
Next:
I’m not blocking an account that could easily pivot and start blasting multiple communities spanning multiple instances with subversive information.
Much better to bring awareness to such ridiculousness. The motives of an account with such activity should be questioned. ESPECIALLY since all posts are in news and politics communities.
Another person attacking them for posting. Do we attack Flying Squid, Admiral Picard, MicroWave, or others for contributing more than other users? Again, they broke no rules, and we received our first complaint about that account today.
There were a lot of people attacking that user, and a lot of reports on the comments attacking that user. Those are just a few examples.
Yes, I moderate, but I have a ton more going on in my life, so I’m not always on Lemmy to see what’s happening, and I do rely heavily on reports to find points of pain in the communities I moderate. I also rely heavily on the rest of the moderation team, as well the great tools that people like @ptz@dubvee.org make.
If you go through the posts in this community, you’ll see tons of places where I personally have worked with other users who had complaints. We try to be fair, but attacking users is a violation of our community rules.
You’re both wrong here. Stop, or you both get a vacation from this community.
You’re both wrong here. Stop, or you both get a vacation from this community.
“I never consent to searches”
“I don’t answer questions. Am I detained, or am I free to leave?”
I was the one that submitted the ban, after a number of reports. On the face of it (I am at work, so don’t always have time to deep dive), The reports did seem to align with trolling.
I had/have no idea what’s going on withe the Jordan Lund thing.
My gut says he’s going to use the ethics in government act as an excuse to dump.
Crossover:
1 with 3
2 with 6
Not as much as you’d think.
Parent bullet point is the user. Child bullet points are communities they run/ran
If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?
Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.
It’s actually the conclusion of 2 things:
If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
Jury nullification is an important logical conclusion of American jurist rules. This post will stay up.
Pastime*
All you rich people who think you can break any law you want, let this be a warning roadmap
CTV changed the title after this was posted. This was the original title.
No. As outlined in this document:
The website and the agreement will be governed by and construed per the laws of the following countries and/or states:
- The Netherlands
- Republic of Finland
- Federal Republic of Germany
No idea. That’s why I’m impressed