before i made an account, i reached out to the chief admin of lemmy.dbzer0.com
i was recently banned during a discussion on the validity of a claim regarding the consensus about the safety of a vegan diet:
and, if you bother to go find that discussion, you'll find that, in fact, my interlocutor did become incivil. i did report that. and somehow, my discussion and the subsequent report were the basis of a ban.
it was less than 2 hours. it's almost not worth discussing.
but given my pre-application discussion, i felt strongly that my conduct is within the bounds of the acceptable use of the instance. so if my conduct is not within the acceptable use, that means i basically cant use my account(s) as i planned and under the terms which i agreed.
db0 has said he doesn't want to be the benevolent dictator for life, and has specifically both recused himself from ruling on my conduct and encouraged me to post here and in !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com (though i'm still holding off on that for now).
so, did i deserve it? power tripping bastard? what do you think?
either it's bad faith or it's not. and i'd be surprised if you could point to any such interaction, since i rarely make an independent argument on this topic. mostly, i call into question the validity of others' arguments.
That's not how this works. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of JAQ? You don't need to make positive claims to argue in bad faith. In fact, the avoidance of making any positive claims can often be indicative of bad-faith discussion.
JAQ is effective precisely because it often comes along with plausible deniability. It's established as bad faith because it's a pattern, even when most individual instances can look rather innocuous.
I think they mean they’re transparently objecting and from their own concern. JAQ is a way to avoid accountability and appearances of a position and can be from any kind of faith: good or bad.
my objections to the claims made are based in fact and good scientific practice.