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?
You gave zero information to go off of but judging from what I saw from the comments, YDI.
You said about the other person:
But you were dead wrong about the point being discussed, you kept insisting that their evidence was outdated when they were referring evidence beyond the paper you were talking about. If anything, the other person was remarkably patient with you, and if you were decent you'd own up to having egg on your face and apologize to them. Instead, you reported them for correctly calling out your BS, and are now here whining about a two hour ban.
Personally, I find your whole thing of staying within the letter of "civility" while going "I'm not touching you" and talking down to everyone incredibly annoying, worse than if you just told people to go fuck themselves. If it were up to me I'd issue a permaban, but I don't think we have an abbreviation here for "the mods didn't go far enough."
that reply is a direct quote from the comment to which I was responding
Yes, but the difference is that they were right. This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Saying "Go fuck yourself" can be perfectly called for and justified in certain contexts, but extremely uncalled for in others. They had basis to say that, because you were fucking wrong. You did not, because you were fucking wrong.
From what I'm seeing, there's a consistent pattern of behavior of trying to hide behind language, civility, and tone while being disingenuous as fuck and acting in bad faith.
Imagine an argument over a vaccines where the pro-vaccine person has a bunch of evidence in their favor and the antivaxxer keeps bringing up a flaw in one specific paper that the other person isn't even relying on. The pro-vaccine person would be perfectly justified in getting frustrated, accusing the other person of lying or operating in bad faith, etc. But if the antivaxxer did the same - even if they parroted the exact same language - they would be completely unjustified and out of line, even moreso than they already were. So no, you don't get to hide behind this "it was a direct quote" excuse, because you're the one who was out of line. You don't have the right to hurl accusations back at people when they're right and you don't have a leg to stand on.
they were relying on that for their initial claim, and never backed off the very strong, but unsupported, claim. the evidence they brought later does not support that claim.