[-] auk@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

I think some of it was for DM harrassment or posting fan fiction about other people on Lemmy.

Again, assumption. And no, none of that ever happened.

Modlog, search for "harassing."

Good to know, maybe I missed the tone in your text. I def took it as you were trying to ban me from this instance, lemm.ee, and sh.itjust.works because of what you thought of my previous behavior on an instance that I was banned from weeks ago. Since you are writing to all of the admins there.

That is exactly what I was trying to do, yes. Not for your behavior on the previous instances exactly, but for starting up the same behavior from new accounts since you'd already been banned for it, which is against the rules. I think I explained the commonsense reasons also.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 days ago

And you can easily not “endure” me by blocking my name.

Part of the point of the violation here is that, if someone's already blocked your name, they now have to do it again for three new accounts, until you make more beyond those three.

I already think that trolling and saying that anyone who doesn't like it should just block you is unreasonable. Trolling and saying that anyone who doesn't like it needs to block every new account you make to keep trolling with when one gets banned is a whole different level.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net -5 points 6 days ago

Sending out ban notifications to dozens of users about bans in a community they've never heard of doesn't seem like good bot design.

I am unsurprised that a UniversalMonk fan would think that would be a totally reasonable thing to do, though, and at the same time that banning someone who managed to get an account ban from the least ban-happy instance there is when they make a new account and start doing the same stuff is somehow unreasonable.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 days ago

Your ban is in the modlog. It's about halfway down, search for "pleasant".

I'm mostly relying on common sense here. Your participation in previous politics communities was incredibly obnoxious. The issue was never that you were talking about third parties and posting news articles. I don't even know all the details of why you were banned. I think some of it was for DM harrassment or posting fan fiction about other people on Lemmy. Now that you've been banned, you've made new accounts and went looking for new politics communities to start doing the same thing in, while seeking for exact clarifications about the rules that would let you carefully adhere to the letter of them so you could keep doing it, while the overwhelming majority of the community keeps asking you not to.

I'm not trying to be mean about it, and I'm not upset or anything. If you're interested in changing how you contribute so that you're a net positive to the community, let's talk. If you're planning to continue your current type of contributions, but trying to engineer ways around the rules with multiple accounts or whatever so that you can keep doing it, then the answer is no thank you.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

As I said under the other post, I do believe this evasion was entirely unintentional, for the reasons you outlined. The part that was intentional was trolling in lemmy.world politics and some other communities until your whole user got banned, and then making new accounts and going looking for other politics communities to start up exactly the same antics in, explicitly affirming your plan to continue the same pattern of behavior. And, in the course of doing that, you managed to break some rules, set up to protect against that kind of behavior.

I'm not planning to set the bot up to notify dozens of users about their bans in a community they have never posted in and don't care about. Mostly it doesn't come up, because you have to be pretty obnoxious for the bot to ban you. Almost no one even close to that boundary even posts there, because almost everyone understands how to interact with other users without collecting hundreds or thousands of downvotes.

I get that you didn't get a notification, and so probably didn't know you were banned. You did know you were being obnoxious previously, and refused to stop doing it until it escalated to an account ban, and then made some new accounts and started looking for new places to do it.

I think admins and mods those new places can make the decision about whether that is ban evasion, or whether they want to let you do this all again until you inevitably get banned again sometime later. People have talked with you about why what you're doing is a problem. Why they would pick that second option is something of a mystery to me, but I'll leave it up to them. I'm just relaying the information.

It would be a different story if you were just misunderstanding something, and completely open to a conversation about why you keep getting banned and what you can do differently, but you're clearly more interested in figuring out the details of the rules so you can find ways around them and keep doing your same thing.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 5 points 6 days ago

Fully agree. I'm finishing up a few replies to other people who had things to say about it, and then I plan to wash my hands of it.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

This is a really good point. I was going to get sucked into replying after his innocent-faced reply, but there's really no point to it.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

The bot banned you from !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net I don't know how long ago. You had a lower rank, after a while, than even Media Bias Fact Check bot. Somehow. That's your violation of the letter of the law.

I can't even find the entry in the modlog because your record of moderation actions is so extensive that it's almost impossible to make sense of. I seriously tried, and since your account ban and the endless list of deletions and bans people have been giving you, I couldn't find it. It's hard to find stuff for now-deleted accounts, I guess. It's there though. You were banned quite a while ago from !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net under the now-deleted account. I can find a date or a moderation record if you want to see it. Anyway, you put yourself in a position to be able to DM people again after being banned for some kind of offense in DMs, and started posting in new politics communities with the exact same stuff after being banned for a pattern of behavior that I would say the mods were excessively generous about, to the point of moderation malpractice. That's your violation of the spirit of the law.

You did ban evasion both in letter and in spirit. And, you're pretending with an innocent face not to understand how anyone could have a negative reaction to you, when you're clearly aiming for exactly that negative reaction with a lot of your past posts. That's the proactive element that would lead me, if I were an admin, to ban you on sight.

You need to reevaluate your approach to posting, or else get accustomed to people wanting to ban you. It's the world's most natural reaction to what you like doing.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 7 points 6 days ago

Being the same person who was banned, and posting from a new account, is ban evasion.

You can find a place that can put up with you, if you want to try. That's the sense in which your voice won't be silenced. The same people who've seen what you have to say and want no part of it are not obligated to continue listening to it forever, with you disabling their attempts not to hear from you anymore. That's protecting their rights to use Lemmy as they want to use it.

19
submitted 6 days ago by auk@slrpnk.net to c/support@lemm.ee

UniversalMonk has been evading the a ban on him by posting from new accounts on !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net. That's ban evasion, which on most instances leads to an account-level ban, as far as I know. The relevant account is UniversalMonk@lemm.ee.

I'm not sure how to notify admins on lemm.ee, so I'm posting here. If ban evasion justifies an account ban on lemm.ee, then it's time. If there's a better place to send this note, let me know, and I'll do that instead.

49
submitted 4 weeks ago by auk@slrpnk.net to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

I made a robot moderator. It models trust flow through a network that's made of voting patterns, and detects people and posts/comments that are accumulating a large amount of "negative trust," so to speak.

In its current form, it is supposed to run autonomously. In practice, I have to step in and fix some of its boo-boos when it makes them, which happens sometimes but not very often.

I think it's working well enough at this point that I'd like to experiment with a mode where it can form an assistant to an existing moderation team, instead of taking its own actions. I'm thinking about making it auto-report suspect comments, instead of autonomously deleting them. There are other modes that might be useful, but that might be a good place to start out. Is anyone interested in trying the experiment in one of your communities? I'm pretty confident that at this point it can ease moderation load without causing many problems.

!santabot@slrpnk.net

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 74 points 1 month ago

It's very deliberate.

One of the key features of an abusive relationship is shutting you down from people who can help you.

If someone's in the middle of a disaster, and Joe Biden's federal government comes and helps them out, it's a catastrophe for the Republicans. It brings the psychotic lies people have been told about the government into contact with the reality of the federal government in the real world, which is one of the few ways they might be able to break out of their elaborate propaganda-bubbles.

If, on the other hand, they're convinced that FEMA is now coming to kill them, but also their home has been washed away in a mudslide, then they might wind up fleeing the state, living with their family on their brother-in-law's couches, trying to scrape by, becoming more and more desperate, with no one to give them any substantive assistance of any kind. The desperation increases. The fear of anything governmental or democratic can continue, and increase.

And then, when their brother-in-law offers them a rifle and an invitation to come with a few people and shoot up the election office, or the Democratic organizer's home, because the government already tried to kill them once when they were at their lowest point, and they escaped only by the skin of their teeth, so it might as well be go time... well, they might accept the offer. Because why not?

By demonizing FEMA, the Republicans are turning what would have been a problem into a recruitment tool.

1
1
1

Here are the top few questions, and the responses:


Kismetatron

Hi Jill, thanks for doing this AMA. I have so many questions but first can you address this statement?

“We are not in a position to win the White House. But we do have a real opportunity to win something historic. We could deny Kamala Harris the state of MI. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without MI.”

I mean it really, really sounds like your true intent is to get Trump into the White House. Which is weird because I thought the Green Party was for climate action and saving the the environment. Silly me.

Quick question, if you do succeed how do I look my legal immigrant wife in the eyes and tell her she may deported back to her home country simply for being the wrong skin color? Trump guaranteed that this is gonna happen if gets back in office so I really want to hear the mental gymnastics behind why you would cheerlead for this kind of misery.

JillSteinOnReddit

(no response)


LizukaWest

If the intention of the Green Party is in fact to actually be a viable third party, then why is there virtually no effort made at growing power at levels below the presidency? There has not been an elected Green member of the House in years, there are only four mayors in the entire country and there are barely any city or student council members. Wouldn't focusing on lower stakes, winnable races be ultimately more efficient than doing nothing but running doomed campaigns?

JillSteinOnReddit

Hi Lizuka, the vast majority of Green campaigns are down-ballot campaigns, mostly on the local level. Greens have won over 1500 elections, making the Green Party the most successful independent party in the country that doesn’t take corporate money.

Ballot access rules designed by the duopoly require the Green Party to run for president and other high offices - or lose ballot lines and the ability to run at all levels.

Roughly 60% of US voters believe the 2-party system doesn't represent us and we need a new party. We don't have a democracy unless voters have a right to choose at all levels of government.

AsherGray

How many of the 1,500 elections won were in the last decade? I've noticed that the green party has zero seats in the senate, zero seats in the house of Representatives, zero state governorships, 0 out of 1,972 seats in state upper chambers, 0 out of 5,411 state lower chambers, and the list goes on.

Why should the American people vote for the candidate of a party that is incompetent at getting elected to smaller divisions of government?

JillSteinOnReddit

(no response)


forgedbygeeks

What did you discuss with Putin and Flynn at the infamous Moscow dinner photo?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/12/21/that-infamous-moscow-dinner-where-michael-flynn-and-jill-stein-sat-with-putin-utahs-rocky-anderson-was-there-too/

TeamJillStein

Jill has answered this before! Here is a link to her answer on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drjillstein/video/7342590195394546987

Jan_17_2016

Yes, she just so happened to get invited to attend the 10th anniversary of a Russian propaganda network, and just so happened to get put at Putin’s table with Michael Flynn, just before she just so happened to siphon enough votes away from Clinton to allow for a Trump victory.

Sure, Jill.

TeamJillStein

(no response)

1
1

Bonus: If you live in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin or North Carolina, they'll let you claim a referral from Elon Musk's program, and take $47 away from him.

1
1
1
20
submitted 1 month ago by auk@slrpnk.net to c/politics@beehaw.org

Today's the deadline for AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IN, KY, LA, MS, NM, OH, RI, SC, TN, TX.

In addition to the obvious, we are voting for:

State constitutional rights to abortion in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, and South Dakota.

Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have initiatives on the ballot to ban noncitizens from voting. It's already illegal, but the initiatives will probably be used to harass and disenfranchise minorities and activists, if they pass.

Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Alaska, and Missouri will vote to adopt or prohibit ranked choice voting.

Alaska, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri will vote to adopt a $15-18 minimum wage.

And so on. Ballotpedia has a complete list.

Go register to vote, or check your registration if you've already registered.

82
submitted 1 month ago by auk@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

Today's the deadline for AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IN, KY, LA, MS, NM, OH, RI, SC, TN, TX.

In addition to the obvious, we are voting for:

State constitutional rights to abortion in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Nevada, and South Dakota.

Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin have initiatives on the ballot to ban noncitizens from voting. It's already illegal, but the initiatives will probably be used to harass and disenfranchise minorities and activists, if they pass.

Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Alaska, and Missouri will vote to adopt or prohibit ranked choice voting.

Alaska, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri will vote to adopt a $15-18 minimum wage.

And so on. Ballotpedia has a complete list.

Go register to vote, or check your registration if you've already registered.

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 47 points 1 month ago

We're doing Fox News, now? Huh.

Anticolonialist, how'd you run across this story? Just reading up on Fox News like all the anticolonialists like to do, and you decided to share this story when you ran across it? Or some other way?

[-] auk@slrpnk.net 40 points 9 months ago

The motive is unclear

Not to me it isn't.

view more: next ›

auk

joined 9 months ago
MODERATOR OF