• go $fsck yourself@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Lol your argument is that the mod abuse is somehow okay because it wasn’t against someone else?

    Why should any amount of mod abuse be okay, forgotten, or ‘let go’?

    You’ve spent way too much time arguing a shitty position that really has no effect on you. Then you say I need to ’ let it go’?

    The irony is too sad to be funny. I feel sorry for you.

    • MonkeyDatabase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My argument is that you first appear to be a nuetral reporter when, in reality, you are a biased participant.

      Also… This is night 1 of me thinking about this.

      There won’t be a night 2.

      This is night 80 for you.

      Don’t project.

        • MonkeyDatabase@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          No. The facts are not facts because they’re opinions. You present your “facts” through the lens of a neutral party, and you are clearly anything but neutral.

          You make a claim hoping to get the hivemind on your side. You dump screenshots showing your embarrassing behavior and count on the fact that 60+ people won’t even stop to verify or form their own opinion.

          The sad part is that you’re right. You can say anything and if it aligns with their preconceived narrative, they’ll upvote and keep scrolling.

          Which is exactly why you bury the lead, because if you said outright from the beginning that it was against you, well then people would be alerted to your inherent bias and actually form their own opinions.

          • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The facts are presented as neutral because they exist and are neutral.

            The moderator deleted messages to hide their negative response, including messages that broke no rules citing a non-existent rule for the reason. They found out that the mod logs are public after they were called out for misusing their moderator powers by deleting messages that broke no rules. Then immediately deleted their account and complained about it on mastodon, very clearly stating that their issue was that mod logs are public.

            If you think that those facts somehow change because of the context, then that’s on you. You’re just flat wrong.

            Also it’s “bury the lede” 🙂

            • MonkeyDatabase@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_paragraph#Spelling

              lol

              You just can’t help being pedantic. They’re both correct.

              The moderator got tired of this platform because it enables people who feel they were slighted to critique their every move. Mod logs don’t have to be public. I think it’s fine to disagree with that as a moderator. Mod abuse has been caught for decades without it, none of your argument hinged on the public mod logs other than the mastadon post where he shared annoyance that you were bothering him with them. Moderators are free to moderate with the tools and platform they want. He resigned, so fucking what.

              He was snarky back at you. Big whoop.

              This is an insular 1st world problem you are experiencing. Stemming from a bruised ego. This guy is not manipulative or toxic. You’re overreacting.

              Looking through your comments you do plenty of “dishing it out”. But this is how you react when someone sarcastically replies to you then nukes the thread? You must have paper skin.