This guy is literally messaging people after he gets downvoted because he doesn’t like the word “Bro”.

“Bro” was literally used as an expression of disbelief.

from atomicpoet @piefed.social

You’re receiving this message because I consider the word “bro” to be offensive, and I noticed you downvoted my request that a commenter avoid using it.

I want to politely ask that you not encourage language or behaviour that could bring toxicity into [email protected] .

This is a friendly warning. If it happens again, I will have to issue a ban.

  • wjs018@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    30 days ago

    Hey y’all…this was a fun thread to wake up to.

    atomicpoet has been a bit of a recurring topic of discussion among admin/staff. My baseline position as an admin is that I am disinclined to intervene and tell community mods how they should or should not run their communities so long as they are not abusing the tools given to them for things like harassment. However, there are cases where, for the health of the community it might be beneficial to do so.

    In this case, the actions we have taken included removing [email protected] from the fediverse topic on piefed.social since the expected standard of community conduct seems to be out of line with many other areas of the fediverse. So we don’t want to lead more tourists into the community and cause problems for them or a moderating burden for atomicpoet. There are already tons of existing fediverse communities out there that are active, I encourage people to just move to one of those if they don’t like the moderating decisions of the community in question.

    Most of atomicpoet’s communities are modded only by him and posts mostly are his own. The biggest exception to this is [email protected]. Looking through past mod actions, it doesn’t look like they are as strict in that community as with others, so I don’t feel the need to intervene. However, this is a situation that we will keep an eye on going forward.

    Something else that has come from this discussion is that it would be beneficial to have some baseline expectations for community moderators on piefed.social. So, I am going to work on adding a section to the site rules in the near future.

    • Blaze (he/him)@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      The biggest exception to this is [email protected]. Looking through past mod actions, it doesn’t look like they are as strict in that community as with others, so I don’t feel the need to intervene. However, this is a situation that we will keep an eye on going forward.

      Just to add on this, I review the mod actions in [email protected] regularly, if someone sees anything that should be reported, feel free to reach out to me on Matrix (my account is in my bio)

            • Blaze (he/him)@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              29 days ago

              More posts discussing the fallout:

              Dbzer0 admin claiming Uyghur genocide is ‘overblown and misrepresented’

              Dbzer0 admin casually defending Uyghur genocide denial because “libs worse”, yikes

              Banned from meanwhileongrad for “No db0 allowed”.

              On Dbzer0, ‘harassing mods’ is when you criticize the top admin of .ml for responding to a Wiki link with a Lemmy search

              Out of those 4 posts, 3 were made by you, I didn’t check the whole list

              • PugJesus@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                29 days ago

                Again, the body doesn’t discuss me despite mentioning me in the title; my posts are linked to, but why you would link to someone else linking to my posts without comment as an addendum while discussing someone else instead of linking to my posts - since the end result is the same, except for the extraneous association with another argument - is deeply questionable.

                This is not unlike when you repeatedly attempted to link me to the 196 move despite having nothing to do with the move.

                • Blaze (he/him)@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  why you would link to someone else linking to my posts without comment as an addendum while discussing someone else instead of linking to my posts - since the end result is the same, except for the extraneous association with another argument - is deeply questionable.

                  So that people can read the several comments you made in that thread, as well as the dbzer0 users answers.

                  This is not unlike when you repeatedly attempted to link me to the 196 move despite having nothing to do with the move.

                  I updated my comments there, as I said at the time: https://lemmy.world/comment/18437409

                  Bringing up that point when I corrected it seems “deeply questionable” as well.

  • remon@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    What’s the point? Just block him and the 3 communities he mods and move on.