this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
113 points (98.3% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1494 readers
187 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.


Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

  1. Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
  2. What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
  3. Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
  4. Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
  5. Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules


Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YTPB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jnod4@lemmy.ca 17 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Socialising, interacting, expressing ourselves? Is this place a medical journal or a research paper? Is any of this necessary? We could remove 99% of the posts as they're not necessary. None of this stuff we're doing here is necessary for our lives. (actually might be a detriment). Are you necessary? Am I necessary? The world would still rotate. What kind of philosophical nightmare are you trying to uncover?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Was it necessary to intentionally call someone bro just to poke the bear? Yes, it's weird that they don't like the term, yeah, but people intentionally going out of their way to call them bro is literally bullying. Yes, it's bad that they threatened to ban people for downvoting their comments, but it doesn't make bullying okay. If people want to fling valid criticism their way, that's fine, but just calling someone bro when they said they don't like it is pretty childish.

Take this comment, it is pretty clear, but doesn't call them a name they specifically asked to not be called. https://quokk.au/comment/1473591

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 hours ago

I would agree, but also I would say harassing people based on their voting, and threatening them, is bullying. As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they don't want to be bullied, they shouldn't bully. I'm in favor of taking advantage of teachable moments to reduce abuse in the long term.

[–] Blaze@lazysoci.al 1 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn't like being called 'bro', that's the reason of the whole debacle.

He has stepped down from his mod position, which is a better outcome than 99% of the posts in this community.

Then people still come at him with this kind of comments.

IIRC, AtomicPoet has autism, the comment above is the equivalent of bullying the autist kid who struggled to understand social norms at school.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle.

Yes, but maybe the other people don't like being told that they're toxic for using a colloquialism. Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction? Why can't someone sit down and lecture atomicpoet at length about how wrong he is for his failure to get with the program of how other people want him to interact, instead of the other way around, and then ban him if he doesn't agree to keep all their communities completely free-form where people can express whatever they want, and ban anyone who upvotes or defends his viewpoint if anyone does?

I've got no slightest bit of ill will for the guy. His viewpoint makes sense, it's fine, and also I spent some time trying to really break it down why this approach might be a bad idea, but at the end of the day I wish him well and he's obviously welcome to set up his stuff and his communities in the way that will spark joy. It's all good. I do feel like a lot of times this "I have decided the metric for virtue and you must obey it" doesn't really go along with being willing to accede to other people's metrics of virtue when they decide to enforce that you obey it in turn. (That is why I keep joking about YPTB banning people who take the viewpoint that anything the mods do is okay because they're the mods and they've got the power within their community.)

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev -5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Why does this kind of stuff only ever go one direction?

You're joking, right? If it only went one direction then none of the posts calling them out for anything would've happened in the first place.

You can still criticize someone's beliefs while respecting them by refusing to refer to them by terms they don't want. Case in point, this comment: https://quokk.au/comment/1473591

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well, but my point is that these people whose logic is "I own this community, and so therefore I own the people within it, so whatever I think they should be allowed and not is the word of God, QED," I feel like those people wouldn't be amenable to the same logic if it were themselves in the peon position and some other person in the "word of God" position. Like if they were banned for voting the wrong way on comments within YPTB, it all of a sudden wouldn't be a totally logical and understandable thing to have happen.

The fact that YPTB doesn't work that way, and we can just kind of talk things out here (most of the time), doesn't really change that. They're still defending a system where people who think differently cannot criticize them (at least not in a direct reply in the same domain).

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev -4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I'm literally not talking about any of that, I'm just saying it's childish that people are intentionally going out of their way to bully someone by calling them bro when they asked people not to. That's it. That's all I had a problem with.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Why is banning someone for voting in a way you don't like, and calling them "toxic," not bullying?

That's it. That's what I had a problem with. A lot of cultures recognize the right to self-defense, and it applies rhetorically as well as physically. And just like in the physical realm, sometimes people recognize the response as extreme when they don't see their initial provocation as "extreme" in the same way, because the people they were attacking were bad people, and so basically they deserved what they got, unlike me who didn't even do anything wrong.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 4 hours ago

I never said that wasn't bullying.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 9 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Everybody in this thread is aware AtomicPoet doesn’t like being called ‘bro’, that’s the reason of the whole debacle

Umm, no, they aren't. Maybe they are now, after you made the comment I'm currently replying to, but I read your earlier comment and had to go back and double-check Hansae's comment hadn't been edited, because your response made no sense otherwise.

[–] Blaze@lazysoci.al -4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe I should have added a link to the previous post in the OP of this one.

The events were happening in the span of a few days, I assumed most of the people would know of the context

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I assumed most of the people would know of the context

Haha, nope. This is the very first post on the subject I've seen.

And now I'm just really confused about how someone could be offended by the term "bro". Personally I'd say it's gender-neutral, but I can understand a woman, especially a trans woman, being opposed to the term. But that doesn't seem to be what's going on here. So it's just...weird. It's a friendly term of endearment.

[–] Blaze@lazysoci.al -3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I edited both the OP and the comment, so hopefully it's more clear.

The reasoning behind it is that 'bro' can be related to the 'bro' culture (think cryptobros), that is not known for good discussions but rather dismissive comments and attitudes.

There is a more detailed explanation somewhere down the comments, but too lazy to find it now.

I don't really agree with that stance, but I can see why someone would think that.

Edit: found this https://atomicpoet.org/@atomicpoet/posts/AyXynXKOmOfyjE7Wb2

[–] jnod4@lemmy.ca 3 points 20 hours ago

Ok now it makes sense why you'd ask a random guy "is that necessary"

(how come it got to this corner of the Internet everything is exhausting over here.)

Let me get this, so there's this guy who was trying to mod multiple subreddits(or wtvr) but he has an illness/disease that is commonly known to interfere with the social dynamics?

I've never read an username and never will but I'm taking a break from y'all