flicker

I already loved this format. This is a blending of two things that I adore, and I am grateful for it.

I learned about that in middle school hygiene!

This took 3000% more effort than strictly necessary and I value every drop of it.

I enjoyed this comment so much an upvote felt insufficient.

Okay so I checked that post and like... if more than a few people are celebrating that you're not around anymore, maybe you need to do some self-reflection.

I have an Animaniacs song I've remembered almost my whole life just for that purpose!

I live in Appalachia and we have a long and storied history of how we deal with the unfair, unjust tax man.

You asked for judgment. I gave it.

I think you came here to get a pat on the ass and have people agree with you, not to hear dissenting opinion.

I have no particular opinion of FlyingSquid as a person

Okay but in the OP here you have the opinion that FlyingSquid is someone who needs protecting.

The fact that it's in service of harassing FlyingSquid in particular is just icing on the cake, since my perception is that people like to harass him apparently for no legitimate reason at all (with this as an example).

Emphasis mine.

You're not being objective about it and you're arguing with anyone who points that out.

You don't have to be objective about this on your own instance. But you came here to ask if YTA and yes, you are.

The issue is whether there is a clear pattern.

The users saying the issue is if there is a clear pattern aren't arguing in support of whether there is a clear pattern of the world conspiring against one user. They're saying moderation action is supposed to come down on someone, someone, with a clear pattern of misbehavior. Permabans for rules or harrassment require more than one incident of being a nuisance. Otherwise, they call for a clear but stern warning.

If I'm the mod, or admin, and someone reports Stamets (I'm sorry hon I was just trying to think of someone I favor) for rule breaking when he didn't, just because a bunch of other people have been harassing assholes to him isn't enough justification to ban that one person!

Now again, vibes-based moderation is fine. It's your instance. It's your little hamlet, and you're the ruler. But as for whether this is objectively fair or not, the answer is no. And if this combative attitude is what you took to that user in DMs, then I can see why they escalated to a point where you had to ban them.

If this user had "interacted negatively" with whoever, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because I wouldn't have noticed and probably wouldn't have cared.

Oh gosh, ew. I can't believe you spent the previous paragraph saying FS isn't special, or in a different category, and then immediately said this.

I was on your side until this, even though we can't see the DMs and one instance of behavior that you don't like is definitely more "warning" territory than banning territory. I think there's room for vibes-based moderation, especially on an instance you host, but you're openly admitting you give FS special treatment, and then in the same breath, saying that you aren't.

PTB, and also gross. If you can't see why special moderation action to protect someone from "harrassment" when you wouldn't extend that protection to someone else isn't fair, I don't know what to tell you. Rules apply evenly to everyone, no matter how much you like somebody.

Holy fucking shit.

I'm Vyvanse sober.

If you try to make me drink alcohol, I will punch you and run.