0

Context: PugJesus often spams low quality posts across the dozen or so communities they mod, apparently downvoting low effort spam on my frontpage is trolling. The only other action in the modlog is a different ban for 74 years for "Mass downvoting innocuous content," so it definitely seems they are just banning people that dislike their spam. Glad we're not missing out on the reddit mod experience here.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tyler@programming.dev -1 points 8 months ago

Saying my frontpage has absolutely nothing to do with subscriptions… you can literally customize lemmy to show you All, Local, or Subscribed, or if you’re using an app you can customize it even more. It has nothing to do with being subscribed, that’s your ignorance making you believe something that wasn’t true.

Also this has to be the trolliest comment in this thread. Downvoting spam and bad content is something that you absolutely should do.

[-] OpenStars@piefed.social 0 points 8 months ago

There's a key difference. A subscribed member of the community has the right to downvote poor quality content, whereas drive-by downvoting via All is something else altogether.

I have not seen the content that OP downvoted, so I have no idea how poor-quality it might be. But why would that even matter? The mod defended the community from someone who, by OP's own admission, is neither a subscribed member nor someone who has ever contributed beyond, and again this is OP's very own wording in this post, "mass downvoting".

"mass downvoting" is a form of vote manipulation.

Let's even take for granted that OP did it entirely in good faith, thinking they were helping the Threadiverse. Okay then, but in that case why bother being salty about being banned, from a community they claimed to have no interest in contributing to?

It seems to me a case of play games, win prizes. Yeah OP can mass downvote, and yeah the mod can ban them as a result. And now we've all had this conversation about it.

Maximum friendliness would have been for OP to simply block the community, or perhaps the poster to it, and then not have to worry about seeing that low-quality content anymore. Instead, they seem to want the right to continue to downvote it despite not ever wanting to post or comment. But I am siding with the mod in this case that I might well ban someone for the same reason, if the only "contributions" they ever made were drive-by downvotes like that.

So now OP is banned, so they don't have to worry anymore about it, problem solved. In the future though, I did recommend blocking rather than mass-downvoting all posts in a community that they are NOT a member of.

[-] tyler@programming.dev -1 points 8 months ago

A subscribed member of the community has the right to downvote poor quality content, whereas drive-by downvoting via All is something else altogether.

Anyone has the right to downvote. Subscribing just means you want to see it in your subscribed feed, not that you somehow get more “rights” to vote. What a ridiculous notion.

"mass downvoting" is a form of vote manipulation.

No it is not. Get off your high horse. If I downvote every post from a specific user because it clearly doesn’t belong in a community, that is not vote manipulation. Yes it would be better if the content would get removed, but waiting for that to occur and in the meantime allowing upvotes to continue when people might not even realize the post is in the wrong community just warps what communities are for.

This was readily apparent for years on Reddit (probably still is). People that don’t pay attention to what sub something is on, and then they just upvote it because they like it. It makes it to the top of the subreddit, more people see it, think that’s what the community is actually about, and then join it thus warping the actual intention of the community.

Maximum friendliness would have been for OP to simply block the community, or perhaps the poster to it, and then not have to worry about seeing that low-quality content anymore. Instead, they seem to want the right to continue to downvote it despite not ever wanting to post or comment. But I am siding with the mod in this case that I might well ban someone for the same reason, if the only "contributions" they ever made were drive-by downvotes like that.

I’ve made it clear why this is a terrible system.

this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1870 readers
62 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.

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


Some acronyms you might see.


Relevant comms

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS