This is going to be a fun one.
So here are the facts:
I commented on a news article about a mother and adult son charged with incest (and adultery as well for her.) This is what I said:
Someone responded to me and I replied before I realized my original comment was removed for being inappropriate. Then I added the edit when I saw.
The next day I discovered I'd been banned from that community for "pro-incest comments" and several others I don't think I've ever been in for rule 4 violations. The orignal post was removed.
You can see those here:
Site rule 4 is: Usernames or posts/comments containing transphobia, homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, zionism, anti-veganism, or trivializing COVID. No self-described or obvious fascists, conservatives, or reactionaries.
My comments had none of those things. I'd even go so far as to say my banning was reactionary.
Now, I'm not defending incest, especially not for myself. My problem is with puritanical laws interfering with the private sex lives of people. In my original comment I stated that grooming was a separate issue and should be dealt with, but that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. That is, enthusiastic consensual sex between capable adults.
I know someone will bring up the Hapsburgs, so yes, children of incest should be avoided.
The ban fits the spirit, if not the letter, in a sort of "we didn't think we needed to specify a dog can't play basketball" situation. I suspect the wording of the rule will be changed to reflect this.
I disagree, if by "spirit" is how rules and laws are to be followed, this will make it open to ambiguity and alternatives. In effect, negative effects such as abuse-of-power can be seen (as indicated in this scenario).
And if you ignore the spirit of the rules entirely, you get shitty people doing shitty things while clinging to technicalities. If I say "I technically didn't steal your watch", you would still want your watch back.
The solution is to uphold the letter of the rules and, if they are insufficient, you update the rules.
Sure, but if you completely rely on the spirit without regard to technicality you get the same scenario. In addition, the "spirit" is highly subjective so the basis of technicalities is not only beneficial but necessary.
I do agree on the latter, however.
You never can completely rely on it alone. The spirit of the law, or Lemmy community rule, always originates from some letter. The two concepts are fundamentally linked and concern the other.
Agreed, a strong foundation to rules is necessary. A lack of rules thereof or just relying on the "vibe" of the rule is insufficient and could cause malevolent actors to abuse such "vibes". Shitty people can cling to technicalities - such as people who cling onto the apparent vibes of the rule.
You can't have one without the other, as without one, you have people excusing something that isn't remotely within that rule.
The good thing is this is Lemmy, not any anything of any consequence, so being a little loose with the rules isn't the end of anyone's world. (And if it is, you need to get off the Internet and go touch grass.)
In particular, banning someone and changing the rules to cover a scenario that just occurred (ex post facto) is usually okay. We're not large enough for thorough rulemaking to cover every conceivable situation.
And in OP's case, they're being reasonable about it and the ban is temporary, so I'm not going to call this PTB or YDI.
While I do agree on being relatively loose with the rules especially on a social platform - it still seems a bit one sided. You're taking the side of the mod (its pretty clear), but consider being the poster - the rules state nothing about the thing op is ranting about.
So tell me how is it fair for the other party? Of course the mod could've went about this somewhat differently - but they resolved it with the nuclear option. A warning is a thing you know - and it's a tool mods should use before resolving to more rigorous methods.