So we’ve seen the complaints and the reports and boy oh boy are there complaints and reports.

I’ve discussed the account with the other mods and admins multiple times, and while we agree the volume is a lot, it doesn’t point to a botfarm or multiple people using the account.

Obsessive? Absolutely, but not technically rule breaking… Until today.

Today they indescriminately posted the same story three times from three different sources apparently solely to flood the channel showing a decided lack of judgement.

It’s a valid story from a valid source, the original has been kept here:

https://lemmy.world/post/21098916

The others have been removed as duplicates.

I’m also applying a 15 day temp ban on the account.

“15 days? That’s oddly specific! What’s in 15… OH!”

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    91·
    27 days ago

    Genocide denialism and bigotry are WAY worse than just being uncivil. I’m fine with a chamber that doesn’t allow bigotry. If you think that makes it left-leaning, that says a lot more about the right than “free speech”.

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      121·
      27 days ago

      My point is they shouldn’t allow either. The only thing worse is using a double standard, because it prioritizes assholes you agree with over polite users you don’t.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        52·
        27 days ago

        There’s no hypocrisy in saying worse things are worse. That’s not a double standard. Bigotry isn’t an “opinion” and assholes of any stripe are better than people who engage in it. A lot of the people talking to Monk were assholes (that the majority agreed with), but I don’t get the impression you wish moderation had been stricter on them.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          27 days ago

          I challenge that the definition of “bigotry” is as broad as each individual wants to make it, and the kit gloves with which trollish behavior is consistently moderated differ significantly from the approach taken to a very broad definition of “bigoted” opinions, which regularly invite heavy reprimands. As long as the definition of “bigotry” is rigorously defined, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. As I see things, it isn’t.

          And yes, much of this could have been avoided if the people attacking Monk had been held to a higher standard of acceptable behavior. That is exactly the argument I’m making. None of that crap should have been allowed to spiral out of control.