this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024

11 points (92.3% liked)

Pleasant Politics

208 readers

1 users here now

Politics without the jerks.

This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read !santabot@slrpnk.net for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.

Rules

Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.

All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.

No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.

founded 4 months ago

MODERATORS

auk

santa

[META] UniversalMonk ban evasion (self.pleasantpolitics)

submitted 5 days ago by auk to c/pleasantpolitics

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

UniversalMonk has been evading the bot's ban on him by posting from new accounts. That's ban evasion, which on most instances leads to an account-level ban, as far as I know.

I made a report, but just in case it blended in with the noise, I'm posting to let admins know that he's now ban evading from these new accounts. As much fun as he is to interact with, and a good test for the bot's throwaway account detection, I think Lemmy will be improved by nuking these accounts.

The accounts are UniversalMonk at lemm.ee, slrpnk.net, and sh.itjust.works. The first two ban evaded in !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net, the last one is merely connected to the person who did that.

@poVoq@slrpnk.net

I think I'll make separate posts to the meta communities for the other two servers. I'm not sure which admin is appropriate for this.

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] poVoq 5 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Their main account was banned on their home instance lemmy.world, hence it is debatable that this is intentional ban evasion.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

This is kinda a fundamental question/issue of the fediverse though right? If you can just hop instances constantly, even if you use the same name, the mods wanted you out, for a time at least. So popping back up like a prairie dog certainly goes against the community action

[–] auk 4 points 5 days ago

They were banned from !pleasantpolitics@slrpnk.net ages ago, and just now starting posting new stuff there under new accounts.

You could be charitable and say that they probably didn't understand how Pleasant Politics works, and had no idea that they were banned.

Or, you could say that this user has such a clear pattern of badly-intended participation that this is clearly in the spirit of ban evasion regardless.

To me, it would be different if they were coming with a post apologizing about trying to antagonize the whole community, and promising to be less toxic in their future interactions, and asking for a second chance. They're not doing that. The fact that they're not even bothering, just saying that they plan to continue the same obnoxious conduct as before, trying to innocently claim that they didn't mean anything by it, and avowing to skirt carefully within the letter of the law, would mean that common sense would motivate a ban regardless and they don't deserve any extra leeway when rules are broken, even if it was honestly unintentional in this case.

It's up to you. In my opinion no good can come of having this person involved for as long as they really want to defend their right to troll, but it's up to you.

[+] UniversalMonk 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] LibertyLizard 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The main issue is that your past account was banned in this community, but you’re now using a new account to post here. This would usually be considered ban evasion in other circumstances but we all know you’re using this account because LW fully banned your other account.

If you didn’t try to post here previously, you may have been unaware you were banned. This is a gray area that would require us to know you were intentionally evading the ban.

Normally I’d say just don’t post here anymore but it’s a bit complicated because normally you could get unbanned if you post more positive things elsewhere. The way the automatic bans work here is quite different, I would recommend reading about it to understand the context.

This might require the main mod of this community to adjudicate.

[–] Five 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

I appreciate your transparency. It sounds like this was an honest mistake and not intentional ban evasion. It is true that we hold solarpunks to higher standards of discourse than you may be used to on other platforms. The members may be right to be concerned. I understand many of the people you've sparred with in the past have not engaged in good internet etiquette either. But you could really help us out as admins by making a commitment to good-faith debate, at least while using this account.

I don't consider your participation in this thread ban evasion. This is not the kind of discussion that should be moved to direct messages. If @auk wants to ban you, we can move this discussion to !meta.

[–] auk 1 points 5 days ago

I didn't even think about this. No, I don't consider UniversalMonk's participation in this post to be ban evasion. I'm fine giving him a chance to defend himself, if he wants to. It sounds like he's done now with what he had to say.

The decision to give him an account, while he's still arguing vociferously that there was nothing wrong with the conduct that got him site-banned before, is confusing.

[–] UniversalMonk 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Thank you. I was just concerned that posting here would make the problem worse.

And thank you for the explanation. I am fine not posting to this community, I was just concerned since he was trying to get me banned from this instance and contacted admins for other instances as well.

The whole reason I made this my home instance is because of the higher standards. And why I am fighting to stay on here.

I'm happy to move on and I consider the situation resolved.

[–] Five 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

We contacted all of the instances where we knew he had bans before granting him membership. In the future I'll keep you updated on similar controversial choices so you can better protect your community. Greenlighting him may have been a mistake, but we didn't have sufficient information to gauge the seriousness of his antics. He's definitely not a bot or a spammer, and wasn't trying to conceal his identity so we're giving him the benefit of doubt.

[–] auk 4 points 5 days ago

@TheDude@sh.itjust.works I don't know where to put this for sh.itjust.works, so I'm picking an admin at random.