I’m pretty sure you should have been allowed an appeal. I believe it’s a “bylaw” of lemmy. Next time you feel you’ve had a comment unfairly removed or you’ve been banned for something you feel wasn’t worthy of a ban, reach out to a moderator of that community and just ask.
We’re not Reddit. Sometimes, misunderstandings happen.
We see what we want to see, don’t we?
Sounds like ≠ is. Which is why I tried explaining it better.
You’re not being encouraged to have drawn out discussions with trolls. WE (mods) are encouraged to not insta-ban or knee-jerk remove content just because it might lie within a grey area of what we consider trolling, like other instances do from time to time. If someone is blatantly trolling, which is usually obvious- we remove the content, but if not and it’s just an unpopular opinion/conspiracy theory, the idea is that it should remain and be debated with facts and shut down via discourse rather than a heavy hand.
Also… This is not an all encompassing be-all-end-all rule. It’s nuanced. VERY nuanced. Again, no one is forcing you to have to deal with nonsense. You also have the option to not react to people you believe is trolling in bad faith, and report them if you feel they are brewing the rules.
Hope this clears some of it up.
Well said and agreed.
Essentially, the policy is to distance .world from other instances that have a more…. Locked down/strict approach. Or in other words, the purpose of the change is to not have .world’s moderation resemble the oppressive methods of moderation of some of the other popular instances.
Its intention is to stop heavy-handed moderation, and instead create discussion and debate. To not have mods knee-jerk remove/ban content that could have been left to remain and debated. The problem is, it was confusing in its delivery.
But don’t let this get in the way of whatever grudge you’re holding.
This shows you clearly don’t understand what was implied by what was said. “Flat earth” is a placeholder term to imply “random nonsense conspiracy theory.” Nothing more.
The idea is that instead of instant removal/ban, we are encouraged to debate and draw out through discussion, the reason why it’s bullshit.
I’ll agree that the change suggested is a bit confusing in it’s wording, but simultaneously, it was also misinterpreted by knee-jerk reactionaries to mean what they needed it to mean to result in the outrage they crave.
As I understand, It was a move intended to inspire discussion rather than having overreaching moderators knee-jerk remove posts/comments. It just wasn’t worded properly.
I’m not defending it. I’m making sense of it. If you refuse to try and understand it, then don’t let me get in the way of someone that wants to be angry.