When having to admit their fault the moderator started looking for arbitrary reasons to ban me. Such as not using the exact terminology of the Amnesty report. Which does not call it genocide.

The moderator is also watching user votes, and calling out people not voting with him.

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
    3·
    2 days ago

    Which, it would be, assuming everything else Goat alleged in that thread is true.

    It. is. not. hypocrisy! We are perfectly within the context of this community to criticize both the rules and the applications of those rules!

    If, say, flatworm had banned me from this community and then I came back later and accused flatworm of being a power tripping bastard for banning me over the disengage rule.

    Yes, you can do that. People would tell YDI, but that’s about it.

    • AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world
      12·
      2 days ago

      How about this lmao

      If they’re the same exact rule being applied fairly in both instances, then it would be hypocrisy to criticize something that happens in one community which is routine in the community criticizing. Is this fair?

      I’m not saying that is true of this situation. I am saying that is the argument being made that you aren’t refuting very effectively from my perspective. Lmao.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        3·
        2 days ago

        If the rule was the same, and the bans goat was criticised were due to an identical disengage rule application as we have here, then it would not be hypocritical to open a thread in YPTB, but it would be hypocritical for people who uphold the disengage rule here to criticise goat for using it. But nobody did that.

        This is just a discussion without a purpose. You don’t even know if it’s the same rule, you’re just making hypotheticals and it’s honestly a waste of both our times.