I was not posting on their instance communities much recently after I promised to pause. The first modlog warning did not reach my inbox on a mobile app using Piefed.ca then the head admin responds a bit too aggressively then makes 3-day warning bans from communities that they personally moderate.

Original warning that I was not notified about in my inbox:

Callout by top admin of Beehaw:

3-day warning bans.

Sources:

https://feddit.uk/post/35173969

https://web.archive.org/web/20250909023333/https://feddit.uk/post/35173969

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    If the narrative presented here is true, then I agree with PTB. And from the presented information, it appears likely. However, there are alternative explanations that haven’t been definitely ruled out, like a delayed ban for past behavior.

    If a mod from Beehaw sees this and wants to clarify the reason for the ban, that might help.

    • Sunshine (she/her)@piefed.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      You can also check the instance with control-f “sunshine” to see how much I posted between today and 17 days ago to determine if I followed their comment.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        To be honest, I tried but couldn’t figure out how to do this kind of search, although I was on my instance and maybe I needed to do it directly on Beehaw or something.

  • Cort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’d think it’s common sense to set a dang number so you can easily point to it and say: you broke this very clear rule on the max frequency of posts.

  • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Par for the course for Beehaw, they’ve been known to be overbearing and controlling, apparently even when it isn’t any of their business. PTB.

  • Nima@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    i don’t think they called you out. they just made a request that you not flood the instance with multiple posts.

    and the temp ban has expired already. i don’t believe this to be a power trip.

    • Sunshine (she/her)@piefed.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The instance banning of someone for being active outside their instance communities is not okay when I followed the callout.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I wouldn’t say this is power tripping bastards. They communicated, they’re in a dialogue with you, and they did a very temporary ban inline with their communication with you.

  • Blaze@lazysoci.al
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    I don’t know.

    Beehaw has always been kind of their own thing, especially defederating LW and SJW.

    I wouldn’t call it power tripping to want to have a smaller amount of posts per day.

    [email protected] is probably a good alternative if you want to avoid the over-centralization on LW. Blahaj should have another one for LGBTQ+

    • Sunshine (she/her)@piefed.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s okay to want less posts per day on their instance but it’s not okay to instance ban someone for being active outside their communities.

        • Sunshine (she/her)@piefed.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          was not posting on their instance communities much recently after I promised to pause.

          I was frequently posting us news on [email protected] instead of [email protected] and yet I was still banned.

          Why ban someone who complied with the admin’s comment.

          The worry is that this could become permanent because I like posting articles I find interesting. Thanks for asking me to clarify.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            The communications you posted are all about beehaw though. What makes you think it was about other communities? Did they explicitly say that?

              • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                That’s one possible interpretation but the modlog doesn’t explicitly state this.

                Did you make any posts on Beehaw between the above conversation and the banning? Maybe they still considered your reduced rate of posts too high. If not, then I agree that would be very weird.

                Either way, I think this is a good argument to have an explicit rule regarding what constitutes “too much” rather than relying on common sense which is highly subjective.

                • Sunshine (she/her)@piefed.caOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  That’s one possible interpretation but the modlog doesn’t explicitly state this.

                  The modlog doesn’t have to state it for it to be the case. Intentions can be masked.

                  Did you make any posts on Beehaw between the above conversation and the banning? Maybe they still considered your reduced rate of posts too high. If not, then I agree that would be very weird.

                  I barely made any posts due to the earlier conversation.

                  Either way, I think this is a good argument to have an explicit rule regarding what constitutes “too much” rather than relying on common sense which is highly subjective.

                  I agree with that. However a remote poster posting outside their instance should not warrant a ban on their instance for this.

  • kip@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    YDI. avg 25 posts a day just on this account is spambot behaviour. how are you called sunshine when you never see any

    • UniversalMonk@anarchist.nexus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Everyone complains that Lemmy doesn’t have enough content. So you’re mad when people post content?

      IMHO, the more posts, the better as long as it’s not advertising.

      • kip@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        everyone

        not me

        mad

        not me

        content

        it’s a tangent i don’t fancy going on but this everything-is-content must-consume-content view of things is not very healthy imo

      • kip@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Might not be too unusual if it included replies/comments but this is just top level posts