Skip Navigation
84 comments

  • PTB. Substantive discussions around the definition of genocide are not the same as Nazis saying the Holocaust never happened or whatever and I think it’s ridiculous to conflate those things. There is no rule that would cover this other than one against misinformation—but OP has not challenged the facts on the ground, just the way language is being used. Language is always going to be a subjective and arbitrary thing.

    That said, other things OP has said here might constitute misinformation so that makes me wonder if there is any missing context beyond this single comment.

  • Well, I'm going to start off with the obvious thing. You absolutely do not have a leg to stand on as far as what you said being genocide denial. You can quibble about semantics all you want, but that's literally what you did.

    That being said, you're right about one thing. Genocide denial isn't an explicitly listed rule.

    But you still broke multiple rules. The fact that you can't see that genocide denial falls under them, even though it is most definitely not listed as a specific rule of its own, that may be a thing where c/politics needs to refine its rules for better understanding, or it may be that you need to understand that you don't have to list every possible iteration of a broad rule for it to be part of a rule.

    Then, if you go to the very bottom of their rules it does explicitly state that posts and comments may be removed even if they don't break any enumerated rules. My app doesn't let me flip back and forth to copy/paste what's written there word for word, but he mod action taken is within their stated standards.

    Do I think that them using a ban reason that doesn't match their rules in wording was a good idea? Hell no. They should have just listed it as an extension of their misinformation rule, and there wouldn't be any question about it being appropriate. Seriously, you have made comments about the debate over whether or not the actions of Israel meet the definition of genocide, but the debate is essentially being framed on shaky ground to begin with, and none of the "it isn't" arguments hold water. So they definitely fall under misinformation.

    Now, was your comment ban worthy? Maybe, maybe not. If it was your first offense, I'd say anything beyond a one day ban was over the top. I don't have the patience to sift through your user history to know how prone you are to that kind of thing. But it is a temporary ban. That's not going to be PTB territory under these circumstances. Temp bans are a tool to give a user time to cool down, think, and hopefully reach out for clarification. That's not power tripping at all. A permanent ban over a single offense, that might be power tripping, depending on the circumstances. It probably would be unless it was for an explicitly listed rule, and/or permabans are listed as a consequence for violating core rules.

    So, summing up. This is not power tripping because your comment did break rules, and the ban is temporary. That you didn't understand the rules is irrelevant to that. Take this as a chance to clarify things with that community, and possibly suggest (in a calm and polite manner) that the rules be reworded so that better understanding is possible in the future

    Edit: rule 3 is where they list misinformation. It isn't very well written, imo, but it's there

    • Thank you for being the first person to admit, I didn’t break a rule.

      But you still broke multiple rules

      Which ones? Please be specific.

      none of the “it isn’t” arguments hold water

      Nobody, including you, engages with any of the arguments.

      I hope you will remember this when the ICJ rules Israel as not guilty of genocide.

      Up until now it’s alleged genocide, if one is charitable. Dolus specialis hasn’t been shown, which is essential.

      • We aren't going to engage with the arguments here at all. This isn't a politics community. Only reason I even mentioned it at was to avoid knee jerk responses.

        Seriously, you can't roll up into a community that's about gathering opinions in moderator actions and expect regulars to go very far debating other things. It isn't the place for it, and it isn't a useful aspect of determining power tripping beyond the bare minimum needed for accuracy.

        If anyone wants to discuss the details of the merits or flaws of your opinion, that's on them, but it's outside the scope of the community, so I'm not.

        I specified rule 3 of c/politics already, and referred to their elastic clause of reserving the ability to moderate outside of enumerated rules. I'm not sure what else you want in that regard, but I'm not in the mood to break down every single rule when just those two cover the question of power tripping.

84 comments