Earlier today drag was banned from !politics@lemmy.world for this post: https://lemmy.nz/post/15864724
The reason stated was “Dishonest headline and quoting”.
The sidebar of the community states the following on article titles:
Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
The article’s original title was “Harris vs. Trump spoiler’s supporter says the quiet part out loud” - in drag’s opinion, this is clickbait. The quiet part is not stated in the title. The reader has to click on the article in order to learn what it’s actually about.
Drag’s post title was “Jill Stein ally says the Greens’ strategy is about making Harris lose the presidency” - this clearly states which group is involved and what precisely the controversial statement was. But drag was banned for making the title more clear.
The sidebar of the community states the following on article quotes:
Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Drag quoted three passages from the article in the post body: The quote from the Jill Stein ally which the article was about, and two passages about Donald Trump’s relation to these events. None of the quotes were edited. As asked by the sidebar drag did not post the entire body, only the parts drag believed was relevant, and drag was banned for following this rule too.
The vast majority of comments on the post, including all the highly upvoted comments, agreed with the points made by the article and expressed zero problem with the presentation. There were two comments which had a problem with drag’s presentation of the article:
…um, where is the second half of this article? (2 upvotes)
This comment is a non-issue; posting the entire article in the body is against the community rules. Drag was following the rules by only posting half.
Least dishonest LW politics OP quoting an entire article out of context (1 upvote)
This comment agrees with the moderation decision but does not explain why, and drag can’t work out why on drag’s own. Drag tried drag’s best to represent the article accurately.
Dude, what is going on with c/politics these days?!
They’re so paranoid about the election not going their way, that they’re banning people left and right for practically anything.
I’ve seen people get banned just because of the communities they moderate! People who don’t have a majority-approved opinion are automatically called “trolls.”
Is c/politics really that afraid that a small 20K Lemmy community could actually sway an entire election?!
The answer is yes. Yes they are. Hilarious. LMAO
/c/politics is a very big echo chamber of Democrats who are terrified of any indication that Trump has a chance of winning. Thus, any article, comment, or viewpoint critical of Biden or Harris is attacked on for no reason other than that.
But drag wasn’t critical of Biden or Harris. Drag posted the article to try to convince people not to vote third party. And drag left out the parts of the article critical of democrats when quoting.
Are you referring yourself in the third person?
No.
Yep!
You should check out Politics Unfiltered.
It’s a politics sub open to all types of political leanings and it’s under new management now because the previous mod was a tool.
The link should be !politicsunfiltered@lemmy.world
Like r/pcm on Reddit? That didn’t go well. They allowed actual Nazis to shitpost and say the N word until all the leftists decided to leave.
Maybe you should check it out first.
The previous mod was a lot crazy and banned a ton of opposing views but the new moderator is doing a lot better.
I can’t remember the last moderator’s name but he got pretty weird after he relapsed on drugs and alcohol.
He said his girlfriend left him after catching him in a compromising position with her temple garments, their dog and a jar of crunchy peanut butter.
No thanks. All the politics subs on Lemmy suck. You all cry about everything! lmao
I remember a couple days ago some goof came on here and tried to create a community called ‘the new Donald’ and started banned people left and right because they disagreed with them.
I laughed when the admins banned their ass again.
Seems like a reason for a post deletion and a message to the op with the requested edits, not a ban. Also the third person thing makes this very hard to read
Posting the contents of the article in the body or comments is against the rules?
I unironically love it when people do that. Saves a click, saves me from having to go to some trash website. Seems like a win win
The only problem is they could alter it, but they would probably be swiftly caught and called out in the thread.
It’s a copyright issue actually
Ah yeah that’s fair, I didn’t think about that due to my abject refusal to follow copyright laws lol.
Remember seeing the original title, unable to make sense of it after multiple re-reads. Your edit is clear and succinct.
Is there a reason you’re referring to yourself in the third person? Seems weird lol.
But, dude, regardless of the ban being overkill or not, you did violate the rules as listed.
Now, how much of that is on you vs being on the vague language of those rules is back to the ban being justified or not. The title change rule is vague as hell, and needs rewriting if they’re going to take issue with the degree of editing of the titles for clarity. But you did totally replace the title, no matter the reason for it, so some kind of mod action would be expected. A temp ban seems at the very extreme of appropriate, and even that only if it isn’t the first time you’ve done it, and the rule was clearly written.
If I was to draft the same rule to reflect the application of it here, I would go with “title must match linked site’s title if a title exists, which may include clarification, but must follow the original title’s structure”.
The way they wrote the rule encourages alterations to titles because it starts off directing posters that the post title must describe link content. As written, not drafting descriptive title is out of bounds, so people are going to assume exactly what you did, and come up with their own. Very badly written rule.
The part about not copy/pasting though, you posted enough length that a mod would have to follow the link and read the article to know how much you copied. While it coins be debated whether or not that’s part of moderation when you have rules against copying entire articles, it’s also not unreasonable to not follow every linked post to see if that’s the case. Depends on the volume of posts that include long quoted sections as to whether or not that’s a reasonable expectation on the mods.
That rule is well crafted and simple, but should be clarified if they’re going to apply actions to copied sections as well, if they’re above a certain length. You didn’t break the rule as they listed it.
So, it’s kind of a fuck up on both ends, with the onus being on the mods for not having their rules as written indicate the way they’re going to apply them. You definitely changed the title far beyond what it should have been, but you seem to have done so in good faith based on a badly written rule
I don’t know if they have a reason for it, but I do know that as soon as I see it, I skip the rest of whatever was written.
Drag uses drag/dragself person-independent pronouns. Drag’s pronouns are conjugated and inflected the same way in all grammatical persons. “Drag” is not drag’s name, drag’s name is Dragon Rider. Drag is using a first person pronoun just like you might write “I”.
Drag is using a first person pronoun just like you might write “I”.
Why does drag refer to drag’s self in this way?
Also, drag’s name is not Dragon Rider. Unless that drag was referring to drag’s chosen name?
Are you using a client that supports display names?
