- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
FYI - the owner of this site, gamingonlinux, was a mod on the !linux_gaming@lemmy.ml community until they were caught abusing their moderator powers. Then they deleted their account and complained on mastodon that it’s stupid design that mod logs are public.
That’s one of the things I love in lemmy. Moderation transparency.
I’m boosting this and the screenshots too, but just thought I’d point out for quick scrollers that it does not seem as dramatic as this comment initially lets you believe.
I mean it’s awkward, but just seems more like your usual social awkwardness/incompetence than malicious behavior as such.
I agree that the main interaction was mild, but if they were willing to go this far to try to hide this, then that shows how low the bar is for them to try to manipulate things to their favor and liking with the trust that was given them as a moderator.
Look at the screenshots few comments down. That was a shitty mod. They can have those back at reddit.
lemmy.ml doing .ml-things
What does this comment mean. No other communities have bad moderators?
Oh they absolutely do, but ml has a reputation for being particularly poorly moderated
And it’s a behaviour that stems from the admins who’ll ban users from the entire instance if they disagree with their opinions.
It’s the only instance I have blocked at my account level so I don’t see their communties.
.world has been putting in work to catch up lately
You really should look it up since you’re on the site. Make your own mind up about if you want your account to be associated with people like that.
Do you have any sources for this?
Deleted comment:
I called them out for not following their own community rules:
Please be nice to other members. Anyone not being nice will be banned. Keep it fun, respectful and just be awesome to each other.
and they deleted their account.
What was wrong with them removing your comment? You were being annoying 🤷♂️
Their response seemed perfectly measured to someone being needlessly pedantic.
Edit: And also Shuts down? Did you miss the ‘down’? Was the title edited after the fact? What does the rest of that modlog say? The screenshot is cropped.
My perspective is you were being annoying, got downvoted/called out, feigned shock, got your comments removed, and now you’re on a bitter smear campaign.
This is the weakest accusation of mod abuse I’ve seen. Good grief.
Yes, their comment was extremely annoying, both in tone (whining) and content (TL;DR: “pls spoonfeed me basic reading comprehension”). If the mod simply removed the comment, or issued an official warning, it would be 100% warranted.
However, what the non-mod user is saying ITT about moderator abuse is still spot on. The mod in question answered to the whining in tone, tried to cover their own arse with content removal, and then went to whine in Mastodon about the events, or the fact that there’s transparency functionality in Lemmy (the mod log) against the exact same behaviour that they showed there.
So it’s a case where both sides were wrong but given their relative positions the mod being wrong is a bigger deal.
I agree with you, but what does a moderator do once they engage with the user other than remove the whole interaction? They deleted the whole thread, not just their opposition.
Seems like the the whining on mastadon about transparency was more because this guy is following them around harrassing them via public modlog screenshots, when on any other forum it wouldn’t even matter… unless it actually mattered.
In this situation, my view is OP made a mess, pissed jannie added to the mess, OP feigned shock, pissed jannie thought better and cleaned the mess up.
Yet OP here is still trying to stir the pot like the mod was silencing their opinion or something. It was a worthless comment.
edit: oh my god he’s been copypasting this for months LMAO I’m done. God.
I agree with you, but what does a moderator do once they engage with the user other than remove the whole interaction?
You think before engaging. And if you fuck it up, you apologise to the community (not to that specific user) for what you’ve done wrong. But unless the content is sensitive (for example, the other user posted something illegal), you keep it alone, at most you lock it.
Lemmy is too small and this snafoo is so pointless that I think a community apology would be hilarious.
I think the punishment should fit the crime. Having some weirdo follow your posts around calling you manipulative and toxic for months is just… its too much. It’s a linux gaming forum, some social ineptitude is to be expected. Users shouldn’t feel entitled to continuously attack a mod who “mod abused” them with the assault equivalent of a light shove.
It’s just the most insulated privileged non-problem, my god.
Seems like the the whining on mastadon about transparency was more because this guy is following them around harrassing them via public modlog screenshots
Baseless accusation. Got any proof?
yes. this thread lol
Yeah I would ban 24 hours and continue with life.
I’d probably issue an official warning, then see how the poster reacts. I feel like 1d bans are mostly useful when you got the flamewar already going on, between two otherwise contributive members, and you need them to chill their heads.
That’s up to mod style though. It’s possible that your approach works better than mine, dunno, I almost never rely on short bans.
Yes, their comment was extremely annoying, both in tone (whining) and content (TL;DR: “pls spoonfeed me basic reading comprehension”). If the guy simply removed the comment, or issued an official warning, it would be 100% warranted.
It’s your right to have an opinion on whether or not you think I was annoying. However, the rest of that is just wrong and needlessly rude. My comment was only to point out how many different ways the title could be interpreted without being explicit in what happened. There is no need to be so rude with your wild assumption. I just found the title to be mildly frustrating due to being vague because of the missing word, and I thought I would express that. Does that warrant moderation action? No. It breaks no rules and there was no intent to be disrespectful, nor is there any real tangible proof of any disrespectful intent.
I absolutely agree with you but it didn’t really need to be said did it?
You 100% understood what the title was saying, so complaining that the title was ambiguous, and barely so, was pointless wasn’t it?
Clearly everyone else agreed since you were downvoted.
I don’t agree with you, but you can think all you want about how annoying or pointless my comment was. That is no excuse for their response, then they doubled down and tried to hide it by abusing their moderator powers. That’s the only part of this that matters.
I could write a full wall of text explaining everything wrong with your comment, but to keep it short:
Cut off the crap. You aren’t fooling anyone here by playing the victim.
Don’t bother.
Didn’t you leave Lemmy?
Pointlessly snarky comments are one of the worst parts of Reddit and Lemmy and I fully support mods putting a stop to that. I guess the important part is to be transparent about it
But if it was transparent you wouldnt be able to see it
Now that I’ve willfully misrepresented what you said, I am eager for your reply so i can pointlessly be an asshole about it!
/assholesnark.
“Annoying” is subjective, and there is no rule against being perceived as being “annoying” in the community rules.
The only rule is to be respectful, which they did not follow at all, then tried to hide it.
Response to edit: yes, it was edited after it was brought up. The modlog is public, there’s no need for me to try to hide anything like they tried to do. If you’re going to try to give me shit for that, why do they get a free pass?
Nothing they did appears to have negatively altered the quality of the comments or discussion.
Respect is also subjective. Your initial post seemed to be mocking and disrespectful for no apparent reason. I’d argue the comment section is more respectful with your remarks gone.
Objectively, it appears they were right to delete their account. You’re stalking posts mentioning their site and complaining about this nothing burger.
I would also distance myself from pedantic harrassers and focus on literally anything else productive if I were them.
Are you Liam in disguise or something? Why are you trying to make up shit like I’m “stalking” posts mentioning their site? I’m a user of Lemmy just the same as anyone else and when I see posts that bring up this toxic person’s site, I can easily help inform people of their gross manipulative behavior.
There isn’t even some grand “toxic” or “manipulative” coverup. The mod deleted the whole interaction because it was pointless and rude from both of you. It added nothing.
The jannie took out the trash and you’re still harrassing them about the subjectivity of annoyance and respect. Y’know who makes that subjective choice? The mods.
I have no ties to this, but I am in opposition to this neat little narrative you appear to be creating tossing out buzzwords like toxic, gross, manipulative without evidence to back it up.
The “down” was definitely edited after the fact.
You’re definitely right. But without any sort of context, just the screengrab with the title corrected, it makes OPs rant seem even more pointless.
It could have been one word if they were genuinely confused: “…Shuts?”
Or if they were smart enough to realize it was an error:
“There’s a word missing…”
Whether you consider it whining, depends upon the tone you read it in.
I just read that comment and didn’t feel annoyed enough to even give a downvote and the mod’s reply seemed far too annoying.
The username on the other hand…
Thanks! Not quite as wild as I was expecting (kind of surprised this was enough to push them to delete their account)
Mod abuse is mod abuse, regardless of the level. They clearly felt embarrassed for needlessly being mean and getting caught for it after trying to hide the fact.
Then they tried to excuse it on their mastodon.
If they’re willing to go through all that for something so minor, they would absolutely be willing to do the same to hide worse behavior.
Probably decided “fuck this” and quit volunteering instead of dealing with drama llamas.
Not gonna lie he was right about the shuts thing. It’s not a common phrasing but totally legit and you did seem kinda dickish when you pointed it out.
Pointing something out is not inherently being a dick. It did not warrant the response, particularly a response that clearly breaks the rules of the community they were trusted with the responsibility to manage.
It was snarky. Some people interpret it as rudeness. He’s still a shithead for sure.
No snark was intended, but I can see why people could interpret it poorly. I won’t claim to be perfect at communicating over Lemmy comments.
Yep, they had proof.
Fuck that guy.
I really dislike that guy. I was interested in his website but lost interest because of him. I already forgot why I started disliking him. But this just adds to that.
All moderators should be assumed to be abusers. Acab
Well yeah that’s why the mod log is public. It’s a feature not a bug
Exafuckingly, no moderators should be offended by what I said, it’s a truism. Transparency is just the first step, there should not be “a” moderator, it is a collective duty that all must participate and that none of us can be trusted alone with.
You seem very hurt about that one interaction you had with him months ago. If you’re gonna comment that under every gamingonlinux article you’ll have a lot to do.
I’d rather have that than have moderators bringing their shitty reddit leftover mentalities and think they can throw tantrums anytime someone critiques their post title. I mean homie was a moderator, who quit the site entirely as his reaction to the same interaction you are criticizing homie here for his reaction after bringing up a relevant commentary about the individual from the post.
Edit: Plus!, how often does anyone on the internet ever actually follow up a real live relevant to the post anecdotal account AAAAAAND follow up with empirical evidence lol.
It has nothing to do with “being hurt”. They showed the kind of scummy person they are.
They showed that if they were willing to go this far to try to hide this, then that shows how low the bar is for them to try to manipulate things to their favor and liking with the trust that was given them as a moderator.
I don’t like the idea of that kind of person reaping the benefits of their site being linked to on the platform they tried to manipulate.
I don’t like the idea of people not facing the consequences of these kinds of actions.
I think people should know who this person is, since they showed their true self and then tried to hide it.
Microsoft gives the Wine team infectious mononucleosis. Got it.
But seriously, Microsoft is nobody’s friend and shouldn’t be trusted.
In an organization as large as MS there have to be a few good guys. Just don’t let the corporate leadership hear about it.
I know a lot of folk that work at MS or have worked there, they are all very good people. They are highly motivated professionals that are top in their field. MS is a rich company and they recruit the best they can. However those are not the people making any kind of decisions. And it’s a cut throat company, if the budget gets cut, you are out on your ass. At least in most of the world, where strong employee protection isn’t a thing.
Don’t get me wrong, MS has a lot of bad apples just like any other company. Useless managers who say dumb shit and take praise for other peoples work. A leadership that doesn’t care about anything except their bonuses and the bottom line. But at least as far as the engineers go, there’s plenty of really good folk.
People also seem to forget how huge MS actually is. And a lot of the time the different branches within the company are as far away from each other as can be. Even within the same branch one can only talk to so many people.
deleted by creator
From a Microsoft employee: with all the conspiracy theories people have about Microsoft secretly planning to control th world, the most surprising thing is them assuming MS are this organized to attemp it.
Edit: I’m not the employee, it was Scott Hanselman from MS who said it.
I’m just speaking from their history. Like when they embraced Java, built their own JVM, shipped it with Windows, and then forked the Java language by adding Windows-specific APIs to Microsoft Java and not adding the Java 1.2 features to Microsoft Java. You can’t convince me their aim all along wasn’t specifically to kill Java, and cross-platform technologies like it. The whole “Windows tax” thing is another good example. And “Open Core.”
And, who knows. Maybe they’re either nicer now or less competent at that kind of evil. But if so, that’s a relatively new thing. Their history as a company is full of (not-so-)“secretly planning to control the world”. And they have never really faced any consequences for their anti-trust violations. And if they didn’t want people to hold grudges, maybe they should have thought of that before fucking everyone over as thoroughly as they possibly could.
I guess you could say Microsoft was perfecting the art of enshittification before it became such a pervasive thing. Plus, I largely blame Gates personally for the rise of the institution of proprietary software, which is also complete BS.
Mind you, I don’t blame you for working for Microsoft or anything. No ethical consumption (or employment) under capitalism and all that. And it’s not like I’m not doing evil things on a regular basis as an employee where I work.
Lol noone is thinking they are taking over the world. There is no conspiracy. Everyone has been so fucking tired of the operating system monopoly theve had on PC’s before they started ruining every fucking piece of technology they touch.
I am no Microsoft fanboy, but I get the impression people are a bit overly skeptical here.
I think this is fairly obvious. They have no further use for it, they can either let it rot or they can do the tiniest bit of effort and get some positive PR. It might also just be as simple as an initiative from some employees.
Yup, what they needed from Xamarin was absorbed into .NET and now that have MAUI for cross platform stuff, it was either sunset mono or give it to someone else
Now if only they would add Linux support to MAUI.
Maybe they’ll add it to Mono.
Agreed. I feel like it would make the most sense to just have a generic QT target, but that’s a licensing nightmare. Otherwise they’ll probably target GTK 4, which would still draw ire from some of the linux community lol
Wasn’t it open source all the time? The article spins it more like microsoft don’t want to shepherd the project any more, another group takes over?
Isn’t it just less work for m$ or what am I missing?
That’s my take too
Edit: Yup, Microsoft kindly abandoned their work to others.
TIL that Mono is a Microsoft project. I always thought it was an open source reverse engineered .NET
It was only a Microsoft project the moment they bought Xamarin.
Wasn’t Ximian behind it at some point?
It was at first, then they became a for profit organization, Xamarin, who was bought by Microsoft.
I can’t help but think that Microsoft has decided to proceed in some way that will break compatibility, so they’re done with Mono now.
I know it’s skeptical, but I just have no faith in that company to act in good faith with anything.
dotnet is now a multiplatform framework itself. Do they still need mono?
Is mono not the .net framework version? .net core has always been multi platform, but is not compatible with .net framework apps. So any .net apps built against 3.5 or 4.x would still need to use mono.
It is the .net framework version. I’m not sure mono is used in anything but Xamarin and a handful of gnome apps. Xamarin has a clear upgrade path to MAUI but not without some effort and the risk of missing nugets, I did it on a small app once. This isn’t super useful.
As much as it is beloved, I don’t think windows sees Linux / wine as any kind of substantial threat.
I think they do in the enterprise hosting / software dev world, which is the reason for so much effort being poured into WSL, but for standard client applications or the “average user” switching to Linux I agree
Yeah, they want to be able to get people totally off Linux as a root OS.
By creating WSL, they now can say, "Oh, you like to develop for/on Linux? Well good news, Windows has Linux built in! Just come on over to Windows and you can use WSL and Linux on Azure for all your Linux needs!
And WSL is pretty good according to one of the other guys in my department that’s been using it.
The problem for Microsoft is that my entire user experience is better when I boot straight into Linux and use all their software (except vscode) in browser tabs.
I’ve heard it’s slow as molasses.
I think it is partly that, but I think it is partly all the bright young tech kids coming in from uni want Linux not Windows. I think it’s targeted at inside and outside.
Very true because the relationship they have with laptop manufacturers will ensure windows domination
proceed in some way that will break compatibility
That’s what new major versions are for.
I can’t help but think that Microsoft has decided to proceed in some way that will break compatibility, so they’re done with Mono now.
It’s essentially right there in the article:
Microsoft maintains a modern fork of Mono runtime in the dotnet/runtime repo and has been progressively moving workloads to that fork. That work is now complete, and we recommend that active Mono users and maintainers of Mono-based app frameworks migrate to .NET which includes work from this fork.
We’re done with it, you guys can take the scraps. By the way, ours is better and folks should move to it.
Microsoft is cancer but then so much of tech is going that way. We shouldn’t lose sight of small victories, this is a good result. The EU is enforcing more openness and transparency in the sector. These are the type of changes we need.
What’s the twist? There must be some reason.
I guess it’s simply the framing: It was a not very actively maintained open source project. So they’ve decided to turn it over to a new maintainer. Calling that ‘donation’ is a bit pushing it
Most of the time a company does something like this they would just let it die. It’s good that Microsoft have at least made the effort to hand it over to a team who’s willing to keep it going.
…Like MS-DOS getting open sourced. It’s pretty much worthless unless you need to use some really old device.
It’s certainly good, I’m not arguing that. My point is, if the wine team is interested, they can fork the unmaintained project, and work on that. Eventually, people will switch over to the active fork. What Microsoft is doing, is helping the process along, and making it easier. So it’s good, and helpful - but not really a “donation” to winehq.
Actually, wine used to maintain a fork.
So it’s like “gifting” someone a puppy.
What’s the twist? There must be some reason.
.NET runs natively on Linux since quite some time. Honestly, I don’t get what Mono is even good for these days. Maybe reverse engineering old .NET versions.
.net core is the future but Mono is still important for running legacy .net framework applications like ones that use WinForms or WPF. That’s pretty much it. Anything new should go straight to .net core.
Hm, WinForms and WPF with Wine you mean? Otherwise makes not much sense. Was WPF ever run in this combination!
Ah yeah. Mono didn’t support WPF, but Mono did support running WinForms apps natively on Linux without using Wine.
The problem with WinForms is that at least serious 3rd party libraries do a lot of direct API calls I guess, hence Wine.
.NET runs natively on Linux
Only
.NET CoresadlyWhen I moved my personal laptop to Linux I needed WINE to run some source-available .NET apps that were written targeting the Windows-only
.NET Framework
