So we’ve seen the complaints and the reports and boy oh boy are there complaints and reports.

I’ve discussed the account with the other mods and admins multiple times, and while we agree the volume is a lot, it doesn’t point to a botfarm or multiple people using the account.

Obsessive? Absolutely, but not technically rule breaking… Until today.

Today they indescriminately posted the same story three times from three different sources apparently solely to flood the channel showing a decided lack of judgement.

It’s a valid story from a valid source, the original has been kept here:

https://lemmy.world/post/21098916

The others have been removed as duplicates.

I’m also applying a 15 day temp ban on the account.

“15 days? That’s oddly specific! What’s in 15… OH!”

  • odelik@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, but when there’s literally thousands of posts and comments to build the “between the lines” data within a 30-day time frame what excuse is there?

    When somebody is trolling so hard that it’s causing strife within your community it should be addressed. Identify the behavior that isn’t desired and enforce existing rules around it or create a new one and warn the person that they need to operate in good faith within the rules or they will be ousted as an antagonistic troll.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      In cases like that the default position is to allow the downvotes and individual user blocks to do the job.

        • Pyfedi / piefed.social has a take on this that you might find interesting.

          For example, pyfedi allows for anonymous voting, but I believe there’s a planned change (if it isn’t already implemented and live) so that folks with a low reputation (from too many downvotes) can’t use it. By default, comments and posts with too low a reputation are also hidden. This is handled automatically by the software, so no human moderator or admin has to do anything - if enough people downvote, the system enforces the consequences automatically.

      • odelik@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Which makes your community toxic and your job harder.

        How many reports did you get and have to filter through and ultimately ignore? If that’s not an indicator from your community that something needs to change you’re not listening to our needs.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            2 months ago

            People are commenting about one glaringly obvious troll with a long history of baiting in comments, not calling for widespread bans based on a few posts per user.

            • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              I appreciate both the lenient approach and the transparency.

              If we wanted an echo chamber, we could have called this /m/VoteBlue or similar and established only pro-Harris posts and comments as a rule.

              I guess, despite the name, it can still become VoteBlue (after all, on a different website world politics used to be discussed on a sub called AnimeT… ) but I think it’s worth asking - if a genuine and civil commenter of a conservative persuasion joined the sub, how willing would we be to actually engage with that person?

              See this example - a liberal who once clerked for a conservative Supreme Court justice (Scalia). https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/17/im-a-liberal-lawyer-clerking-for-scalia-taught-me-how-to-think-about-the-law/ (or https://archive.is/KauGu )

              Just because you have vastly different views and many disagreements with someone, doesn’t mean that you can’t engage in good faith with them, or have both sides get something meaningful from the engagement (even if part of the resolution is to continue to agree to disagree on some of the more salient points).

          • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            This very much appears to be a case where it would be reasonable to break from your default. This is not a typical user doing typical things.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Well, yeah, and I did that when I raised the issue with the other mods and admins multiple times. ;)

      • Pichu0102@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        The problem with individual user blocks is that if someone submits enough of the links in a community, blocking them means blocking most stories and discussions so you can’t really read or participate in the community without leaving them unblocked.