and if the answer is "by discussing a topic that makes me angry" then what is the distinction between discussion and wrecking anymore? We're in c/vegan, how could they have been wrecking this comm?
Do you actually have a link to that? I've read this entire thread and that's the first time someone's said that, so apologies if I'm not terminally online enough to have seen a previous buried post.
Here's the post. Even if you frame it as "they are saying it deserves to die after this 'reactionary' struggle session", it's still an admission toward wrecking the site as it is because they're mad how things have turned out, which I would think is grounds for banning from the site as it's an attitude that could only make this continue to get worse.
I'm trying to stay out of this struggle sesh now as I think it's run its course, but I thought I'd share the post that highlighted a lot of the discord talk that I think is rightfully concerning.
Isn't that some kind of backwards justification for the bans then?
They're talking like this because they're all being banned for discussing the leftist ideology they believe in on an explicitly leftist site. So to point to that frustration and go "see, they're frustrated, since they're wreckers" feels very wrong.
What? The bans almost all followed from those chats and the posting of those chats here. They start off talking about their bans from the mod chat after fighting with other mods/admins about comparing the condition of animals to slavery or the holocaust.
Those discord chats say "well at least we killed the site", "I don't care if the site goes down", and admitting to bullying and baiting the userbase.
I'm not sure how that doesn't constitute wrecking behavior and attitudes
I'm reading through these and they seem like the expected comments from users who were just banned from the site for discussing veganism. Frustrated and discussing how badly the admins have handled it.
There's a major difference between frustrated users who have been banned for participating in a site they wanted to join and forge a community in, and people who joined to 'wreck' like accusing Beatnik of pedophilia or spamming John Kerry.
If I'm being honest, I also think the whole thing was badly handled. I think if we're onboarding an outside community, there should be clear expectations about what is required to integrate them into the existing one.
I think the VCJ people thought the jerk was going to continue unabated and that they would be free to bully people into veganism, and why wouldn't they? Nobody said otherwise. And I think some of the admins were totally okay with this as well
I think the existing userbase thought that the VCJ people would be like the existing vegan community here, which always had a strong presence, but got along with everyone else.
A clear statement of expectations, and enforcing long-standing rules on courtesy and secretarianism could have avoided a lot this. VCJ people who weren't okay with being in solidarity with non-vegans would probably have by and large gone elsewhere and neither side would have experienced the need to have a knife fight to the death over the future of the site
Wasn't this only considered wrecking to discuss veganism across the site like three days ago? You can't call it wrecking if there was no rule against it prior to that.
If they did it after, then ban them from those communities. Their histories don't show that though.
It would have been a lot clearer to give that as a reason in the mod log, because as it stands it looks like an immature admin just kicked someone they don't like.
Ah, I thought they came over from VCJ, my mistake
Won't edit any comments implying they didn't and actually just came as wreckers though.
I mean, they are currently wrecking, so I don't think I was too far off base, lol
How are they currently wrecking?
and if the answer is "by discussing a topic that makes me angry" then what is the distinction between discussion and wrecking anymore? We're in c/vegan, how could they have been wrecking this comm?
Lotf on the VCJ discord: I am wrecking
You: but how are they wrecking though??? Source???
Do you actually have a link to that? I've read this entire thread and that's the first time someone's said that, so apologies if I'm not terminally online enough to have seen a previous buried post.
Here's the post. Even if you frame it as "they are saying it deserves to die after this 'reactionary' struggle session", it's still an admission toward wrecking the site as it is because they're mad how things have turned out, which I would think is grounds for banning from the site as it's an attitude that could only make this continue to get worse.
I'm trying to stay out of this struggle sesh now as I think it's run its course, but I thought I'd share the post that highlighted a lot of the discord talk that I think is rightfully concerning.
Isn't that some kind of backwards justification for the bans then?
They're talking like this because they're all being banned for discussing the leftist ideology they believe in on an explicitly leftist site. So to point to that frustration and go "see, they're frustrated, since they're wreckers" feels very wrong.
They werent banned for "discussing leftist ideology" my friend.
What? The bans almost all followed from those chats and the posting of those chats here. They start off talking about their bans from the mod chat after fighting with other mods/admins about comparing the condition of animals to slavery or the holocaust.
Those discord chats say "well at least we killed the site", "I don't care if the site goes down", and admitting to bullying and baiting the userbase.
I'm not sure how that doesn't constitute wrecking behavior and attitudes
Linked in the first comment I made in this thread. It's from a series documenting what's been going on in the VCJ discord
This one right? https://hexbear.net/post/95305
I'm reading through these and they seem like the expected comments from users who were just banned from the site for discussing veganism. Frustrated and discussing how badly the admins have handled it.
There's a major difference between frustrated users who have been banned for participating in a site they wanted to join and forge a community in, and people who joined to 'wreck' like accusing Beatnik of pedophilia or spamming John Kerry.
If I'm being honest, I also think the whole thing was badly handled. I think if we're onboarding an outside community, there should be clear expectations about what is required to integrate them into the existing one.
I think the VCJ people thought the jerk was going to continue unabated and that they would be free to bully people into veganism, and why wouldn't they? Nobody said otherwise. And I think some of the admins were totally okay with this as well
I think the existing userbase thought that the VCJ people would be like the existing vegan community here, which always had a strong presence, but got along with everyone else.
A clear statement of expectations, and enforcing long-standing rules on courtesy and secretarianism could have avoided a lot this. VCJ people who weren't okay with being in solidarity with non-vegans would probably have by and large gone elsewhere and neither side would have experienced the need to have a knife fight to the death over the future of the site
Keep the name John Kerry out your mouth. Please and Thank You.
People say hyperbole when they are mad or feel betrayed.
How did you manage to get flexible enough to bend over backwards to defend this? Yoga? Pilates?
Its not that much of a stretch
Yoga is absolutely quite a stretch
deleted by creator
Wasn't this only considered wrecking to discuss veganism across the site like three days ago? You can't call it wrecking if there was no rule against it prior to that.
If they did it after, then ban them from those communities. Their histories don't show that though.
deleted by creator
It would have been a lot clearer to give that as a reason in the mod log, because as it stands it looks like an immature admin just kicked someone they don't like.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator