This is a FAF defederation vote for !multiverse.soulism.net. Note that I have tried to summarize views both for and against this proposal, rather than pushing a particular view. Please feel free to comment if you want to contribute your own thoughts and experiences.
The reason for this vote is that admins have been getting a lot of reports about Grail and Their instance from our users lately, but tbh I am not sure whether the reports warrant a ban or not. While most cases are more clear-cut, I wanted some more admin & community feedback on this one.
For context, the soulism instance is (for all practical purposes) a personal instance run by infamous fediverse "personality", Grail. Grail is suspected to be a recent alt of DroneRights aka HardlightCereal aka Exocrinous aka Dragon Rider aka Drag.
Grail, the current incarnation, is (imo) a liberal progressive masquerading as a leftist (a self-described "Anarcho-Antireal theorist" whatever the fuck that is). And I really don't think this qualifies as a "No true Scotsman" situation where it's arguable either way - it's immediately obvious from reading Their comment history.
I don't really want to rehash the extensive history of this user and Their alts in detail here, however I'm pretty sure long-term Lemmy users will be aware of at least some of these previous alt accounts, which have been almost universally banned. I'll try my best to summarize the issues below.
The case for defederation
Here's some recent examples/summaries of why the user is so problematic:
- Concise summary of past trolling behavior:
. - Recent YPTB post: Banned for Nuttin'
- Recent example of Grail's electoralism and criticism of c/flipanarchy rules, including a claim that pugjesus isn't a turbolib š https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/63720883
- More blue MAGA electoralism demonstrating that the user is about as "leftist" as Joe Biden

Recent examples of hating on / agitating against our instance:
The case against defederation
- Grail is neurodivergent (trans and NPD afaik), so we should be willing to make some accommodations for Their behaviour
- While some folks (including myself at the time, unfortunately) took the "DroneRights" account as an attempt to troll transgender folk with the "my gender is an attack helicopter" line, it could also have been a genuine attempt to advocate for xenogenders. There's no way to know 100% for sure what Their intentions truly were, but on reflection and with the benefit of time, I think it could be reasonably argued They should have been given the benefit of the doubt on that topic.
- Just because this user seems to have a grudge against our instance and bad-jackets anyone to their left as politically "right wing" doesn't mean we should ban them. They are still entitled to express their opinion.
- Given Grail's unique personality, is there anywhere else They would potentially fit in other than the Fediverse? Maybe we should cut Them some slack and just let users block Them individually.
Warning
Please do not attempt to re-litigate the topic of xenogenders in this post. Such comments will be removed as off-topic. As an instance, our policy is to respect personal pronouns, whatever they are. This is not a referendum on the validity of xenogenders. The topic of the post is clear - whether or not we should defederate from the multiverse.soulism.net instance. If you want to bring your own experiences into the comments that is fine, but please keep them pertinent to whether or not we should defederate from this instance / user on the basis of Their problematic behaviours, not on the basis of Their identity or pronouns.
Instructions
The proposal is:
We should defederate from the multiverse.soulism.net instance due to an extensive history of trolling by the main admin's alts, and due to the admin being openly hostile to our instance.
Please upvote this post to vote for defederation. Downvote to remain federated. This proposal will require a 2/3 majority to pass.
P.S., Please be sure to use Grail's preferred pronouns of "capitalised They/Them", so we don't have to remove comments for misgendering.
Edit: This will include banning Grail's alts as well, for clarity.





244 Comments
zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 36 pts · 155d
It is an insult to every neurodivergent person who has their shit together, if you tolerate this sort of behavior just because they are ādifferentā.
No tolerance for the intolerant. Defederate.
Flatwork7591: thank you very much for this very informative post and giving us the possibility to be heard.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 155d
As a trans and neurodivergent person myself I agree. Community standards need to be upheld, and people who are unsafe or harmful need to be removed.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -4 pts · 155d
what is your definition of intolerant here? I've seen some atrocious takes (multiple in this post tbh) but nothing I would consider truly intolerant...
(i promise this isn't sealioning, I'm sure I haven't seen the worst of it)
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 27 pts · 155d
Edit: due to this discussion here I am changing my vote to a yes
I have to veto this one. I honestly feel users can handle it. Especially since this seems to pertain to a single user. Defederation to me is absolutely last ditch absolutely no hope left measure and I don't feel this calls for it yet. I still see that user engaging in good faith and normal activities outside of politics comms so they seem to just be a lib.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 155d
The specific examples show a pattern that's not stopping, across multiple instances. Now they have their own server this is our only method to deal with them.
They are also the only contributor from their instance
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 3 pts · 155d
That kind of reinforces my point. They made themselves terribly easy to block. And I have to question even though we dont do this often, is this really the solution? Wall ourselves off and leave them to their devices? I'm not so sure. I could agree with either solution but as it stands currently it is super easy to block their instance and move on without defederation, and defederation is extremely serious. We don't want to create a bunch of little islands in the fediverse (I know this specific instance would not cause this, but over time defederation has the potential to do so).
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 155d
But they aren't easy to block. We rely on that instance owner to respect the protocol's semantics. They aren't respecting separate instances rules enough to not be banned, and there's no reason to believe they will maintain their same account to allow themselves to be blocked.
If they weren't over 99% of that instances activity I might be convinced.
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 155d
Maybe Lemmy doesn't have this and I have been on anarchist.nexus for far longer than I thought.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 155d
Oh neat.
Hmmm
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 3 pts · 155d
Yeah I guess thats a piefed only thing. My bad. I am unsure about my vote now
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 155d
Something else to consider, if someone gets banned on their home instance and then unbanned, the unban deletes all bans on remote servers. An instance admin can unban themselves from other lemmy instances due to being able to access their own server with the ability to ban and unban.
@Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com I think that's an important consideration here. Grail could do something ban worthy here, then unban Themselves because They feel like it and we wouldn't know until Their posts started showing up here again, and they can repeat the process as much as we ban them. Defederation is the only way to actually stop that, and it's part of why it's customary to defederate a self-hosted instance when banning the person in charge of it.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 155d
Yup
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
felsiq@piefed.zip · 25 pts · 155d
No opinion on this question given itās none of my business, but I love seeing these governance posts in action. I really admire the system you all have here and appreciate how level-headed they always seem to be rather than the lynch mob discussions like these have the potential to be
MidnightMarauder@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 155d
I agree with this. Really appreciate the community in these topics but I've never come across this user (and also don't care) so it's no use for me to vote on this.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 155d
Thanks a lot, that's great feedback.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 155d
personally i find they can be a bit groupthink-like though... not as in expression of dissent is socially suppressed, but as in expressed dissent on lynchmob topics is not objectively evaluated.
like in the replies to https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/63525728/24345496, an unfortunately quite emotional comment that does argue against some evidenceāreplies saying that the person they're replying to should dieāthe users who had already voted before the comment either 1. argue such replies have no problem since the person they're replying to are bad; or 2. repeat the claims said evidence were used to back up without presenting their own evidence.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 155d
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 24 pts · 155d
I mostly remember the controversy from the Exocrinus days and I am in support of defed. Cant believe this is getting hashed again.
Neurodivergence set aside, They are a terrible troll that never, ever argued in good faith on any topic I saw Them engage with, and was just a huge pain in the ass of normal users and mods alike. Use of a single-user instance without registration limits for the owner opens the door for infinite alt accounts that cannot be realistically banned or controlled using normal mod tools, without filtering the entire instance. And that seems to be the entire purpose of this new instance- ban evasion.
Also, as a neurodivergent myself, trying to lean on being different does NOT absolve a user of the consequences resulting from being a unrequited asshole trying to stir shit up. I'll respect Their pronouns for sure, but I'm still going to call Them a dick when They are being a dick. I understand needing to be diplomatic, Unruffled, but try not to carry too much water for the trolls.
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
last paragraph is super based. people deserve basic respect even if they are a dick, and also deserve to be called a dick if they are being a dick.
that said, I think your main argument is kinda a slippery slope fallacy. that's to say I think if we do end up having a flood of bad actors from this instance, we should poll this again with that as the reason why. i don't think defed because "They have the opportunity to flood bad actors" is reasonable, personally.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 155d
Is it really a slippery slope when its a slowly repeating pattern from a known bad actor?
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 155d
being as I haven't seen any evidence that these are all the same person, very yes.
pretending for a moment that we're certain these are all the same person (I think it's likely) still yes. i see a young ND Trans person trying to find the identity that suits them much more than I see a malicious troll committing ban evasion, but maybe that's more me projecting than it is Them.
i think a vote if They end up doing that with "They are unbanning Themself" would easily pass, I don't think we need to do it preemptively
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 153d
what are u basing that claim on? what exactly suggests ban evasion? two of Their alleged alts were banned 2-3 years ago, and the last one isnt even banned on db0 right now from what i can tell (was also last active a month ago).
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 19 pts · 154d
If someone is annoying/frustrating and trolling you, then they are also causing those same disturbances to others such as your users. It is why I ban trolls that are negatively affecting others and do not align with dbzer0. Granted, most of my bans are bots. Grail was annoying for sure and I stopped replying to this user because I didn't want to get banned after seeing others mixing up the capitals. Yes, I struggled at first before realizing blahaj was right about this.
Once Grail started comparing veganism with AI, I felt the troll became more obvious, too obvious. The suffering and deaths of real animals is not comparable to so called 'AI slavery'. This 'AI' is just a LLM spitting random auto-complete with no consciousness. I don't ask that our users become vegan, but to troll vegans and parrot antiveganism is just trolling leftists for no real reason (the hex was based yet again). I don't lose sleep over banning these trolls, YDM imo.
I'm not sure if drag is Grail, I know drone rights was also PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES, but I could not tell for certain that Grail is drone rights (although they shared similarities for sure just like the other 2 you also listed). I also remember MindTraveler, what a fun (/s) person who was always angrily telling off people that Grail didn't like.
Lame copout. They troll and know what They're doing.
Edited for grammar and info
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 17 pts · 154d
Grail is nowhere near as annoying as Drag imho. However generally I really dislike sockjacketing people without solid evidence, like this. OTOH I do understand that trolls need to be dealt with summarily so avoid more damage to the communities. I just feel we don't need to try to connect them to previous trolls to do so.
I'm going to abstain from this one as I am not particularly bothered either way.
lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 153d
I feel the same way, and seeing it happen in the body of a governance post is disheartening. I have had serious qualms about most of the recent governance posts, and about the direction that some of the admin team seem determined to steer the ship.
I think it would be inaccurate to characterize it as the instance catering to the wrong voices. However, I am starting to accept that the climate has changed and might no longer be right for me. I believe there are many others who feel similarly.
I have long been of the opinion that the administration of any instance based around the core tenets that dbzer0 still claims should be undergo voluntary, regular rotation. Absent that, the situation is primed for the entrenchment of power and establishment of de facto hierarchies. This is true for both the admin team becoming accustomed to holding a certain level of authority, and for the userbase growing comfortable and complacent with a shift in the admin role from "caretaker" to "leader".
I question whether I am ignoring clear signals in favor of hope.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 153d
We don't need rotations when we got admin recalls tbh. If people feel like the admins are doing a bad job they can always ask any of them to step down. Unfortunately there's nowhere near enough people who want to be admins to handle rotations
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 153d
I'm willing to step up and do 3 months as a dbzer0 admin, if you want.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 153d
If you decide that dbzer0 isn't for you, you'll be welcome at MULTIVERSE, which is also an anarchist instance.
lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 152d
I may just accept that invitation.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 155d
On one hand, yeah they can be really annoying.
On the other, all they're pretty much doing is talking about their voodoo reality shit (which often can be really funny) and politics in a way that's not too different from .world'ers.
I did interact with this user directly and while my experience with them was negative, completely disappearing them for a wrong kind of LARP that's already prevalent in other instances and sometimes being annoying seems way too extreme.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 155d
That's a yes from me. I would prefer some concrete evidence linking these accounts to confirm ban evasion, but that would require some collaboration between instance admins to basically dox the person.
The general antagonistic nature, purity testing, lack of demonstrating any principles of anarchism tell me that this person is out to do just what they are doing, and whatever sort of reports that have been sent will keep being sent.
We owe new users some sort of safety in the community. If we expect everyone to be fully informed and capable of discerning bad actors from ignorant ones, that's not fair to them.
One person's neurodivergence is also not an excuse to distress others. Allowing that robs other people who may also be vulnerable from feeling safe, and gives the first person power over these other people.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
So wait, people are saying yes without even knowing if the accounts are linked at all? What is the point of federation if we are going to defederate instances without evidence.
Especially since it was voted if one instance of the floatilla bans an instance the rest would have to as well I thought.
Seems dangerous
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
Not really. There's grail's existing post history, you go judge yourself on the comments that are there.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 155d
The link in the original post just says can't find this user when I click on it. Maybe they just defederated from dbzer0, not sure. If so I guess that solves your worries
otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 155d
For now, until this blows over and they quietly re-fed w/ db0, no? Then, we're right back here again.
Of course, I've yet to hear if they can simply start a new instance when their current one gets banned, and unban themselves again. š¤¢
Side question: How the fuck is this method even still an option for instance founders at this point?
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
Yeah they could just rename their instance and come from another IP address. The only way you would get around that would be whitelisting instances instead of blacklisting them. Which overall would greatly hurt the growth and purpose of federation (in my personal opinion, others would disagree I'm sure).
Sorry to use the trope of comparing to email, but it would be the same thing as you banning an email domain, and them creating a different one. Your filters don't know to block them. Hosting an instance from a dedicated IP that isn't identifying their home residence would be the preferred method for most I would assume.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 155d
They could but they would be easily defederated again, and domains cost money so it would be a long game that They would ultimately lose.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 155d
Still accessible for me, might be something else
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
Strange, I had to open them from another instance to find their history. Let me try from here again.
Edit: Must have been a jerboa thing. If I copied the link to Opera it worked fine, but within jerboa no good.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 155d
My experience with Grail was that They publicly expressed intent to brigade mine and similar communities as well as encouraged others to do the same and then decided to troll me in my DMs after I banned Them for it. I've also noticed they consistently promote electoralism and also engage in some really bad faith arguments and accusations, like conflating usage of AI with enslaving animals, which is pretty gross.
Since they're the only admin on Their instance I say defederate, we would defederate if some other random troll was hosting their instance and violating our rules. It shouldn't be different if a person is a troll who is also trans or neurodivergent, I say that as someone who is trans-NonBinary and neurodivergent myself.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 155d
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 155d
well that is a much worse accusation than anything in the main post, do you have receipts of it?
no worries if you don't want to make them, but if substantiated that might be enough to convince me to defed
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
I looked through my private messages and only found one of the DMs, it's possible the others were deleted:
::: spoiler DM Trolling
:::
I'm having trouble locating the comment where Grail advocated for downvote brigading, if I can locate it I will update my comment. I don't think it was removed because it would've shown in Their modlog.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 154d
I've interacted with this person. I believe you even screenshotted conversation snippets I was involved either before or after in that thread. They are not capable of discourse.
As someone once told me, bad behavior is not excused by status (I'm paraphrasing the condition slightly). You have to own your actions and words on some level.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
TherapyGary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 155d
I have a soft spot for both dragonfucker and Grail, so I'm biased. Idk about the other alts or what drama I've missed from them, but I haven't seen any evidence presented for these being the same user anyway.
I'm lowkey a bit of an antirealist myself, and I have to say Grail seems extremely consistent with Their belief system. Others see bad faith baiting, but I often see two people talking past one another. Have y'all checked out Their Medium articles and soulism website? I've read both thoroughly, and this all tracks and has remained consistent for a long time.
Yes, I agree that They're hardly an anarchist in the sense that most of us appreciate politically, I just don't think that's trolling but rather disagreeing (for the most part- obviously there's been drama).
I support starting with relevant community bans where rules are violated, and escalating as needed. The anti-AI sentiment might be a dealbreaker, but if They care that much They should just defed on Their end
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 155d
Appreciate your comments Gary, and I was trying to channel you in the against section :p
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 154d
Soulism is a troll internet meme ideology FFS...
TherapyGary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 154d
That doesn't mean there aren't people who genuinely believe in it anyway. I'm not a soulist myself, but I am an anarchist and a bit of an antirealist, and that's almost what soulism is- just those two things combined
Suck_My_Testicles@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 154d
Soulism is real and valid whether you like it or not.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 154d
You should read My history of soulism article. The word comes from a meme ideology, but there were anarcho-antirealists before the meme, and there are people who turned the meme into a cromulent ideology. Those two groups are now one and the same. Again, the full story is on My blog.
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 153d
Thanks, I have already read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". :p
Edit: (to disprove anything you were ever going to say)
/hj
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
Luminous5481@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 154d
I blocked that whole instance shortly after the "Banned for Nuttin'" post in YPTB last week. defederating from anarchist comms because of not liking the content, listing the reason as "authoritarianism", then complaining when that mod issues a reciprocal ban is some pretty shitty behavior. but then, so is the constant badjacketing and insistence that only one kind of anarchism is the "right" one. I vote for FOR defederating.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 0 pts · 154d
I'd like to clarify that MULTIVERSE has not defederated quokk.au or blocked !mop@quokk.au. In fact, I was recently unbanned from mop.
PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 155d
So Grail had an argument in other instances and was apparently an ass, maybe a crybully, has a pragmatical approach to elections, and thinks dbzer0 is either turning tankie or rightwing (who cares? "agitating against our instance" lol I think you are taking lemmy too serious)... and... what else? I mean, the post doesn't suggest spamming, stalking and hateful attacks... what were the reports even about? Being annoying? Why these users are calling the cops instead of just blocking the person they find annoying? This post-social media behavior always amazes me...
I'm not voting because I'm indifferent to the matter, but I find it funny because I just came from a post that user is asking a community to ban content and here they are the one that might get banned lol
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 155d
If a person is violating instance rules they get banned, if that person hosts their own server they get banned and their server gets blocked. No one would be having these reservations if it was any other old troll. Electoralism isn't annoying, it is against our community rules, bad-jacketing isn't annoying, it is against our community rules. These are things other people get banned from dbzer0 for, and server owners aren't any different except that they have the ability to spawn infinite accounts or clear their bans (when someone gets instance banned on their home instance, and then unbanned from their home instance it deletes all remote bans).
That's why defederation is on the table.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 155d
Have They actually done that though, spawned new accounts in order to ban evade? To me this stuff seems like it would make it appropriate to prevent Them posting on communities where it is a violation of the instance rules, but going too far to prevent everyone on the instance from seeing or interacting with Their posts elsewhere, especially since it removes the opportunity for argument. If the latter is the only way to enforce the former, fine, but that would depend on whether They are unwilling to respect Their ban.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 155d
The evidence presented in this post (written for the uninitiated, thus presumably the best evidence) does not include Them doing electoralism in communities that ban electoralism. I also dislike the use here of the term "bad-jacketing" when our instance ban defines it as saying someone's a cop while here it's just saying someone's a fascist, which our instance rules does not ban, and so the same thing I mentioned about electoralism applies.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
Maybe our definition of bad-jacketing needs to be reworked to include how broadly bad-jacketing actually is since it is well beyond accusing someone of being a cop. @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com maybe someone on the team could fix that.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
See https://anarchist-archive.org/library/en/anonymous-not-liking-someone-doesnt-mean-theyre-a-cop-on-bad-jacketing for a more thorough description. That bad-jacketing rule has been linked as part of the golden rules for years.
Itās basically just a shitty thing to do. Having said that, the important part is the evidence. If there is evidence someone is being fascist then thereās no problem with making the claim. What is problematic is when there is no evidence, or the evidence is to the contrary.
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
are you saying that bad-jacketing someone of being a fascist (but not a cop) is also banned by our instance's rules?
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 155d
Yes
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 155d
I am very concerned if the rules of this anarchist instance are changing without awareness, announcement, or other transparency.
Edit: It turns out I'd missed the line in the definition I linked to including fascism. (Still a little unsure how we can confidently apply this part of the rule, because I wouldn't want us calling tankies and US libs right-wing; and pro-Zionists fascists; to be deemed of "flimsy evidence" by other instances, and the reason I'm an anarchist is I doubt the ability of the ruling hierarchy to always make the right decisions in important areas like open discourse, but) My bad.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
Pretty sure it's been that way since before I was here. I think it's always been that way, I can't see why it would be okay to accuse others of being fascists, pedophiles, antisemites, or anything else disgusting like that without evidence just to discredit or shut them up. That's definitely against the spirit of this place.
@Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com Could you clarify? Was this a change to the rules or has it always been that bad-jacketing was something more than accusing people of being a cop?
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 155d
Okay as someone who wasn't even familiar with the term until I saw you both discussing it... Do you mind explaining it more to me? Is it just labeling someone something out of distrust of their words/opinion? (Just a guess based off the context clues from this discussion, I may be way off)
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 154d
https://anarchist-archive.org/library/en/anonymous-not-liking-someone-doesnt-mean-theyre-a-cop-on-bad-jacketing
@PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com FWIW This is linked to in the instance rules at https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-golden-rules/
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 154d
PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 155d
yep, I also just learned it, but from what I understood on this thread it's bad-jacketing when someone calls you a tankie, but not when you call someone a liberal.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
Bad-jacketing is when you make accusations of being a fascist, bootlicker, antisemite, or pedophile to people who are not to discredit them. It hinges on the accusation not having merit. Like if someone said db0 is a fascist.
Calling someone who is acting like a liberal, fascist, or tankie and is openly promoting those views is not bad-jacketing it is a statement of fact.
PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 155d
It is? I didn't see it on the rules list, but more importantly, is Grail doing that on THIS instance? The picture there was from lemmy.world - if the view of elections is something to be banned from here, I guess you are going to have to defederate from every single non-anarchist instance as well, because they are full of users that either like some political party or believe in lesser-evil.
Is this about calling someone here a tankie? Wait... you all really caring about that?
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 155d
Grail literally came into our instance !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com and started spouting Electoralist apologia in multiple threads. It's clearly visible in Their modlog and some comments are still up in YPTB.
Nice false dilemma, this is only a discussion because Grail is the admin of Their own server. If another server owner was doing this we'd be having the same discussion. If some idiot on Lemmy.world wad doing it we wouldn't, they'd just get site banned. Thanks for letting everyone know you never had any intention of participating in good faith discussion.
PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 155d
Sorry, I thought it was explicit on my first comment that I don't care about this voting and I find the whole thing risible - but my argument was about their "electoralism" being on other instance, the post didn't present it here.
ps: I still haven't found that rule about "electoralism" though, did I miss some link I should check? https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-golden-rules/ https://wiki.dbzer0.com/divisions-by-zero/the-anarchist-code-of-conduct/
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 155d
We don't have an instance wide rule about it. But some communities have such rules, e.g., c/flippanarchy rule 7.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 155d
I thought it was instance wide, I've seen comments removed for it outside of those specific communities.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 155d
Yeah I've also removed a few comments in yptb where people were shaming our users for anti-electoralism. We are an anarchist instance, and thus a certain level of anti-electoralism is to be expected. I don't want our users to be lectured to by anyone about how we are somehow the problem that gave rise to far right dominance in the US, instead of the neoliberal, zionist, corporate-teat-addicted DNC who are widely disliked even by their own constituency.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 155d
It's how it's used as a tactic, instead of a complaint. It's a way to discredit, not engage in discourse.
thax@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 154d
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 155d
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
all very reasonable before the addendum, you're being transphobic. the question of "would you be able to tell when spoken?" is moot because we're not speaking. we're on the internet where you can tell.
that's all to say, I appreciate your arguments that are relevant and not your transphobic irrelevant little nugget (that you were specifically asked not to attempt to relitigate) at the end
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 154d
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 154d
yes, refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is transphobic, regardless of how you feel about them. basic human respect. how is this still up for debate in your mind?
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 5 pts · 154d
Some people think attacking queer people with more radical identities will protect those with more normal identities. I've seen it on many different scales. I've seen gay people who think calling trans people predators will gain them acceptance. And I've seen otherkin who think calling p-shifters trolls will gain them acceptance. It's a cognitive trap that anyone can fall into.
Of course, they can't all be right. They all disagree about where to draw the line! So I call it hubris and I think they should all have a long think about what happens if someone else draws the line before them.
I once helped bust a kinphobic troll. There was this guy going into otherkin communities identifying as an ice dragon. Then he'd take screenshots from private conversations and post them to r/otherkringe. I helped get him kicked out of those communities and protected his victims. That's how you spot a troll: when he laughs at you.
Nobody's seen Me laughing. Because I'm not.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 154d
This sounds exactly like what hateful people say about xenogenders not being valid as trans identities or saying that we are making a mockery of "actual" trans people. This isn't something that's up for debate. Xenogenders are as valid as any other trans identity. It is shitty and transphobic to argue otherwise.
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 153d
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 153d
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 153d
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 153d
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 153d
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 153d
PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 155d
Your opinion about casing of letters and the meaning of such, the fundamental overlap between that and the broader dialog around communicating respectfully regarding gender - these cannot be meaningfully disentangled nor discussed in this comment thread or governance decision. Your points are made worse by your addendum.
You were asked politely in the post submission not to make those questions the focus here. You can of course do as you wish, to an important degree (important to me, I mean) your freedom counts. Nonetheless, I would see that as distracting from what aims to be a much narrower discussion and decision, and your own typing suggests you think so too.
Not much to defend with the addendum, let it go friend.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 154d
Given that you don't want to use My preferred pronouns, I have a follow up request: would you please refer to Me only by proper noun, and not by pronoun?
lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 153d
Generally speaking, I avoid reference.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 153d
An amenable compromise.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 155d
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 155d
This isn't a good hill to die on, this is just encouraging misgendering. If someone asks you to use their preferred pronouns and that includes capitalization you kind of need to respect it or you're an asshole. Grail prefers people address Them with capitalized They/Them pronouns, you should respect Their wishes. Arguing against that isn't productive.
lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 155d
Disagree, on the basis that capital/lowercase do not inherently change a word. The word is still the same word, despite the case of the first (or any) letter. Spoken aloud, would there be any difference? Is there any way to discern the case of any part of the word in such a circumstance, or are they equivalent? Attempting to dictate case is, at best, performative.
That said, I typically don't refer to Grail at all. I see little benefit in doing so. I can't imagine many interactions that would enrich either party.
This, however, is not the place for discussion of such. It is a place to ponder defederation. As much as I dislike Grail and find prescriptive casing to be an exercise in ridiculosity, I do not see ample reason to persue defederation. As I understand it, the point has become halfway moot, as defed has occured from the other direction.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
You were asked by our admin. It is not optional. This is not the time or place to debate the merit of people's pronouns or how much you think it matters, and you should not have added it to your comment in the first place. When someone asks you to respect preferred pronouns you do it without question, because it's a sign of basic human respect.
Uh source? I just checked and we're still federated both sides.
lemonmelon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 155d
I'll add whatever to my comments that I wish, thank you kindly. Excellent job of repeating my sentiment that it isn't the time and place for that discussion, terrible follow through on the concept. Police yourself, not me.
I could be mistaken about the defederation from the other side. I saw someone else's comment suggesting that it had taken place, and I did not care enough to find out further if it had or had not. It does not change my stance that we should not defed.
Edit: By the by, the source of "as I understand it" is my own understanding. I would have assumed that was clear, I suppose I'm doubly mistaken.
lvxferre@mander.xyz · -1 pts · 154d
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 154d
The major problem with lemmy is all the obnoxiously irritating people driving away the relatively ordinary ones.
Quill7513@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 149d
as is tradition in lefty and lefty adjacent spaces.
some of the time we have to take it on the chin and act more welcoming to newcomers.
others we have to dedicate some energy to explaining why and how we got like this, and that their complacency needs challenged.
personally, it seems like right now we have more on the threadiverse of the former and less of the latter
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 154d
Disagree/remain federated.
One, it seems like They dislike our instance. Let Them defederate on their end if They have a problem.
Two, They are weird but other than not liking (some of) us, I think They're fine. They have strong opinions but I don't dislike Them. I can also forgive quite a lot. I'm used to seeing differing opinions online. It doesn't bother me. I've had vitriol thrown my way online for over 30 years for just standing for something. I've gotten used to it. Sure, there are some dangerous opinions out there, but we don't have to let them ruin our day. I understand if some people want to defederate with this individual ā I'm not sure if capitalisation is needed there, sorry ā but they can also block Them.
Anecdotal, but I recall having a conversation with Grail about Their pronouns, but it wasn't about the pronouns themselves, it was about Their difficulty in getting them to show up. I think that was that person. Anyway, I thought it was odd that They want to use capitalised pronouns, and had a few thoughts about that which are not relevant, but ultimately I thought They were alright.
I've blocked users who annoy me. I could tell you why, but my reasons are my own and I wouldn't expect others to agree with me.
I disagree with defederation, but I'm not opposed. Because, like I have reasons that are personal to me, db0 and other users have reasons that are personal to them. So I do appreciate it being put to a vote. That's the right way to do it. But, I vote no. However, I have no petition for anyone to vote either way.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 154d
Thanks for the heads up. I blocked their instance on my client. Due to my extensive blocks and filters, I have never interacted with their posts or comments as far as I know. I vote no, because content engagement and filtering should always be a user choice. If you personally donāt like them, block the user(s). Block me if you want. Itās your choice.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 150d
Suck_My_Testicles@multiverse.soulism.net · -3 pts · 154d
You're one of the few smart people here. So many people on the fediverse advocate for censorship and are unwilling to block others.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 154d
Censorship is a valid thing to do when faced with dangerous speech, such as misgendering, bigoted slurs, and the like. That's not what's going on here, but some people think it is. I'd never adopt a blanket anti-censorship position.
Suck_My_Testicles@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 154d
I agree when it's valid but people who openly yell about and call for defederation because they don't like someone aren't really protecting anyone from dangerous stuff. The call for defederation against our server is because people don't like You and them blocking You isn't enough for them. They would prefer admins block our server for everyone to suppress our reach. That is unjust censorship.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 154d
Oh, wait, you're on MULTIVERSE?
sigh If you're genuinely interested in joining our instance, I'd appreciate if you'd delete all of your comments in this thread and refrain from engaging in drama concerning Me.
Otherwise, I'm going to take your use of our server as an act of impersonation and defamation, which is bannable under rule 3.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 153d
Hey if you don't mind me asking since you are here, would you be willing to confirm if the other accounts were you? I personally have never met you I don't believe and wasn't going to try to dig into anything to verify, but since you are here, its worth asking I figure. Whatever comes forth, wish you the best in life and may everyone leave whatever troubles behind them. In general my view was that if there isn't going to be any future qualms, then it is all moot And hopefully no one will hurt anyone else's feelings moving forward. I will have my opinions and get people upset on accident or say stupid shit while drinking (because I haven't given up that stupid habit yet and should) so I'm no innovent person myself. But if it helps others decide, responding is up to you obviously.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 153d
I deny that those other people are Me, but I'm willing to be accused of such if it helps confuse the haters. If people want to see a grand conspiracy of every annoying person on the fediverse being the same person, well at least it'll make it harder to actually compromise anyone's anonymity if they decide to lay low on a new account. I've done some reading on all the people I've been accused of being, for reasons I'm sure are obvious, and what I have concluded from all My research is that I hope they find shelter from the public eye wherever they are now.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 153d
So if I asked you how I should vote, how would you vote? Do you believe it's best or less. I know what I want for the future of the fediverse, but don't know what others want until I ask. I want a unified growing body, that derails corporate ownership while supporting access for all who don't have that access to exist until they breach the rights of others. That may be whatever views they have. The code here states (paraphrasing) that none shall condiscend/ look down upon, or pick a fight with one who does not choose to obstruct those rights for others. One who feels they don't want to fight but feels they could argue could say disengage. It's not always going to work. But if we try, it's a goal to aim for. I guess what I am saying is if you believe your instance won't abide by the ability to diffuse people antagonizing people, and tell the people trying to tell people to shut up and let it go without insulting either party, then you know my standing. Let the fediverse grow, delete or block those who scar your instances name and I will always stand by it
FuckGrail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 154d
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com MOD · 9 pts · 155d
Acknowledged governance topic opened by https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/u/flatworm7591

This is a simple majority vote. The current tally is as follows:
This vote will complete in 16.58 minutes
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 154d
@db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com is this just a display error? the proposal says it needs 2/3 though weāre also past that
YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 154d
The bot tracks the current votes, not the entire userbase's votes. Right now it would pass if votes stayed the same until the vote is done, but we give people more time to vote so it is too early to tell rn.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 154d
What do you mean? The voting isn't done
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 154d
I mean like the post says it needs a 2/3 majority while the bot says it only needs a simple majority to pass
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 153d
The bot just doesn't have a setting for it. But the defed is not automated anyway.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 148d
Happy to see this vote succeed.
7U5K3N@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 154d
I've not had the pleasure of dealing with Them.
From the discussion here.. They can fuck off.
Let's defed and be done with it.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 155d
The only time I interacted with this user was when They went by the name of Drag. At the time, it was the 2024 US General Election, and They were a big pain in the ass. I might have blocked Them then and there because I don't recall seeing Them again on Lemmy, or any of Their aliases.
I have a brief snapshot of the user. They could be "normal" under any other context but politics, but I haven't seen it.
db0 has a clear charter that is fundamentally political in nature. I don't have any confidence that this user won't monolothize our instance and force things to be political, without giving any of our users the benefit of the doubt that they're their own individuals which happen to align on politics. And of course, we have to put in extra effort to accommodate Their neurodivergency - which isn't to say we shouldn't accommodate them. All genders deserve (digital) dignity, respect, and inclusion. Just because someone is divergent in their gender doesn't give them a blank check to withhold that same right to others. There is a social contract of tolerance here, regardless of the actors and however different those actors may be.
Another side of the conversation is what impact this person has on db0. If They're abusing their admin and mod powers on Their own instance, where people are free to post content according to the instance rules, what's to say that said content is given the same protections and said users are given the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy on db0? Is it within our power to protect those people from Drag or Grail or whichever name They go by? Are we the police of the Fediverse? I think db0 is the exact opposite. We allow freedom of thought, freedom of expression.
I guess the question is if this user and Their instance prevents db0 from carrying out that mission.
Still making up my mind myself!
Edit: I'm abstaining from this one until we have evidence that these users are one and the same identity (or system of identities like with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) as others have pointed out). While single-admin users are suspect for the reasons people point out (e.g. users of their own instance can globally undo all bans on the Fediverse if they ban themselves on their own instance, then subsequently unban themselves), are there other instances out there that only have 1 admin and have a considerably large user base? I feel like we need to refine our rules regarding defederation for this reason or risk a larger exclusion from the wider Fediverse.
Also, getting back to impact, how much impact does Grail/Drag have on the Fediverse compared to the Zionist instance we defederated from the other month ago (we did defederate right?)? There being a place on the Fediverse where individuals of a similar immoral ideology culminate to organize and execute broad actions (e.g. brigade) is different than one individual (or system of individuals as is the case with DID) setting up their own instance to ban evade. Sure db0 users may want nothing to do with either case, but one problematic user can be managed by db0 users compared to organized communities of problematic users.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -2 pts · 154d
I'd like to clarify that MULTIVERSE is not a single admin instance. Our other admin is @mechoselachia and @goddessofspeed was previously an admin too. When it comes to big decisions like defederating fedinsfw, I consulted with the rest of the admin team before making the decision.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 155d
I honestly think dragonfucker (the @ I've seen Them/drag use) is just another troll that was easy to block on individual level. Never seen any actual contribution to any topic
But I don't think blocking the whole instance is worth it
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 155d
I have not seen evidence of the infinite accounts thing happening from that instance. There's little harm in defedding only when we have the infinite accounts thing happening from that instance. (I've also replied additionally below: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/25559368)
Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 155d
Admittedly I haven't caught up on the drama about this particular user for a while, and admittedly it's worthy of note that when the drama was only about accounts named Dragonfucker, I did not find Their actions remotely worthy of an instance ban.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 155d
Agreed with the case for this being more of a ban/block situation. If their establishment of an instance is used to evade bans and blocks, then defed.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 153d
one of Their alleged alts is not banned on db0, and was last active a month ago. the others were banned 2-3 years ago afaict. this doesnt seem like an attempt at ban evasion if u ask me
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 153d
I don't necessarily agree with this stance. Being neurodivergent is not an excuse to 1) be a raging asshole, and 2) flippantly throw baseless accusations around.
To quote a podcaster I enjoy: "Mental health isn't your fault, but it is your responsibility"
If They have enough mental capacity to spin up their own Lemmy instance, then They absolutely have enough mental capacity to understand that being an asshole is...well....a dick move. If one's neurodivergence is so severe that one cannot withhold themselves from being an asshole, then they cannot be expected to participate in otherwise civil discourse in a reasonable manner and should be removed. They have sufficiently shown that They are incapable of this without frequent intervention.
+1 for defederation.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 153d
what evidence have u seen of Grail being a raging asshole flippantly throwing baseless accusations around?
i am genuinely asking, have u read the post here thoroughly and come to that conclusion, or are u trusting the judgement of the ppl involved and feel no need to confirm it urself?
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 153d
Accusing people of hurting others. Which They've done both by Their electoralism and also comparing usage of AI to enslaving and killing animals (as if AI models are sentient). These are both significant forms of bad-jacketing that aren't tolerated in our community.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 153d
thanks for responding. the electoralism thing i can understand (altho defederation doesnt seem like a very measured response to me, especially when its not even an instance rule, but only on c/flippanarchy).
the example i found of the AI slavery situation read like a respectful disagreement to me (and is a stance that seems consistent with Their general anti-realist stance) and not like bad-jacketing, which as i understand it, calls into question the good faith of the other party and is generally disingenuous, trying to get members excommunicated for being state actors/fascists/etc.
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 155d
oh huh I didn't realize Grail was Drag but it tracks. i appreciated that Drag's pronouns made me think about pronouns in a way that they/them hasn't for a long time. that said, I can understand the people who felt it was "attack helicopter" adjacent (patently not the blatantly transphobic camp, and there were a lot of them)
I think They are harmless and defederating is too extreme. the crime of being annoying doesn't warrant excommunication, I think people can individually block if they find Them annoying (cool that Their pronouns make that sentence make sense in a way it wouldn't without the capitalization :P )
I think it would be reasonable to reassess this proposal if They started doing targeted harassment of our users or communities but I don't think They are.
also, I feel like a lot of the emotions involved here have more to do with the alts/priors than Grail Themself. have They specifically said anywhere that those are accounts They ran or is there some other definitive proof of those accounts all being the same person behind them?
I'm not doubting the connection, merely asking because if the accounts aren't definitely the same person I think that changes things
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 154d
I'm not Dragon Rider, but I'm glad I and drag both made you think about pronouns. I think that's why people think we're the same person. A lot of people live in a bubble with only two or three gender identities, and have never heard of neopronouns before. So they think everyone who uses them is the same person. And if they like the bubble and don't like thinking, they think being made to think it's trolling.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 154d
Can I positively prove it 100%? No. But I know I'm not the only admin or user one who has connected all these alt accounts, and the user has certain 'tells' that make it pretty obvious imo, especially since it's been going on literally for years. And even if it turns out to be a couple of people running the alts, well then they are both problematic. I mean at the end of the day, there's not much at stake, just a troll losing some reach. And tbh, even if by some chance the accounts turned out to not be linked, I still believe that Grail is acting in bad faith and drama farming.
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 154d
yeah understood. it sure sounds like drag which is the only other one of those accounts I've come across.
personally I think They have unpopular opinions that They're passionate (to many: annoying) about and I think defed before They do any of the "what if"s people are listing is too extreme
that said, if They do unban Themself or make more accounts on Their instance to evade bans my vote instantly changes to defed but as of now I don't think it's a reasonable move
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
hendu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 154d
Without solid proof that the new instance admin is actually the same person, I would be very hesitant to defederate based on the behavior of the older accounts and the conjecture that the accounts are owned by the same person.
Meaning, defederation should be based solely on the current account's behavior. I don't think I've encountered this account, and I don't especially feel like going digging. But if there have been reports flowing in, and the content reported justifies instance defederation, then it should be defederated.
I haven't seen it myself, and since I don't really have time to do digging right now, I'll abstain from the vote.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 154d
I don't have much experience with Grail, I used to and still do cite a few articles They've written (Their Agender article is a good one). Though from my personal experiences with Them and how I've seen Them act towards I do think they are a troll, or at the very least extremely adversarial.
I have had many experiences with dragonfucker, and those were insanely bad. dragonfucker literally harassed me multiple times with alts, created communities dedicated to trolling me, because I and others banned them for trolling. I don't know if Grail is the same person. I personally don't think so since They have had a presence on the internet long before dragonfucker. That doesn't mean Grail isn't an alt of dragonfucker or vice versa. I cannot say that for sure, but if They were and there's good evidence for it I feel like this shouldn't even be a vote since we don't do votes for banning trolls or ban evaders.
All that said I'm still in favor of defederation because Grail's instance and views go against our community's values. From what I've seen recently They've been acting like an insane shitlib troll. I feel bad because I've read the stuff They wrote and thought They were probably a very smart and very respectable person. I guess that's why they say you should never meet your heroes.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 155d
I'm looking at the local feed on Their instance and the number of unique users is in the single digits. I think people who find Them too annoying can just block Them, we don't need to make it a policy.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 155d
Relying on the "just block them" doesn't work with an instance owned by the single users though, because it effectively means they have infinite accounts at their disposal. And Lemmy individual instance-blocking still only works for posts/communities, not comments.
ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 155d
I see what you mean, but so far there's no evidence of Them using Their instance to evade blocks. They have gone through several accounts in the past on different instances, but that seems to me to be a symptom of Them having difficulty finding an instance where They fit in. I'm willing to revisit my stance if Their instance becomes a real problem due to block evasion/harrassment/etc., but right now it seems like They just have some annoying-but-ultimately-ignorable takes.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 153d
Defederate, no question.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 150d
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 150d
Hm, while this vote is technically passing, I have a concern about quorum. Do we really want to enforce a defederation with only 7 votes?Edit : wait lemme check the bot didn't die instead
Edit2: nevermind the bot bugged out
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 150d
Good pickup, dbo. The numbers look a lot more solid now.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -4 pts · 150d
Also, dbzer0 should probably be concerned by Flatworm changing the proposal after several days of voting, which they said they were gonna do in this comment
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 150d
Ah unruffled said, this ain't the supreme court. We don't fall for loophole. If people think they should allow your alts they can bring it up
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -4 pts · 150d
Whose alts?
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 149d
Yours idiot.
Edit: Wait I forgot, They can't see my comments because They blocked me from Their server... Oh well š¤·āāļø
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 150d
It's not misgendering to use impersonal pronouns in a sentence, Grail. Db0 wasn't even referring to You.
kip@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 155d
none of my business but watching people tie themselves in knots pandering to obvious bait has been the funniest thing on lemmy
nylo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 155d
like this?
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 153d
Nice try.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
I think I'm against defederation. Like they are definitely a pain, but i think it's up to users to just block them.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
I think of "Soulism" as some form of nihilism. Seriously!
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
DylanMc6@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 154d
What?
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 155d
I'm just going to pop in and say that based on the interactions I've had with Drag, and the previous experiences I've had with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) individuals (or, systems of identities, within a single body)...
I'm not a psychologist, I'm not formally diagnosing them, I'm just putting it here that I think Drag has DID.
I say this because ... to me at least, it explains a good deal of their otherwise seemingly inexplicable behavior.
I don't mean this as an attack, I mean it as a way of being able to understand, perhaps even sympathize with them.
As to defederating or not, I am undecided.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 155d
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 153d
.... Should we? I'm sorry, but I don't care what or how you are. If you are a bald black lesbian rocker (hello Skin, how YOU doing) that's fine, don't care. If you are nice, you're nice. If you're an asshole, I won't tolerate you and I won't care if you're trans or neurodivergent or whatever the reason is.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -2 pts · 153d
I think the argument being made may perhaps be thus: If one assumes Me to be neurotypical, then I appear an asshole. However, with the knowledge of My identity, My behaviour is reframed. For example, one may assume I frequently fail to recognise people's faces because I don't care about others. However, when one knows that I'm autistic and have the face-blindness symptom, it becomes clear that I more often recognise people by voice and personality, and that I am not an asshole. My failure to obey typical manners is a disability, not a lack of care for others.
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 153d
I once read a post on Reddit by someone who was asking if they were the asshole for breaking up with someone for calling the police on them due to a traffic violation. Said person claimed it was a coping mechanism due to their autism and anxiety. This shows that you can understand a person, and why they do things due to being neurodivergent but they are still unacceptable, and possibly even unsafe.
What Grail has been doing while not as extreme as that example, still falls firmly in the emotionally unsafe or asshole category. Things like promoting electoralism in anti-electoralist spaces and putting people down for not agreeing with Them. Things like comparing using AI with enslaving or killing animals. Things like encouraging people to brigade communities that They are personally against, then troll the mods in DMs when said mod bans them from all their communities for it.
Knowing someone is neurodivergent means you can understand why they do things. It doesn't mean we accept them or don't hold the person accountable for doing something wrong. And it definitely doesn't exclude people from consequences of doing things that are wrong. And I am neurodivergent too, Autistic and ADHD, don't think I'm ignorant of the challenges we face. The thing is we also need to work to not hurt others with our coping methods or behaviors. I say that as someone who has hurt a lot of people emotionally in my past.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 154d
i havent, to my knowledge, heard of or interacted with Them before, so i really made sure to read this whole post thoroughly and then i checked out some of Their posts too.
i genuinely see no direct evidence of trolling or behaviour id call ban-worthy. theres some comments i disagree with on an intellectual level, but theyre still written in a respectful tone and are nothing that would cause anyone any harm either.
i have limited time, so i think if u wanted Them banned, u shouldve done a better job collecting information as imo this is wayy too little (on top of this ofc that theres no evidence of the other accounts even being Their alts).
as to the claim that They left blahaj,
beehivebeehaw, etc, accusing them of transphobia.. honestly i can believe Them since otherkin/xenogender transphobia can come from anyone at this moment in time, and ive very frequently seen it come from other trans ppl.anyway TL;DR i fail to see reasons for a ban of this instance
EDIT: after having spent some more time looking into this (ive read the discussion here and also more of Their comments and some of Their medium articles) i still havent found evidence of the things Theyre accused of doing? and after having read Their article on anarcho-antirealism, the start of this post reads like the author of it didnt even bother looking into it before judging it as not-real-anarchism.
i am above all, very confused now as to how ppl keep calling this person a troll but dont even put a fucking screenshot up of a genuine troll comment of Theirs.
EDIT 2: (apparently i have nothing better to do with my life today) excuse my tone, but why the fuck are there FOUR SCREENSHOTS OF GRAIL SPEAKING BADLY ABOUT DB0 AS IF THATS GROUNDS FOR A FUCKING BAN??? i am incredibly confused! what does this have to do with anything?? am i not capable of grasping this or what??
the only reason for ban ive seen is Them arguing the "vote for the lesser evil"-argument, which apparently counts as electoralism? i understood electoralism as the idea that electoral politics should be the focus of political action, but maybe others disagree on this definition? but even then, wtf do these comments "agitating against our instance" have to do with anything? thats not against the rules, is it? it just gives it a "look, this person we want to ban is also ugly and unlikeable"-vibe that makes it seem like ur trying to manipulate ppl in a certain direction. not saying that its intentional, but thats the only way i can read it right now and others have also criticized it here before.
i am at my wits end. if anyone can explain this shit to me, id be very grateful. id much rather be wrong. i dont want this instance to become a shithole that bans and defederates ppl based on fuck all evidence. again, excuse the tone, i dont mean to offend anyone, im just kinda angry and confused rn.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 153d
I've actually had some very positive experiences on Blahaj with swift action on bigotry, both intentional and accidental/casual. There are of course users and opinions I disagree with, but on the stuff important to the whole of the instance, the positive action is there. Ada is firmly pro-xenogender and pro-neopronoun. And Blahaj hosts the forumverse's only dedicated Otherkin community.
Not sure what's meant by beehive. I think the people on Beehaw are really nice!
Yeah... When I have been critical of aspects of dbzer0 in the past, this is often the uniting theme. I still appreciate all that this instance has done for the anarchist community, but I think there's a bit of work to be done around premature judgements of those who disagree with the mainstream opinions. I believe that these problems are surmountable with a bit of effort, and that we have plenty of good possible futures ahead of us.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 154d
I am indifferent.
On the one hand, most of their behavior deserves a community ban for sure. But I donāt know that I agree it deserves defederation.
That said, if the claims of intentional brigading and DM harassment are true, Iād lean more towards defederation.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 152d
I want to just state, They do not argue in good faith, They're a known bad actor. I had an interaction with Them and "someone" I believe was on of Their alts recently that turned into election blaming and straw man arguments. From what I have read and seen on here about Them, They're bad faith in Their actions.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 151d
The fact that a blocked user can reply to someone is very unfortunate. I will add the lead up to the bad encounter was also Them pretending to be conservative, convince me of Their conservative nature, then turning around and throwing out Their manifesto. If that's not working in bad faith I do not know what else is.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 151d
some people use words differently than u. this is usually not a big deal if u can still communicate ur actual beliefs to each other. i went and found that interaction u describe, and it just sounds like They consider it conservative to keep positive cultural values which are very much against what thatcher and reagan advocated. someone having a different opinion than u does not mean they argue in bad faith.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 150d
If I come at you pretending to be one thing, then show I'm not really that, I'm just trying to get a rise out of you, that's bad faith, period.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 151d
Are Grail and Mechoselachia the same person? The truth EXPOSED!
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -2 pts · 152d
You were arguing accelerationist ideology and saying Trump's presidency is good for people of colour because it'll somehow cause a communist revolution. I was talking practical revolution-building and easing the burden of the people so we can focus on overthrowing the two party system.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 151d
for the record, i found this interaction, and this seems to be a largely correct description. one comment was kinda accelerationist-y and they also argued trump now was no worse than what the dems wouldve done (for ppl on food stamps).
unfortunately lemmys ui is kinda ass so very long threads become impossible to read tho, so i could only read a large part of it.they seemed very upset at Ur use of the word conservative to refer to positive values, which i think is understandable, but still not a sign of U being bad faith (i assume the You should be capitalized? idk sory).
EDIT: turns out i actually had read all of it, my lemmy app just sucks
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 146d
Being an accelerationist to my understanding is to want to use capitalism to cause radical social and economic change. If I'm wrong, please tell me.
Fact of the matter:Never supported, voted for, or defended Trump. I have voted against him despite my deep dislike of neo-liberal ideology because it's not actively destructive like reactionary ideology. If saying "This is a shit situation we're in, I hope something good can come out of it" then many people are such for hoping for better. I'm staunchly anti-capitalist to the point I'm going to but heads with people who give apologies for pro-capitalist ideologies, organizations, or people.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 146d
i agree, tho i would define it more broadly as "wanting things to go to shit in the hopes that itll motivate ppl to do something abt it and organize/revolt".
i appreciate that, tho i dont think i accused u of anything like that.
based, but again i dont think i claimed otherwise.. i hope u didnt misunderstand, i just thought u made some "accelerationist-y" arguments, which ofc doesnt mean they were intended that way, but they make it understandable to read ur position in that area.
iirc u also claimed that trump was no different than biden for ppl on food stamps, which to my understanding is a gross oversimplification of the situation (just one example: lots of ppl getting food stamps are not white, and therefore particularly vulnerable under trumps ice atm). ive heard this often from accelerationists but also from anarchists who are just against voting, but either way, i think its a false claim bc it ignores any nuance. importantly tho, it makes the rest of ur position seem more accelerationist than it probably is.
and since were judging positions only from this one context, i think yours came off as somewhat accelerationist based on the above.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 145d
Was more offering my side of the arguments because I cannot see what was posted.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 151d
Yes, capitalised U please and thank you very much.
I can understand why someone would be upset at My flippancy with the word conservative. For My part I was frustrated at being asked a question whose premises I fundamentally disagreed with. I couldn't come up with any honest answer to the question "when is conservatism acceptable" in that context, where it was obviously being loaded with meaning to imply that 1: the Dems are conservatives and 2: I am materially supporting conservative ideology by saying to vote for them. The question was laden with so much bullshit, I couldn't find any way to pick an honest nugget out of the shit with which to have a good faith conversation. So I flipped the script and threw the bullshit pile in the compost by going on a wild tangent about Indigenous conservatism, which ostensibly answered the question but gave the other person nothing that they wanted.
That's My attitude on these sorts of things - if you won't put in a basic level of good faith to ask Me questions that I can honestly answer, I'm not gonna answer those questions in good faith. There was no way for Me to answer that question with both good faith and honesty. I had to pick one. I chose honesty over good faith. I got frustrated and went "random bullshit go" over the alternative.
TL;DR: Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers
Deralax@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 153d
+1 against defederation
If in fact they are the owner of all these accounts and are genuinely trolling this post accomplishes little more than giving them the attention they crave. What's to stop them from just making more new accounts and continuing to farm attention?
If they aren't trolling and do not own these alts then we are just banning someone that some people find annoying.
This proposal clearly well intentioned, but I personally feel that this is a double edged sword. The people most bothered by this individual have likely already blocked them personally. If you ban them on an instance level and they make new accounts you may unintentionally re-expose those users to this person they already saw fit to block.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
socsa@piefed.social · 3 pts · 151d
This is sort of unrelated, but I really hate how the world "electoralism" gets thrown around lately, when most of the accusations are pretty far off the mark, and seem to come back around as being generally anti-democracy and edgy. I think a lot of people here genuinely do not understand the concept.
It's particularly upsetting when it's being used as a primary argument in favor of defederation over one person's alleged behavior and in this case - ideas. I have always had a soft spot for db0 but some of the recent meta seems like distractions at best
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 151d
It's by no means the primary argument. The individual is a relentless troll and drama farmer who just happens to be cosplaying as an anarchist at the moment. The constant campaigning for the democrats was just just the icing on the cake.
You are right I think to say that people don't seem to understand our policy on electoralism. It's not so much that we don't allow any expression of electoralism, it's that be don't allow people to shame or condescend to those of our users who are anti-electoralism. That's an important distinction. Many leftists choose to vote third party, or to abstain, or to hold their nose and vote for the dems but not go on about it. And that's perfectly fine. All of the above. That's democracy in action.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 151d
last i checked electoralism is not in the instance rules, there is no policy about it.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 151d
no, it's in some community rules
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 151d
so, ban Them from those communities? why are we discussing a defederation from this instance when one user broke some community rule?
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 150d
Because the user is also the admin of the instance, and it's likely a lot of the users are just alts.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 150d
please tell me this is more than conjecture.
is there at least one other user of that instance who is a known troll?
anything at all that suggests this is true, like an account "Grail2@multiverse.whatever.com"?
if not, then we might as well adopt the policy to defederate from any instance who has an admin that broke any community rule anywhere before, on the same basis.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -4 pts · 151d
I agree, I don't really care about voting all that much and would rather spend My time talking about how to do direct action. "You should vote against fascism" is bloody obvious and should be 1% of the conversation in anarchist circles. But dbzer0 users always want to talk about voting, always want to talk about the Democrats. I can't even remember the last conversation I had about direct action or civil disobedience on this instance.
These dbzer0 people are so obsessed with electoralism, I'm sick of it. We might have to have our own vote about defederating dbzer0 for being too obsessed with electoralism.
BillyGruff82@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 153d
While this thread is very dramatic šæ and I'm not sure I have / should have a voice in this, I'm concerned there may be other users on the instance (either now or in the future) that may be caught up in defederation. I'll abstain since I'm new and probably don't get a vote anyway, but I do think we should consider the effects on other users.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 154d
I've actually chucked an upvote onto this post.
While I of course don't want the defederation and deny that I am any of those other people, I think this post is a fairly measured summary of the debate around Me. I'd like to thank the dbzer0 admins for their patience and restraint.
EDIT: Oh wait, upvoting means I agree with the deferation. Well, I wish the vote well!
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 154d
I am also happy to accept being accused of being these other people if it helps confuse any attempts to doxx them. I believe everyone on the internet has the right to personal privacy and a fresh start. Whether these people have found new alts on the Fediverse or left for greener pastures, I wish them a safe shelter from the public eye.
andrew0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 154d
Although I don't have much of a sway in these votes, I'd still say no. If they're the the only ones interacting on that instance, what stops them from making another instance in a month or two? Do we trigger another vote then to block that one as well? It could be a fun activity to have the monthly "Defederate from Grail's instance", but this doesn't really make sense. I vote to leave the clean-up to mods of instances where this person creates problems. If they don't give up, all they need is yet another account/instance to troll communities here.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
balsoft@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 150d
As an outsider, I find it weird that this instance warrants defederation when there's a lot of similar content/stances/trolls on mainstream "liberal" instances like lemmy.world, piefed.world etc. IMO community-wide bans would be more appropriate
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
MysticMushroom1776@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 149d
lemmy.world and piefed.world might be getting the chopping block in the near future. Go check out the drama in !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com it's crazy.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 154d
Y'all, someone came to this thread and impersonated Me with a sockpuppet they registered to MULTIVERSE (with a dick pic as the pfp. Ew).
Can we not do that? I understand if you don't like My instance, but you're undermining your own side's credibility when you use sockpuppets to troll Me. This whole debate seems to be about accusations that I'm trolling, so when you send trolls to My instance to troll Me, it makes your side look like hypocrites.
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
FuckGrail@multiverse.soulism.net · -1 pts · 154d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · -2 pts · 151d
I think this vote is kinda weird, because there's nothing in the actual proposal about banning Me as a user, it's all about the instance. So I would still be able to post to dbzer0 from My .world account, and I wouldn't be breaking any rules. If this vote passes, it will only affect the other users on MULTIVERSE.
So a bunch of people who are new to the fediverse don't see as much anarchist content, and y'all don't get any benefit from that. I don't see how the cost/benefit maths out.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 151d
We'll ban Your alts as well, thanks for the reminder. And yes, it's unfortunate.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 0 pts · 151d
That's not in the proposal though. You can't change an instance governance proposal after people have already voted. That's not democracy.
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 151d
Sorry matey, fuck around and find out I guess.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 151d
okay, what the fuck?
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 151d
This ain't the supreme court. If I see a loophole, I close the loophole. For a defederation to be effective it will be necessary to ban alts as well.
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 151d
oh right, could u update the post to reflect this change? thanks
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 150d
Done š
rivvvver@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 151d
ok fair enough ig
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d
Suck_My_Testicles@multiverse.soulism.net · -4 pts · 154d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 3 pts · 154d
Can you not do that please?
Suck_My_Testicles@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 154d
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 2 pts · 154d
Make an alt account in which you loudly complain about the accusations against Me while offering no substance to your argument, thereby seeming to be My alt account, fabricating evidence that I use sockpuppets, and inoculating people against future defences.
Also please don't misgender Me.
aeshna_cyanea@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 153d
You should probably make registration invite only on your instance
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net · 1 pts · 153d
Yeah, at least during high drama periods. Thanks
div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 150d