this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026

12 points (80.0% liked)

Ye Power Trippin' Bastards

1705 readers

74 users here now

This is a community in the spirit of "Am I The Asshole" where people can post their own bans from lemmy or reddit or whatever and get some feedback from others whether the ban was justified or not.

Sometimes one just wants to be able to challenge the arguments some mod made and this could be the place for that.

Posting Guidelines

All posts should follow this basic structure:

Which mods/admins were being Power Tripping Bastards?
What sanction did they impose (e.g. community ban, instance ban, removed comment)?
Provide a screenshot of the relevant modlog entry (don’t de-obfuscate mod names).
Provide a screenshot and explanation of the cause of the sanction (e.g. the post/comment that was removed, or got you banned).
Explain why you think its unfair and how you would like the situation to be remedied.

Rules

Post only about bans or other sanctions that you have received from a mod or admin.
Don’t use private communications to prove your point. We can’t verify them and they can be faked easily.
Don’t deobfuscate mod names from the modlog with admin powers.
Don’t harass mods or brigade comms. Don’t word your posts in a way that would trigger such harassment and brigades.
Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.
You can post about power trippin’ in any social media, not just lemmy. Feel free to post about reddit or a forum etc.
If you are the accused PTB, while you are welcome to respond, please do so within the relevant post.

Expect to receive feedback about your posts, they might even be negative.

Make sure you follow this instance's code of conduct. In other words we won't allow bellyaching about being sanctioned for hate speech or bigotry.

YPTB matrix channel: For real-time discussions about bastards or to appeal mod actions in YPTB itself.

Some acronyms you might see.

PTB - Power-Tripping Bastard: The commenter agrees with you this was a PTB mod.
YDI - You Deserved It: The commenter thinks you deserved that mod action.
YDM new - You Deserved More: The commenter thinks you got off too lightly.
BPR - Bait-Provoked Reaction: That mod probably overreacted in charged situation, or due to being baited.
CLM - Clueless Mod: The mod probably just doesn't understand how their software works.

Relevant comms

!fediverselore@lemmy.ca

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

unruffled@anarchist.nexus

removed comment for quoting wikipedia explanation of spoiler effect (lemmynsfw.com)

submitted 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) by lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com to c/yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

!leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com moderator @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com removed my comment

or primaries

a spoiler effect happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating

Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win.

This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We've already seen the consequences.

reminding that primaries exist & quoting wikipedia's explanation that in the US's voting system, voting for minor candidates spoils the election in favor of the major party candidate the voter opposes most. In context

the post is titled

Vote Blue No Matter Who

with my comment responding to the parent comment, which practically denies the point the higher comment is driving at that not "voting blue" can only spoil the election in favor of "the fascists". Ignoring the purpose of primaries, the parent comment suggested alternatives that still don't "vote Blue".

| | | mod | Removed Comment ![meme: bitches dont know bout my spoiler effect][bout] or primaries > a [spoiler effect][spoiler] happens when a losing candidate affects the results of an election simply by participating > Vote splitting is the most common cause of spoiler effects in FPP. In these systems, the presence of many ideologically-similar candidates causes their vote total to be split between them, placing these candidates at a disadvantage. This is most visible in elections where a minor candidate draws votes away from a major candidate with similar politics, **thereby causing a strong opponent of both to win**. This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We've already seen the consequences. [bout]: https://i.imgflip.com/ab9g3o.jpg [spoiler]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect by lmmarsano reason: Rule 3 |

the moderator claims this violates rule

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of “Marxist”-“Leninists” (read: Dengists) (actual ML’s are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don’t just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

Somehow, straightforward social choice theory (a branch of mathematical social science) is "liberalism", "revisionism", or "reactionary". Is "1 + 1 = 2" equally problematic?

Maybe moderators shouldn't claim mathematics is ideology.

all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

It wasn't just quoting facts.

Responding to someone gives context to your comment, especially when you add stuff like: "This willful ignorance of the spoiler effect is tiresome denialism of mathematics. We’ve already seen the consequences."

Reads like liberal high-roading to me.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Says the user who thinks ICE was perfectly ok under Biden. Maybe Dems shouldn't come into lefty memes to argue for votes for their shitty political party. YDI.

[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago

💜💜💜

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Stupid argument but it do not deserve to be removed.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago

If we didn't remove those shitty arguments, the community would be overwhelmed by libs wagging their fingers at leftists. It's a leftist community, not a community for Dems to badger leftists about voting for the Dems because "we have to be realistic" and "we are stuck with what we have, wygd?" type arguments.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Are you not arguing in favor of liberal democracy, i.e. Electoral voting and therefore against rule 3?

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Is an explanation of how shit works an endorsement? See fallacy Confusing an Explanation with an Excuse.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Oh so you don't actually endorse electoralist voting and we're just clarifying things to assist in the the discussion?

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe -2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Where was that said?

Even your phrasing here is strawman and an attempt to entrap.

Sophistry.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 hours ago

What? You should learn to read and comprehend better

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Is the rule regarding the comment or their authors? I'm sure we can stick to the substance of the message presented on cause & effect without going on fishing expeditions into the irrelevant & unstated.

Moreover, your earlier claim is specious: liberalism is not by definition a voting system, and definitely not that particularly shitty voting system.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're engaging in sophistry while knowing perfectly well you were going against the spirit of the rules.

I don't have patience for this. Goodbye

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

I think you’re engaging in sophistry

I think that's you, honestly: you twist the definition of liberalism and claim the sophistry comes from the person you're questioning. I'm not even sure what you're arguing: apparently, it's not leftist for people to have a voting system? Only liberals vote? Explaining the consequence of a particularly flawed voting system is intrinsically liberal somehow? Weird take.

Though you could have simply browsed the original comments to draw your own verdict as a moderator would & did, you instead raised one irrelevant question after another as a moderator wouldn't until I quickly directed to evaluate shit like a moderator. Is that called sealioning? It's pretty good.

That someone with your approach to evaluating rules moderates here is a disturbing reminder to those coming here to expect less from moderators in terms of objective, impartial judgement & control of biases. Everyone here should be somewhat disappointed to witness the sort of judgement displayed.

Did you know people can write & think different things? Or that their unrelated thoughts have no bearing on the logic of what they wrote? Wow! Logic: imagine that. Good job discrediting yourself, champ.

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 16 hours ago

/disengage

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

You say that you oppose the shitty voting system while telling people to vote for the two same terrible parties which is accepting that terrible system instead of trying to change it

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe -3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Nah mate, you're the one engaging in sophistry.

Nowhere was there an endorsement for any system, merely an explanation of meanings.

Unless you can quote exactly what was said that endorses a system and isn't an explanation of how things work.

But you won't, because you're not interested discovering truth but in winning an argument, "being right"; aka sophistry.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Voting for the less of two evil and the rhetoric of vote splitting is the product of the system you admitted is bad.

edit: You are acting like third-party voters have the same values as the Democrats, which is not the case. They don’t have the same values as the Republicans either. Even when two parties have the same end goal, it still makes sense to vote for one or the other.

Where I live, in the Quebec province of Canada, we have the Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire. Both want separation and protecting the culture. The issue is that the Parti Québécois’ method is an extremist one. The leader uses the word “woke” as a negative term just like Trump. He supports discriminatory laws to protect the culture, and his vision of culture is very conservative, a culture that can never change. Québec solidaire does not support those terrible laws and has an inclusive vision of culture.

The Parti Québécois leader complains about immigrants and believes it contributes to violence, and believes in the rhetoric of immigrants stealing our jobs. He even believes in the theory of initiative du siècle, which is like the Great Replacement, except that it is not about religion, and instead of the imaginary threat being the replacement of white identity, it is about the identity of the descendants of settlers.