db0

Lol he really went ahead and silenced every instance to the left of kissinger didn't he?

I'm not sure what you mean by "intentional hierarchy". Regardless, would you prefer the unintentional hierarchy of the BDFL server owner?

No, you presenting only half the situation (donating votes) and framing it as elitist ("can afford to") is you attempting to create a negative reaction to the imperfect solution that exists. And you achieved that given the reactions to your comment.

Absolutely not. It's clearly meant to make the voting seem more exclusionary than it is and without nuance, to people who haven't noticed it before. I don't know why you think you can spin this.

You wrote it specifically to make the voting process look bad. You're being disingenuous right now.

Other than the fact that you're not mentioning that plenty of people who haven't donated can vote, I'm sure you have many great ideas on how this can be done better and I'm looking forward to your proposal.

Trolls should be banned. However someone having genuine beliefs which upset you is not a troll. Someone having 100 alts is not a troll. Someone refusing to back down until they're disengaged from, is not a troll. Someone not being polite, is not a troll.

The problem is not that we ignore trolls, the problem is that we disagree with your definition of a troll.

Typically, it's simpler to make rules about which positions we disagree with as an instance and prevent the proliferation of those opinions, instead of allowing those opinions as long as they're not a "troll". This is the approach we have taken with both oppressive positions (patriarchy, transphobia etc) and with things like zionism. We don't ban Zionists because they're trolling, we ban zionists because they're zionists.

Likewise, we explicitly do not follow the authoritarian approaches of other instances, where the admins and mods become instant judge and executioner because that creates massive chilling effect, is counter-productive as far as community goodwill is concerned, and can easily be turned inwards when it becomes established. It's unironically, a slippery slope to encourage admins to determine who is a troll based on positions that upset them personally (or their friends), and then take instant action. Because tomorrow another admin might find your friends, or your opinions distasteful, and label them as "trolls", and summarily ban. And that then causes inter-admin conflict and the whole things implodes.

As evidence, you don't need to look much further than the liberal instances regularly banning leftists as "trolls", especially those who dare to have an principled anti-electoralism stance.

And yes, I made this instance explicitly to be friendlier to ND people. I will not apologize for recognizing ASD behaviours and trying to be charitable to people who are otherwise always alienated - because the rules are not clear enough, but people rather rely on soft rules like "trolling" and who's friends with whom, and who's in the inside group. It's why I purposefully push admins to determine clear rules and agree with them and give second chances to people who might not know them , before taking action on peeps.

What I agree with, is that we should agree on a code of conduct where people should not engage in behaviour that is driving other anarchists away from our instance. But that is a difficult task to achieve without not also protecting people who must be driven away. Because any rule that says "stop engaging with people who told you, you upset them" can also be weaponized by, say a "brahnarchist" to avoid being called out for their sexist takes. It's not as simple.

Why do those private pensions not amount to anything?

That line is actually a quote from "Red" Emma Goldman.

You're not expressing a dissenting opinion, you're just being an asshole.

Lol rimu blocked me because I was countering his bullshit a bit too much?

What is this shady shit?