No idea. Maybe it’s region-specific, or maybe it allows a certain number free before it kicks in.

I don’t think this is true. What do you mean by “deeply involved”? Just that she didn’t endorse him, or something else?

They are not owed our votes - they must effectively campaign to win them. That’s politics.

You aren’t owed life, or shelter, food every day, or freedom from imprisonment from no reason. Or from torture. Nobody outside yourself has any obligation to create for you a system that you like.

We made all this up, all this justice, flawed or not. We create it every day. Except now it might be about to go away. We either get together and create and sustain it, or it can blow away like a fart in the wind.

That’s realpolitik. Welcome to it, and congratulations.

Good news! Trump is planning to point a huge amount of anger at the Democrats as soon as he gets into office. Jack Smith, Joe Biden, Laetitia James, and who knows who else will probably get federal charges which will probably succeed.

I’m glad to hear you are united with that anger. I’m sure it will help us maintain the two-party system. What’s your next step, once those obstacles to the two-party system are cleared out of the way?

We are protesting the end of American democracy.

The time for infighting is done. I don’t see what complaining about the DNC accomplishes at this stage.

I think you can apply the same thing to anyone from the DNC who wants to talk about Latino or Arab voters who didn’t vote for the Democrat. It’s all just irrelevant at this point. It’s solidarity and survival time. I don’t care whether you think it’s this person’s fault or this other person’s fault.

I didn’t even think about this. No, I don’t consider UniversalMonk’s participation in this post to be ban evasion. I’m fine giving him a chance to defend himself, if he wants to. It sounds like he’s done now with what he had to say.

The decision to give him an account, while he’s still arguing vociferously that there was nothing wrong with the conduct that got him site-banned before, is confusing.

I think some of it was for DM harrassment or posting fan fiction about other people on Lemmy.

Again, assumption. And no, none of that ever happened.

Modlog, search for “harassing.”

Good to know, maybe I missed the tone in your text. I def took it as you were trying to ban me from this instance, lemm.ee, and sh.itjust.works because of what you thought of my previous behavior on an instance that I was banned from weeks ago. Since you are writing to all of the admins there.

That is exactly what I was trying to do, yes. Not for your behavior on the previous instances exactly, but for starting up the same behavior from new accounts since you’d already been banned for it, which is against the rules. I think I explained the commonsense reasons also.

And you can easily not “endure” me by blocking my name.

Part of the point of the violation here is that, if someone’s already blocked your name, they now have to do it again for three new accounts, until you make more beyond those three.

I already think that trolling and saying that anyone who doesn’t like it should just block you is unreasonable. Trolling and saying that anyone who doesn’t like it needs to block every new account you make to keep trolling with when one gets banned is a whole different level.

Sending out ban notifications to dozens of users about bans in a community they’ve never heard of doesn’t seem like good bot design.

I am unsurprised that a UniversalMonk fan would think that would be a totally reasonable thing to do, though, and at the same time that banning someone who managed to get an account ban from the least ban-happy instance there is when they make a new account and start doing the same stuff is somehow unreasonable.

Your ban is in the modlog. It’s about halfway down, search for “pleasant”.

I’m mostly relying on common sense here. Your participation in previous politics communities was incredibly obnoxious. The issue was never that you were talking about third parties and posting news articles. I don’t even know all the details of why you were banned. I think some of it was for DM harrassment or posting fan fiction about other people on Lemmy. Now that you’ve been banned, you’ve made new accounts and went looking for new politics communities to start doing the same thing in, while seeking for exact clarifications about the rules that would let you carefully adhere to the letter of them so you could keep doing it, while the overwhelming majority of the community keeps asking you not to.

I’m not trying to be mean about it, and I’m not upset or anything. If you’re interested in changing how you contribute so that you’re a net positive to the community, let’s talk. If you’re planning to continue your current type of contributions, but trying to engineer ways around the rules with multiple accounts or whatever so that you can keep doing it, then the answer is no thank you.

As I said under the other post, I do believe this evasion was entirely unintentional, for the reasons you outlined. The part that was intentional was trolling in lemmy.world politics and some other communities until your whole user got banned, and then making new accounts and going looking for other politics communities to start up exactly the same antics in, explicitly affirming your plan to continue the same pattern of behavior. And, in the course of doing that, you managed to break some rules, set up to protect against that kind of behavior.

I’m not planning to set the bot up to notify dozens of users about their bans in a community they have never posted in and don’t care about. Mostly it doesn’t come up, because you have to be pretty obnoxious for the bot to ban you. Almost no one even close to that boundary even posts there, because almost everyone understands how to interact with other users without collecting hundreds or thousands of downvotes.

I get that you didn’t get a notification, and so probably didn’t know you were banned. You did know you were being obnoxious previously, and refused to stop doing it until it escalated to an account ban, and then made some new accounts and started looking for new places to do it.

I think admins and mods those new places can make the decision about whether that is ban evasion, or whether they want to let you do this all again until you inevitably get banned again sometime later. People have talked with you about why what you’re doing is a problem. Why they would pick that second option is something of a mystery to me, but I’ll leave it up to them. I’m just relaying the information.

It would be a different story if you were just misunderstanding something, and completely open to a conversation about why you keep getting banned and what you can do differently, but you’re clearly more interested in figuring out the details of the rules so you can find ways around them and keep doing your same thing.

Fully agree. I’m finishing up a few replies to other people who had things to say about it, and then I plan to wash my hands of it.

This is a really good point. I was going to get sucked into replying after his innocent-faced reply, but there’s really no point to it.

They were banned from [email protected] ages ago, and just now starting posting new stuff there under new accounts.

You could be charitable and say that they probably didn’t understand how Pleasant Politics works, and had no idea that they were banned.

Or, you could say that this user has such a clear pattern of badly-intended participation that this is clearly in the spirit of ban evasion regardless.

To me, it would be different if they were coming with a post apologizing about trying to antagonize the whole community, and promising to be less toxic in their future interactions, and asking for a second chance. They’re not doing that. The fact that they’re not even bothering, just saying that they plan to continue the same obnoxious conduct as before, trying to innocently claim that they didn’t mean anything by it, and avowing to skirt carefully within the letter of the law, would mean that common sense would motivate a ban regardless and they don’t deserve any extra leeway when rules are broken, even if it was honestly unintentional in this case.

It’s up to you. In my opinion no good can come of having this person involved for as long as they really want to defend their right to troll, but it’s up to you.

The bot banned you from [email protected] I don’t know how long ago. You had a lower rank, after a while, than even Media Bias Fact Check bot. Somehow. That’s your violation of the letter of the law.

I can’t even find the entry in the modlog because your record of moderation actions is so extensive that it’s almost impossible to make sense of. I seriously tried, and since your account ban and the endless list of deletions and bans people have been giving you, I couldn’t find it. It’s hard to find stuff for now-deleted accounts, I guess. It’s there though. You were banned quite a while ago from [email protected] under the now-deleted account. I can find a date or a moderation record if you want to see it. Anyway, you put yourself in a position to be able to DM people again after being banned for some kind of offense in DMs, and started posting in new politics communities with the exact same stuff after being banned for a pattern of behavior that I would say the mods were excessively generous about, to the point of moderation malpractice. That’s your violation of the spirit of the law.

You did ban evasion both in letter and in spirit. And, you’re pretending with an innocent face not to understand how anyone could have a negative reaction to you, when you’re clearly aiming for exactly that negative reaction with a lot of your past posts. That’s the proactive element that would lead me, if I were an admin, to ban you on sight.

You need to reevaluate your approach to posting, or else get accustomed to people wanting to ban you. It’s the world’s most natural reaction to what you like doing.

Being the same person who was banned, and posting from a new account, is ban evasion.

You can find a place that can put up with you, if you want to try. That’s the sense in which your voice won’t be silenced. The same people who’ve seen what you have to say and want no part of it are not obligated to continue listening to it forever, with you disabling their attempts not to hear from you anymore. That’s protecting their rights to use Lemmy as they want to use it.

You’re welcome to your dickness. The name is terrible. It just means no trolls.

@[email protected] I don’t know where to put this for sh.itjust.works, so I’m picking an admin at random.

“No fair pointing out that the other guy wants to kill the children and burn the world! I want to know: How good is the alternative. It better be fantastic. Like really good. Or else I don’t care.”

(Kamala Harris’s record is fine, but it barely matters. If one item on the menu is rat poison and the other is edible food, I don’t need to know how many Michelin stars the food got.)

So instead of “Democrats,” it should say “Netanyahu.”

And also, Trump has a machine gun, and the Democrats are sitting in the corner saying, “Hey, don’t do that. I don’t think you should do that.” They don’t seem to be doing much other than that.

And the same people who are screaming about how the Democrats bought the bullets in the first place are also, for the most part, screaming that Trump will do 10 times worse, and please don’t elect him. Also he wants to walk outside and start shooting all kinds of random people all over the apartment complex. Also he wants to give Netanyahu his second machine gun so Netanyahu can go through the apartment finishing off the guy’s family. He’s really mad about the whole “Hey, don’t do that,” thing.

I am glad that you are safe enough to not be able to see a difference between Kamala Harris’s sometime reprehensible foreign policy, and Trump who simply wants to burn the world and kill the children. Not everyone has that luxury. Please don’t subject them to Trump, while you’re making your little meme.