So we’ve seen the complaints and the reports and boy oh boy are there complaints and reports.

I’ve discussed the account with the other mods and admins multiple times, and while we agree the volume is a lot, it doesn’t point to a botfarm or multiple people using the account.

Obsessive? Absolutely, but not technically rule breaking… Until today.

Today they indescriminately posted the same story three times from three different sources apparently solely to flood the channel showing a decided lack of judgement.

It’s a valid story from a valid source, the original has been kept here:

https://lemmy.world/post/21098916

The others have been removed as duplicates.

I’m also applying a 15 day temp ban on the account.

“15 days? That’s oddly specific! What’s in 15… OH!”

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      1010·
      10 days ago

      Oddly, on a personal level, I have no beef with the guy. If we were local we could probably go out for beers or something.

            • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
              11·
              4 days ago

              jordanlund wrote,

              Oddly, on a personal level, I have no beef with the guy.

              So I was just pointing out another example where this user could have tried to troll or inflame me, but instead went with the “no-beef” approach, for whatever reason.

              After seeing how that user banned DMs, I don’t see how anyone could be against the current permaban. I was just pointing out that somehow I was one of the rare few who somehow got along with that person while they were still here.

        • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
          146·
          10 days ago

          I think @jordanlund@lemmy.world is right. The Monk has many beliefs that I either agree with or at least understand where they’re coming from. If there had been full duration Democratic primary, or any of the 3rd parties been even remotely competent/had a chance, or the voting system been a universal Ranked-Choice Voting system or better I’d probably support them. But he refused to see reality to the point I think it is fair to argue a dishonest agenda at best.

          Regardless of the cognitive dissonance saying that gives me, I think it was a good thing for the community, and perhaps Monk too, that a break was mandated.

          • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
            11·
            7 days ago

            I think we have the same view on this, except I don’t have cognitive dissonance over the ban - the ban was for a repeating behaviour of reposting/repeat posts, rather than the person’s stubbornness over the whole spoiler effect/FPTP means only two real choices thing.

            Also, it’s temporary and just one magazine (rather than, say, the entire instance).