it's been a while since my last introduction post, and i figure the new wave would be a good time to re-up my introduction post
i'm cyrene savage, i've been on the fediverse for a few years now, opening my first account in early 2018, and eventually spinning up my own instance a couple years ago. i've been active the whole time on the fediverse, with mains on mastodon.social, then radical.town, and finally this instance.
most of my content is shitposting, especially dick jokes. if you're uncomfortable with un-cwed mentions of genitals or other sex jokes, be aware there's a lot of that here. i also do not accept follow requests from minors primarily for this reason. should i post pictures containing nudity, those will be cwed. sometimes i post about media or games i'm interested in at the moment, including the books i'm reading. occasionally i'll post about the news or politics, generally also un-cwed. i am a communist, and generally if i post analysis i intend for it to be through a marxist or communistic lens.
i also enjoy cooking and beer, generally photos of food will be cwed but talking about food won't be. alcohol and other drugs will always be cwed.
follow requests are welcome but i don't accept them immediately. usually i wait a while and go through requests in batches. i usually only interact with a core group of people, so do not expect a follow request will be responded to at all. there's a small amount of additional information in my bio, but otherwise i prefer people to get to know me by interacting with me. see you around!
i don't even understand. what's the point of inventing new administration bureaucracy for mastodon instances. you can't make money off this shit so do you have a fetish for red tape or something? like oh i can't get off on wielding administrative power unless it goes through three arbitrary subcommittees first
need to change the rules? well lets make sure the whole mod team agrees on the change first and, oh oops one person doesn't agree that a word isn't acceptable to say anymore and is bringing people over to their side in chat, and now you can't change the rule you wanted to change because the whole team has been arguing about this and continues to argue about it for days on end until everyone is angry and noöne has come to a conclusion together
has a user been just barely a problem but not breaking any rules? first you have to bring up the possibility of corrective action or talking to in the chat–if you make a move on your own you're violating the moderation covenant and will automatically be in the wrong regardless of the benefit of the action. so you bring up the problem user first to make sure correction is warranted and half the team agrees and the other half is like "they're not breaking any rules so we can't do anything" and then after days of discussion again nothing is done about the user and people are still upset
did a user do something rule breaking a long time ago but it didn't come to tour attention until weeks or even months later? bring it up to the rest of the team, most of whom don't want to do anything because it was sufficiently long enough ago that the user wouldn't know what they even did or be able to learn from it so you're stuck with people being upset about the rule breaking but not being able to do anything because the rest of the team doesn't want to do anything
and remember: if you don't pass anything through the democratically elected committee to ensure your actions are above board, you're now the one automatically in the wrong and your decision is now under question because its a potential abuse of power. its more likely your decision is reversed and people are upset and the user that broke a rule not only doesn't learn anything but just got a get out of jail free card, incentivizing them to continue their disruptive behavior
users will do anything and everything to avoid getting into trouble or getting banned, up to and including using the rules, precedent, and lack of precedent to argue against corrective action being taken against them of any kind. even restorative action because the user, to themselves, is not in the wrong. moderation often requires swift action and stiffness of response in order for it to stick because the other option is just letting them stick around to potentially cause more problems.
Creating a council with administrative veto power but no indication on who these people are or how they're chosen. 🤔
"nudity is defined as sexually explicit material, but actual nudity is not part of this definition, which we're sure will not be abused by the puritans on this webbed-site"
FYI: Don't cross the picket line tomorrow! (Yes, that might mean giving up your Wordle or crossword streak, but you know what's worse? Being a scab.)
in none of these cases is acting as if they have some kind of a crystallised, unambiguously articulatable position you can uncover and then defeat by facts & logic thereby converting them to your side, or acting as if they're trying to do the same, a useful or a healthy framing. try to be mindful of what is actually going on & what you hope to accomplish, and then go about doing that like a person. this is good faith
while i said trying to understand someone else's position isn't a special technique, it is also, cynical as this might seem, often not productive. the other person may not have a position, or if they have, they aren't willing to accurately represent it. this doesn't have to be malicious: maybe they're angry or upset and not thinking thru, or they just haven't had time to formulate a coherent view and are going by their first reactions, or they keep shifting their stance w/o realising it
most of the conversations on here, in any other online space, or irl are not formal debates and should not be. pretending they are or trying to apply the (mostly misunderstood) norms of one to them helps noöne and is probably bad faith in both senses i outlined
a lot of people seem to use 'bad faith' mostly to mean whenever someone says or does anything in a way they don't like
the second meaning bad faith has is as a technical term in existential philosophy. very broadly, one is acting in bad faith when they pretend they couldn't do otherwise — when they deny their radical freedom. someone justifying their actions, to themselves or others, by saying they're 'just following the rules' or that they're 'it's just the kind of person they are' or w/e is engaging in bad faith: they're eliding that the rule applies only insofar as they choose to follow it, and they're whatever kind of person by choosing to act like such a person
this, incidentally, is part of why the facts & logic bro concept of 'ironmanning' (as the opposite of strawmanning) is so ridiculous. 'trying to accurately understand your opponent's position' isn't some kind of a kung fu trick
your favorite shitposter's favorite shitposter
the villain of villains | i love you
qvp pride flag by @distressedegg
#nobot | she/her, sie/hir, or xe/xer | aries | ace | trans | "the chill esvrld" -presolace
(?wo)man|.* | Cy for short
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!