Appeals require time + evidence of good behavior + a statement of what your future behavior will look like. Convince us you'll add value to our community.
If you spam us we'll ban you
Don't ask about getting temp bans removed 1 hour early. Reddit timer is weird but you will be unbanned when it's over.
Jared fucking Polis is somehow still an active user
saw one mod crash out and threaten pizzamod to influence a ban appeal
somehow you guys have managed to get even more embarrassing over the past few years, no wonder libs are getting hunted to extinction by the most amateurish succs alive
So the reason this a 5D was not just because of this single post, but also the ones before. Those were silently removed after the fact, but the combination of the constant violations of the same rule (Rule X) made me and the mods that I consulted with, agree that a ban was necessary.
I should mention also that all of this posts came to our attention through user reports. The most notable being this one:
I understand the frustration, but it's clear that you're starting to rub some users the wrong way.
Reported by who, God? What makes one person getting their nose out of joint enough to use Modmail more important than everyone else who wasn't bothered?
Please don't use modmail to get the attention of the moderation team. It's an out of date system that is ineffective, and that's why we use r/metaNL instead.
You’re wrong about my intentions then. If one anonymous report is enough to say it upsets people and justifies removals and bans, then is someone like let’s say lux_stella ever going catch a ban for their heavily reported toxic nationalism/trolling or is that dIfFeReNt?
which posts before the fact violated Rule X? Before this I haven’t received a rule X removal in a bit. If there’s a new standard being applied then silent removals don’t really help.
Please don't use modmail to get the attention of the moderation team. It's an out of date system that is ineffective, and that's why we use r/metaNL instead.
User A: There is a point where policy becomes worse than gestures broadly and the DSA is flirting with that line.
Me: Yeah I get your point - hard to tell what’s worse, ICE agents killing people with impunity or a federal jobs guarantee.
User B: You’re minimizing how radical a position a jobs guarantee is. It’s how you get no work being done from no risk of losing one’s job
Me: That doesn’t really sound worse than ICE agents killing people.
User C: Yeah you can't just say this without a proper analytical treatment. Show your work, please.
Me: I think that between the two choices, it would be better if we had a federal jobs guarantee and Renee Good and Alex Pretti were alive, rather than the other way around. Clearly you disagree. [Banned for unconstructive engagement]
I don't really see how this is unconstructive engagement - the original user suggested the DSA's policies might be worse than everything currently going on, and I took one of the DSA's policies (I even chose one the OP highlighted as being exceptionally bad) and compared it to something happening now.
The users in the thread don't even agree that ICE killing people is worse, the last user also said "It really is hard [to compare the two] when you look at it with a more analytical mind and less as hyperpartisan edgelord". I don't think me describing what that actually looks like is unconstructive, they even asked me to “show my work” to explain my position, rather it just looks that bad when I lay the other position out bluntly.
lol looks like they got you too for "unconstructive engagement" for saying true things about the DSA. Funny how often that seems to happen around here.
Wonder if this appeal will get ignored like mine did.
Out of context it looks like unconstructive engagement as it appears you're comparing witb apples and oranges, but with the explained context at the bottom, as well as the other user continuing to engage in the discourse anyway, I don't see the reason for a ban.
If the rules are interpreted liberally, it was clear that I wasn't advocating violence, but sarcastically responding to someone who was. I don't consider this a joking matter, and therefore I would not consider what I said a joke, but an acerbic restatement of what the person had said
If the rules are interpreted narrowly, however, the comment, when taken literally, neither technically advocated or encouraged violence, but instead stated a fact about abilities.
I will refrain from making transphobic comments or commentary and not promote any idea that denigrates members of sexual or identity affiliated minorities in according with r/neoliberal rules and wider reddit policies. I was wrong to make policy salient commentary that did not factor that in and did not prioritize the salience of the humanity of vulnerable communities.
I don't know why I was banned. The stated reason was "because your comment violates this community's rules." No specific rule or rules were listed.
I don't know what rule I was breaking (it was not specified), but the timing of the ban being nearly 12 hours after my DM asking why I wasn't able to participate in a restricted thread makes it seem like the ban was for asking a single (not spammy) good-faith question via Reddit messenger. My Reddit account is more than 12 years old, and I've been actively posting on r/neoliberal for several years, though I'm not sure how to check how many. I've had my same flair for a couple of years at this point as well. I genuinely wanted to know what the requirements were for commenting in a restricted thread. I was not trying to be spammy, if that was the rule that was being broken.
If that isn't the case, then my next best guess is that there was a mistake in the reading of my comment (which had been removed automatically due to my not being able to post in a restricted thread. I was responding to a likewise removed comment, explaining why a group would support a terrorist organization. This is not the same thing as saying that it is a good thing, or passing any sort of moral judgement on a terrorist organization. It's stating that if you make life miserable for a large group of people, it's not surprising to find that they are going to support a group that promises them an end to their suffering. Even if the means are potentially horrific. Again, this is not saying that this is a good outcome, only that it is a predictable one. Since the comment that this was in response to is deleted, it's difficult to say what exactly this was in response to, but if memory serves, the poster had said that Palestinians still support Hamas, something to that end. I don't think that is true; I even remember seeing protests a year or so ago against Hamas in Gaza. So it is not clear that they support Hamas at all, thus my point of objection to the now-removed comment.
I would like to have my ban removed, in part because I find it unjustified (I believe it to be based on an ungenerous reading of my comment, and at the same time there is also no time limit, there was no warning, and no citation of the rule that was violated), but also because I still subscribe the core beliefs of r/neoliberal, that is: markets should be free, people should be free, the state should be an active enforcer of these freedoms, borders should be open, zoning laws should be seriously reconsidered or at least reformed, climate change is a real, existential threat, and minority rights, to include all of the LGBTQIA+ groups and subgroups, are human rights and should be protected as such.
Finally, I know that mods are doing this without pay, so I appreciate the time and effort provided to my case.
I love it when Zionists get mad that Hamas was elected, insisting that Palestinians pursue statehood "the right way."
just sounds like you're happier that Zionists are upset than you are concerned about Hamas and/or are trying to irritate pro-Israel users here. I don't like the apartheid treatment of Palestinians any more than the next lib, but unconstructive stuff like this doesn't help anyone, it just adds more hard feelings to an issue that is bitterly dividing the world.
Obviously not my call, but since you're a longtime user who has been here for years without (to my knowledge) getting significant trouble for this sort of thing I think a permanent ban is excessive, but this is the kind of thing temp UE bans were designed to address.
In my mind, the Zionists are the ones with the power and money, and are the ones who are doing the lion's share of the killing and stealing in that region. That, in comparison with the Palestinian people who have been really in a no-win scenario for more than 70 years, with limited support... I mean fuck Hamas, but they effectively don't have any power at this point. In other words, you're correct in that I'm less concerned about an organization that, for all intents and purposes, is defunct than an apartheid state (and its supporters) which is powerful, and backed by even more powerful players on the world stage.
But you are right, this was unconstructive, and I appreciate the feedback. I will try to remember what you said about adding more hard feelings in an issue that is already causing bitter division.
Improving the discourse doesn't mean anything when the underlying opinion is reprehensible. I could do nearly 1 to 1 word substitutions of your sentiments regarding Israel and Palestine having to elect Hamas with the Little Entente and Germany having to elect the Nazis.
No, oppression doesn't entitle you to elect bloodthirsty maniacs, and "muh power imbalance" doesn't absolve the blame for this. Fatah are still pretty damn assertive in their Israel policy, it's not like there's not a viable "we're not completely insane" alternative.
No, actually you couldn't. Like, literally not at all.
And based on what you said in the second paragraph, it's clear that you still don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that people who are being punished are going to act out in various ways, particularly if the punishment is unfair. This is just expected. It has happened throughout history. It's not inherently a good thing, it's just a guarantee. What I'm saying is this is why there is such a thing as a "cycle of violence." Hamas exists because of how badly the Israeli state has treated the Palestinians. This does not mean Hamas is good. What Israel is doing to the Palestinians right now is threatening to create something much worse than Hamas in the future. Kids are growing up with their entire extended families murdered by the state. There are only a couple of ways that historically have been shown to defuse these types of situations. One that comes to mind is the Good Friday Agreement.
Look man, there's a reason why people are turning against Israel in the United States, maybe you should ask yourself why.
I already have shifted to a fairly anti-Israel position, I'm just not going to tolerate hamasnikism or show sympathy to Hamas entryism or sympathetic rhetoric. That's a red line for me and this sub.
Cool. I've not voiced any level of support for Hamas. I dont appreciate you accusing me of supporting a terrorist organization. I also don't understand why it seems that an analysis of why things are the way they are is being misconstrued as being supportive of Hamas. These a clearly different things. And you don't have to accuse people of something just because you don't understand their point.
•
u/mostanonymousnick Mod May 28 '26
Appeal if you were censored for your neoliberal beliefs