pooperNickel

You had dozens of people telling you what he was doing. It had zero to do with vague feelings and practically nothing to do with his opinions, despite that always being the claim. It had to do with very obvious trolling. If I get banned for "sassing" you, that will say a lot

Wow okay.

An excuse NOT to ban them? That seemed to be the process. And now you've told us to just report and block them.

If hundreds of reports did nothing for weeks about the most obvious troll I've ever seen, I have no faith at all that reporting and blocking trolls will help the fediverse in the least. They will be free to run their election interference campaigns just like on Facebook.

I know modding isn't easy but Jesus this case surely was. No fucking way anyone believed he wasn't a troll if they actually looked at their activity.

So no reaction at all to the fact that UM is now admitting to being part of a larger troll effort, after dozens of people told you that was likely, for weeks, and you dismissed all of them repeatedly?

Seems like we were all right and UM should've been banned long ago. Everyone who said they weren't a troll was entirely wrong. That doesn't seem to be acknowledged here at all.

You can't blame the community here for being kind of frustrated with this response. Many people reported trolling behavior for a long time before that ban finally happened. If the things I reported them for myself aren't trolling then I don't know would qualify as trolling.

Several other instances banned UM for trolling long before .world did. Because it wasn't unclear.

With all due respect, that did not happen with UM for months and far longer with linkerbaan.

Here is a gem of a DM from the troll who led to this even-more-hands-off approach, bragging about how they will get away with their influence/troll campaign scot-free.

Notice the use of the word "we", a tacit admission that they are working in coordination with other trolls. Pretty fucking great, eh?

So the new rule is to let trolls do what they want, invisibly to the people who care most about that -- because the rule is literally to have to block them? This is fucked up.

No examples then. Cool.

Yeah this a wall of text. To be honest I can't really spend my already limited time reading 15 paragraphs from someone who ignores relevant points I raise.

In this case, I addressed the ban reason given, and yet you try to argue more about it as though I didn't. If you cared about more than disputing me, you might see that this was probably death by a million paper cuts.

Maybe you can provide an example?

Hehe