daniskarma

Fair point then, well explained.

I think ultimately I do agree with you. A few downvotes shouldn't be a reason for a multi community permanent ban.

I have plenty of epic free games. And I prefer to install fitgirl version of a game rather than epic's one.

I don't think I've ever installed any of those free games.

I don't think it was ridiculous.

It's not the same one single downvote than 4 downvotes without any single upvote. One downvote says nothing, several indicate a pattern.

OP says that some bans come from a single downvote. And others come from the mentioned 4 downvotes over several months. Which actually makes me question if mods banned anyone who made a single downvote, or if any other criteria was followed.

I'm not "like that" with downvotes. I mostly downvote rude people. Or maybe people with opinions I consider harmful. Any other opinion politely expressed I don't think there's any reason to try to preclude others to see it.

Surely I don't see the point of downvoting a question that was only directed to you and that you have already read 😅 the intended user that needed to see that comment already did, so there was little point with the downvote, isn't it?

The thing is, AFAIK, the ban only preclude you from voting, commenting and posting. From all of those actions it seems that only the downvote button was used. So, not much was loss.

I think the modlog message was too harsh, that's true. And I don't know if the ban is deserved or not.

It's true that if there was an initial wave of bans for one downvote, and after that only the downvote button was used until the second wave, it seems unlikely that there was going to be other interactions. And if we add the factor that some other user pointed out that you may have a higher than usual upvote/downvote rate. So maybe the mods knew what they were doing.

Or maybe baning for just a few downvotes is not justified.

But what I have doubts about is why it's so important to make this post. If it seems that you never saw anything you liked on those communities, and most of them are really small communities, some without even any posts. That's what questions me.

I understand the mod pov and motives, their communities get frequently brigaded so they are extra (probably overly) cautious with downvote behavior of people who doesn't engage with the community.

But I don't really know if you want the ban revoked, if you want to actually engage with those communities in other way, or what are the intentions here.

Why did you downvoted me?

I'm just giving you information that's already disclosed on the thread and my own unimportant opinion.

Reading other comment of both the OP and mods from that communities. Have been stated that there were multiple downvotes over the course of several months.

My point is that doesn't seem that OP is interested in those communities anyway, not that they have interacted in any other way than downvoting. That's why I don't see why they are bothered for the ban. It's not like they took them away from a community they liked or were interested in following.

Yes. Building quality definitely matters, a lot.

Also some people is more sensitive to noise than others.

I have find out that since living alone I notice noises much more, which is reasonable.

After reading this thread I gather the following.

OP says they browse all and if they see content they don't like they downvote. They say it's not a conscious move to brigade or anything.

Some mod pointed out that for some of those communities OP only downvoted them, never upvoted a single post or contributed in any meaningful way.

I don't even see why OP is angry with being ban from communities they obviously don't like. I seems like those are AI communities and when OP sees an AI post on All they downvote. Why want OP those communities keep being part of their feed? Why complain for being banned if they don't like their content.

It doesn't make much sense to me. If I was banned of a community that makes a content that I heavily dislike and that I'm actively saying I dislike it via downvotes I wouldn't care on the slightest. I should probably just block the community to begin with.

If some of those communities ban are not AI content communities and the ban is thus unjustified I can see an appeal to uplifting that ban. And the reason for the ban could be a little more cordial. But I really don't know why OP wants to get unbanned from communities they don't like. Which introduced the evident skepticism that maybe (just maybe) there is an intention, more or less focused, of just trying to negatively influence AI communities without being a part of them. Which IMHO would guarantee a ban.

I think general Fediverse etiquette is that if you see some place that does things that you don't like that are both legal and in line with instance rule then you should just issue a personal block to that space, not trying to downvote it to affect their visibility or reputation, as other people may like that space.

Taking planes, another big CO2 contributor. The sky is full of planes burning fuel.

Browsers should probably warn if a site on which you are filling forms with personal information or payment methods have been issued with KYC or not. And clearly state to whom physical persona or enterprise that certificate was issued.

Though I worry about the barrier from many people to get those certificates and then privacy concerns. It's a balance between privacy and democracy and fighting scams. My guess is that browsers should only warn in certain websites, but in which websites and how to detect them... That eludes me, seems complex.

And you can pay extra for a chinese voice counting numbers as back noise.

Absolutely not me watching cinemasins as a substitute to watching the whole movie.