I noticed today an occurence of a user complaining about Lemmy being worse then Reddit. The modlogs shows how toxic they are. When this was pointed out, the user deletes their account
https://web.archive.org/web/20241217101003/https://sopuli.xyz/post/20276017?scrollToComments=true
Deleted account: https://kbin.melroy.org/u/Pyrin
This seems to address the question that comes up once in a while "a public modlog is only useful for mods" (https://feddit.org/post/4920887/3235141), while we can see from this example that it can also be useful for toxic users.
As you may know, [email protected] is a community dedicated to calling out power tripping mods.
Should we consider having a similar community for toxic users?
There is already [email protected], but I feel like the "lore" is more about large-scale events (like the cats wave recently) than specific users events.
Edit: Updated the title, and put the emphasis on creating a community to call out toxic users rather than "dunking" on the users that was banned.
I don't want to come off all self-righteous as in "PieFed has that already"... but OTOH it's relevant that, yeah, PieFed has something for that already.๐ It is described at https://join.piefed.social/2024/06/22/piefed-features-for-growing-healthy-communities/, and I think its way too sensitive atm, labeling users of comics in particular as potentially troublesome bc they post more than comment, but anyway it seems relevant here as an attempt to do what you are saying: to allow for some measure of an account's "reputation" across the Fediverse, similar to what those aforementioned communities do irt mods to let people know about stuff that they may find pertinent as they make decisions about what to do about it - like not post to certain communities and instead help others grow. In short it's a tool that helps shorten the learning curve rather than make each person have to do all that work all entirely on their own.
So someone downvotes twice as often as they upvote?
Someone has twice as many heavily-downvoted comments as positive or neutral? Also a paddling. It also helps provide additional choices beyond merely a moderator's power to "remove vs. allow" - one day a user could perhaps make their own thresholds, or like automatically collapse (to deemphasize, but while still retaining) a comment from such a user. Or not - I have some of that turned OFF at PieFed, but it's awesome that it's there if someone were to want that.
Someone has a brand-new account merely hours old? That's NOT a paddling, but it is worth its own unique icon to let recipients know that they are dealing with a newborn (ofc they could be an alt) who may not realize how the Fediverse works.
What's wrong with that? I find it much easier to downvote than to upvote, but most threads or comments I don't vote at all. It's like me reviewing my Steam games. I barely ever do it, but usually I do negative reviews, because you see all what is wrong in a game and want to voice your frustration about it.
Just in general, it's considered more polite Netiquete to make a comment explaining why the content was not deemed acceptable to you - enough to downvote it rather than simply scroll downwards, the latter of which costs you nothing.
As for why: how would you feel in return if like 50 people simply downvoted your comment here, while offering zero explanation about why they did that?
Anyway, it's just a label, much like a new account gets a label until it's not new anymore. What people DO with the label is up to them - perhaps they'll skip over everything you say, but more likely they'll simply ignore it (that's what I do:-P). What we do is up to us, but how people choose to receive it is up to them...