Clearly Obi-Wan is the master of the High Ground. He knows its strengths and weaknesses as second nature enough to exploit as he needed.

Anakin and Maul had no chance.

*edit To add: Obi-Wan gets caught in a fight on flat ground in front of Luke? Just gives up.

A landlord cannot just come on top the lawn and start ripping it up without the tenant’s permission.

On one hand, yes. On the other hand that’s only as enforceable as a tenant can fight it.

In practice it happens. Unless the tenant has the resources or there’s a legal advocacy group dedicated to that specific issue, owners tend to be able to do whatever they want so long as they use the argument of ‘protecting my property’.

The settlement and restitution just ends up something like the owner keeps their stuff there and maybe you get to terminate your lease tomorrow without being forced to pay out the whole eight remaining months of the lease. But that’s anecdotal.

Most stores are tenants of a landlord. Even those Walmart warehouses are leased, often both in land and structure.

The poop drop is a signal that locates the large slow moving animal for predators. They can’t clear the area faster than a jaguar arrives to investigate.

So they wait until it looks safe, climb down and put their shit at the base of a tree and climb back up.

But jaguars who have located a sloth also know they can wait for it to come to them. Which is why sloths try not to be located.

I hear you, though I am more inclined to take a Gramscian view that cultural hegemony of capitalist/imperial core entities convert those anarchists to libertarians, or some form of compromised anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism. So I wouldn’t call them anarchists.

But it’s not a True Scotsman thing for me, so I don’t fundamentally disagree with that perspective.

Anarchists usually don’t need the kind of deprogramming of capitalist, monarchist, colonial, or imperial systems that socialist and Marxist theories typically focus on.

Turn clockwise = page number go up

That’s how I’d make sense of it.

People keep setting up these Punching bars and then get mad when their patrons get Punched.

Also a cautionary tale on adding and removing features without plan or controls. Every ‘hey could we add…? It’s what everyones talking about!’ is another step taken away from the design.

I think you’re supposed to switch accounts between comments.

the user I responded to seemed to be implying otherwise.

Not really. I’m just saying the quote isn’t particularly insightful upon analysis, source notwithstanding.

Not necessarily puppet accounts, just brigading in general.

It’s the rationale many instances used to defederate hexbear. (Even though iirc hexbear disables downvotes, so they’re defederated for users mass posting, usually that hogshit image, instead of mass voting.) It wasn’t puppets or bot accounts at any rate.

But then there’s repost communities where users share comments (especially in places they or their audience is banned from) or DMs for a group response.

Not to mention the whole ‘block and downvote all .ml on sight’ mentality. But hopefully that might be something this tool could catch.

It’s an axiomatic truism. It’s logic is self contained.

To learn who is wet, simply find out who is in the water.

I guess I approach it inversely. I encounter what looks like a troll post and I’ll only check profiles when either I am interacting with them, or there’s such deep downvoting already I’m just doing a morbid dive into someone’s history.

Most of the time though the user just has a deeply downvoted argument but otherwise normal and/or low engagement posts, so they wouldn’t be flagged by this.

So I understand that it can save some time with some niche cases.

But I can’t help but note that the system seems intentionally blind to targeted harassment, which can be a source, if not cause, of bad faith accounts. (And likely those need different approaches since those are also niche cases themselves.)

And maybe it’s all just because of my instance’s Local feed, so that’s what I see as a prominent problem on Lemmy.

That’s an interesting example of a user this is designed for/around.

The general system of up/downvotes seems to be doing its job quite as intended: their views appear routinely unpopular and there’s a seemingly pretty strong community consensus around that.

It looks like their threads have comments that solidly and clearly refute the garbage manosphere stuff. For some people it’s the opportunity to express a refutation of it publicly and directly. The public viewer gets to read those responses too.

So with that example: what do the flags do that the content of their posts don’t already communicate?

Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.

Right, though it’s a mitigating factor. I guess there’s something I don’t know about piefed: Lemmy comments all have a default upvote from the user that makes it. But it can be revoked by the user. Does Piefed work the same way? My thought only applies if that’s the case.

giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity

Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?

Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.

Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?

I have felt there needed to be a specific type of vote available only to the original poster and to the users individual reply.

An up/downvote from the OP or the user I responded to I think should be differentiated from another user who isn’t either.

If the OP or commentator votes that should be noted alongside the X number of random votes. It isn’t an anonymous vote, but those votes would be public acknowledgements tied to the user making the public post/comment.

Being generic here, but the concept of Hijra is not controversial or unaccepted across SE asia, correct? Or at least to the best of my knowledge (Cambodia and Burma).

I tend to pose just having such uncontested language goes a long way for gender roles (and conformance) not being such a puritanical binary like it is in the American anglosphere.

As well as one would expect.