• Only notify the banned person about their ban if they previously posted in the community they were banned from. This stops abusive mods from using bans as a form of harassment.
• Modlog: Reason for the action is only shown from trusted instances, so abusive mods won't have an audience. Admins can still see the reason though. Which instances are trusted is set in the admin UI.
• Instance silencing similar to Mastodon. A silenced instance is not defederated from but their posts do not show in the Popular or All feeds and their communities are not shown in Starter packs aka Topics. Their communities can still be found in the communities list and joined in the normal way. Once joined, posts in there show up in the subscribed feed as usual.
• Per-user number of posts per page. Previously this was an admin setting but now individuals can override this to be a lesser number if they wish.
• Spinning "loading" animations on slow forms.

This stops abusive mods from using bans as a form of harassment.

VERY nice. One would hope for more from adults on the internet but... c'est la vie.

Modlog: Reason for the action is only shown from trusted instances, so abusive mods won’t have an audience.

This one I think I disagree with though: if someone is posting in, let's say chapotraphouse@hexbear.net, then it is up to the user to decide what they want, and they have made their choice? Consistently abusive mods should be enough to qualify an instance for silencing, thereby leaving all normal, non-silenced and non-trusted instances as those without a habit of platforming abusive mods, at which point if your comment is removed then it is helpful to know why? And/or if this issue is meant to exclusively refer to the bullet point above it, then it doesn't matter what gets shown in the modlog if I never receive a notification for it - whereas if the message is abusive then that is again grounds to silence the instance, rather than merely hide the modlog reason.

It is so fantastic to see the pace of feature development. It's almost like you developers care about what you are working on, or something, unlike some other places we could name that seem more focused on gaining access to money 🤑💰💵🪙💳💸(cough fuck Reddit cough).

Yes the Reason thing in the modlog is super blunt and might need to be removed/changed in future. I'm not much of a fan of that.

But this is really a symptom of the modlog having massive fundamental design issues. For example the other day someone's full name was in there and there was no way to remove it, across all instances, without some weird non-obvious workarounds.

It's public, distributed across hundreds of servers, anyone can create a community and write to it, and it's write-only. This has obvious abuse potential.

Initially PieFed's modlog was more locked down but people's expectations, coming from their time on Lemmy, made me switch it to be the same as Lemmy. Sooner or later this is going to bite us in the ass. Limiting the visibility of the free-text part of the modlog kinda helps but really just papers over the cracks.

Is it true the reputation score disables your ability to downvote?

I haven’t had mine disabled yet and I get downvoted occasionally.

https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/branch/main/app/utils.py#L1759

if (user.attitude is not None and user.attitude < 0.0) or user.reputation < -10:  
   # cannot vote  

user.attitude is the ratio of upvotes to downvotes that they cast. A value of less than 0 means the user downvotes more often than they upvote.

user.reputation is the sum of all the upvotes they received minus the sum of all the downvotes they received.

Your current attitude is 1.0, the highest possible and your reputation is in the tens of thousands. If you ever decide to cast another downvote then it'll be accepted.

Last time I checked, about 3% of all users, including inactive accounts, were barred from downvoting. It's rare. Those people flame out or get banned pretty quickly.

I get downvoted occasionally

SatansMagottyCumFart

Damn, i should make a T-shirt with this quote.
For my part, i never felt inclined to downvote you.

Nice!

This comment is why I asked I never knew that was a thing but I don’t disagree with it.

Tying ability to vote to received votes will accelerate creation of cliques. It won’t be alleviated by also tying it to the average of given votes because in a tribal discussion you’re upvoting members of your tribe and downvoting members of the other tribe resulting in bad actors being indistinguishable from regular active users. I can see why this might be useful for communities designed to be safe spaces but setting that on instance level might be too much. Limiting downvotes on users with negative voting attitude is a safe bet though.

(all just my opinion but also experience ;))

Thank a lot for those new features, they are great ! :)