[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/arch/ - Ponyville municipal archive

Nice threads of days past
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.2444[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1537573745899.png (773.31 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Celestia Happy Smile.png) ImgOps Google

It's time to vote for the Ponyville Administrative Consistency and Transparency Act

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSed_roMl3WnLxtrr4la803lMe52rz8WXRd0BDUSs8qy4ejxsg/viewform?usp=sf_link

https://tinyurl.com/y8cgzqrx

We'll leave this up for a week. At the end of the week, we shall count the votes, and implement the proposals that have received majority approval.

If you are looking for more regulations, or changes, don't worry: as you can see, rules aren't set in stone. The rules will still be tuned, as time goes on, if the rules require tuning.

Thank you all for voting!

 No.2445

File: 1537574872508.gif (763.48 KB, 640x540, 32:27, Scared_Rainbow_Dash_S1E16.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2444

but i'm scared

 No.2446

I'm honestly not sure how to answer some of these, but here goes...

Catch you on the flip side.

 No.2447

Nice to be getting the ball out of the air. Hopefully we can start moving towards a less argumentative climate on the site once the rules start to settle.

 No.2448

File: 1537575864676.png (124.4 KB, 384x337, 384:337, camping.PNG) ImgOps Google

The questions that state "do you want the new rules or some iteration of the new rules" is meant to indicate whether or not you want to keep the old rules or go with the new ones / an iteration of the new ones.

yay for wanting new rules / iteration of new rules
nay for wanting old rules

Was confused about this myself, got clarification from Moons and the modchat

 No.2449

File: 1537579414079.png (150.82 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, 1536985168773.png) ImgOps Google

>The baited user shall receive a Third Degree penalty, instead of a Second Degree penalty, if and only if the user has received previous warnings not to engage with bait threads or posts.
Isn't this backwards?  If a user has been warned not to take the bait, but does so anyway against the warning, shouldn't he be punished more severely (2nd degree instead of 3rd degree) than if he hadn't been warned?

 No.2450

File: 1537579922379.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>2449
the idea being that if he has not been warned, there is no penalty

 No.2451

>Would you support greater restrictions on "anonymous" users?
As someone who posts as Anonymous more often than not, I must say that I am mildly offended by this question :-(

>>2450
Ah, I see.  I thought it meant that:
- baited user receives a 3rd degree punishment if previously warned.
- baited user receives a 2nd degree punishment if never warned.
But instead it means:
- baited user receives a 3rd degree punishment if previously warned.
- baited user receives no punishment if never warned.

 No.2452

Ponyville: Do you want a SFW switch?

Me: HELL NO! BITCH!

 No.2453

File: 1537581268505.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2451
>>2451
it is a question merely meant to gauge user interest.

>>2451
>>2449
Oh, i see... i thought you were referencing Rule 6, Version 2.

You mean Version 3, in which case, you are right - that is backwards.

i'll go change that.

 No.2454

File: 1537582341125.png (719.57 KB, 1414x727, 1414:727, gay bowser.png) ImgOps Google

>Would you support a system that allows users to filter each other, rendering any user to disable visibility of posts of any other user?


HELL NO!
>SLAPS

That's why DISCORD exists!

 No.2455

File: 1537582494713.jpg (141.28 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1511496411327.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>First, a user who wants to post something slightly raunchy ... simply clicks a little box as they post their image that says (NSFW)
I'd just like to recall that we discovered in a previous thread (>>>/arch/2133) that calling this "NSFW" is going to be interpreted by some as an invitation to post pornographic images.

 No.2456

File: 1537583178006.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2455
>>2454
We still have the rules. the sfw switch will simply allow users to post things that might be more on the line, without having to fear that users will report them or that the staff will strike their images

we don't want to do that either, quite frankly: it leads to the appearance of inconsistency, as the weight of reports influences our decisions, and the context of the thread does as well

this way, we can keep that borderline nice and big, and safe.

 No.2457

File: 1537583794171.png (972.41 KB, 1080x608, 135:76, 1486711234351.png) ImgOps Google

>>2456
I'm just saying that a new user who sees "NSFW" is going to interpret it as "porn", and might even think that it overrides the general rule against porn (like it does on Ponychan).  I suggest either calling it something else or including a warning (right next to the checkbox) saying something like "(Porn is never allowed, even if marked NSFW)".

 No.2458

The long link messes up on mobile. It might flow properly if it were moved to the bottom of the post?

 No.2459

File: 1537584477793.png (260.54 KB, 631x720, 631:720, coy flutter smile.png) ImgOps Google


 No.2460

>>2457
okay, i think we can do that c:

 No.2461

File: 1537585437085.jpg (158.6 KB, 1208x1120, 151:140, db7cba3c1cc82fb4d7113b0f79….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2456
I thought you said earlier that those rules were going to loosen up, as a direct result of this filter.
Otherwise, it seems rather pointless, to me.

I guess it depends to a degree what rule said we end up with, but, I am doubtful we will get a looser set, which it seemed to me to be the only one that'd make more questionable items viable to post. And, of course, in that regard, then it would be okay to post those risky content anyway. Which would also seem to defeat the point.

What is this filter actually supposed to do, at this point?

 No.2462

File: 1537586087792.jpeg (63.94 KB, 435x715, 87:143, Silverstream 12.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Well I submitted my poll right when my internet froze. Is there a way for a mod to tell if it got through?

 No.2463

File: 1537586317843.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2462
i can check!

>>2461
what is the sfw switch going to do?

well, first, it depends: how are the rules going to come out?

No matter how those rules end up, there will always be a right side of the rules, a wrong side of the rules, and a line.

The #1 biggest issue is, what happens when content hits that line?

For us right now, a lot of users who don't like sexual content, and users who do like sexual content, are fighting about posts on the line.

And for us, the staff, it's hard to judge just what does fall on the right or wrong side of the line, and when we make those judgment calls, one side is inevitably unpleased.

This sfw switch makes the line bigger, much bigger, provided you are willing to cooperate with the system.

If you think your post falls on the line, you can tag it for the system.

to 90% of the userbase, nothing is different - they won't even know you tagged it.

For the remaining 10%, they will have the image censored.

this way, for whatever posts do end up on the line, everyone is more or less happy. The staff doesn't have to make knife-edge decisions, that may make one side or the other unhappy

this is the idea, at least.

 No.2464

>>2462
RS, i can report, we did not receive your response.

 No.2465

>>2463
So, in other words, there is still a good chance your image will get removed, even if you do use the new filter system. Again, it just seems worthless. It doesn't have any moderation backing to it, and so it does nothing other than color your post, and sensor them from other users. There's no sensible reason for anyone to ever use it, given that all it does is filter your posts for users, of which would either be allowed or not allowed anyway.

it's rather disappointing. I thought this could be used to solve the major consistency issues around sexual content on the site, but, it seems like now, all it's really going to do is expanded those consistency issues.

 No.2466

File: 1537587408998.jpg (150.43 KB, 600x900, 2:3, maika-sozo-midna-semifinal….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2456
>>2456
No Just, We need be more responsable, tolerant, discliplined, moderate in the the things what we post and the threads we make here. Everybody needs to put their part afterall we are a community and if you want to see a real progress then everybody needs to make their part.

In my opinion if the SFW Switch will be implemented in ponyville it just will tell that we aren't real capable to post things in a responsable, tolerant, moderate way and like we don't use our heads before posting.

There are some things that sometimes people post and I don't like when people use Eeveelutions as their avatars or those Threads with political topics but I'm being tolerant and respectful.

Is supposed that we are responsable adults not babies in a kidergarten

This is my opinion at the respect.
I know I'm the minority in this aspect.

If the SFW switch gets implemented, I won't whine or being angry with the staff.
But to be honest I won't going to used it,  I won't praise it, I will be indifferent and I won't cooperate with the system in that aspect with the SFW Switch.

But don't worry you will still have my best behaviour in general as always.

 No.2467

File: 1537588015612.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>2465
The very opposite is true, the chance that your image will be removed is much, much less if the new filter system is in place. You can quote me on that, if you'd like!

It gives much more stretch room in the rules.

Take for example, your lizard on a leash.

Under the SFW switch, if you tagged it, -even now-, with our strict rules, it would be permitted.

It wouldn't get removed, as it sits on the line.

>>2466
...i respect that a lot, Einhorn. Frankly, i wish the sfw switch wasn't something we had to do.

i wish we could all just respect each other enough to not need to have giant threads of debates, and have people explode in anger over these things.

But that's not how it is. i won't pretend i love the idea of the SFW switch, but i see it as a way to give everyone what they want, and that makes me content with it.

 No.2468

>>2467
The problem is it is a chance. It doesn't actually change the Valley of the rules, the winter pretation of the rules, or this dance when it comes to items.
when it comes down to it, all that changes is that some users can't see it. It's purely aesthetic. Just about looks, at that point.

Why would the lizard pick be allowed, if the rules are still the same? If the image has been declared to be to fetishistic for here, then surely regardless of if it is posted using the NSFW filter or not would still leave it band, as it has been explicitly said to be so.

there is absolutely no legislation apply to this filter. There's no rules set to civically for this tool, no particular judgement system for Content hosted under it, or left to lose without the filter, it's effectively just a badge you apply to make it so that some people can't see, and that seems to be it. I see absolutely no reason why a mod couldn't remove the lizard picture that has already been declared as to fetishistic elsewhere, regardless of if it was posted with or without the NSFW filter. There doesn't seem to be anything in the filters usage, that would suggest that all that such an image is still okay.

like, I could see it being useful for toy boxes continual complete nudity pictures, perhaps. Because those have been explicitly said to me okay, and thus, putting it under the filter would be more of a courtesy item to those who are not liking those pictures. But, with something like the Charmeleon picture, which has been explicitly stated to not to be okay, without any kind of rule change, I don't see how this filter would suddenly make it okay to post.

 No.2469

>>2467
By the way, to make it quite clear: my stretching into an argument in the last thread was purely due to the consistency issue, as I had stated in regards to a flat no loads at all rule. I would prefer a flat no lose at all rule, to the current system where only some content is removed, while pictures of naked women with only their hair covering their breasts is okay.

 No.2470

File: 1537589557975.gif (78.56 KB, 350x415, 70:83, 1488038473976.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2468
> It doesn't actually change the Valley of the rules, the winter pretation of the rules, or this dance when it comes to items.
Pic related

>>2468
>Why would the lizard pick be allowed, if the rules are still the same?
Because the rules are vague.  Your leashed lizard falls in the gray zone.  The NSFW option gives a looser interpretation of that vagueness.

 No.2471

>>2470
Voice to text. It messes up a lot of things. I'll be home in a short bit, though, and then I can properly type things.

except that multiple admins have stated their reasoning for why it should be removed, as well as the fact that it was rude to begin with.
Why would they suddenly overturn that ruling now?

 No.2472

File: 1537589761431.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2468
But it does! To use your valley example, if one side of the valley is "rule obeying" and the other side is "rule violating"

Right now, many of the images we get complaints on are the ones in the center of the valley.

The SFW switch creates leeway - longer slopes of those valley walls, such that it is not as easy for an image to fall into the valley where people are going to report it and the staff have to respond.

It is not at all about looks: it has nothing to do with how it "looks"

it is absolutely a practical apparatus: designed to give sfw posters a way to tolerate, and nsfw posters a way to not have their images removed at what feels like a whim to them.



The lizard picture would be allowed because, as it stands, it's only the line: on the fence. There's fierce debate -in the mod chat- as to whether such an image should or shouldn't be allowed, given this and the new interpretations of the rules.


With the SFW switch, we don't need to make these tight-rope judgment calls. It can be allowed, as long as it is properly tagged.

No matter how well a rule is written, there is always black, white, and grey.

The SFW switch helps makes the grey more readily legal, so to speak.

We debated your lizard necklace picture for hours.

We are STILL debating your lizard necklace picture, and using it is an example in our inhouse debates.

Under the current rules, the interpretation is, absent the tool of a sfw switch, that it's probably across the line.

We're getting:

1. New Rules,
2. A clean slate for interpretation,
3. a sfw switch

(if those things pass)

And with that, comes a lot more leeway to interpret where these images fall.


Please try to trust me when i say that this is not just some cosmetic bandage: it will help give more leeway for that sort of on the line content, without making it suddenly against the rules to post

>>2469
The issue is, even with what you call a "flat" rule, there is still consistency issues:

there is always, in any rule, no matter how "flat" a white, grey, and black.

"No NSFW", i say. what does that mean? Is a girl in a swim suit NSFW? Who's work place?


Okay, no "lewd" at all. How lewd is lewd? Hand holding? Kissing? Seductive looks?

There is no 100% consistency. The only option is ban everything that looks remotely like anything, and that is a surefire way to kill anybody's enjoyment of anything.

and EVEN THEN, people will not think it is consistent


The best we can do to help consistency is to ask the users to take care of that: put the onus on the userbase to moderate their experience to their expectation so that we, the staff, do not have to make judgment calls

the less executive and unilateral action we take, the better for all of you.

 No.2473

File: 1537589824729.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2471
i mean, we are doing exactly that. It's not a "ruling", this isn't a court.

It's a bunch of folks trying to figure out the best they can how to run a website where folks will be safe and happy.

If we can do that without restricting content, we'd love to do that.

And if a sfw switch does that, we'll do that.

 No.2474

>>2473
That seems to me to just add on to the inconsistency issues, but, whatever. I'm sure I'll make him more heavy post when I get home.

 No.2475

File: 1537590212498.gif (Spoiler Image, 1.39 MB, 478x360, 239:180, lewd.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2472
>Hand holding?
Eww!  Not that!

 No.2476

File: 1537590597966.png (184.93 KB, 2000x2000, 1:1, aryanne-1524245305023.png) ImgOps Google

>>2474
Noonim, I think you're making things a lot more complicated than they need to be.  If the NSFW is added, treat it as meaning that all of your images (except the ones that are literal porn) are okay.  If the mods disagree, they'll gently warn you.  But I expect it will never even come to that, so why bother worrying about hypotheticals that are unlikely to ever materialize?

 No.2477

File: 1537590700679.png (286.43 KB, 570x660, 19:22, eh heh 4.png) ImgOps Google

>>2474
i can run this place like a court, but nobody will be happy.

We must not sacrifice sanity for consistency.

i love consistency. i live for consistency. it is literally my job to pursue consistency.

But i also know the extent of consistency. i know where the value of consistency ends.

And it ends when the pursuit of absolute consistency gets in the way of liberty

 No.2478

File: 1537593303529.jpg (53.68 KB, 278x278, 1:1, 22.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2476
Because I like clear rules with consistent enforcement.
I've explained it in the last thread. I can try to hunt down the quote, but, I've not got the energy to really write another one of that lot again.
>>2477
My problem is, near as I can tell anyway, every other rule is perfectly consistent. Posters picking fights or being hostile get punished, regardless of the type of fight-picking or the specific form of hostility.
People who spam, regardless of the spam variant, are going to get the same treatment by the rules.

My problem with the lewd lot is, it isn't consistent at all.
Items like, as I pointed out in the last thread, a straight up naked girl who's tits are covered up only by her hair is fine, but, a collared lizard isn't.

I understand the argument of absolute consistency being impossible, but, I'd still prefer something better than "X is okay, even though it's clearly more extreme than Y, which isn't okay".
>>2472
Those questions are how you get consistency. You address those questions, and you create a standard that applies to everything.

As said above, I know there's no 100% consistency, but, you've just thrown some excellent questions that could help get a higher rate of consistency. Something more akin to 60% or 80%, as opposed to 20%.
I believe you do this as it currently stands with other rules, perfectly well. Near as I can tell, you enforce a standard and consistent set when it comes to those other items.

 No.2479

I don't want to get into a huge argument again.  You already know my take on things.  I'm honestly not sure how the rules would be interpreted in each of the example cases for the poll, but I answered it as best I could.

I do have a suggestion though.  Change the filter to a threshold.  0-10 scale.  The idea being, you as the user set a threshold for what level of lewdness you're ok with, and users assign a number value to whatever they're posting that's reasonable (within limits).  Make some examples for what number constitutes what level of lewdness so people have some idea.  assume people will be honest when assigning values to whatever they upload.  and there you go.  Fine tune your experience.  still relies on people to come to some consensus of how lewd something is, but it's better than all or nothing.  or hell, make it green, yellow, red.  doesn't matter.  just something more refined than all or nothing.

 No.2480

File: 1537594721478.jpg (51.95 KB, 964x808, 241:202, eh heh 2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2478
>Those questions are how you get consistency.

We are talking here about a field of questions that goes on ad nauseum. You might feel there's high consistency on other subjects but frankly, we get complaints about those too by users who are more directly impacted by them.

i cannot sit here and go through hundreds of thousands of iterations of NSFW questions.

What i can do is this: make it so the line is less hard and fast, and make a rules board so that when these situations actually come up, we can make a ruling and file them away.

That's the purpose of the rules board, in part. So we can see -real situations- when they arise, look at them, and make that list.

Hypotheticals though, are useless. We can conject all we want, but it makes bad law and bad rules if we start going through every possible iteration of what is or isn't nsfw.

>>2479
That sounds like a lot of work for our dev team, sailboat.

The SFW switch is already, from what i gather, a lot of work.

We'd make an extremely intensive system if we could, but our resources are limited, being a team of amateur volunteers, with full-time jobs that aren't this.

 No.2481

File: 1537594964825.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2480
>>2478
Before i go to bed, Noonim, i will say that i think you will be pleased by the outcome of all this.

We are going to go with the more general rules though, and refine them later through the rules board and precedent decisions.

i get what you are asking for: why not make it crystal clear what sort of content is or is not allowed? Why not say "okay, no breasts, no genitalia, no leashes, no lizard buttocks" etc.

List laws like that are never inclusive enough, and create far -more- judgment calls than they reduce.

Precedent decision, however, though it takes longer to get the ball rolling, is a much sturdier foundation.

We'll get to the consistency, and we'll do it in a healthy way, so to speak. It takes a bit more time, but i promise the result is so much better than arbitrarily throwing darts at a board before we understand what is behind the board at all.

 No.2482

File: 1537595102247.jpg (48.76 KB, 560x780, 28:39, ebeb0c46feaa2b689a1a6a2718….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2480
I'm sure you do, but, you can at least say they're largely enforced to a neutral standard, regardless of the particular instance.
I don't think those issues users sometimes find with how the rules are enforced in regards to hostility to others is quite the same as full nudity with only the hair covering the breasts being fine, but a collared lizard not being so.

What I want is quite simple, in this regard: A flat rule that's actually consistent in the principles it's supposed to be for. I think "no lewd" is easily enough explained to people, and would get rid of the issue we have at the moment where someone can post a naked woman with large tits covered only by her hair and be perfectly within the rules, while someone else posting an image of a lizard in a leash with absolutely no exaggerated sexual characteristics even down to the shape falls outside of said rules.

And, keep in mind, I'm someone who likes a bit of lewd posting. I like my kobolds. I like my salazzles. I post a lot of that sort of thing.
My entire complaint here is that there is not a standard enforcement when it comes to these things. Especially given the supposed principles for the rule, frankly.

 No.2483

File: 1537595209191.png (1.74 MB, 3000x3000, 1:1, bfaea63bba45920943eb539bb7….png) ImgOps Google

>>2481
That's not what I'm asking, though. This is why I might appear a tad annoyed at times, honestly. I feel like I'm talking to thin air, at the moment. Like none of my words are actually getting through, actually being taken as they are writ.

I do not require specifics, though specifics are certainly not a negative.
What I desire is consistency.
That's it.

You say to people "No murder", and regardless of who murders someone or why, it's still not okay.
That's what I want.

 No.2484

File: 1537595297435.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>2481
>>2480
>>2478
To elaborate one more time, gigantic lists and what we call "judge made law" (aka, law that comes from the top and not from a history of precedent) tends to do two things:

first, it starts clean, but becomes spaghetti over time (vs starting more spaghetti, but becoming clean)

and second, it creates unintended consequences: a rule that starts too detailed before its consequences are fully understood creates problems.

i'll give an example of a body of law that is built on making huge lists of stuff. No this, no that, no this, no that:

the tax code.

The U.S. Tax Code is like 75,000 pages long. In the legal circles, we joke amongst ourselves (but its true) that you could read the tax code and never finish it, as sections would constantly be added and rewritten before you could ever finish the thing

And that's because, it's the world's biggest spaghetti list.

It's a great example of how not to write your laws: don't start too detailed, don't create too many hypotheticals, or you create loopholes.

If you start wide, and focus in over time, the law is fortified. If you start detailed from the get-go, there are holes all over that people figure out and exploit, or fall into (aka, the tax code)

Please trust me when i say, the intention is absolutely to narrow the rules down to 100% consistency. But the inception stage is not the place or time to do that.

 No.2485

File: 1537595357902.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2483
And what i keep trying to explain is that "no murder" is a terrible way to write a law or rule, and that this causes more problems than it fixes, and hurts the community.

 No.2486

File: 1537595428275.png (143.84 KB, 450x509, 450:509, Noteworthy_Unicorn_ID_S04E….png) ImgOps Google

Murder is impolite?

 No.2487

File: 1537595525014.png (58.2 KB, 223x195, 223:195, 7 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2484
Maybe I'm just no good at explaining myself, but you keep seeming to get the wrong idea here.
I don't know what to do about it.

I'm thinking it isn't just me, though, as I could've sworn other people understood what I was getting at in the last thread.
>>2485
And inconsistent rulings where users feel ostracized because one item is okay, while their own posts are not, despite the items being directly comparable don't hurt the community?

I know it's not a great way to write a law. The point is, it's consistent.
It's a default rule that applies to everyone, with whatever they are doing.
Rules should be fair, should they not? That's what I'm wanting here. I'm wanting rules that apply to everyone. I don't like this current pick-and-choose system where only some things are not okay.

 No.2488

File: 1537595637788.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2482
>>2485
But the rule ISN'T "no lewd" because that's:

1. not what people want, and;

2. It's not helpful at all

It's a rule one easily breaks by accident. It's a rule that requires enormous staff oversight and executive decision making.

And in the end, it doesn't even stop "lewd" stuff.

If you want "no lewd" it doesn't stop at all whether the lizard in the leash or the naked woman being allowed or disallowed in inconsistent fashions because you are asking for less clarity when rules are written so vaguely.

You are still asking the staff to make a judgment call as to the will of the users

WE the staff, make the site that serves you, the users.

If YOU don't know what you want as "lewd" and some are willing to leave over it, or fight over it...

And WE cannot figure out who to side with.

A rule like "no lewd" is useless.


This is why we do not write rules like this, or rules with big lists.

This is why we write rules as we do, and narrow these rules down with the hammer of time and precedent into something good.


If the community thinks lizards with leashes are LEWD, and it is staff judgment that the community overall feels that way, and the same folks think the naked girl hair thing is NOT LEWD, it doesn't matter that the rule says "no lewd"





in other words i am giving you what you want!! i am giving you exactly what you asking for: less arbitrary decision making, more consistency.

yes? this is good! this is what you want!

 No.2489

File: 1537595846092.png (207.97 KB, 1208x1035, 1208:1035, Cutest fluttershy point ev….png) ImgOps Google

>>2487
But i keep trying to explain, the way you are asking me to do things makes things -more inconsistent- not the other way around.

The way we are doing things now creates the most consistency, with the least effort.

Rules with too much executive decision making will never be fair to someone: "no lewd" is only as useful as the community that defines what lewd means.

THIS community has decided lizards with leashes are greater than, in lewdity, naked hair girl

And so "NO LEWD" is a -bad rule-

LESS consistency this way

The way we are doing it, it creates more consitency

two fold:

1. Rule requires less executive decision making;

2. SFW switch moves onus to userbase




We don't have to make judgment calls based on the community's whims.

You don't have to suffer the whims of other users

The rules become flatter, as a result

Over time, with Rules board, and these new rules, we create a modus operandi that is backed up with history

Which leads to the ultimate consistency: precedential decision.

 No.2490

File: 1537595919240.jpg (51.95 KB, 964x808, 241:202, eh heh 2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2478
i apologize noonim. i really do understand what you're trying to say.

frankly, i'm not explaining it well. And it's coming across as not catching your point. And i imagine, that must be frustrating.

but i want to assure you that your concerns are heard 100%. it's just, the way we're going forward will best serve your concern, is what i am trying to say.

 No.2491

File: 1537596241660.png (14.28 KB, 686x170, 343:85, Crassius_Curio.png) ImgOps Google

>>2488
That's why you define your terms. I'd start with a simple English definition, and work your way back from there.
Given that the rule as it stands and near as I can tell as is suggested by the changes also uses 'vague' language like that, though, I don't really understand the issue.

I'm starting to wonder, given all the "the community" and "the users" type stuff if this is just a sort of "individualist vs collectivist" issue. Basically radically different worldviews making it difficult to find a starting position. Like trying to speak to someone who, while speaking your language, has radically different meanings to the terms used.

Let me start over:
What "the people" want is ultimately irrelevant to my issue. If people want full lewd, that'd be fine by me. I personally am okay with outright porn. My point here isn't to say "let's get rid of lewd", my point is to say "let's all have rules that apply to everyone, equally, as individuals".
Because, my goal there is to have fair, just rules. Not rules that make everyone "happy", rules that are equally applied to everyone.
The rule itself is ultimately irrelevant, in so far as its interpretation, only that it is applied to a consistent degree, rather than a varying degree. I keep using that word, "consistent", for a very specific reason: Because my desire is to have rules that apply to everyone in a standard manner.
I do not want you to make a judgement call to the will of the users. That was never the point. The will of the users is irrelevant. If the will of the users changes, change the rule itself, don't make a judgement call based on their position. Make a judgement call based on the direct rule.
That's what I want.

>>2490
I really don't think you do, though. You keep saying things that just don't apply to what my issue is. I've tried to rewrite it, though. Might do it a couple of times, see how many ways I can say it.

 No.2492

File: 1537596523098.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

...i think the question behind everything else here boils down to this:

"hey moony... why are fetish things treated so much more harshly than regular sexy things?"

The answer is "the community reports them more often."

When bikini whaleshark or naked hair girl gets posted, nobody reports.

When lizard on a leash is posted, we get maybe three or four reports.



My understanding is, this happens because... well...

1. Our current Rule 1 for adult content specifically calls out fetishistic content, and ...

2. Our users specifically find fetishistic content more rule-breaking than bikini whaleshark or naked hair girl; to them, that's not pornographic enough, but it is fetishistic, to be rulebreaking



...so moony, why is fetishistic stuff weighed so heavily against pornographic or lewd stuff? Why do we need Rule 1, and Rule 3, both calling out fetishes?

the answer is, fetishes aren't vanilla, and they scare people really easily.


okay... but naked hair girl doesn't? Well, apparently not. That's not been our experience, certainly. Our staff has its own opinions, but we defer to the community, and that's what the community has to say.




...so, why these new rules. why the sfw switch. We do this, in part, to reduce the power of the community's preferences over the rules.

Right now, we are harsher on fetish stuff than regular lewd stuff because that is what the community reports

It's partially the fault of the rules, as they exist, and partially the community's faults for having those preferences.

How do we remedy this? New Rules, and a new clean slate of precedent, and a new switch that allows users who do weigh fetish heavily to not have to see it, thus removing community bias from the equation.

This is all stuff i have thought about, and this is why these systems are being proposed.

i get what you're trying to say, i really do. i'm just a terrible explainer sometimes.

 No.2493

I guess the best way to phrase it, come to think of it, is my position on the whole point of government.
That is to say, why society itself exists, to a degree. Or at least, why it's the way it is.

My stance is that an ideal government exists purely to protect the rights of the individual.
It does not exist to necessarily better people's lives, or to make them happy, or anything like that.
The goal is to have a system set in place so that people who operate within the system can deal with eachother without fear of a violation of their rights, and the prospect of happiness or desire is ultimately left to them to find.

The big thing is, a society is not a collective, in my view. It's a collection of individuals. Each single individual is just as valuable as the other. Each individual is just as valuable as ten other individuals. Because society should not serve collective interests, but individuals.

 No.2494

File: 1537596682500.png (73.3 KB, 240x315, 16:21, log jam.png) ImgOps Google

>>2492
I'd also consider a more political, human angle to it. My opinion on it: I doubt the reports are based on a strict, literal reading of the rules, and more based on their personal opinions of the parties and incidents surrounding it.

 No.2495

File: 1537596834728.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>2491
>>2493
i never thought i'd be in the weird position of being the lefty arguing for individualism against the righty arguing for collectivism.

>Not rules that make everyone "happy", rules that are equally applied to everyone.'
...i mean, that sounds like "if i can't be happy, nobody should be happy" and i know that's not what you're trying to say.





...we are trying to maximize individual liberty. These new rules and new policies are designed to do just that. And i know that might be frustrating. But i think, in the pursuit of maximizing the amount of content that can be posted, this is a good thing, noonim.

there is no need for very, very strict rules that really hurt what everyone can post, if we can sail the narrow straight here and find the solution that makes everyone happy.

>>2494
Which is exactly true...

our new rules and the new sfw switch try to remove that personal opinion, by giving those with those strong opinions a tool to stop the stuff themselves that they don't want to see.

more individual liberty. everyone gets to do what they want, instead of nobody being allowed to do what they want.

 No.2496

File: 1537596921420.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2495
>>2493
Wait, who's arguing for collectivism here, you or me?

Because i thought for sure i was the individualist one here, and you were the collectivist one here until i read this post.

i don't super understand - you are asking us to blanket ban lewd stuff because you can't post lizard leash, so nobody else should post lewd stuff, and you'd be happy because that's fair.

isn't... that collectivist? isn't the individualist argument, we'll make a system so everyone can post what they want without getting in each others way?

That's what our current system is proposing!

 No.2497

>>2492
See >>2493

I do not see appeasing raw mob rule as a good thing, ultimately.
I think that rules within a system should apply to everyone ,equally, ideally.

I think this is ultimately why you and I do not have an understanding here. I desire a system that acts as a shell for the community, wherein the community acts as individuals to find their own happiness. I do not want a system where the collective goal is just accepted and pushed, regardless of consistent application or principle.

It seems to me, especially come to think of it given the one item within the poll, that your concern is largely with reports as opposed to the rule itself, first and foremost. That is to say, what people report and therefor have issue with is what concerns you.
Your goal is ultimately to cater to the people who've got an issue, as opposed to deal with a rule violator.

I think this is why I have issue with what I've percieved to be inconsistency. It's not that it is inconsistent with your system as you desire to build it, it's that the system itself is not designed to be consistent in the first place, but rather, appeal to those with issues and solve those issues.

 No.2498

File: 1537597153557.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2497
noonim, i am so confused. i read your post, and keep thinking "i am doing exactly what he wants."

maybe i am going about this the wrong way.

so, you don't like the sfw switch? you don't like our new rules, that are exactly what you want: a set of rules that allows individuals to define their happiness, and that discards the "collective goal."

i think this might be less of an individualist vs. collectivist difference of perspective, as much as it is an anarchy vs. authoritarianism argument

...our system, maybe, is more anarchic. you seem, maybe, to want a bit more authority, yes?

am i understanding correctly? "forget what people want: this is the law."

 No.2499

>>2496
No. Though your stance on individualism is largely correct as well. The issue here is, as I break down a lot in >>2497 , the idea of appeasing the majority, when it comes to the fluidity of the rules.

I do not want you to blanket ban lewd stuff. I do not want lewd stuff banned at all. I just want standardized rules that apply to everyone.
I want to see murderers put in prison, even if the guy who was murdered was someone everyone hates, and the guy who murdered him was someone everyone loves.

The problem at the moment is that the system proposed only puts in prison those who the community desires to be put in prison for murder. Not murderers, flatly.
And, I would argue going for pure mob rule for enforcement and judgement is quite collectivistic. I'd rather see a system where individuals are treated the same, regardless of what the mob feels of them.

 No.2500

>>2498
No. Your system at the moment is still punishing people who step out of line. It cannot be argued to be "anarchistic", as anarchistic, again, would be free for everyone

This is my contention:
The system you propose, and seem to enforce, is not a fair system.
Ultimately that is my entire issue.
It isn't fair.
It doesn't apply to everyone the same way.
The rules don't actually matter unless people takes issue with the item done.

I hope that isn't too harsh to say.

 No.2501

File: 1537597385830.png (101.43 KB, 296x292, 74:73, 8.png) ImgOps Google

>>2498
You are right, though, thinking more about it, that ti isn't necessarily 'Individualism vs collectivism", though that's how largely my mind's been conditioned to consider it.

Rather, it seems to me to be a conflict of the concept of justice. It's just that I've always linked justice directly to individualism.

 No.2502

File: 1537597637205.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2499
> if the guy who was murdered was someone everyone hates, and the guy who murdered him was someone everyone loves.

But not all murder is murder: some murder is manslaughter, you know?

...but i don't think that's your concern.


i'm getting that your concern is, the rules shouldn't be a popularity contest, they should just be the rules.

i get that, i really do.

but i cannot run a site this way. i'd run a country this way. i'd run a township this way.

But not a website: not a community. If people don't like it here, they're going to leave, noonim.

if i did exactly what i wanted, and made Moony paradise, with strict and very fair rules that didn't cater to anyone (but Moony), i'd find it wonderful... and i'd get to post all by my wonderful self, as everyone left.

it'd really be a Moonychan.

...i'm familiar with DeTocqueville, and John Stuart Mill, and i concede this:

Tyranny of the majority is a substantial evil. And i sort of admire your fear of it: it was a big problem on Ponychan, often times just as much so, if not more, than administrative corruption.

>>2500
>>2501
>>2500
But what can i do, i ask you? The system we are proposing, to you, does not seem fair. to the majority, whose tyranny you fear, and perhaps rightfully so, it is.

Can i tell them to go eat sand, and take you up on what you want?

Is that fair, either?

Is the better option to make all of you eat sand?

i can tell them to eat sand, you to eat sand, make all of you eat sand... or what?

i'm trying to do the "or what." i get this isn't the best solution to tyranny of the majority. i like to think what we've proposed here is the best of what we can make of a situation where someone has to eat sand.

i'd like to think, i'm the one eating sand here.

there's just no way though i can go all the way back to square one though, and make the majority of the community eat sand. they'd leave. And the site is dead.

what's the solution then? i like to think, this is the best option we've got to make things as equitable for as many individuals as possible.

And in time, we work out the kinks to bring the system to optimum fairness, and away from tyranny of the majority. But i just don't think that process starts here at square one.

 No.2503

Incidentally, given that this is kind of in line with this discussion, I have to say I rather wholeheartedly oppose the idea of VI "Report Escalation and Increase Scrutiny". A post should be taken as it stands, flatly. The rules alone should be what determines its merit or lack there of.
If it's wrong to post, it shouldn't matter if someone else reports it or if you just happen to come across it. The same standard should apply.

Besides that, I think this'll just lead to retaliatory reporting. Reminds me of ages ago, in the days of Ponychan, where the one issue I ever had with mods came up due to a heated argument with another poster.
I distinctly recall that the lesson I learned wasn't to do with my own posting, but rather, "report the other guy first".

 No.2504

File: 1537598079093.gif (237.24 KB, 200x200, 1:1, 8ec.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2503
If it makes you feel any better, it is amongst the least popular of the proposals

 No.2505

File: 1537598192534.jpg (87.69 KB, 672x375, 224:125, 4.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2502
It isn't that I fear the majority or that I want to go against what most people want. I'm actually someone who believes Democracy is one of the best systems we have, when it comes to building systems and keeping them from becoming corrupt.
My issue is that I do not think we should be making judgements of if a murderer should get off for murder, based on public feeling. We should vote for a flat standard set of rules that applies to everyone, equally.

When it comes right down to the rules themselves, I was never really sure what issue I had with them. I didn't like the way any of them were phrased, and felt they wouldn't actually solve the issue, when it came right down to it.
Now, I think I finally understand why.
I thought the rules were just going over my head before.
The issue was, as it happens, not in the way the rules were writ, but how they were enforced.

Which in retrospect should've been obvious, honestly. But, it's always difficult to see the forest for the trees, I guess.
Essentially, point being, for myself, the solution'd be to abandon this idea of only going after what is reported, because someone is upset at it. Abandon the idea of enforcing for the "community standard" of "lewd", but rather, a flat set of what "lewd" means for the site.

At least for appeasing myself. But, then, that depends on if you really want to do that. I've got an exceptionally strong sense of justice, when it comes down to it, and so it might not be something you really care about. Ultimately you can do whatever you;'d like, and if you feel like it'd benefit your community to do as you do now, then, that's what you do.

 No.2506

File: 1537598340293.gif (359.76 KB, 500x281, 500:281, tumblr_muvsmybjkC1rw1wnno1….gif) ImgOps Google

I'm going to be pretty busy, probably until Tuesday. This will be up till next Saturday or Sunday?

 No.2507

>>2505
i admire that sense of justice, noonim. i think, we don't see enough of that kind of conviction to justice nowadays.

Jade was arguing something similar too, now that i think about it.

The reason the community standard is so important is because the site is the community, and dies without it.

The issue too with defining lewd as a flat standard is that it can't be done without considering what that means for a community.

No body of law has ever succeeded at doing that. Not the U.S. Supreme Court, not the European Union, not Napoleonic France, not Nazi Germany, and not Communist China.

Because "lewd" depends entirely on what the public considers too much or not too much sexiness.

I must've pored through the laws of like twelve different countries, looking for the best possible standard for obscenity/lewdness.

And all were so colored by the societies they arose from... Because that's just how sex is. In America, we can't show nipples on TV. In Canada and the EU, it's okay to have that stuff in children's cartoons. In Japan, you can literally put it on a billboard in a public place.

Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. It has no useful definition, without the society to judge it obscene.

How would you do it without considering the society's definition of lewdness, noonim?

 No.2508

File: 1537598870660.png (434.52 KB, 652x565, 652:565, silly smile 2.png) ImgOps Google

>>2506
Hey wonderful Ella! It'll be up for one full week.

 No.2509

File: 1537599497777.png (131.25 KB, 377x311, 377:311, 1.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2507
Well, like I said, I'd probably start with the default definition, and work my way from there, likely with polls on the stuff. Ideally, I'd make a standard from the community's stance. And, of course, that standard can always change if the community wishes it to do so.
Biggest thing'd be to try to make sure to get what everyone actually thinks, as opposed to just going off of reports. I certainly noticed a fair bit of support in the last thread, concerning the lizard lot, as well as when it came to the naked girl. I think a lot of that issue comes from the fact that most people don't report things, at all, even if it does make them uncomfortable, as it's necessary to deal with discomfort in an empathetic manner, ultimately, as inevitably something you like will make others uncomfortable.

With this sort of item, though, of course I'd prefer to have it completely open anyway. Basically just let people post what they like, so long as it isn't outright porn. Especially with a NSFW filter which'd let people opt in, knowing full well what they're getting in to.
From how the filter was described to me, it seems something that doesn't split the community either. Allowing everyone to interact without issue. On the SFW side, I'd be inclined to forbid anything that could be considered lewd to a much harsher standard, still probably built off of the earlier mentioned user poll model, though.
I think I said that best in the last thread, as far as the filter goes; "People who're okay with seeing people for who they are, with whatever they post, can opt in to do so. People who are not don't have to."

 No.2510

File: 1537599578004.jpeg (11.54 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images (3).jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2508
Ok, cause I can barely comprehend the words I'm trying to type

 No.2511

Some remarks I feel:
1. While there is importance to have behavioural rules, it can be unfair to judge on intent and such.
Someone posting a 'negative' reply in a discussion thread and being flagged by OP as abusive, could be met with a ban, even though he never intended to be disruptive.
Someone taking offence on a particular subject could be flagged by one who does not like the subject and be banned based on being offensive.

2. I said it multiple times and no matter how you discuss things, setting a line between what is appropriate and not can't be safely done without cracking down on everything either remotely out of line or basically allowing nearly everything.

Someone posting
I'm gonna tear off your clothes and shove my dick in your mouth and fill you with my cream till your ass leaks cum
and someone posting a picture of "and then they fucked", can both be seen as allusions to sexual acts.
When you delete the first one, righteously, and not the second one, someone will complain "why are you banning the first and not the second? This is an outrage", no matter how hard you restyle your rules.

I also think a spoiler tag system and mod action consisting of adding tags to grey zone posts would be better than having an SFW switch. Mostly to obscure certain images.
The latter will just confuse people into thinking it is the porn switch on ponychan.

 No.2512

just reading through this, agreeing with much of what Noonim has written to this point

>>2509  I was going to say, I think this is a big part of it.  People who just hate fetish stuff have (I assume) just reported it outright, regardless of how bad it was, as I showed with my own examples (prior to deletion).  In contrast, I find the naked girls way more lewd, but don't report them - even as I argue that there's a huge double standard.  If you were just going by reports, you'd assume everyone was ok with the naked girls, but reports are not an accurate measure of anything except whether the obligate censors are in favor of censoring.  It says absolutely nothing about the rest of the community or their feelings regarding whether something is appropriate, or the fairness in allowing one thing to exist while another gets the axe.

 No.2513

File: 1537606521799.jpg (97.87 KB, 894x894, 1:1, 27.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2444
Omigosh i just read them and its just so complicated, im going to have to read thru these several times to really make head or tails of them.

***huge issue on SFW switch:

>if a user elects to go to their options and flick the SFW switch, posts that have been tagged with the NSFW tag will disappear.


I thought this was going to apply to images, not posts.  If the entire post disappears not just the image then this will have a chilling effect on the use of the nsfw flag.

Moons please say thats supposed to be images not posts and fix it.  If it's correct as is i'm not liking it at ALL.  Thanks!

 No.2514

>>2513
To ease your worries a bit, every iteration of the sfw switch discussed thus far has only had to do with images. I'm nearly 100 that that's what this refers to as well.

 No.2515

File: 1537607203612.jpeg (117.15 KB, 1000x1039, 1000:1039, 1488791__safe_artist-colo….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2514
Still i want it fixed before i vote.


I really feel like as much as i was a complete spaz over a couple of things these rules try to address, this focus on rigid bans and casting even playful fetishy material in a very judgmental light on par with oscenity is just really freaking me out and i'm very worried for what might happen to this site right after i've come to love it so, so much.

I have just realized that it's all about simply having fun without danger and many of these proposed new rules have a hard cold feel that takes the soft warmth out of things.  

 No.2516

File: 1537607472147.jpg (48.21 KB, 540x540, 1:1, tumblr_ouwniz3cjS1rso2eyo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

gotta post here to get my name to put at the end smh

 No.2517

>>2515
Yeah, sure, that's fair. You can also vote now and go back and edit later, I believe. Not sure. It does give me the option, though.

 No.2518

File: 1537607525475.png (111.42 KB, 900x506, 450:253, pinkie_pie_is_a_sleepy_pon….png) ImgOps Google

>>2516
No me

 No.2519

File: 1537607574634.png (197.56 KB, 330x600, 11:20, tumblr_p75mju34rU1x7smj5o1….png) ImgOps Google

>>2518
they should have a suggestion area on the poll for rules

mine would be "ban lost pony"

 No.2520

File: 1537610955476.jpg (6.59 KB, 236x236, 1:1, ce1e4b9cbcce943ddb0890b2ee….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2519
That could just be added as one of the main options.:pinkie11:

Btw is that a new trip?  It has real style!

 No.2521

>>2520
no its not new I've had it for like two months maybe

 No.2522

File: 1537617336831.png (964.39 KB, 967x891, 967:891, full (20).png) ImgOps Google

>>2521
I got mine today.

 No.2523

>>2522  that's quite a trip

 No.2524

File: 1537619636936.png (225.07 KB, 800x450, 16:9, silvertream4.png) ImgOps Google

>>2494
Really I'm going with Noonim's theory about the reffered to lizard picture that he got into a heated situation with someone and that someone reported it just to be a dick. And since from what I interpreted from Moony that the other picture that Noonim keeps referring to isn't scrutinized while the lizard picture was is because it was reported and so that's how the acceptable level of a picture has been determined.

I'm thinking that maybe the mods could weigh the circumstances around a picture report and if they see that someone is just reporting a picture to cause trouble like the person that reported the lizard picture did, they could tell that person to fuck off.

 No.2525

File: 1537619897583.jpg (58.73 KB, 500x700, 5:7, 346406__safe_rarity_solo_e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2494
>>2495
Ah. I realize I used a word imprecisely and meaning may have been lost.

By "political reasons" I don't mean Republicans and Democrats. I'm not sure why I use the word the way I do, it doesn't make sense, but I meant using the tool for reasons beyond the content of the image, especially for interpersonal reasons. Reporting things from people you don't like even though you generally wouldn't care, not reporting things that make you uncomfortable because the person posting it wouldn't like that, reporting or not reporting things because you were recently punished or to avoid drawing attention. Or any number of other reasons that certainly would be considered on any individual case and cannot necessarily be discarded if you wanted a lasting resolution, but which would make a fundamentally unsecure foundation for codification.

I haven't really been paying attention to anything so I cannot say what amount of reports or conflicts have their roots in one of these interpersonal skirmishes, it may well be none of them, but I do think the motivations for many actions need to be treated as being more complicated than straight preference or rejection.

For your consideration.

 No.2526

File: 1537620045971.png (731.59 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1747551__safe_screencap_si….png) ImgOps Google

>>2525
Exactly

 No.2527

>>2526
Ah. It seems like the point was already made.


Please disregard.

 No.2528

File: 1537639765019.png (15.36 KB, 100x100, 1:1, 51.png) ImgOps Google

Came back just to vote. Going back on my ponyville break.

 No.2529

Also according to rules, posting links to, or telling people to check out, any non-pony content of yours, or video game stream, or YouTube video, or artwork that isn't specifically pony related, is against the rules.  Unless you specifically get permission.  It could be argued that any non-pony content that is linked to, regardless of context, violates this rule.  Even saying "hey guys what do you think of my latest video?" advertises the latest video and thus breaks the rule.  "What do you think of insert-media-here e.g. a particular videogame, or anime, etc.?" similarly violates this rule.
For this reason, I voted against the 'no advertising' rule in its current state.

 No.2530

File: 1537644949076.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2529
...where does it say that? we've never said no to anyone who's asked, and we've never even had to enforce this rule.

it could be argued, maybe, but nobody on staff would enforce the rule that way.

Who is this hypothetical, ridiculously evil person who would report someone saying its their latest video?


...the consequences of the opposite are something we have quite a bit of concern of. Very generally, we want to keep advertising out of Ponyville. We love it when the community promotes its own works. But we have rules against commercial advertising or promotion.

 No.2531

>>2530
>Who is this hypothetical, ridiculously evil person who would report someone saying its their latest video?

Someone with a vendetta against someone else. Say for example, the "mysterious" anon who has a conniption whenever I mention mental illness?

 No.2532

I've been busy all week, what are we voting on?

 No.2533

>>2532
Whether lost pony is mentally ill of course.

Where have you been?

 No.2534

>>2533
But I thought you already admitted that.

 No.2535

>>2530  VII. Rule 4. Please do not engage in advertising or promotion of any kind without first contacting site administration. Pony fanart, stories, music are generally acceptable.
So even pony content may not be acceptable.
Presumably therefore ALL non-pony content is unacceptable by default.
Promotion of any kind includes saying "come watch my video game live stream" or "come see my new non-pony video".

This is also why I haven't even mentioned but a tiny, negligible amount of anything I've done or am doing when it comes to this sort of thing.

 No.2536

File: 1537647180779.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2512
This. Just going off of reports just tells you what users who're willing to report things want, not what is actually a problem or otherwise makes the community as a whole unhappy or uncomfortable.

There's a lot of people who're going to have major issues, but never report, because they don't want to get someone in trouble, for example. They might not ever report things, and just simply end up posting less and less due to the things they run to.

 No.2537

File: 1537647800809.png (121.54 KB, 316x290, 158:145, 6.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2525
Perhaps you're meaning something like "personal"?
As in, users with a personal issue with another poster'll report them if they see them step out of line?
This is another issue with going off a pure report system ruleset.
>>2531
This guy's got it right.
And it seems since the standards for rules are built off of reports, if enough people start reporting a particular item of a poster's, I'm not so sure the rule wouldn't be enforced that way.

 No.2538

>>2532
A few major rule changes, the implementation of a NSFW filter system, and some other minor stuff.

 No.2539

File: 1537648469738.jpg (98.47 KB, 1024x640, 8:5, 1459729544879.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2529
>>2535
Yeah, the wording of the advertising rule is way too broad.  I expect that the mods would only apply it to cases where the poster either has a direct financial vested interest or where the poster isn't a regular user of ponyville.us.  But the wording should be improved to correspond to the reality of mod enforcement.

 No.2540

>>2539
Youtube videos may or may not be monetized, or contain calls to "donate to a patreon" which could, in a round-about way, be advertisement.

I think the rules need to be made clear now, so that conflicts don't arise later one. At what point is something an "advertisement"?

 No.2541

File: 1537649405094.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2535
i mean, if you were afraid to do so, why not just ask us?

i'll even take the initiative and say yes, that's allowed.

But we do need an advertisement clause

>>2531
hey, i love you, but please do not bring up personal issues here

 No.2542

>>2541
An advertisement clause makes sense to have, but, I'd've thought simple spam rules take care of that, anyway.

 No.2543

>>2541 because I'm weird, and I consider that a special exception to the rule, and I'd rather just not break the rule in the first place than try to get permission to get around it :twi7:

 No.2544

>>2541
It's not a "personal issue", it's an example of something that is happening to me and could happen to others.

There ARE people with vendettas against others, who report them for things that they would not report others for, or things that are not actually against the rules. It needs to be brought up.

 No.2545

File: 1537650720279.jpg (51.95 KB, 964x808, 241:202, eh heh 2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2543
but the rule doesn't -forbid- advertising. it just asks you to ask us.

it's not an exception... it's the rule. Advertising is allowed, just ask.

maybe i will have to reword it... i had not known users would be scared to ask permission...


...we even allow people who want stickies for their art and videos to request stickies, and we commission art from some of our users... i mean, we love what you guys produce.

 No.2546

>>2545. I don't think I'm getting my point across very well.  I know I could ask, but I'm not going to.  Any more than I'm going to ask your permission to make this very post that I'm making right now.  It's the principle of the thing.

 No.2547

>>2545 to put it a different way, if I have to get your permission to mention something that I've made, then I'm just not going to mention it.

 No.2548

>>2541
I don't think it's quite just his own personal issues, I think it is a fair point to make. If we are just going off of reports, then there needs to be consideration made for whether or not the reporter likes the person they're reporting.
Otherwise, it could just be that they're reporting the person they dislike for something that they don't really care about, because they want to get the person they just like into trouble.

 No.2549

File: 1537654043085.jpg (27.65 KB, 440x400, 11:10, 1458009495432.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2547
Why?  What's so bad, in the context of private website, of seeking preclearance for advertising?

But I think this whole issue can be sidestepped by a clarification that the words "advertising" and "promotion" are to be interpreted narrowly, so that they wouldn't cover, e.g., someone promoting tolerance & kindness or advertising his YouTube video.

 No.2550

File: 1537654104890.png (21.51 KB, 150x148, 75:74, shy shy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2546
>>2547
if we get rid of the rule, then folks who have no interest in the community can just jump on /pony/ and go "hey, look at my youtube channel!"

we try to prevent that sort of advertising spam by putting up a rule

we're not trying to restrict you from posting the fun stuff

if it means a lot to you, we can look at the rule again... but i had never thought this rule in particular might upset people.

Esh and Circuit both post their shows without much problem.

But this isn't about them, i understand...

>>2549
i guess we can do that. i'll look into it when the vote is done.

 No.2551

File: 1537654378754.jpg (35.54 KB, 480x480, 1:1, 9ekd1abk248w.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2550
>if we get rid of the rule, then folks who have no interest in the community can just jump on /pony/ and go "hey, look at my youtube channel!"
Wouldn't that be covered by the rule against spamming?

 No.2552

>>2549 1) it applies to everything.  2) it frames everything I make as promotion, whether that is the intent or not.  3) there is no uniform standard since others clearly post whatever the hell they want  4) I'm not going to suplicate myself and beg "please sir, may I post this video?" When clearly no one else is asking. And 5) I'm still going to respect the rules, so rather than post it anyway in spite of the rules, I'm just not going to post it

 No.2553

>>2550
Or you could simply enforce basic spam rules.

 No.2554

File: 1537654816712.jpg (242.29 KB, 1148x1153, 1148:1153, Judy_in_Easter_Basket.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2552
> 2) it frames everything I make as promotion, whether that is the intent or not.
Well, that's one way of interpreting the rule, but it's not how I would interpret.  I would interpret "promotion" in the sense of marketing for a commercial enterprise.  

 No.2555

>>2554 that is not how the rule is written

 No.2556

>>2552
This issue is really just another one of the rules and how they are enforced.
Rather than being enforced flatly, by what violates those rules, it's going to be what is reported, it seems.
So, your posts wouldn't ever be an issue... Unless people start reporting you.

 No.2557

>>2556 also true

 No.2558

File: 1537655272114.png (325.09 KB, 741x768, 247:256, 206964__UNOPT__safe_rainbo….png) ImgOps Google

If a rewrite is in order for it, it could possibly be to disallow advertising/promotions where you, someone else, or an entity is gaining anything of value unless you ask the staff.

Meaning you can't advertise/promote for money, votes, views, contest winnings of any kind, etc without permission.

 No.2559

>>2558 if I ask people's opinions on a subject I cover in a video, that necessarily requires people watch the video, unless you want me to just pretend the video doesn't exist.  You can apply this same logic to anything that is linked off site regardless of who made it.  If you link to a news article, you promote the site that hosts it

 No.2560

File: 1537655849633.jpg (97 KB, 595x649, 595:649, derpy_birthday_hat.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2555
Again, that's your interpretation.  If I make a thread about how muffins are delicious, am I "promoting" muffins in the sense of the rule?  I think that would be an absurd interpretation.  It's obvious the mischief that the rule is intended to prohibit, so why not interpret the rule in that light?

 No.2561

>>2560 if you made a thread about the fantastic new muffin bakery in your town, even if you had no vested interest in it, it would be promotion.  Thisis what I'm talking about

 No.2562

>>2561
What if I just promoted muffin eating in general?  That is still "promotion" in some sense.

 No.2563

>>2562  that would be the case I mentioned, of asking people's opinions on my video while pretending the video itself doesn't exist.

In my case, I've had a dozen or more videos I'd have liked to get people's opinions on here.  But I haven't mentioned them.  or posted them.  It is impossible to separate promotion when you're asking for people's opinions on your works.  Because I can't honestly say "Please watch this video, but pay zero attention to the fact that I made it, definitely do not subscribe, under no circumstances give it a like, and never watch another one of my other videos.  because I am 100% not promoting myself or my videos here."  I can't honestly say that.  No one who posts their own work can honestly say that.  So I don't pretend to.

 No.2564

File: 1537656861944.jpg (56.56 KB, 500x500, 1:1, b0012149_55ab48a109b96.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2563
> I've had a dozen or more videos I'd have liked to get people's opinions on here.
> It is impossible to separate promotion when you're asking for people's opinions on your works.
Okay, I think you're overanalyzing the advertising rule.  What you want to do is obviously not prohibited by the intent of the rule.  

 No.2565

>>2564  It is prohibited by the letter of the advertising rule.

 No.2566

>>2564
Self-promoting YouTube videos is probably against the rule, though. It's just a matter of if it's reported or not

 No.2567

>>2565
Again, that depends on how you interpret "advertising" and "promotion".  I think you would agree that it doesn't cover, e.g., promotion of pawn to a queen in a chess game, or advertising that you're going to go on vacation to Antarctica.  Well, I think it doesn't cover non-commercial """advertising""" or """promotion""" either.

 No.2568

>>2567  I run YouTube ads on my videos.  Now what?

 No.2569

File: 1537657521139.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

well... i'm glad folks are taking such an interest in the site.

it is a bit eye opening too, seeing the length to which some rules can affect people.

it is good then that we have had these talks...

 No.2570

>>2568
Well, an obvious solution is to turn off monetization for the video that you want to share on this website, for the duration that the thread remains active.

 No.2571

>>832557
>>2570
Or, you know, you could ask the site staff for permission to post the video given that you're going to be making money off posting it here.  If you the monetize the video, do you still object to the preclearance rule?

 No.2572

>>2570 yet people share other people's videos that run ads, self promote like crazy within their videos, shill for products, and push their patreons.  Why are they allowed to be posted?
>>2569 I'm just saying why i voted no.  It's not a huge deal, but it is something I take seriously

 No.2573

>>2571 so I need permission for my video, but if you post something from vsauce that's perfectly fine

 No.2574

>>2572
>Why are they allowed to be posted?
It's not a conflict-of-interest if the poster isn't gaining financially by posting the video.  Now, if Manley had some kind of referral deal going on with those types of videos that you're mentioning, then yes, that would also be a violation.

 No.2575

>>2574 the rule says nothing about whether you personally benefit, howmuch, or in whatways

 No.2576

File: 1537658555502.jpg (89.06 KB, 800x606, 400:303, EnglishAngoraRabbit.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2575
It's not expressly stated, but isn't it rather heavily implied?

 No.2577

>>2576  No.  And I don't accept that promotion of a giant channel run by a corporation, that exists solely to make money, gets a pass, while my videos that are lucky to make a nickel or two need special permission.

 No.2578

>>2576
I didn't really get that vibe. Seems to me to be anything advertised, at all. So, even arguably posting steam sales, for example.

 No.2579

File: 1537659285228.jpg (8.08 KB, 245x218, 245:218, oh my goodness.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

alright, goodness me. we'll reconsider, sailboat. :c

 No.2580

>>2579 sorry, really wasn't trying to be difficult, but like I said, I take it seriously :trixie6:

 No.2581

File: 1537664826504.jpeg (117.15 KB, 1000x1039, 1000:1039, 1488791__safe_artist-colo….jpeg) ImgOps Google


a lost pony is still dismayed that alternative lifestyles are seen with such vehement distaste by a vocal number of posters here, and wonders if this is a safe community for anyone outside the narrow mainstream "norm" to be free from unfair judgment.

 No.2582

File: 1537665929843.png (943.59 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, Claudia.png) ImgOps Google

>>2581
I feel it safe.

Just because people has different points of views and doubts it doesn't mean Ponyville is going to  Allahu Akbar in a second.

Besides being afraid of the outside is kinda stupid.
Well yes there are a bunch of ignorant and stupid people who wants only to send you in the glue factory. But if you let them control your emotions, you will be doomed and probably dead.

 No.2583

>>2570
That isn't really a solution worth considering, in my opinion. Besides, I don't think monetary gain is necessarily required. There is obviously gained from having your views go up, regardless of the money you get out of it.

 No.2584

File: 1537666665564.jpg (43.07 KB, 414x610, 207:305, 1520360821508.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2581
>a lost pony is still dismayed that alternative lifestyles are seen with such vehement distaste by a vocal number of posters here
What lifestyles?  Like living on a yacht?  Living off-grid like the Amish?

 No.2585

File: 1537666880548.png (23.13 KB, 407x373, 407:373, Aw Yiss.png) ImgOps Google

>>2584
>Like living on a yacht?  Living off-grid like the Amish?

Sorry, not allowed on ponyville.

 No.2586

File: 1537668629519.jpeg (30.23 KB, 450x450, 1:1, a5f87300-5aef-449e-9ce7-9….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2582
Im having difficulty determining if this is a pep-talk or a don't-be-stupid.

Im talking about the rules placing innocent relationship imagery and items of comfort into an off-limits category when outright sexual imagery is allowed, based on the unfair prejudice that the former things are offensive and obscene when they aren't.

>>2584
This is bait.  You know what i'm talking about.

>>2585
Then all is not lost.
Yet.

 No.2587

File: 1537670621025.png (920.71 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, DoD173.png) ImgOps Google

>>2581
>unfair judgment
Guess they'll have to make a rule stifling others from thinking negative thoughts.

 No.2588

>>2581
That rule has literally been in place since before you came.

 No.2589

>>2588
This doesn't change the fact that its enforcement is ultimately unfair.

Perhaps this kind of system has worked for you guys, though. Personally, it isn't something I particularly like.

 No.2590

questions

1. No questions with this.

2. Will the modbook be posted like the site rules as well?

3. does the entire post disappear?  If so, does it have to work that way? Say I have the filter on and I'm talking with someone. They use the NSFW box and suddenly the conversation just ends because I never saw a reply to me. Not to sound like an asshole,  but am I expected to ask everyone I start talking to if they have the SFW filter on?

4a. This makes it look like  "vet" board users get treated with lighter gloves than newbies do. With the "exception to every rule" mindset in place, I  think older users should be considered for an immediate permaban on their first offense as well. They have been here long enough and should know better than newer users.

4b.  I don't really think there should be a time limit on this. All this says to me is "if you get talked to about something, then don't do it again for a week and you're in the clear.

4c. I've seen threads here completely devoted to shitposting. Are these threads going to be subject to this rule?

4d. Who is going to define what advertising is? Say I make plushies and im insanely proud of them. I post pictures of them here and someone really likes them. Is it advertising if I tell the person that I can make them one if they like for $X.YZ?

4e. If we feel like someone is getting more than their fair share of warnings while people are getting bans for the same thing but with fewer warnings from a specific mod/admin, how would we go about calling out that person and to whom would we do so?

5. No real questions

6. Does this mean that if a user reports a post, the offending poster will have a higher likely hood of being punished for it than if a mod spotted it on their own? If so why?

I'll do the poll when I've got answers to these questions.

Edit: I would like for  these questions to be answered by an admin as well please.

 No.2591

File: 1537673492766.png (295.67 KB, 731x712, 731:712, Silverstream 10.png) ImgOps Google

>>2590
>4a. This makes it look like  "vet" board users get treated with lighter gloves than newbies do. With the "exception to every rule" mindset in place, I  think older users should be considered for an immediate permaban on their first offense as well. They have been here long enough and should know better than newer users.

Even "vet" users slip up

>4d. Who is going to define what advertising is? Say I make plushies and im insanely proud of them. I post pictures of them here and someone really likes them. Is it advertising if I tell the person that I can make them one if they like for $X.YZ?

If someone like Esh wants to make a thread linking to their video game streaming or Setsuna wants to make a thread promoting their art, that's a bit different than some random person just popping onto the site trying to make a thread going "Hey there ponyville! Get ur credit cards and head over to bigbootyhoes.com 4 sum hot MILF action!"

 No.2592

File: 1537676612116.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>2590
great questions, anon!

2. Yes, it will be made publically available to the users to read

3. No, just images is the current plan

4a. i don't understand, which rule are we talking about? my answer is, not quite knowing what you're referencing, no

4b. what rule is this? the order of bans?

4c. Which rule? Can i safely assume Proposal VII, Rule 7?

If so, it depends on what the thread is about

4d. Site administration will determine this. If you really are in doubt, just ask. The rule isn't there to strike people with thunderbolts who want to talk about the things they're proud of: it's more a safety net provision that catches folks who are here to advertise, but not to be a part of the community

4e., if you feel like too many warnings are going on, such that it is not consistent with the ban order, simply report, citing the ban order

If your perception matches the truth of the situation, action will be taken

5. ?

6. What are we talking about?



Please note, anon, that you will need to provide a tripcode you commonly use on the site. We will be striking votes of those tripcodes that have no record on the site.

 No.2593

File: 1537676932405.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

Speaking of which, hi ponies: we received a vote on our poll from a user identifying themselves as:

"A railroad Wagon named 'Volition'" and the staff is having trouble who this user is.

 No.2594

>>2592
4a. "Users with no notable history with the site may be met with a permaban immediately" makes it sound like you plan on being harsher to newer members than older ones for the same rule infractions. It could just be how I'm interpreting the wording.

4b. no. I don't really know how to explain my self any better with that one so I guess ill just drop it.

4c. "2nd Degree offenses include incredibly offensive speech, sh*tposting, and extreme hostility in conduct, baiting or goading users into conflict"

5. I was trying to number the questions I had to line up with the poll. I don't have any questions about entry 5.

6. "VI. Report Escalation and Increase Scrutiny
The increase scrutiny standard shall be taken and modified from the 3P1 Political Drama policy currently found on /arch/ - if you report, the post you reported shall be weighed more heavily against that poster than if a staff member had stumbled upon that offending post on his or her own."

 No.2595

File: 1537678418854.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>2594
the key word here is "may"

sadly, we have had situations where users have come to Ponyville with the express intention of making trouble.

not everyone who does so though does so with intense, rule breaking posts - many will try to dance around the rules, just enough to get folks upset.

this rule is geared largely at that, hence the "may" - we will use our best judgment

>>2594
right now, sh*tposting is already in the rules as something disallowed. We try to stay lenient, and it will remain so, but i think that judgment will depend on whether that sh*tposting thread happens to create an atmosphere on site that hurts the user experience

6. It is to encourage the reporting system, and to help us figure out what users have concerns about.

We get complaints sometimes that a user is making rule breaking posts, and the staff is no where to be seen, only for us to discover that the thread has become like 400 posts long and nobody has reported anything

Reporting already causes that effect: a staff member who sees a report is keyed into it, and weighs that report more heavily in the subconscious than if he or she were to see it in the wild

i thought, just making it codified and official will help make things more consistent throughout all staff decisions.

 No.2596

File: 1537679467713.png (969.25 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Pinkie_points_at_the_pacif….png) ImgOps Google

>>2587
Do you ever say anything meaningful or just shitpost and goad?

>>2588
Please cite it, as i have read no such rule and have only seen such enforcement in the dead of night where a single mod makes a snap judgment without opportunity for context.

>>2592
Moons, why would you consider the one making a report to have more weight than the one reported on?  Isn't this inherently unjust as it clouds the issue?  Further that incentivizes frivolous reporting and reporting used as a weapon.

Reporting must be a shield to protect the users of the site, NEVER a sword to attack each other!  

 No.2597

File: 1537679979814.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2596
i don't understand.

the rule merely states that a post that has been reported will be weighed more heavily than a post a moderator stumbles into on their own

or the rule proposition, that is

right now, not a single one is a guarantee.

 No.2598

File: 1537680131047.png (49.37 KB, 543x404, 543:404, I didn't realize you were ….png) ImgOps Google

>>2596

>Moons, why would you consider the one making a report to have more weight than the one reported on?

Like he said, it encourages people to report things rather than requiring the mods to just keep an eye on every post that comes through the site 24/7.  It also shows that people have a problem with things, and preventing people from having problems while on the site is the whole point of moderation.  In some cases, it points out when a user is having an issue with something someone said, rather than it just being a polite jab that both users understood.

And of course, also like Moony just said, that doesn't mean that everything that gets reported results in action or that things that don't get reported are greenlit.  Just that reports offer weight to something where before there might have been indecision.

 No.2599

File: 1537680294200.png (188.83 KB, 995x803, 995:803, yay.png) ImgOps Google

...should've made it "yay" or "neigh." :c

 No.2600

>>2597
I'm an outsider so feel free to ignore me, but my opinion is that this makes little sense because a rule violation is a rule violation whether reported or not, and I don't understand how "more weight" can be given when there is not a set amount of "weight" to begin with, that being a subjective and immaterial concept.

 No.2601

File: 1537681516537.png (99.3 KB, 444x600, 37:50, silverstream 2.png) ImgOps Google

>>2599
I did feel that was a missed opportunity.

 No.2602

>>2596
Literally:
”Discussion of specific fetishes or content that may incite a reaction to a fetish is prohibited.”
On the front page as always.

As for specific enforcement, posting obese and inflation stuff was certainly an issue surrounding a certain user who was permanently banned.

This rule changes nothing and seeks only to make something (uneccesrily) clearer. Since, I assume, you have had no difficulty posting under this rule until now why do you think it will be different in the future?

 No.2603

File: 1537682151407.png (288.92 KB, 459x600, 153:200, silverstream bucket.png) ImgOps Google

>>2600
I interpret it as this.

We can't expect mods to be in every thread trolling for problem posts. But sometimes mods may enter a thread that interests them and come across a bad post and go "This could be a problem post" and think about doing something about it and either decide to delete it and punish the user or let it go because the users involved in the thread sorted the problem post out themselves, hopefully drama free and without making the thread an extra 100+ posts longer in a matter of minutes.

Now if a mod again goes into the thread under this new rule and finds the post and then sees in the report queue that the post has reports on it, then that would convince them that negative action does need to be taken.

 No.2604

>>2597
See, this is the sort of item when I was talking about, earlier. a rule violation should be met with the same response, regardless of if it was reported on or not. This type of item only encourages people to report people they dislike for every minor infraction that ever they see. At least, in my opinion. It also puts into perspective an issue with the way rules are enforced.

 No.2605

>>2603
Right. So given this rule, mods are going to see things that violate the rules, and unless it's particularly blatant they are probably going to decide to avoid drama and do nothing. It encourages mods into inaction.

Meanwhile, because certain users will file reports and others won't, it will give the mods' actions the appearance of bias when they feel pressured to act on those reports.

Don't forget that each mod is a different person and will have a different reaction to each situation. This rule will, over time, boil down to "only take action on reported posts" because of individual uncertainty.

 No.2606

File: 1537682667773.png (290.08 KB, 429x600, 143:200, silverstream5.png) ImgOps Google

>>2605
>It encourages mods into inaction

I think like Moony said in the other thread it's more like letting us the users sort our own problems out and only getting them involved if something is really egregious. It's like how in the Navy we were supposed to handle our problems with other sailors at the lowest level possible before moving it up the chain of command. Because then if Chief or God forbid even the officers had to get involved, nobody was going to be happy with their solution to the problem.

>Meanwhile, because certain users will file reports and others won't, it will give the mods' actions the appearance of bias when they feel pressured to act on those reports.

I think the mods have a bit better judgement than you give them credit for

 No.2607

>>2606
if their judgement is so good then why is this rule being proposed at all?

Seeing reports in the queue makes you feel pressured to act. I've experienced it. This rule is going to reinforce that feeling.

 No.2608

>>2598
I'll read it again when i'm voting tonight because it seemed like it said something different.
>rather than it being a polite jab
Yes i can see this, however in the discussions of images, Jade reported images she didn't have a problem with "to prove a point" which i believe was that mods will act when reported to regardless of whether any person was actually offended.

I think her point was well-made, and that point is something that shouldn't be reinforced; it should be invalidated.


>>2606
This exactly.

>>2602
I see, yes i remember that now and it seems to work well when applied until just recently when some perfectly acceptible images have been struck down including the pet play sonata, noonim's charmeleon image and my diaper pinky image that has been ruled in the modchat as being ok.

The judgmental mindsets expressed in the discussions about the new rules, combined with some much harsher options among the new rules and the concrete mandatory bannings that make me suddenly fear that not only my abrasive sexuality but also my innocent and fundamental comfort things will be unwelcome in the new paradyme.

 No.2609

File: 1537683097108.jpeg (42.36 KB, 477x400, 477:400, 62D1198C-0D6C-4039-B91F-4….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2444
Why hello, Celestia.

 No.2610

File: 1537683334352.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>2604
>This type of item only encourages people to report people they dislike for every minor infraction that ever they see.

Honestly, that's better than not receiving reports and people simply battling it out as tempers mount, all while I'm busy watching a movie because I didn't get a pop up on my screen saying there was a report.

>>2605
>Meanwhile, because certain users will file reports and others won't

File reports!  In a lot of cases in a scenario like this website we are literaly unable to tell if something is an issue until someone says so.  When you have rules like "don't be rude", you have to have someone define what rude is, and that's going to vary from person to person.  There is no blanket way to say that certain words are rude (barring a couple exceptions which, indeed, we deal with without prior requests).  Things are just not capable of being as black and white as some people want them to be without creating some kind of bizarre authoritarian state where no one gets to do anything, which is not what anyone wants, least of all staff members or the site's owner.

To iterate, the most important part of moderating a site like this is that the users come to the moderators when they think there is a problem.  And no, that doesn't mean that every time someone complains we jump into action, sometimes it's really best if users just work things out on their own.  But if you don't submit a complaint then there's no way we could jump into action as we may not even be able to tell if something is violating our sometimes very personally centered rules that require interpretation from multiple sources.

>>2608
>Yes i can see this, however in the discussions of images, Jade reported images she didn't have a problem with "to prove a point" which i believe was that mods will act when reported to regardless of whether any person was actually offended.

I mean, the amount of pictures that get reported only to be met with "No, that's definitely fine." implies that maybe this isn't a huge problem.  Which images were these, was it the diaper ones?

 No.2611

>>2608
Look, I don't care what fetishes you may have. But the fact you've been stamping your feet and pouting for days now when've you not even had the due dilligence to read the rules that you agreed to be bound by says alot.

As for your images, so you've been smacked on the nose with a rolled up news paper. Now you know better what to post. The mods aren't a hive Mind, they may sometimes act differently. No rule changing, rewording or whatever will ever change that fact.

 No.2612

>>2610
like I said I'm an outsider and I'm just giving my opinion. Good luck getting everyone to file reports and not just having a group of people that report people they don't like.

If you have rules that are so open to interpretation that they require you to know the mindset of every party involved, well, maybe those shouldn't be rules.

But do what you want, I don't really care.

 No.2613

File: 1537684565091.png (24.12 KB, 254x249, 254:249, Please.png) ImgOps Google

>>2612

These are definitely the weak points of the system, I can't deny that.  I'm just not sure that anything else really creates quite the environment we've been aiming for.  It can be quite challenging to maintain, as this thread may have tipped everyone off to.

 No.2614

>>2611
First, i did read the rules ive agreed to be bound by and the proposed new ones, as has clearly been stated and your assertion otherwise is a defamatory lie.

Further, there are hundreds of posts in this thread, a substantial percentage of which are people having difficulty interpreting the new wordings the same way.

I have as much right as anyone to advocate and interpret these new proposed rules and you are engaging in a direct personal attack by dismissing my legitimate and diligent participation as "pouting".

Especially with your assertion of futility.  Perhaps it is you who have failed to read the proposal, because the primary goal of our admin is to establish better moderation consistency through clarified rules, a hoofbook and a rules board.

I take offense at the intimacy of a metaphor like my being smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, from an anomymous poster.  If you are going to address me further i insist you be more accurate and less condescending.


I guess this is as good a time to start getting used to posting without images.  Seems i wont be posting any pretty soon if i want to stay out of the auto-permaban schedule.

Edit:  looks like a lost pony needs to take a break and cool off.

 No.2615

File: 1537684914565.jpg (47.58 KB, 635x461, 635:461, My feelings on the matter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2614
>I take offense at the intimacy of a metaphor like my being smacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper, from an anomymous poster.

Just to interject there, I think what he meant to say was that any punishments you've received for anything have largely been very light.  You've notably not been perma-banned and have never really done anything that might imply you should be, from what I can remember.  Especially when it comes to image violations, the response is usually just deleting the image followed by telling people not to post that particular image.

The anon was not saying that he's beating you with a newspaper or some such, which is kind of what it sounds like you were saying.

 No.2616

>>2614
You literally said 'Please cite it, as i have read no such rule'. If you had read and subsequently forgotten said rule, you made no effort to check yourself and instead asked me to 'cite it to you'.

 No.2617

>>2615
You are correct

 No.2618

>>2616
No such rule that sounded like what you claimed, and upon citation not only did i recognize the rule but i still disagree as to what you said it implied.

I see debating the merits and theoretical effects of the rules here are not going to be conducted in any better faith than the meaningless interpersonal squabbles that seem to go on so i should probably disengage.  All i can accomplish is to throw a fit and i'm about to.  I might as well spare the site and do it privately alone.

>>2615
The metaphor places me as a pet disciplined by its master.

I get what he was saying but his choice of words was deliberately demeaning.  I am very triggered right now and i'm going to sign off before i get any deeper into the sort of lostpony meltdown that everyone got real sick of.

Nice work anon.  Im ending this before i say what i really want to.

Im grateful for your words and patience mondo.  You're a damned fine person and im sorry im such a pain in the ass.

 No.2619

>>2606
That's a terrible way to do it you ask me.
Like, I'm happy to let the users deal with their own problems for the most part, but, when it comes to rule violation, rule violations should be treated the same regardless of where it is or if the users report it or not. Areas which the users are dealing with the problems on their own are fine and all, just don't make it the standard for rule judgement.
Where users are enforcing their own standards should be simply unruled, you ask me.

 No.2620

>>2610
I fundamentally disagree. Fights ended by admin intervention just further builds disdain and hatreds, and further makes users dislike the administration as a whole, as they inevitably feel they're being singled out unfairly. Unless they stoop to the level of the other guy, and start reporting in the same way.

 No.2621

>>2588 irrelevant

 No.2622

>>2615
Issue with that is, the severity of the punishment is largely irrelevant. The issue is the principle of the matter.
Regardless of if I'm being hung or if I'm being sternly warned, it's not really fair if I get punished for something that someone else doesn't when they do the same.

 No.2623

File: 1537715284703.jpg (10.29 KB, 350x263, 350:263, Keanu-losing-mouth1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2586
>You know what i'm talking about.
My guess is that when you said "alternative lifestyles", you actually meant "posted images with fetishistic content".  It would help if you said precisely what you meant.

 No.2624

>>2618
Hey, while I must stand by the factual accuracy of what I said, I want to apologize. I came of as more abrasive than I should've been and given the context of the situation should have spoken with greater care towards you and I see why you took it personally.

 No.2625

File: 1537722771213.png (964.39 KB, 967x891, 967:891, full (20).png) ImgOps Google

>>2624
What?

Apology gratefully accepted.

Democracy is a difficult process.

 No.2626

I cannot vote on this. By that I mean that I am able to vote on it, but I refuse to. The whole thing so far has been downright farcical to me. As far as I can tell the primary complaints are entirely within the scope of the current powers of the administration to solve, or to firmly rule as acceptable. There are hard decisions to be made, and it is easier not to make them. Instead, this charade happens so that any parties dissatisfied with the continued lack of leadership can be pointed to a bureaucratic clause revealing that managing the site is actually their responsibility. Tied to my complaint on leadership is the fact that we are having polls and votes to determine what a relatively small community thinks and wants. The entire staff is completely out of touch and I do not think that a poll or a moderator's handbook will eliminate that perception.

I have put minimal effort into this and I feel like I have a better understanding of key member's feelings than the entire administration team. It doesn't matter though, because all I see is an intention to placate, to make everybody happy, rather than to build a better community. Because it feels like somebody else's community made for somebody who isn't here.

 No.2627

File: 1537727943847.png (235.46 KB, 265x419, 265:419, Inky_schoolgirl.png) ImgOps Google

>>2626
>I have put minimal effort into this and I feel like I have a better understanding of key member's feelings than the entire administration team.
Well, that's nice, but the idea of the poll is to determine how all the site members feel, not just the most vocal ones.

 No.2628

File: 1537729136648.png (855.64 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, DoD86.png) ImgOps Google

>>2596
Who are you to say that others are judging others unfairly? Have they no right to an opinion from what they see? Your proposal seeks to hinder free speech, and I disagree.

 No.2629

>>2626  I tend to agree that the vote is largely unnecessary.  But I do think it's preferable compared to nothing at all, which seems to have been the result of mods trying to sort things out themselves.  Polls would seem to be more useful in >>2627
>determin[ing] how all the site members feel
vs as a means to directly vote on rules.

 No.2630

File: 1537734300161.png (1003.22 KB, 1080x751, 1080:751, WlMcoHh.png) ImgOps Google


 No.2631

File: 1537737618971.png (205.73 KB, 425x422, 425:422, .png) ImgOps Google

>>2630
How well are you taking things, Moony?

There are times I can worry a little bit about you and politics is often a mess.

 No.2632

>>2628
Near as I can tell, that isn't what he's saying, and your just straight to making up stuff.

 No.2633

File: 1537738043627.png (864.76 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, DoD81.png) ImgOps Google

>>2632
> still dismayed that alternative lifestyles are seen with such vehement distaste by a vocal number of posters here
"I'm shocked that people who act differently are treated differently."

> if this is a safe community for anyone outside the narrow mainstream "norm" to be free from unfair judgment.
Opinionated definition of the norm and what should be allowed and what not to be.

I already stated how I feel on "Unfair judgement above".

>Near as I can tell, that isn't what he's saying
So, in your opinion you believe he's saying something else.

>and your just straight to making up stuff.
That's what thinking entails, yes.

 No.2634

>>2628
>>2633
Tracer, your jabs at those who have something constructive to say are completely inappropriate and if you have nothing substantive to say regarding the proposed rules or any of the concerns raised by those discussing the proposed rules, then please say nothing.

Mods, the above two posts are entirely argumentative goads and i ask that their poster be admonished to stop.

 No.2635

File: 1537742394236.png (722.95 KB, 1017x867, 339:289, DoD42.png) ImgOps Google

>>2634
Your constructive comment was essentially asking the suppression of free speech to people having a negative opinion of others.

I disagreed to such ideas, seeing that would alienate much, much more people than it would help.

 No.2636

>>2635
No, i was clearly asking that one thing that is not inherently obscene not be suppressed more than something else.  This is asking that free speech be applied fairly, not limited by bias.

Your deliberate misrepresentation of my words is nothing more than trolling.

 No.2637

File: 1537743759446.png (863.45 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, DoD257.png) ImgOps Google

>>2636
Sorry, I don't feel this post >>2581 was as clear as you intended it to be. The post by itself seemed to be a more passive aggressive jab at everyone else on how intolerant they were to fetishistic subjects. The interpretation of such rules need to be based under this bias in order for the moderators to make a decision on something. If there exist gray areas it's going to be a problem, unfortunately. Because loopholes and other bullshit will over-complicate everything to a huge mess.

>Your deliberate misrepresentation of my words is nothing more than trolling.
Your bias of my terseness into thinking it's trolling is argumentative and I ask the mods to privately ask you discontinue this discourse on my reputation on this pony based image site.

 No.2638

>>2633
Sharp strawmanning there, my dude. But, I'm not really going to get through to someone making such harsh character judgements like that, so, I'm not really going to bother replying. It's pretty clear you're just being a bit of an ass.

 No.2639

>>2638
Careful Nooms he's just trying to provoke us so our behavior will detract from our own arguments.

>>2637
I'm not sure how anyone can draw that interpretation from my words, and i am not addressing your "terseness" but your deliberate misrepresentation of what people have said and your obvious malintent in doing so.

 No.2640

File: 1537744344398.png (74.27 KB, 298x229, 298:229, 1.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2639
Fair. Probably should just ignore him, then.

 No.2641

File: 1537744901517.png (712.17 KB, 971x867, 971:867, DoD43.png) ImgOps Google

>>2638
K, good talk.

>>2639
>I'm not sure how anyone can draw that interpretation from my words
Was pretty cut and dry, in my opinion.
I thought I summed it up here: >>2633

> still dismayed...
You felt dismayed that people held such uniform opinions on a subject, correct? And that:
> if this is a safe community...
Was a passive aggressive stab and how people who are in the "Norm" judge others.

You're welcome to take offense at my interpretation, but I've laid it out how I saw you say it.

>your deliberate misrepresentation of what people have said and your obvious malintent in doing so
I can say you're purposefully misinterpreting my commentary as hostile in order to get a rouse out of the public and moderator team as well. Doesn't make that true either though.

 No.2642

>>2641
You've stated your position, yes.

I disagree with it, and i reiterate that your interpretation of my words is very inaccurate.

I believe this should conclude our interaction and people who want to should be able to follow our links back and decide for themselves.

Unless you plan to just bury them under more textwalls, in which case people can make their decision based on that strategy.

Feel free to have a final word, and i bid you adieu sir.

 No.2643

File: 1537745545441.png (628.41 KB, 1010x899, 1010:899, DoD209.png) ImgOps Google

>>2642
K, good talk.

 No.2644

File: 1537751658388.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2633
>>2632
>>2634
...hello dear friends. i saw the reports.

This thread has gotten heated before, and there've been several screaming matches and things.

>>2640
i wanted to note, if you suspect goading in the future, Noonim's got the right idea.


...i don't really don't think there was goading going on. Though Tracer, maybe lay off lp here. You and he have a bit of history now, and i think it might not be fair to him to be engaging with him this harshly.

You both make good points. But let's try to be civil too.

>>2626
>>2627
wow, that's painfully discouraging.

There are hard decisions that could be made, of which many of them have only bad outcomes. Instead, we do this, which is a lot harder, because the staff wants to make the site better for all its posters, not just its upset posters.

Call us out of touch if you'd like, anon. i post here everyday. And i get how frustrated some of our posters are with things.

We've got a community liaison, we've been going out of our way to have individual conversations with folks.

We could ban half the userbase to make them happy: there's your hard decision. But it's not the right decision, by a long shot.

i don't think "making everyone happy" and building a better community is mutually exclusive.

We strive to be a community for the many, and not a clubhouse. The clubhouse mentality, the old-guard mentality, the "this website was made for me and me" mentality is what devastated our old home.

i get your frustration. i am one of the, if not the most, prudish members of this site. i'm averse to mean folks, i hate pornography.

But we must be willing to give a little to get a little. And you must forgive my frustration when you tell me what i think, and assume so much, and yet not have the decency to take responsibility for your words.

i'm right here. if you want to talk to me, my discord is here:

Moony#0495

i welcome your inputs, your criticisms, and your frustrations. But i think, given all this effort, and all this frustration, i have the right to see whose thoughts these are, and have a chance to talk to you in person about these concerns.

...i encourage other users, anon or otherwise, to add me to, and to talk to me. i am always available for my family. which is all of you.

 No.2645

>>2644
> i hate pornography.
Huh. That's the first time I've heard someone say that who wasn't obviously virtue-signaling.  You really haven't found any genre of porn that you enjoy?

 No.2646

>>2644
>wow, that's painfully discouraging
Well, I wouldn't get too discouraged by a random anon who pops in and claims to know things better than the site staff.  Most of us here think you're doing an excellent job here, Moony.  And that's not just me speculating; it's backed up by the results of the last poll.

 No.2647

File: 1537753446273.png (286.43 KB, 570x660, 19:22, eh heh 4.png) ImgOps Google

>>2645
>>2646
virtue... signaling?

what does this mean, virtue signaling?


...no, i don't really like pornography. but, i believe, this is something wrong with me. you see... i don't really have a sex drive. at all. And haven't really ever had one. And do not... totally get the appeal of sex or sex stuff.

this has caused many problems for me, and it makes me different and weird, and i don't like it. it makes... relationships extremely difficult, i have found.

but... it is who i am. i do not like pornography as a result of this part of me.

 No.2648

>>2647
>what does this mean, virtue signaling?
Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values.  Like, how the Religious Right, especially in the past, liked to condemn porn.

>>2647
>this has caused many problems for me, and it makes me different and weird, and i don't like it. it makes... relationships extremely difficult, i have found.
I'm sorry to hear that. Have you considered seeing a doctor about this?  I'd expect that at least some causes of low libido have existing medical treatments.

 No.2649

File: 1537754331166.png (482.53 KB, 614x652, 307:326, DoD218.png) ImgOps Google

>>2644
>They sent reports
Hah.

Yeah yeah, I was telling Lost Pony to not talk to me whenever he initiated conversation prior. I'll just continue to do so.

 No.2650


>>2648
Wow nice threes!!

 No.2651

File: 1537762027262.jpg (138.85 KB, 752x581, 752:581, batemancosmic.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.2652


 No.2653

File: 1537819815365.jpg (23.7 KB, 475x315, 95:63, new-dog-475x315.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2612
>Good luck getting everyone to file reports and not just having a group of people that report people they don't like.


Obviously it's not like this for everyone, but I do report, and I hate doing it. But sometimes I feel like I have to, and I know that I have multiple people who will also look at what I report and make a judgement call. And it helps that I know the people who are on the modstaff, and know that they are going to make the best judgement they can with as little bias as possible.

 No.2654

File: 1537820111174.jpeg (42.36 KB, 477x400, 477:400, THIS IS NOT A LEWD IMAGE.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2653
May I ask what kind of people you report?

 No.2655

File: 1537820113856.png (479.78 KB, 750x728, 375:364, 142811927117.png) ImgOps Google

I'm trying to read through the thread to see if anyone answered this yet, but on the sfw switch, will the whole post, picture AND text, be covered up?

 No.2656

>>2654
Yes, but I'm not going to answer.

 No.2657

File: 1537820277174.gif (2.03 MB, 480x270, 16:9, 6786788242.gif) ImgOps Google


 No.2658

File: 1537820286284.jpg (38.83 KB, 314x500, 157:250, 3109722.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2653
As someone pointed out the mods are not a "hive mind" and i think the rules board and hoofbook are excellent tools for bringing consistency to those late-night single-mod rulings.

I hope both are structured with easy index numbers so users can cite the rule if needed when something in the grey has already been decided.

I'd like to mention that i know i've been a bit neurotic in my arguments about the new rules and apologize to everypony for that.

I hope everyone reads the options carefully and votes their conscience.  Ponyville!!!

 No.2659

I don't know if I broke something, but on:

>Would you support a complete ban on political topics?

Under the hypotheticals, it didn't let me choose. I will try again later if I can, but my vote on that particular question is nay.

 No.2660

>>2655
>will the whole post, picture AND text, be covered up?
No, only the image.  See >>2592 (#3)

 No.2661

>>2660
Alrighty then

 No.2662

>>2654
Interesting filename

 No.2663

File: 1537822137476.png (Spoiler Image, 243.29 KB, 680x729, 680:729, 829.png) ImgOps Google

>>2662
You know, funny enough, I thought that picture was just cute until you pointed the filename out.

Now I'm debating if I should be offended or not.

 No.2664

File: 1537822235761.png (224.55 KB, 1024x836, 256:209, pinkie_pie_sleeping_on_a_s….png) ImgOps Google

>>2662

The name proves its true!!

>>2663
Bait = successful

 No.2665

File: 1537822328692.gif (432.94 KB, 489x489, 1:1, 5FBD99C7-57DB-4F39-9376-47….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2663
I had problems posting that picture because of the mods...

Now that I think of it...
I will make a thread on Canterlot about how lewd it is NOT.

 No.2666

File: 1537822476881.png (112.1 KB, 257x309, 257:309, 1537603052030.png) ImgOps Google

>>2665
Why, shes not even blushing.

 No.2667

File: 1537822674730.png (299.99 KB, 1526x805, 218:115, 3826786782.png) ImgOps Google

>>2666
Here it is

 No.2668

>>2665
I swear it's like a new problem of the modern internet.

"She/he is lying down and looking in your direction? THEY WANT YOU BRO!"

lol but yea, maybe make a thread. I gotta go now though, got chores

 No.2669

File: 1537823153479.png (969.25 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Pinkie_points_at_the_pacif….png) ImgOps Google

>>2667

I'll be watching.

 No.2670

File: 1537823396941.gif (312.8 KB, 349x313, 349:313, F2EE8F16-5D3C-491C-81BA-CA….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2669
There was nothing sexual about what I posted.

If anything, it's discipline

btw, how's derpy?

 No.2671

File: 1537823428687.jpeg (295.63 KB, 1280x939, 1280:939, 788793232.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2670
arghhhhhh!

I'm just going to ignore the http interface...

 No.2672

File: 1537825224019.jpg (18.93 KB, 300x168, 25:14, 1536950826204.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2670
Derps is so wonderful and sweet!  But a bit nervous atm.
Thanks for asking.

 No.2673

File: 1537825270623.jpg (37.07 KB, 396x382, 198:191, we do and its called a ser….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This sure has turned into A Thread.

 No.2674

File: 1537825310331.jpeg (28.79 KB, 540x547, 540:547, 1C4B87CA-94CD-4B48-A75A-C….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2672
That's good to hear!

 No.2675

File: 1537825374016.png (837.64 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 697F12A3-E3EB-41FF-B302-30….png) ImgOps Google

>>2673
I don't get it

 No.2676

>>2671
>I'm just going to ignore the http interface...
Come again?

 No.2677

File: 1537825794392.gif (1022.89 KB, 447x342, 149:114, EFB6D060-F19B-4641-A717-61….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2676
Twas nothing!

 No.2678

File: 1537935631223.jpeg (118.66 KB, 736x993, 736:993, 5B01FB0E-2614-47F0-9F18-4….jpeg) ImgOps Google

I made a Sweetie Belle thread on Canterlot.

Now I can't delete it.

 No.2679

File: 1537936132226.png (381.17 KB, 697x600, 697:600, 77CF8638-A803-49BA-AB25-C0….png) ImgOps Google

>>2678
Fixed

 No.2680

File: 1537936683562.jpg (261.17 KB, 850x1133, 850:1133, 1484115562364.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2679
>>834728
fuck, you deleted my posts and their replies :-(

 No.2681

>>2680
Technically I deleted it, on request. OP basically has the right to delete a thread but LeAnon cycles through ip and cookies I guess, so things like delete and edit functions probably don't work for him.

There's arguments to be made that an op shouldn't be able to wipe a thread entirely from the board, but that's how it works for now, so that's how I handled it.

 No.2682

File: 1537937772556.gif (384.32 KB, 200x200, 1:1, AA6B8EBE-6456-4522-9B78-1A….gif) ImgOps Google


 No.2683

In regards to "Should OP be the king/dictator of his/her own thread?" question: If something like this gets implemented, it should definitely be a per-thread option, so that it's still possible to create a neutral thread instead of having a whole bunch of little fiefdom threads.

 No.2684

File: 1537995348311.gif (3.73 MB, 587x330, 587:330, pinkypopcorn.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2683
the "king of own thread" thing is rather ambiguous, don't we sort of have that already?  How would this as a rule be different?

 No.2685

>>2683  Would the name Install Gentoo be considered advertising?  :dash7:  :pinkie4:

 No.2686

>>2685
Yes, yes it would.
:pinkie1:

 No.2687

Report escalation and Increast scrutiny needs further explanation. What do you mean by "weighed more heavily against"? Will the ban be more severe? will the staff be less lenient? Will the staff be quicker to ban? What do you mean?

Rule 5 is redundant

 No.2688

File: 1538022688197.png (585.15 KB, 625x972, 625:972, mami-russian-alpha.png) ImgOps Google

Why is Rule 11 "Don't post illegal content" even up for a vote?  It's not like you'd let users post illegal shit even if a majority doesn't like the rule. :aj7:

 No.2689

File: 1538024021859.jpg (63.51 KB, 1008x1400, 18:25, kinder-ueberraschung.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2688
To me it seems like a silly rule.

I think I'm breaking it right now by posting something that is illegal in the United States? :fluf2:

 No.2690

>>2688
>>2689
Oh, right. It says content.
Guess I agree then.

But what content is illegal?

 No.2691

File: 1538025930643.jpg (17.48 KB, 494x353, 494:353, 1446698610063.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2690
>But what content is illegal?
Well, the big one is CP, but that's already covered by two other rules (the "no porn" rule and the "no sexualizing children" rule). So-called """obscene""" porn (under Miller) is also theoretically illegal, but again already covered by the "no porn" rule.

Hmm, so maybe Rule 11 doesn't actually ban anything that isn't already banned by other rules.  Maybe it's just a CYA for the site.  Anyone posting illegal shit already knows they're liable to be b& and v& regardless of site rules.

 No.2692

File: 1538033154914.jpg (17.33 KB, 300x168, 25:14, my_little_pony_friendship_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2691

There are plenty of illegal things that aren't sex related, like planning terrorist activities and tons of other stuff.

 No.2693

File: 1538068691838.jpg (442.47 KB, 1248x870, 208:145, Screenshot_20180927-085453.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2689
Actually, owning a Kinder Egg in the US is not illegal. Selling them as a food product is simply because of a FDA regulation that states no inedible substance shall be fully encased within an edible substance and sold as a food product.

This is probably the main reason that Fortune Cookies are not sealed but instead simply folded.

 No.2694

File: 1538082675222.png (56.52 KB, 671x549, 11:9, 27382__safe_rule-63_artist….png) ImgOps Google

>>2693

Didn't we have our own version at one point?  Were Wonder Balls banned, too?

 No.2695

>>2694
>wonder balls

a lost pony is unable to resist pointing out that we've got the biggest balls of them all.

 No.2696

File: 1538084629327.gif (207.97 KB, 320x180, 16:9, a6f08e8e8a749ba910213d8ddd….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2694
I'm not sure. The FDA ruling might be somewhat recent, like 80's or something. I'd actually have to look it up.

 No.2697

File: 1538088342673.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>2696

Well Wonder Balls were from the 90s, I think, so the ruling would have to be more recent than that.

 No.2698

File: 1538092269456.jpg (68.87 KB, 640x800, 4:5, 38097125_430169494144209_3….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2697
Decided to look it up.

"The FDA’s rule was challenged by Nestle, a Swiss company, in 1997 when it introduced Nestle Magic Balls. The balls consisted of a toy inside a plastic shell inside a chocolate shell, the same as Kinder Eggs. This did not sit well with the FDA, which declared that selling Nestle Magic Balls violated the 1938 act. Nestle then tried to lobby the U.S. government with no success. Within two months of first being sold, the candy was pulled from the stores. A couple of years later, Nestle rolled out a tweaked version of the balls called Nestle Wonder Balls. Except this time, the chocolate shells were filled with candy, making it legal."

 No.2699

File: 1538103011411.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google

>>2698

Well there we go, question answered.  Thanks.

 No.2700

File: 1538198019470.jpg (4.04 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 20180928_184518.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2699

The Resistance seems to be alive and breaking the law at Lucky's.

 No.2701

File: 1538198831741.jpg (241.63 KB, 852x719, 852:719, Screenshot_20180927-085447.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2700
Those are actually Kinder Surprise style candy, which are different from Kinder Eggs. Kinder Eggs are still banned in the US, however there is an offshoot called Kinder Surprise where half the egg is chocolate and the other half is a plastic shell with a toy inside. Since the chocolate doesn't fully cover the toy they are perfectly legal in the US.

 No.2702

>>2701
The label both says the "surprise" is "inside" and the product shots look like completely covered.

But probly its as you say in reality.  Damned loopholes.

 No.2703

>>2702
yeah, thats the POINT. They LOOK like they're normal Kinder Eggs, but they're not the exact same.

 No.2704

File: 1538236037348.png (224.86 KB, 600x500, 6:5, 1501325518397.png) ImgOps Google

Is the poll over now?  Will the results be available?

 No.2705

>>2704
The poll shall conclude on Monday, and i will post results then too c:

 No.2706

File: 1538259278991.jpg (187.37 KB, 1069x1264, 1069:1264, 20180929_014734-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2444
I voted.

Yes to banning obscenity while risque is ok,

No to ALL victim-punishing (goaded users)

No to ALL rules distinguishing "fetishistic" or "sexual fixation" from mainstream views on obscenity as same are ALL egregious violations of equality

NO emphatically!  On ALL statutory mandatory sentencing

Yes on no sexualizing minors as it is clearly the true motivating vehemence behind this proposed rules reformation.

Yes on rules board and hoofbook.

I hope any who still have not voted, defining an "undecided" class, will consider following my voting guidelines.

Remember you may vote the issues you care about and abstain on those you do not.

a lost pony loves you all (so run!)

 No.2707

>>2706
>No to ALL victim-punishing (goaded users)
The proposed rule is poorly worded, but Moony confirmed the victim isn't punished unless he commits a independent violation in responding to the bait.

 No.2708

>>2706
>No to ALL rules distinguishing "fetishistic" or "sexual fixation" from mainstream views on obscenity as same are ALL egregious violations of equality
Oh for crying out loud, not this again.  The adult content rules could have been stated more concisely (but also more vaguely) as "don't post adult content that would disturb/offend/annoy a typical person viewing it".  The fetish rule is just a elaboration that fetishistic content disturbs/offends/annoys people more than vanilla.  And yes, it's an artifact of our culture (e.g., if this was a Middle Eastern website, bare ankles might fall under the adult content rules), but that's just way that human beings work.

(And just to dispel some false assumptions that might be made from what I said above, let me say that I voted no for all but the two most lenient of the fetish rules.)

 No.2709

>>2708
In which case the additional wording to treat fetishistic content differently is at best redundant so needless and prejudicial.

It's not this "again" i'm expressing my view on it and only telling me that my opinion is wrong makes it "this again" so, have fun with that.


>>2707
In which case a separate codification only confuses the intent/enforceability of the rule

 No.2710

>>2708
>annoy
Does that mean I should just report everything that annoys me?  :fluf2:

 No.2711

>>2710
>>2710
That would probably annoy the mods and thus also be an offence.

 No.2712

>>2711
I'm offended at the offense!  I demand satisfaction.  :fluf5:

 No.2713

File: 1538284561826.jpg (403.03 KB, 1496x1698, 748:849, 20180929_003047-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2712
Reported for being offended.

 No.2714

>>2713  you took the bait!
>reported for taking the bait

 No.2715

>>2714
Under the new rules maybe you'll get grounded for baiting me and not just me for sperging out.  Tho in one version, i'll get grounded worse for being too dense to learn my feelings aren't actually hurt when you bait me.

You meanie.

 No.2716

>>2715  that's the one I voted for*!  b-b-b-b-baited  :fluf4:
*but not really

 No.2717

File: 1538328713005.gif (17.25 KB, 228x250, 114:125, giphy (5).gif) ImgOps Google

>>2716

Last day to lewd the place up before Da Man cracks down on us

 No.2718

File: 1538408460773.gif (432.94 KB, 489x489, 1:1, 2349A385-4C90-41F9-BB37-30….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2717
That day has passed.

 No.2719

File: 1538413905880.gif (198.24 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 486636__safe_artist-colon-….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2718
Nuh uhh.

Hey Moons what time does the poll close?  In case there are any stragglers.

 No.2720

>>2719
i'll probably close it at midnight tonight, and release results then c:

 No.2721

>>2720
Midnight in New York timezone (EDT)?

 No.2722

File: 1538440845951.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>2721
yes!

 No.2723

File: 1538449255733.jpg (63.18 KB, 650x550, 13:11, full (11).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2722

One hour to vote.  Make sure to bring your favorite graveyard to the polls.

 No.2724

>>2723
>graveyard
I'm trying to think what autocorrected to that, but I'm drawing a blank.

 No.2725


 No.2726

File: 1538461671686.jpg (73.55 KB, 665x883, 665:883, my_little_vampire_goth_pon….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2724
Its on purpose, joking about our fine American tradition of dead people voting.

>>2725
But i'm not dea-

 No.2727

sorry, i fell asleep last night :c

i will post the results in a bit


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]