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

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1099

File: 1496901249760.jpeg (787.35 KB, 1000x1390, 100:139, Megumin-Kono-Suba-3743812.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I was warned for >>>/pony/507860, and specifically Rules 6 and 11 were mentioned.  Respectfully, I would like to note that my post clearly does not even come close to violating Rule 11; not a single word in my post is even arguably an offensive slur.  

Rule 6 is: "Don't shitpost. We define shitpost as: threads that are purposely created to add nothing to the site, regurgitating spamlike content which is low in creativity, and with potential ill intentions that contribute negatively to the site."

Let me address each criterion.
"threads that are purposely created to add nothing to the site": The post was a reply, not a thread, and furthermore, at least IMHO, it was not completely devoid of humor value.  I realize that the site staff might disagree and hold that the post had zero or negative value, but that is inherently a very subjective judgement and little guidance is available in regards to how the site staff measures the value of posts.

"regurgitating spamlike content which is low in creativity": I think it should be fairly clear from my recent post history that I haven't been spamming or regurgitating posts substantially similar to that post.

"with potential ill intentions that contribute negatively to the site": I don't know how you are trying to infer my intentions, but I can assure they that they weren't ill.  It is apparent now that others didn't find my post as funny as I did, but that constitutes only a failure of judgement on my part, not ill intentions.

So, I would like to request additional guidance on what exactly the site staff finds objectionable about my post.  I realize it's not one of the finest posts on the site, and likely it's even in the bottom 10% of posts, but I don't see how it is even skirting the lines of the rules.

 No.1100

File: 1497333358336.png (205.73 KB, 425x422, 425:422, .png) ImgOps Google

I did not take offence to the post andfound the ban sort of surprising.

I can imagine where it comes from. Because the post is /pol/ trollbait-y, asserting that muslims are rapists (and those who allow them to be are cucklords who want to get raped).
Same could be towards Black people/hispanics/mentally handicapt/…
I think Ponyville definitely wants (and needs) to steer away from that culture, even if there's 'humour' that involves commentaries on muslims/immigrants/… in a meme-y way.

I don't know about your history and if you ever made similar jokes or threads.
But I would avoid posting jokes of that type. If anyone wants to discuss immigration and sorts of that, itb would require a well built serious thread without the memes.

 No.1101

>>1100
> asserting that muslims are rapists
Oh, is that how you interpreted it?  By "take your bodily fluids" I meant that terrorist bombings often exsanguinate at least some of the victims.

 No.1102

File: 1497381543138.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, shy fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

Hi anon. When it comes to the reports we receive, our rule as a staff is to err in favor of lenience whenever possible.

We received a number of different reports concerning your post, and i discussed the situation briefly with another moderator.

i opted to apply a warning, in lieu of a ban, as we have a fairly substantial post history of rule-skirting behavior and otherwise dismissed reports, for baiting, political derailing, and Rule 6 violations from you.

The only means the staff really has for interpreting ill intentions is to look at the record of posts and how a user chooses to interact with the site, and the community.

Anons as well, in particular, can be difficult to adjudicate, as many have switching IP addresses, without any sort of name or characteristic to link one anon's actions to another.

>>1101
we had at least three separate posters interpret your post as having meant this. i had interpreted it myself as shedding of blood.

The ambiguous thread OP post, combined with this obvious political statement, finally interpreted in light of both your post history, and the reports received both for the thread OP post, and the post in question, pushed this over the line from a dismissal, to a report requiring action. As we have issued warnings in the past, this was escalated to a ban, but de-escalated back to a warning, so as to be more in line with our preference for leniency.

i hope that our decision makes more sense now.


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