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

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

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

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1785

File: 1536566304449.png (153.02 KB, 487x584, 487:584, A_confused.png) ImgOps Google

So, if I'm going to be under this so-called "political ban" for how ever many months remain, I'm going to need one of you to specify what is and isn't "political". Because every day I am running the risk of violating the rules by not knowing. Does it only involve things related to the government? If so, which countries government? Since I don't live in Canada, could I discuss Canada's government? Or does it include other topics, and if so, which? For example, I would like to discuss the idea of "censorship" on the internet right now, but I don't know where it falls in these nebulous rules. Help a brother out, what is and isn't allowed?

 No.1786

Not a mod
But for you, you might consider staying out of American politics and sensitive themes like psychology and racial tensions.

I suppose stuff like DMV or drugs stuff can't be too bad?

 No.1787

>>1786
I am asssuming "American politics" is included under the ban. But I need confirmation and defined boundaries on those other topics. Banning me from discussing race in ANY capacity seems impossible, given I'm one of the few non-white posters on the board. So a boundary needs to be set. I'm not sure what DMV you mean, but "drugs" wouldn't seem to be included in a "political" ban. Neither would "psychology". Again, defined boundaries. To me, it seems the mods put this on me without actually discussing the limits of it just to shut me up. I need these things defined.

 No.1788

File: 1536618052863.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

Sorry for not making that clear, Manley. The definition we'll use is this one: politics = a person's opinions about how a country should be governed.

This means that there are a lot of politically relevant conversations that might be off limits to you, dear friend.

Please remember to report those who try to goad you into those conversations, and to try to resist engaging back.

 No.1789

>>1788
Ok, but first question: Does this pertain to ANY government, or just the US? And second, the way you just described, I would not be barred from discussing issues like racism or mental health, since those are not in relation to how a country is governed. And thirdly, what about the conversation on free speech that I was curious about. That CAN be "political" according to your criteria here, but it isn't exclusively political.

 No.1790

>>1788
How is >>>/pony/821766 considered political?   I don't think it is political to merely point out that those with a sufficient disposable income can trade a portion of it for sex (and for airfare to a suitable jurisdiction if it would be illegal in their home jurisdiction).

 No.1791

>>1790
I don't think it's simply about a lack of the act of sex with some people. There's emotional and self-esteem factors as well.

Your post looked like baiting because you are stating a controversial opinion as if it were a fact, ignoring other mitigating factors.

 No.1797

File: 1536971992239.jpg (59.59 KB, 540x733, 540:733, 1536538863927.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>1789
>Ok, but first question: Does this pertain to ANY government, or just the US?
I don't see why it wouldn't apply to other countries.  (Well, I suppose if you wanted to objectively discuss, e.g., the political situation of ancient Mesopotamia, or something else that nobody cares about and thus is unlikely to raise a shitstorm, that might be okay.)

>>1789
>And second, the way you just described, I would not be barred from discussing issues like racism
I'd guess that it depends on how closely your post is tied to political matters.

E.g., it would probably be okay for you to say something like, "Companies should try to recruit qualified minority candidates, because they represent an under-exploited talent pool that the company can profitably tap".  

But it might not be okay for you for you to say something like, "Companies should continue affirmative actions programs, in order to help achieve racial justice", because that is tied closely to politics.  (Why is it tied to politics?  Because achieving racial justice doesn't help maximize shareholder wealth, so the immediately obvious reasons why a company would participate is such a scheme is political: either the gov't forces it to (obviously political), or it does to avoid customer boycotts (also political).)

 No.1798

>>1790
I'd agree by large. Bait it definitely is, but, political bait probably not.

 No.1802

>>1797
I'd really like to hear the boundaries from someone on the modstaff, not a robot.

 No.1821

I'd just like to state in Manley's thread that Manley's been pretty nice lately.  Also he hasn't held a grudge against me for our past, seems to be a genuinely fun guy for the most part.

Not that he needs my approval or anything.

 No.2641

Cross reference:
>>>/canterlot/2082
>What i will say of Manley's political subject ban is this...
>Feminism, i think, is absolutely a political topic.

 No.2642

>>2641
That's still not a confirmation. That could just be Moony's opinion. If it is the official stance on the ban, Why wasn't that stated directly to me, and why haven't the mods given me warnings about that when it's come up? I think that's just YOU trying to make sure no one can talk about feminism on the board and to get me in trouble.

I cannot follow their rules if their rules are not made clear. it's their duty to make those rules clear, not punish me for violating rules I did not know existed. Stop trying to get me banned.

 No.2643

>>2642
>>2642
>That could just be Moony's opinion.
What's your point?  Moony is admin.  His word is law here.

>>2642
> think that's just YOU trying to ... get me in trouble.
No.  I am trying to STOP you from getting in trouble.

 No.2644

>>2643
That's not how it works. He would have to make an official statement as the admin of the site, which that post is not. It's him posting with his normal handle. So that could be his personal opinion. We do not have to take everything Moony says as personal opinion as absolute law. This is why he has the rules listed clearly.

Until Moony confirms that this was an official statement on the nature of my ban, I am going to continue to assume it was his personal opinion. and IF it is an official statement, then I will need him to clearly define the boundaries of my ban again with this new amendment added. This is not an unreasonable request.

 No.2645

>>2644
Or Moony might just decide that he doesn't have time to deal with the problems that you cause.  Then he might just ban you entirely if you can't figure out on your own how to avoid causing shitstorms.

You're not stupid, Manley.  Surely you have noticed that when you argue about controversial remotely political topics, the thread often ends up a dumpster fire.  Think to yourself about why.  And then avoid doing anything like that in the future.

 No.2646

>>2645
They put me under this ban, it's their responsibility to make it clear what it constitutes. Transparency is supposed to be important on this site.

>Think to yourself about why
I already know why. Because people take criticism of their ideals as judgement calls on themselves. They are unwilling to accept that some of the things they think and say might be harmful or incorrect, so they go on the defensive without ever listening to the counter-argument. And because the mod-staff here is unwilling to deal with the actual cause of the problem, people holding and spreading those harmful opinions.

Why else would a discussion about feminism devolve in the way that it did? Because of the way they reacted. Instead of addressing the argument, they tried to dismiss it without ever listening to it.

 No.2647

>>2646
>I already know why. Because people take criticism of their ideals as judgement calls on themselves.
If that's the best you can come up with, then simply never criticize people's ideals on this site.  That will solve the problem that your politics ban was intended to solve.

>>2646
> the actual cause of the problem, people holding and spreading those harmful opinions.
People holding and spreading harmful opinions isn't the problem.  People (including you) can do that in a civilized manner without causing the major shitstorms that cause mods to lock threads.  

 No.2648

>>2647
Yeah, that's not going to happen. You can't tell me not to challenge ideals that I find harmful. That would be an unrealistic request and go against my morals.

It IS the problem. We should not allow people to do that, and we should be allowed to call them out when they do. If this site is supposed to be welcoming to all people, then that is an issue that needs to be addressed. That IS the intended goal. Your solution (silence those who call out harmful opinions because people can't handle their opinions being challenged) is only going to invite the worst kinds of people to site and make it unwelcoming to many people.

 No.2649

>>2648
>Your solution (silence those who call out harmful opinions because people can't handle their opinions being challenged)
That's not my solution.  It was specific to you.

>You can't tell me not to challenge ideals that I find harmful. That would be an unrealistic request
Well then come up with a better answer to my question.  How can you engage in such argument without causing the shitstorms that you have been causing?

>>2646
>And because the mod-staff here is unwilling to deal with the actual cause of the problem, people holding and spreading those harmful opinions.
Your suggestion about "harmful" political opinions is completely unworkable.  Supporters of candidate X will surely think that opinions in favor of the opposing candidate Y are harmful and vice versa. You can't expect the mods to take a side in a political controversy.

 No.2650

>>2649
If your solution is specific to me, that's even worse. You seek to stifle the free speech of specific person and remove his ability to hold his moral viewpoints.

>How can you engage in such argument without causing the shitstorms that you have been causing?

I'm not the one causing them. People's reactions to their ideals being challenged is what's challenging them. Your question is wrong-headed. It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.


> You can't expect the mods to take a side in a political controversy.

No, but I can expect them to take a side in a moral quandary. If candidate (or group) X endorses drowning puppies, I can reasonably expect a person to take a pro or con drowning puppies stance. Their stance on drowning puppies exists outside the candidate or group endorsing it.

Anyway, I'm done arguing with you. If Moony or another member of the modstaff posts in this thread, I will discuss the matter with them. You have no authority over this ban or it's contents.

 No.2651

File: 1544861232401.gif (1.42 MB, 725x657, 725:657, 1117421__safe_solo_screenc….gif) ImgOps Google

>>2650
>and remove his ability to hold his moral viewpoints.
the "you disagree with me, therefore you are evil" viewpoint?
>People's reactions to their ideals being challenged is what's challenging them.
It's not even the ideals: you need to at least be able to come to an agreement on objective reality to have a conversation.  Things aren't true or untrue just because you say they are.
>If candidate (or group) X says promotes drowning puppies, I can reasonably expect a person to take a pro or con drowning puppies stance.
If [person Manley doesn't like] believes [random strawman of the day], and they most definitely do (since Manley says so), then mods should obviously ban that person and give Manley a medal for calling them out.  It's the only just thing to do in this situation.

 No.2652

File: 1544861693444.png (95.67 KB, 543x557, 543:557, 12382738849.png) ImgOps Google

>>2651
I don't want a medal for it. I don't even need recognition.

Seriously, though. That whole conversation was just me saying "(blank) is a problem, we need to acknowledge this problem." and you going "(blank) isn't a problem, it is just something made up by (imagined boogieman of the day)".

Look, I know you like to mock me so you can feel superior, but this isn't really the place to bring up old grudges. It's to discuss the boundaries of my political ban for the remaining weeks it exists.

 No.2653

>>2652  I believe you!  :aj7:
>and you going "(blank) isn't a problem, it is just something made up by (imagined boogieman of the day)".
You might need to go reread that thread if this is how you interpreted it.  oh wait, is this the new strawman of the day?

 No.2654

>>2653
This may shock you, but some people actually believe in things. I don't even know who you think I'm trying to "impress" by pretending to care about something.

 No.2655

Let's be honest Manley, the only reason why you want your politics ban to be so clearly defined is so that you can skirt around your ban and claim "I wasn't banned for that!".

Seriously, you know damn well what you're doing here. The vast majority of the time, you're singlehandedly responsible for threads devolving into political garbage due to you baiting political topics. And you keep doing it over and over, almost on a daily basis at this point. Hell, you were already doing it before Noonim showed up to keep arguing with you!

And honestly, after reading most of this, I'm absolutely convinced that you're doing it on purpose. I'm astounded by the fact that the mods have been and continue to be so rediculously lenient on you specifically. You've easily done enough damage for any other user to be permabanned twice over, and you're actively causing people to leave Ponyville because of your behaviour.

Although I was willing to look past it in other topics before, I've pretty much lost all respect for you at this point. Your presence on Ponyville contributes nothing, all you ever do is cause arguments and create divides between other users. You've had enough warnings, you've had enough opportunities to change, but you're just never going to change.

Mods, I plead with you. Just get rid of this guy. He's not going to stop with what he's doing. A temporary ban just means that he's going to come back later to do it again, and a ban on certain topics only means that he'll try to find ways to skirt around it. As proven by the topic of feminism, where Moony himself said it was political and therefore banned, yet Manley ignores it because Moony didn't make an "official statement". He's had plenty of opportunities, but enough is enough. Do what's best for Ponyville.

 No.2656

File: 1544877212592.png (72.62 KB, 292x198, 146:99, 4 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2646
>Why else would a discussion about feminism devolve in the way that it did? Because of the way they reacted. Instead of addressing the argument, they tried to dismiss it without ever listening to it
It's a bit the opposite, actually.
What always happens is, you come in, you ignore arguments that don't suit your purpose, you completely misrepresent arguments, and you make hostile accusations as you've done here with this anon >>2642
> I think that's just YOU trying to make sure no one can talk about feminism on the board and to get me in trouble.
>Stop trying to get me banned.
This type of behavior is detrimental to any discussion.
The gamergate thread is a great example to this sort of thing.

You immediately assumed negative intention, deciding I was being some kind of manipulator posting so much you couldn't respond. That's obviously not true.
You also decided to ignore what my argument was, even having the audacity to say, and I quote, " All I've heard you say is "This video is biased" and "this video tells lies" without actually addressing what those lies ARE.", completely ignoring the post that YOU responded to,YOU linked to, which literally said exactly what those lies are, "Literally a few seconds in, and he's already saying complete and utter lies, such as Gamergate supposedly labeling anyone outside of gamergate as "anti gamergate", and taking a directly hostile position assuming the absolute worst with shitty questions like "was gamergate openly mysoginistic, or a bunch of frusterated gamers misdirecting their anger"."

Unfortunately, the administration here doesn't seem to do anything about rule 1 violations, so, you can continue to call people jerks, say they're cruel, claim they're trying to get you banned or manipulating things, and we're the ones who get in trouble for some fucking reason.

 No.2657

File: 1544877501740.png (58.2 KB, 223x195, 223:195, 7 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2650
> It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" question.
Hillarious, given that whole gamergate thread was predicated on this idea, by you. As Boat had said.

Anyway; You are the one who causes these fights, when you go in making shitty accusations, insulting other users, and refusing to give them any kind of benefit of the doubt or simple consideration. You just automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you is evil, cruel, a jerk, and so on.

I've had disagreements and arguments with countless people on this site.
None of them have resulted in what arguments with you always end up with.
Unfortunately, mods seem to do fuck all about my reports, at this point. I guess LP was right when it comes to that stuff.

 No.2659

>>2654
This is also part of the issue.
You constantly making up conversations to respond to, instead of what has actually been said.
Often called "strawmanning".

 No.2661

>>2655

Linking this post again to keep it at the mods' attention. Something has to be done at this point, because what you're doing now clearly is not working.

 No.2662

>>2648
>You can't tell me not to challenge ideals that I find harmful.

Not only are we technically capable of requesting this, but it has been specifically requested!

>>2656
>>2651
>>2652

Arguing about past arguments is also off limits.  And that goes for all three of you.  That's just a lot of personal emotional baggage that you should either drop entirely or find a way to work it out off-site.

 No.2663

File: 1544878977507.png (13.75 KB, 345x382, 345:382, I feel the cosmos.png) ImgOps Google

>>2655
>>2661

And just to put out a response instead of silence, we are aware, yes.

 No.2664

File: 1544879199036.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2662
Riiight, because it's totally productive to discuss a major issue with a user, without being able to actually bring up the REASONS for issues with that user.
Especially when he's the one bringing it up, in the first place, trying to blame everyone else for what he ultimately does.

Look, you can call it "emotional baggage" if you want. It wouldn't be a problem if you actually enforced the rules. At the moment, the only thing you guys ever seem to do is defend Manley. And for the life of me, I can't understand why.
Like, does the guy have some kind of blackmail on Mooney, or is he his brother, or something?

 No.2665

File: 1544879572253.png (264.26 KB, 467x479, 467:479, 134555217539.png) ImgOps Google

>>2664
Manley has had more warnings and bans than any other poster. Just because he's not always wrong doesn't mean he's never wrong. And you are baiting the staff right now.

 No.2666

File: 1544879639956.png (219.49 KB, 1600x1239, 1600:1239, scootaloo_____huh____by_th….png) ImgOps Google

>>1789
I think you can safely say that discussion of any country's government or relating topics, after the year 1900, are off limits. prior to that would be fine.

I would caution you to avoid topics like racism or mental health, as they are volatile and due to your particular style of debate, may get you into trouble. However, I do not believe they fall under the stipulations of a political ban.

>>1802
I think what Anon said is perfectly reasonable.

>>2642
We as the modstaff, being the caretakers of Moony's brainchild, do try to cater the rules to Moony's preferences. We did discuss this, and feminism has been deemed a political topic, and as such falls under the stipulations of your political ban
I do not think Anon was trying to get you banned. Please do not be hostile toward other posters.

>>2650
Whether or not you are right about people's reasons for getting upset about their ideals being challenged, you are at least partially responsible for many of the heated arguments. As we've discussed, you have a habit of misinterpreting something that was said, and inadvertently creating a strawman. I have cautioned you on a personal level, and now I must caution you on a professional level. Be aware of what it is you are saying, and be very aware of what is being said to you. You are not completely at fault, as it takes two to argue, but you must be careful in your arguments, to be sure you are truly addressing what the other person is saying.

>>2651
I understand that Manley has a tendency to be abrasive, but responding in kind is probably not best.

>>2652
Do not insult the other posters, Manley.

 No.2667

File: 1544879848293.jpg (82.83 KB, 313x294, 313:294, 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2665
Really? Because I call out shit, I'm "baiting the staff"? Seriously?

I've reported Manley multiple times, and jack shit is ever done about it, besides locking threads down. Which of course isn't productive in the slightest, because, if you actually enforced Rule 1, it wouldn't've been necessary. You could've simply told Manley to behave, and it'd be a done deal.

If Manley's had so many warnings and bans, why the hell does he still get away with this shit?
Why can he call people jerks, say they're being cruel, and make up all kinds of shit about them, with absolutely no mod doing a thing about it?

And isn't this shitty accusatory response the same issue we've had in the past, you and I?
You know I hate being accused of shit I'm not doing. It's generally a dick move to do, and I had thought that's why you apologized for it, last time.

 No.2668

>>2667
you are being intentionally accusatory. There are tactful ways to address problems with the staff. Whether intentional or not, this sort of inflamatory post is meant to get an emotional response. I.e. baiting. Please be more polite to the powers you're trying to convince to be on your side.
I do not think you are aware of how often I do tell Manley to behave.
Many issues are complex, and what sets off a long argument can be subtle and hard to find for a third party.
Anyone hates being accused of things they haven't done. Being rude to the modstaff is not the way to be heard. I will not warn you again.

 No.2669

File: 1544880820272.jpg (53.68 KB, 278x278, 1:1, 22.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2668
It's not "meant" to get an emotional response. But, you're right, I shouldn't be so aggressive.

I didn't see you say anything to him in >>>/pony/889766 , or the gamergate thread. From my perspective, it does genuinely seem to be that he's getting preferential treatment, as according to >>>/rules/2 ,
>"Third Degree offenses are the least serious, and shall be met with multiple warnings, only to be escalated if the behavior immediately continues, or if the behavior occurs multiple times from the same user over a reasonable period of time, or if the behavior causes enough disturbance on site to warrant substantial staff attention "
which would've seemed to suggest, given how it's happened so many times, it's extremely disheartening as a user who has been singled out in the past that Manley seems to never get issue.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as rude. This issue has been a long time coming, and, I've yet to see anything done about it. Maybe I've missed where you have, but, it seems to me Manley's destroyed quite a large number of threads with this exact behavior you in >>2666 are warning him against.

I'm certainly not the only user who's been significantly hurt by him, and is displeased with the way these matters are handled.
I know at the very least both LP and Boat had made mention of it in Mooney's heart-to-heart.

Is this something I need to start gathering evidence for? Something I should simply start clipping every time I see these issues happen, archive the thread, and seek out effected user's statements? Would that cause change?
I'm genuinely asking here. If that's what it takes, as much work as it'd be, I'd be more than happy to do it.
I'm not here trying to cause trouble. I'm here wanting a problem to be addressed. If I can, I will be more than happy to put in the effort to stop this type of problem. So, would a large collection of these rule violations be enough to warrant more than the rare verbal warning for someone who has supposedly had countless warnings and bans?

 No.2670

File: 1544881170695.png (416.45 KB, 2915x3079, 2915:3079, scootaloo_is_unimpressed_b….png) ImgOps Google

>>2669
>Is this something I need to start gathering evidence for?
Actually that would be a lot of help. I can't be everywhere, and even with a full and active staff we don't catch everything. Having a list of known grievances would help identify problem behaviors and find effective ways to fix and prevent them, rather than having to retroactively issue warnings and bans.

I do appreciate you taking the time to be tactful with this post. It's much easier to communicate this way.

 No.2671

>>2670
Fair enough. I guess I'll start a google doc. I'll start it from this point on, as, it'd probably be a tad unfair to add things retroactively.

 No.2672

File: 1544881315169.png (31.89 KB, 363x468, 121:156, I don't know the answer to….png) ImgOps Google

>>2669
>I didn't see you say anything to him in >>>/pony/889766 , or the gamergate thread.

I gotta be straight here, we all agreed to do something about the Gamergate thread, but we've all had busy exhausting weeks, so after agreeing about what should be done we passed out and no one did anything.  Then we kept not doing anything, because we all remembered that we definitely did something.

It's the weekend now, and we're going to be doing things.  I do apologize for the ramshackle week on our part.

 No.2673

>>2672

Tag fell off there, sorry.

 No.2674

>>2671
make sure to include screencaps if you can. links can 404 if enough time passes

 No.2675

File: 1544881664126.png (160.82 KB, 394x311, 394:311, FEEEEEEEEEEELLS.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2672
Fair enough. It's understandable if you've got lives to live.  It's been a rather busy week for me, as well, and, that's probably why I'm so exhausted by this stuff.

I'll try to properly put something together. Though, keep in mind, it'll be based off of my understanding of rule 1, so, it might be getting in some extra stuff, or potentially lacking some things.
Part of why I'd like to get other user's inputs, if I can. Though, I imagine that'd be a tad difficult. Guess I'll have to be a tad more socialable and actually get discords.
>>2674
That's the plan, along with archiving the threads.

 No.2678

>>2655
That is a completely unfair accusation. I want to know the boundries of the ban... so I can follow the ban. NOT knowing what the boundries are is going to lead to the situation you described, not knowing them. If the mods don't want me to talk about feminism, then that needs to be included. Because if I don't know that's off limits, I'm going to talk about it.

And the rest of this post is just bitching about me to try and get me banned... so I assume it wasn't directed at me.

>>2662
So in essence you are asking me not to care about things. I'm not sure you realize this is an unreasonable request.

 No.2679

>>2666
>We did discuss this, and feminism has been deemed a political topic

You did not discuss this with ME. Not once. Despite this thread being here specifically for that purpose, and having several opportunities to warn me about the included topics when they have come up.

However, if it is the ruling of the staff that feminism is included in my "political" ban, then I will comply. But I would like to request a complete list of what topics are officially included in the ban. I would also like to request an explination as to why "feminism" is considered a "political" topic, given the definition of "political" I was given in >>1788. If feminism is now included under my political ban, then a new definition of "political" is needed, since feminism does not fall under "a person's opinions about how a country should be governed".

As for your other point, I can't control how other people respond to something I say. If I say "I like cats" or I defend cats by saying "Cats actually make good pets, and it's a rumor that they are always mean" and someone comes and says "Fuck you, no one really likes cats! It's just a ploy by the Cat-Lover's guild to get more cats into people's houses!" ...What can a person reasonably do about that? I can't stop liking cats or thinking that they are good pets. You guys are in essences asking me to fold my arms and let people shit-talk cats as much as they want because challenging them will "cause heated arguments".

>Do not insult the other posters, Manley.
Which part of that post was an "insult"?


>>2672
The fact that the mods failed to do their jobs isn't anyone's fault but theirs. It was someone's duty to say "Feminism has been deemed off-limits for you, so end this conversation." or step in to stop all the people attacking me for breaking the rules. None of you did what you were supposed to.

 No.2681

>>2678

If you really believe that feminism is not a big political topic, especially in this day and age, then you are either stupid or lying. Consider it a kindness that I'm assuming the latter.

As for the rest, you may call it "bitching", but that doesn't disregard that none of it is wrong. I'm far from the only one who feels like this, and I'm sure even you realise that nothing of what I've said is incorrect.

 No.2682

>>2679
If that were an accurate example, then, by all means. But, of course, that isn't what is going on at all.
you aren't merely saying that you like cats, and your opponents aren't saying that liking cats is a ploy nobody actually does.

If somebody is responding with a big "fuck you" at the start of their argument, without being humorous in their content, I would recommend reporting them. As that should definitely be a violation of rule one.

 No.2683

>>2679
You're right. We didn't discuss it with you. That's our fault. I apologize for our failure on that part. Here now, is your official statement. Feminism has been deemed a political topic, under the stipulations of your political ban.

We will try to get a list of official topics for you, but in the meantime, what >>1797 said should keep you pretty well in the clear.

No one is telling you not to uphold your ideals. You just need to make sure you didn't accidentally change what someone said in your head.


> I know you like to mock me so you can feel superior
This is pretty insulting.

>>2681
Ebon, you're not allowed to insult others either.

 No.2684

>>2681
Moony described "political" as "a person's opinions about how a country should be governed". I agree with this definition and it's the one I use in my day-to-day life. Feminism is not inherently political, because it can apply to things that are not government related. Like video games. "Controversial" is not the same as "political". IF my ban is a "controversial topics" ban, then I need a list of what topics they consider "controversial", because that varies from person to person.

 No.2686

>>2683
Transparency is supposed to be important on this site. I cannot follow your rules if you do not make those rules clear to me. Otherwise it leads to people like >>2655 accusing me of trying to skirt the rules. This isn't fair to me.

In any case, while I will still follow this new ruling, I would like an explanation for how feminism is a "political" topic, since it does not appear to mesh with the definition to "political" I was given by Moony. So I either need an explanation as to how it does, OR I need to be given a new, more through definition for "political". If any of the other topics from the official list have this problem, who do I contact to go through the same process with them?

>This is pretty insulting.
How? He IS mocking me and has done so in the past. Is it JUST the speculation as to his reason for doing so that's insulting? Would "I suspect so you can feel superior" have been acceptable?

 No.2689

>>2686
>Would "I suspect so you can feel superior" have been acceptable?

In my opinion, yes

 No.2691

>>2689
It's certainly a lot better, though still a tad rude, I'd say, given its shoving intentions on someone like that.

 No.2692

>>2691
Mm...I don't know. I wouldn't mind getting into it more, but I don't want to derail the thread, and I have to go to work.

 No.2693

>>2692
Fair enough. If you'd like to later, this sort of discussion is exactly why I made my thread, so, we could talk about it there.
I'm sure most this will be up still when you're back. Ponyville is a tad slow after all

 No.2701

>>2689
In my experience, people ascribing negative intentions to others is responsible for a lot of negativity in politics threads.  So I suggest completely avoiding doing that.

 No.2705

>>1785
>I'm going to need one of you to specify what is and isn't "political".
I'd say anything that a politician might campaign on.  

 No.2721

>>2701
>>2701
I actually misread his sentence at the time, and I thought he said "better", not "acceptable", so yes I can somewhat agree.


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