[ 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.1975[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1541036956022.png (354.89 KB, 827x969, 827:969, remy_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

Unfortunately I'm posting this from my phone, so I'll be a tad clumsy with this thread, undoubtedly, but, I'm afraid the post eliceted a rather sharp reaction, and, while I'm sure it'd be best to wait until I get home, that's in a lot of time, and I simply do not have the will to ignore something like this.
I am, of course, referring to !!Scootaloo's post here http://ponyville.us/pony/res/849668.html#857859 (pardon the lack of quality crosspost; I was never good at those).

Not only was it incredibly insulting, I had no chance to explain myself or give my own story. Instead, I was berated publicly, for all to see, on something that I simply do not believe to be true.

As I'm sure you can understand, it's thoroughly embarrassing, generally stressful, and, naturally, enraging.

If these sorts of judgements must be made, please, keep them at the very least private, and give a chance to reply. Instead, I have to make this thread, which undoubtedly only further sets us at odds, as I'm certain now all parties feel insulted.

This did not need to happen. I am, and always will be, completely open to discussion from anyone, on any issues between us. While I am certainly bullheaded, you can ask Mikie for confirmation on that, I am also always willing to communicate past differences or issues. Again, Mikie can confirm that.

All in all, I should hope no user needs be berated and publicly shamed like this, and certainly would hope it is not standard practice.

 No.1976

File: 1541041486819.png (188.8 KB, 614x722, 307:361, diana_diana_lalalala____by….png) ImgOps Google

>>1975
I gotta agree with Noonim.  In a thread where the current topic is focused on matters related to politics, Manley shouldn't be allowed make accusations that a person is trying to bait him (when that person's post is a perfectly reasonable and on-topic reply) like Manley did here:
>>>/pony/857149
>You brought up a political point on purpose to try and get me in trouble.

I just looked over the last few screenfuls of that thread, IMHO Noonim did nothing wrong (except various speech-to-text mistranscriptions).  

And feminism [1] an inherently political topic anyway, so Manley should have been stopped much sooner in that thread anyway.

[1] "Feminism" is defined as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes".

 No.1977

>>1976
I definitely lost my cool earlier, a ways up in the thread. It's why Manley rekindled that thread, as it was used as an example for that ends.
Perfectly happy to admit that, but, of course, that's largely been settled.

 No.1988

As I see it there's a number of logistical problems involved in a situation like this.

The mod in question might not have both yours and Manley's personal contact information yet will feel obliged to deliver warnings in a timely manner and in a way that is transparent.

When a warning is given, a reasoning for this warning should also be included, otherwise, how is the user to know which behavior elicited the warning? The only way that a reasoning for a warning can be given in a timely manner every time is if it's done public. So unfortunately that is the system right now, love it or hate it.

Since no one is trained in any sort of response protocol, and everyone is operating on a volunteer basis, the contents of warnings will vary.

>>1976
Part of this problem is that political posting is so insanely hard to define. Just because the dictionary definition of feminism includes the word political doesn't mean that every discussion that detours around feminism has to be considered a political one. Perhaps we cannot expect anyone to know, when a discussion is political and when it is not with absolute certainty.

 No.1990

File: 1541078350904.png (264.26 KB, 467x479, 467:479, 134555217539.png) ImgOps Google

I'll be the first to admit if I feel I've acted rashly. Part of the reason I locked the thread for a full day was to allow time for discussion of the problem before we took action. I don't know everyone on this site, so I pushed for discussion within the mod chat to hear various viewpoints and analysis of the situation before any sort of action was taken.

The reason no chance was given for discussion is for the reason Rose has already stated. Multiple informal warnings were given during the thread, asking that the discussion be handled civilly, and a formal warning was given (with kid gloves, I might add) well before the thread was locked. All attempts to quell the argument were ignored, and that reflected badly on all parties. Anyone could have simply stepped away at any time, opting to discontinue a discussion that was clearly getting nowhere. But it continued, and as was discussed, it was clear that neither party was interested in the actual topic. This is why no room was left for discussion. It is not our goal to publicly shame users; you are right to say that this did not need to happen. Multiple warnings were given, and ignored. This was simply a more forceful and stern warning, and I see that being fully unable to continue discussion has finally gotten your attention.

You might take notice of the fact that you have not received a ban for this. If you would like to discuss what led to this and might be done to avoid a ban in the future, the floor is open.

 No.1991

File: 1541084415357.jpeg (152.92 KB, 1177x903, 1177:903, 1540852567580.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Nobody is judging you for having the mods lock the thread. What people are judging you for is 11 days and 300 posts of bickering over literally nothing.

 No.1993

File: 1541093859984.png (153.86 KB, 642x613, 642:613, tumblr_o743mxQdGR1tdv657o7….png) ImgOps Google

>>1988
I was thinking more asking in any odd thread for that, but, sure.

My complaint is that the warning, in this instance, was incredibly rude, rather hostile, and altogether untrue.
>>1990
I understand warning users with items that are true, however, this type of negative assumption of intention without any way of responding except creating a thread, and drumming up no doubt animosity and drama, is extremely unpleasant.

You accused me of simply wanting to "prove the other is morally invalid", of not actually wanting to make any discussion, simply wanting to discredit my opponent.
From my perspective, this is a flat out lie.
This is not true.
This is incredibly insulting, and now, it's up for everyone to see. Something I can't actually give a defense for, and something only people who see this thread can know that I take exception to.

I'm not sure what warnings you're talking about, unfortunately, either, as the only ones I saw were from Thorax, and, that was after he basically got called in from my reports, as Manley was accusing me of baiting him.
Unless you mean way earlier, in which case, I'd remind you this thread was rekindled due to a different thread.

In any case; My contention here is that you made a big post that was incredibly insulting, without letting me respond,
Maybe this wasn't your intention, but, that's what happened. Maybe you thought what you said was true, but, it certainly doesn't seem that way to me. I'm very touchy about these sorts of things, especially when I can't respond, and, frankly, this type of thing is far worse to me than any ban.  

 No.1994

File: 1541094079010.png (121.54 KB, 316x290, 158:145, 6.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>1991
Judge away for that, at least it's true.
My complaint is the accusation of trying to "prove that the other is morally invlaid", not caring about discussion, and simply "attempting to discredit your opponent".
It's a shit accusation, and one I was given no chance to respond to. It's incredibly insulting, deeply embarassing, and now, still, it's up for all /pony/goers to see, still without a way for me to defend myself there. Undoubtedly most users do not use /canterlot/, so they can't even see my defense.

Saying "You guys made 300+ posts over nothing" is fine. Saying that I'm just "attempting to discredit my opponent", or that I'm just wanting to prove that the other's "morally invalid", isn't.
That's deeply insulting.

 No.1997

>>1994
I feel your pain, Noonim.  I was one of the previous posters to get caught up in dealing with Manley's goading when he accused me of being a school shooter.  I felt isolated and invalidated that no one jumped in to assert violation of Rule 0 opting instead to let me feel more and more offended and then be the one singled out for punishment.

Seeing it happen from the outside, in the current case, i can understand why the community acted that way.  It's very hard to sort out the competing textwalls to even figure out what is going on.

I know your feelings are hurt and you are outraged.  Believe i know it from personal experience here.  But please try not to dig the whole deeper by feeling singled out and reacting against everyone over it.  You can only make things worse for yourself, as i did.  I know a majority of the staff wanted to permaban me over just such an issue as this.  You can't make things better by arguing against the staff's action, but by cutting your losses and de-escalating a situation that the community wants to put behind them.  Please apply the principle of sacrifice for the greater good here, regardless of how unjustly treated you feel.

>>1990
I too wonder where those warnings are, as i've stated to Rose.  If you have links to them handy, it would move this discussion along rather than my digging to find them because between Moony's understated warning and yours at the end, i noticed none and i was watching much of the time.

Feminism and vitriol over perceived anti-feminists are absolutely political topics, and i have noticed that Mr. Manley gets in moods where he wants to fight.  The thread at issue is far from the only contemporary example of this, even in his tea thread just look at the tone of the OP.

I feel that this was allowed to go on far, far too long in direct and egregious violation of both Rule 0 and Mr Manley's political argument prohibition.  There were countless opportunities for mod staff to clarify that to him for several days as this continued.

The lack of stern warnings for violation of Rule 0 is, in my opinion, the very root of situations like this.  As i was made to suffer for the same reason, so have Noonim and Manley suffered as well as the several members of the community during this debacle.  Just imagine coming to Ponyville for the first time during the last days to see this going on.  Would such a new person want to stay?

If both these posters are permabanned, and the next two, and the two after that, this problem will continue until the staff here understands the fundamental disconnect between the stated ideals in the constitution and rules, and the fundamental lack of timely enforcement of the top stated principle known as Rule Zero:  BE KIND.

This is not going to stop happening until mod staff is willing to drop into a thread in official capacity much earlier on and sinply say, "BE KIND.  This is not kind.  Stop now." etc.

Moony you have when discussing the law of the US pointed out that what is enforced is the law, not what is said.  The new rules have been an exercise in trying to legislate away an enforcement problem.  If the rule so important as to be named RULE ZERO because it is our most dearly held principle is not timely enforced, the community will continue to suffer.  You have now again seen the results of your "leniency":  people got further hurt.  Instead of politely tiptoeing into that thread and then turning away as the fires burned, you might have instead donned your admin label and dictated from on high that any who continued to break Rule Zero would invoke your immediate and stern response.  Then check back in 15 minutes later and if ignored, issue something like Scootaloo's last post in that thread.

 No.1998

>>1997
I don't intend to argue the action taken, in so far as that the thread was locked and me and Manley were warned [though warned for what, exactly, I still don't really know], I'm just taking issue with what intentions were ascribed, in my mind falsely.
I certainly understand the overarching reasoning, as far as large fights with Manley go, but, that's no cause to be mean, put bluntly.

 No.1999

File: 1541097151992.jpg (24.64 KB, 168x143, 168:143, 13.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The only "official" warning I seem to be able to find was >>>/pony/856924 which, near as I can tell anyway, from my position seemed to be met.

If this is what constitutes an "official warning", it'd probably be far better to be more clear about what, specifically, is the issue, if evidently it's just flat out arguing at all in this case, it seems.

 No.2001

>>1999
I didn't see that warning.

In my opinion, it should have been followed soon thereafter with another one saying that the mod did not feel it had been complied with so it's more clear to the participants.


Nooms you can discord me if you want lostpony#4682

 No.2002

File: 1541098224278.png (127.44 KB, 252x305, 252:305, 13.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2001
I just mean to say that there weren't really any insults near as I could tell until Manley accused me of trying to get him banned. Which, truthfully, isn't so much an insult, as it is insulting and untrue, so, even there, I wouldn't necessarily count it.

Though, thinking about it, it also demonstrated a rather sharp misunderstanding of the conversation, saying we were focused too heavily on "winning or trying to drive off people who disagree". That was certainly not my intention, and I don't think Manley would want to "drive me off", either.

 No.2003

Why is this my evening...


>>1997
>I too wonder where those warnings are, as i've stated to Rose.  If you have links to them handy, it would move this discussion along rather than my digging to find them because between Moony's understated warning and yours at the end, i noticed none and i was watching much of the time.
I'll dig through it, and find the ones I remember.

I think these are the ones you might have missed.
http://ponyville.us/pony/res/849668.html#856924
http://ponyville.us/pony/res/849668.html#850880
http://ponyville.us/pony/res/849668.html#850895

 No.2004

File: 1541100617929.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2003
Right, so for the first one, I did see that, however, see >>1999 and I guess >>2002
Basically, that warning was met. We for the most part didn't run in to the issue of insults after that point, outside of like I said Manley's accusation, which I still wouldn't say was really the same tier, as it isn't an insult, just insulting.

The 2nd one isn't a warning at all, in the slightest. Also, you repeated the link twice. But, suffice to say, that's just someone asking why we're arguing. And, I answered, saying I don't enjoy yelling at Manley, and I don't hate him.
Oh, and of course that was the 21st. Long before the thread was revived.

 No.2005

>>1976
I have tried to get a clear and definite definition of what "politics" means in the context of my ban, in this thread here: >>1785
But I did not get much clarification.

As far as I am aware, it only pertains to the activities associated with the governance of the United States of America. Since several mods saw me debating feminism and did not say anything, this seems to be the case as far as I can tell. You're definition of "political" is too vauge, and would render the ban meaningless. I would be barred from discussing anything that has person-to-person consequences. I'd still be open to clear and defined terms on the ban, and the addition or clarification of certain topics, but the ban expires sometime in January anyway.

 No.2006

>>1997
>Mr. Manley gets in moods where he wants to fight.

Um, if you've got a vendetta against me, this is not the place to voice it. There is no reason for you to jump in and make this three-on-one when it's clear that the issue has been dealt with. the two of you are more concerned with proving that the other is morally invalid than you are with discussing the topic at hand CLEARLY applies to Noonim in that thread. He refused to listen to my side over and over, instead choosing to insult my intelligence every time I tried to make a point.  I'm willing to admit that I should not have engaged him, knowing he would not listen and take the same punishment he does.

 No.2007

>>2004
Look I'm not going to get into this discussion today. Probably not later either. Your thoughts are noted, though.

 No.2008

>>2005
That clarification was here:
>>1788

It's clear that hot-button political lobby issues like feminism, antifeminism, etc are pertinent to how "a country should be governed", as you yourself acknowledged by refraining from discussing Kavanaugh and the allegations of sexual misconduct.

But i agree, a staff member should have clarified this for you in the discussion about feminism/antifeminism.  Lack of intervention on that did imply it wasn't off limits, and perhaps it wasn't.  I would argue that they way this turned out demonstrates exactly why that is an included political issue.

>>2004
I agree Mondo's two attempts do not constitute official mod action for reasons including lack of mod label and lack of command tone.  He was acting in good faith as a poster, not as a mod.  In my view.

>>2006
I was stating my observations that any can see.  I do not have a vendetta against you, and the way you phrased your objection to my opinion demostrates my point exactly.  I don't wish to debate you and support my observstion with countless examples.  If a staff member asks me to support my position, i will.  Otherwise it stands as my opinion and i won't argue with you about it.

It has been my position that staff not warning you sooner about this argumentativeness is a disservice to you, effectively giving you a enough rope to hang yourself and if i had a vendetta against you, i would also stand by and watch instead of pointing out what i believe is a bad mood that harms you.  If you disagree, then i won't push the point.

 No.2009

File: 1541103047154.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2007
That's fine. I'm here because I felt the statements in that thread were, flatly, rude. Not because of the actual punishments that culminated, though I would absolutely prefer more clarity on what exactly is being warned.

The only reason I am here, making this thread, is because I felt thoroughly insulted, and was given no chance to respond to what I felt was fundamentally untrue.

 No.2010

>>2008
I only refused to discuss Kavanaugh because he is now officially a member of the US government. Not because it was a "feminist" issue (although I disagree on your characterization of it as such)

I still don't it's a "political" issue just because it comes up in politics. Lots of things are discussed by politicians that would not make them "political". Violence in video games is also discussed by politicians, but I'm allowed to discuss that.

>>2008
"Mr. Manley gets in moods where he wants to fight." Is NOT an observation. It's an assertion you've made on my state of mind that you can't possibly know definitively based on your opinion of me. And that's just ONE example of you doing just that that I can see.

 No.2011

File: 1541103449603.png (371.66 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2005
This is ultimately why I've never worried about it, to begin with. I don't know what your ban specifically covers, and so I don't really spend much care towards it.
>>2006
You also refused to listen, but, I don't agree that either of us was after trying to make the other "morally invalid". And I certainty don't accept the "attempting to discredit your opponent" lot.

I've tried quite hard to listen to you, and I think overall, at least in that thread, we got around a fair bit of the issue. But, regardless of the listening aspect, I don't think either of us were doing what Scootaloo said we were.

Don't you find it all a bit insulting? A tad humiliating, that you weren't even given a chance to defend yourself? That this accusation was leveled for all to see, without a single way to say "Hey, this isn't right!" that others can see in the same way?

 No.2012

File: 1541103686099.png (313.92 KB, 945x827, 945:827, anna_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2008
More or less how I saw it. It looked to me that Mondo was trying to defuse the situation, as a fellow poster, not as a mod's official warning.
>>2010
>It's an assertion you've made on my state of mind that you can't possibly know definitively based on your opinion of me.
Not to really raise the issue here since that's ultimately not what this thread's for, but, you realize this is my issue with your accusation of saying I was trying to "get you in trouble", right?
I agree that it's not a fair characterization, though. I don't think you like to get in to fights, myself.

 No.2013

>>2011
I find the fact that your indifference to my political ban puts me in that position more insulting and humiliation, honestly.

If you bring up topics like Kavanaugh, ones that I can't comment on, it puts me in a position no one else is in and makes you look like you are in the right because you have no opposition. How else am I supposed to take that situation other than you trying to abuse my limitations when it benefits you directly and humiliates me? I don't think it's outside reason to consider it's done purposefully. Boat even said something smug like "That sounds like a personal problem" after doing it, further reinforcing the idea that it is intentional.

As for this issue, I don't agree with the assertion that I was trying to "prove that the other is morally invalid", No. I WAS honestly trying to make a point to you, because I thought I could actually could. But you're force-fields are up way too high for that to be a reality. You're never going to convince me the things you think are bad are bad, and i'm never going to convince you that the things I think are good are good. But it matters MORE to me than just a matter of personal pride it is to you, because I see people who think like you do and make the same excuses you do being put in positions of power and making rules and laws that directly affect me and my family. That's something you'll never experience and that's why you can't see the truth. So I'm ok with this decision because I'm not going to be debating you anymore. I need to focus my efforts on people who might actually be confused and considering what they think is wrong. Who might actually listen. Not people only interested in proving that what they think is right. Were you ever actually interested in changing my mind, or just defending your position? I think that's the difference between you and I. I feel like you always saw it as an attack, so you always went hard defensive. You even mention "defending your position" here.  I'm ok with this ruling because I hope that this ruling will keep you from trying to debate me. That way the issue of whether or not you're intentionally trying to bait me will be a moot point.

 No.2014

i've heard it said that offense is on the listener, but empathy is on the speaker.

And speaking frankly, in that thread, you two got out of line more than once. You both know the score: this is like the problem that never ends.

Only, we have rules now that better define how far is too far, and what to do when that happens.

Lenience hasn't helped, nor has talking, with this issue of extremely uncivil behavior in political discussions.

i understand the frustration in having a member of the staff call you out in doing something that may not have been your intention.

i find that to be a rather semantic argument though: regardless of what your intentions were, you came across, both of you, as behaving in that way.

Offense is on the listener, but the empathy: the power to perceive the effects of your words on others, is on you. If your objective was -not- to sink the other person's moral battleship, then the effect was lost on the unbiased observer.

You both know i go to great lengths to keep our website politically neutral when i can. i do not like censorship. i love that we can have different perspectives.

But i cannot abide by the fighting. Scootaloo was calling a spade a spade. The discourse had moved far past the point of reason. What would allowing excuses to be written up do, but further the dramatic discourse?

As far as i am concerned, there must be a line to draw, and if we do not draw it here, firmly, i cannot see our new rules successfully coming into effect.

You've both been warned now: note the order of bans, and please, for goodness sake, be civil.

If you want to discuss or debate, do it with me, in private. My email is always available, and i can send you my discord as well.

>>2013
Manley, please don't continue your scuffle in here.

 No.2015

>>2013
I'm indifferent to it because I don't understand it. You seem to be able to talk about a wide range of subjects without issue that I'd consider political, but cannot talk about others.

> How else am I supposed to take that situation other than you trying to abuse my limitations when it benefits you directly and humiliates me?
You could take it as me not understanding your limitations, and simply trying to use a popular example of the item I am trying to put forward.
I'm not sure why you can't talk about Kvanaugh's guilt or innocence, to be honest, given that you can talk freely about feminism. Or is it because it's a politician? Can you not, in that case, talk about something a politician is wearing? Or where they choose to eat? What they drive?
I'm afraid I simply do not understand your line at all, and so I don't tend to worry about it. What you can reply to, you will, and what you can't, I'd expect you to say so that I can argue around it, I guess.

>No. I WAS honestly trying to make a point to you,
Excellent. And I was honestly trying to talk to you, get in the discussion, and get you to understand my perspective.
Even if we both can't convince eachother, we can both agree that it was a characterization to say that we were only interested in being "right", or discrediting our opposition.

>But it matters MORE to me than just a matter of personal pride it is to you,
What do you mean by that? I don't think it's just a matter of personal pride, for me. My bigger issue is that it seemed to be fundamentally an unjust characterization, and I'm someone thoroughly concerned with justice as a whole.
Or are you talking about the things we argue, rather than the ruling above? The things I argue, I would ultimately say the same thing as you do:
The things you say and reasoning you make is the same as some in power, who make rules and laws that directly effect me, as well as all others within the system where those laws are in play.

> So I'm ok with this decision because I'm not going to be debating you anymore
The decision isn't necessarily what I take issue with, although I'd note that I don't understand the decision either, as it was poorly worded as to what is specifically the issue. I don't think it was intended to say neither of us can argue with one another, or otherwise talk, after all. Maybe I am mistaken.
Regardless; My issue was entirely with the personal attack aspect of the post, attributing intention to the both of us that from your post is clearly not your intention, and of course was never my intention either.
My issue is entirely to do with the rudeness of the post, where neither of us were able to say "That is not true, we are not here to do that".

>Were you ever actually interested in changing my mind, or just defending your position
Always wishing to change your mind, or others who read the thread's minds.
My overarching goal was understanding and discussion.
I had hoped we'd be able to reach such an understanding after the rather successful thread prior, to be honest. I thought it was going decently, up 'til the whole accusation thing.

>You even mention "defending your position" here.
That's just flatly untrue. I have not mentioned defending my position, I have specifically been talking about defending myself. A wholely different animal.
My position is one thing, but this is not an attack on my position.
This was an attack on my personal character.
Essentially, I was berated in public, with all to see, labeled someone who's just trying to prove themselves right, just out to discredit an opponent, and I was given no chance to defend myself.
Because that is not who I am.
I am not someone who'd do that. That was not my intention. That isn't something I'd ever desire.
That is the entire crux of my issue, here. Not any issue of my personal position, but, rather, my character being slandered.

 No.2016

File: 1541106008164.png (336.2 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_disappoint.png) ImgOps Google

>>2014
Mooney, you can enforce rules without insulting your users.
Surely you realize that.

I've got to be honest, here, I do not think I'd want to stay in a place where the administration is allowed to bully and attack the users in such a manner, without anything said about it. Scootaloo was calling a hammer, and I'm perfectly fine saying I'm a hammer, blunt and a tad careless, a spade. Or, more in this sense, a lockpick, using dishonest methods to succeed.

My issue here, right now, is not to do with any fighting me and Manley had. It's the gross misscharacterization put on myself.

 No.2017

File: 1541106291549.png (302.48 KB, 945x827, 945:827, anna_cry.png) ImgOps Google

Look, if this is actually how things are, honestly, I'd just prefer to be told now, and given the boot.
Maybe I drum up too much drama over nothing, here, but, this is deeply insulting.

How do you feel when people say, and this happens fairly often I know as I had once believed it, that you're two-faced, merely out to appear nice, but actually just doing that so that people like you?
It's unpleasant, isn't it? I know it's not true, you know it's not true, but people still say things like that, sometimes.
Now what if that was said by the people who run the site? What if that was said, and immediately after, followed a locking of the thread? You've got no way of arguing against it, save making a thread here, and, that's obviously not going to be viewed by most people. Most people are just going to take what was said by you, what you know was false, as the end truth. They're certainly not going to bother searching for themselves, most the time.

That's how I feel right now. That's how it is for me.

 No.2018

>>2016
>>2017
If your intention was to be nuanced, it didn't come across at all, Noonim. Not saying Manley did either, but he isn't making a fuss about that.

You don't get to be the arbiter of how others feel about what you've said: you only get to temper your words accordingly.

Here's what i can say: if you don't like the staff response here, that's fine - that's on us. But your own actions, and how they were interpreted by the staff after discussion?

That's on you. If you're willing to be civil, we'll take a look at how we handle these situations in the future as well.

If you feel insulted, we'll work on how we word things and you need to, as well.  

 No.2020

>>2018
I don't ask to be the arbiter. All I ask is not to get a lousy assumption of my character without a way to defend myself. That's it.

You can tell me what I actually did, critique my genuine actions, but, this isn't that. This is assuming who i am, and it isn't true at all.

The reason I'm here upset by things isn't because I was warned (for what exactly I still don't know though) or that the thread was locked. It's entirely because I feel I was lied about, for all to see, without being able to defend myself.

It isn't really just being insulted. It's being slandered, where others are going to see it, and I can do nothing about it.
If it was kept to what shows up private on your own report page lot, that would've been fine. It wasn't, though, at all.
Instead, it was and still is available for all to see.

 No.2021

>>2019
The staff gave an honest observation. If you are color blind, the sky is grey, when it is blue, isn't a lie: you just can't see it as it is.

Likewise, we aren't trying to be malicious towards you, Noonim: it is, however, what we observed.

 No.2022

>>2021
An observation of the color of the sky and an assumption of character are two different things.

I cannot say "Mooney, you are just saying this because you want to manipulate others for your own benefit", and defend it as an observation.

Thinking about it, Manley provided a decent example: Is it okay to say people like myself are just "trying to get him banned"?
Is that also just an observation?

 No.2023

I'm going to be at work in a bit and my battery is dying, so I might drop in a bit. I'll be in four or five hours, though. I don't really like using email as it's slow, formal, and generally cold, but I can use discord if you like.
But, like I said, that's later tonight.

 No.2024

>>2022
>>2022
But i like slow and formal :(

Look, it might be a wrong observation, and maybe here it was, but it certainly isn't a lie if that's what you believe is true.

Just because it is an assumption doesn't mean it is delivered with malice, yes? Malice and intention to deceive being the elements of a lie?

Does that mean you calling raindrops a liar is also a defined "assumption", as it is an assumption of character, and therefore a lie?

c: fun aside, fine.

We'll not make those observations in the future, as might feel mean spirited.

We ask though that we can all behave with civility towards each other in the future too.

 No.2025

>>2024
I know, that's part of why I deleted the post. It isn't a lie any more than Manley thinking I'm a racist, or that I was trying to get him banned was a lie. But that doesn't make it okay, right?

And, yes, that is a negative assumption for my to make. It's not right to do. People shouldn't do that.
It's easier, though, to assume the worst when people do it to you.

All this aside, what exactly am I being warned against? Leaving off that the prior warning either don't really apply now or weren't actual warnings, what is the specific issue I am being told not to do now?

 No.2026

>>2018
>If you feel insulted, we'll work on how we word things
I think Noonim's complaint is that the lock message made accusations about his intentions.  I think it's reasonable to ask that mods (when publicly commenting about users) in their official capacity assume that users are arguing in good faith unless such good faith is disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.  Official warnings and such can focus on the objective factors rather than assuming ill intent.

 No.2027

>>2026
This is basically it. You can make a lot of negative assumptions of people, but, that doesn't mean they're true, and, when it isn't, it's usually insulting.

 No.2029

File: 1541112714698.png (98.73 KB, 797x1003, 797:1003, hoof_up_base__vector_base_….png) ImgOps Google

>>2014
>with this issue of extremely uncivil behavior in political discussions.

So, the discussion about feminists/antifeminists etc that was the subject of the argument, constitutes political discussion?

If so, why was Manley not cautioned about this as a violation of his prohibition, very early on?  In my view it is a disservice to Manley as well as everyone in the community to not be clear with him when he discuses something in violation of his prohibition.

Especially when the purpose of that prohibition was to avert this kind of result.

>>2024
>likes slow and formal

lewd, Moons...  :)

 No.2035

>>2009
>The only reason I am here, making this thread, is because I felt thoroughly insulted, and was given no chance to respond to what I felt was fundamentally untrue.
That would seem to indicate that you are here in the capacity of issuing a complaint, and expect only to be allowed to voice your complaints, and I see no attempts to receive any sort of response. What sort of response, if any, are you hoping to see from the moderation staff, toward this thread?

 No.2036

File: 1541125748052.png (429.73 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_c.png) ImgOps Google

>>2035
Well, mostly what Mooney said, and maybe the post removed.
An apology wouldn't hurt, but, those aren't common, so, I hardly expect it.

 No.2037

>>2036
I'm not sure what you mean by "what Mooney said". Otherwise, you are hoping for an apology for... what, exactly?

 No.2038

File: 1541126417690.png (357.17 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_disappoint_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2037
I'm referring to >>2024 where Mooney had said such things'd be avoided in the future.

As to what for, I'd think it'd be rather obvious given the thread, but, the rather insulting assumption that I'm just out to "prove the other is morally invalid" in an argument, and I'll just try to "discredit my opponent".
It's a rather sharp assumption of character that is simply not true, and it's thoroughly unpleasant when such an item is presented for all to see as though it's fact, with you having no way to tell your side of things.

 No.2039

File: 1541127502594.png (127.68 KB, 317x423, 317:423, 132649055077.png) ImgOps Google

>>2038
Well, I’m not going to apologize for something I don’t believe was wrong. I’ve talked to a number of people and it seems you’ve presented a history of not listening unless you have a distinct motivation to do so. If this is what it takes to get your attention, I’m not apologizing for that. Moony is the chief admin for this site, so I’ll follow whatever instruction he gives us for future action. If you displayed a genuine interest in clarifying what it was that led to such a stern rebuke, and possible actions that avoid it in the future, I might be sympathetic, but I can’t in any professional sense pander to what appears to amount to little more than discomfort toward being scolded.

 No.2040

>>2039
I simply don't believe it to be a true rebuke. But, I didn't expect an apology, like I said. It was a shit thing for you to do, and something that I feel very strongly was completely unprofessional, but, since Mooney's said it's not going to happen in the future, I've not got much more I can say.

You can make your mistaken character judgements as a poster all you like. That's fine. It's a shit move to abuse your position like you did, and then lock the thread to prevent a refutation.

 No.2041

File: 1541128024291.png (349.92 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_annoyed_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2039
And when have I ever presented a history of "not listening unless you have a distinct motivation to do so"?
Just because you're evidently talking to assholes who don't like me doesn't make something true, and it certainly isn't a good justification to go out and talk trash about a user for all to see, as a moderator of the site, without leaving a way for one to defend themselves from your bullying.

I've had plenty of arguments in the past that've gone perfectly fine, where either I or the other person ended up coming to a common understanding, agreeing to disagree and politely exploring the subject, or otherwise ending on friendly terms.

I'm not asking you to "pander to discomfort towards being scolded", I'm asking you not to abuse your position to go around telling lies about someone you evidently have your own personal reasons to dislike.
I'm betting this is from some friends of Thony's, right?
Seems like the same sort of shit I was getting from him and his group.

 No.2042

File: 1541128585664.png (419.25 KB, 888x900, 74:75, does not want.png) ImgOps Google

>>2040
>>2041
I'm not here to win a popularity contest. I'm here to enforce the rules as far as they are stipulated, and beyond as far as discretion allows. I take great steps to ensure my personal opinions are left out of any and all official action as a moderator. I'm not out to bully anyone, nor would I make assumptions about anyone without several indications that it was sound intuition. I made discussion and proper analysis, and made a judgement call. If you think I made a judgement error, you can ask for it to be reviewed, and we will look over it again, but the thread needed to be locked regardless. If you would like for me to explain why I shut the thread down, I am willing to briefly explain it to you. But if all you're here to do is whine, then this thread has most definitely reached its conclusion. I haven't locked it this time.

 No.2043

File: 1541128835393.png (61.42 KB, 279x215, 279:215, tch.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2042
I don't give a damn if you are out to win a popularity contest. That's entirely irrelevant to my point, as is the item of "enforcing the rules". For someone who's berating me for supposedly not listening to others, it's quite abundantly clear you don't care one single bit when you think you're right. You're perfectly happy, it seems, to make your own moral condemnations of others, and justify your attacks on them. Ironic, considering your complaints. It's becoming increasingly evident it's flat projection of your own total failings on to me.

And if you've got a complaint about that, you think it's too rude, well I'm afraid it's my observation, it's my judgement call. I made that assumption with several indications, and it was sound intuition. If you can do it, if you can make gross assumptions of intention like that about others, I damn well can do the exact same to you, and it's just as fair, just as right.

 No.2044

File: 1541129012629.png (381.37 KB, 733x649, 733:649, 133773970795.png) ImgOps Google

>>2043
I can see you're upset. If you're interested, we can discuss the legitimacy of what I said, after you've had time to calm down.

 No.2045

File: 1541129191327.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2044
Nah, go for it. I'm willing to hear, even if I think it's trash, given that I've had countless perfectly reasonable discussions with plenty of other folk all over the place.

That post was mostly me pointing out the hypocrisy, and of course applying the whole "don't actually give people the benefit of the doubt, assume the worst" on you.
That, and complaint that you didn't listen in the slightest to my complaint, since it had absolutely fuck-all to do with the whole "locked thread" thing.
I was always fine with that. Hell, it worked out better when you guys were more liberal with thread locking.

 No.2046

File: 1541129709600.png (86.94 KB, 245x333, 245:333, 11 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

I mean, I guess I do have a few complaints as far as the whole "warned" lot goes, as well as the actual end result for what specifically isn't allowed, but, that's for >>1978 , not really for here.

This thread, here, was quite specifically because of the insulting post you made.
Nothing else.
Because, honestly, while I would want clarification for exactly what is the problem and what is going to be done about it, I don't care so much as a quarter as much as I do about the issue of berating users and making gross mischaracterizations that the user cannot defend themselves on.
That's my problem at least as far as here is concerned.

Gotta deal with issues like this one step at a time. No sense solving a bad sparkplug before a shattered driveshaft.

 No.2047

File: 1541130441596.png (93.36 KB, 235x254, 235:254, 6 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

Mooney, if you want to hit me up over discord, my handle's The River Acis#1230
Discord's a tad odd about spaces, sometimes, though.

I'm not sure all what's left to say, honestly, but, if you're wanting to discuss things further, that's the best place to reach me.

 No.2048

File: 1541131289495.png (403.88 KB, 3000x3400, 15:17, 1236466__safe_solo_vector_….png) ImgOps Google

>>2045
Please forgive my indirectness. I've had my time wasted by whiners who only wanted a stage in the past, and had to be sure you were genuinely interested in a real discussion before opening the table to further debate.

Basically, the idea of the benefit of the doubt extends only so far as is possible while maintaining order. If a situation gets out of hand, as the thread in question did, action must be taken, regardless of who is at fault. This is why threads get locked initially.

After a day however, several members of the modstaff had expressed that they felt neither yourself or Manley was interested in the topic of the debate so much as disproving your opponent, and the fact that the words "your opponent" is so difficult to avoid speaks to the hostile nature the argument had taken on. At this point, had I immediately taken action, I would definitely be in the wrong, as this is indeed a groundless assumption based on nothing more than intuition. However, as I have been trained to know (for other purposes that happen to be applicable here) intuition is simply the subconscious mind noticing something that the conscious mind is not immediately aware of, so I looked further.

During the thread, you displayed numerous signs that you were more interested in winning a perceived battle with Manley than you were in disproving his arguments, or even proving your own. Let me not be vague about these:
When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.
Here I see four things:
Ignoring attempts for clarification
Debating against a point that was not made
Refusing to remain on fair playing grounds
Personal attacks over logical discussion.

Any of these on their own could be dismissed as human error, but collectively they paint a picture of intentional ignorance of the topic, and blatant attempts to unseat your opponent, rather than his arguments. This and the supporting opinions of several of the modstaff led to the conclusion that hostile debate would continue if we unlocked the thread, and it was decided that a public post should be made warning both of you against further action, and why.

I said I would be first to admit if I'd acted rashly, and I do admit that "morally invalid" was perhaps a poor choice of words. Furthermore, I do apologize if our analysis of your actions was ultimately incorrect, but given the evidence, there is little else we could conclude. In that light, opening the floor for discussion without solid reason to be certain you wouldn't simply whine and produce more senseless debate would have been folly. I won't apologize for locking the thread, nor will I remove the post, but I am sorry if I've caused you any undue stress by my failure to speak as clearly as may have been necessary at the time.

 No.2049

File: 1541131543580.png (164.03 KB, 1330x1556, 665:778, 133645553529.png) ImgOps Google

>>2048
part of my post went missing
>Let me not be vague about these:
>When Manley pointed out that feminists doing bad things is not the same as anti feminists doing good things, you ignored that, and continued to debate against a point he had not made.
>When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.

 No.2050

File: 1541131651909.png (104.17 KB, 1800x614, 900:307, bannana.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2048
I'm a tad confused how you could get that from this line. I had clarified that as [what I had thought would count as] a nonpolitical item, that being using it purely as an example of an innocent person wrongfully attacked. Unfortunately, Manley is very vague on what exactly is effected by his ban, and so I didn't, as said earlier, and ultimately said by Thorax too, give it much thought.
Either way, I clarified the use of the example in a manner that Ithought'd get by his political whatnot. But, following that I was met with;
>"You think Kavanaugh was innocent? Oh boy, yeah, no I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... man."

 No.2051

File: 1541131797164.png (155.06 KB, 1533x899, 1533:899, 1538667437024-kick-antiabo….png) ImgOps Google

>>2050
I'll admit I was annoyed with this response, so I said "Right, so you're in direct opposition to the presumption of innocence.", since he's using the whole thing as a big judgement of me, apparently.

At that point, he threatened me, and I told him to stop slandering me.

Either way, I didn't ignore an attempt at clarification, or refuse to remain on a fair playing ground. I didn't make personal attacks at that point, either. I did, sort of, argue against a point not made, but, I was a tad pissy at the whole "Man. Just... What the fuck".

 No.2052

>>2048
>his and the supporting opinions of several of the modstaff led to the conclusion that hostile debate would continue if we unlocked the thread, and it was decided that a public post should be made warning both of you against further action, and why.
Which would be fine if it didn't also include a fair bit of berating and hostile assumptions. As said, this is my issue, here, not the locking of the thread.
I hate to repeat myself, but once again, you aren't listening to me. Especially given that you say you "won't apologize for locking the thread". That wasn't the point.
That was never the point.
That's not what I ask you to apologize for, either.

What I take issue with is the personal attacks you made. The assumptions of character. That's it.
Please stop lumping in the whole locked thread lot on this.

 No.2053

>>2050
Please note, I am not saying that Manley hasn't also displayed numerous signs of disproving you over pursuing actual debate; we are not discussing Manley's actions right now.

He did, however, have reasonable concern that we as the Modstaff might not agree with your analysis of whether Kavanaugh counts as a political topic, so it seemed fair of him to ask for a different example of the same item, so that he could discuss it safely. That is why it looked badly on you when you ignored this request.

And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack, since you are attacking the person, and not their argument.

>>2052
Are you saying you weren't upset that you couldn't respond? That is the effect produced by locking a thread.

 No.2054

File: 1541132433471.png (371.66 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2049
>When Manley pointed out that feminists doing bad things is not the same as anti feminists doing good things, you ignored that, and continued to debate against a point he had not made.
I don't even remember that point ever being made.
I'd need a link to what you're referring to.
>When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.
He didn't ask that, he responded incredibly rudely. He said, as I posted here, >>2050
>"You think Kavanaugh was innocent? Oh boy, yeah, no. I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... Man. Just... what the fuck."

It's really starting to seem to me that you skimmed the thread, or otherwise just didn't read it at all. You followed what someone else said on the subject, but didn't actually make an effort to follow the conversation, and used this poor skimming of the thread to justify personal attacks on the users involved.

Maybe you have some hard time following along posts. I can understand that, given the repeated ignoring that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the locking of the thread, or even the threat of a ban. But, if you do, please, get someone else's position who does spend the time to properly look through things.
It's not cool to make a bunch of accusations about others based off what is becoming increasingly obvious is poor understanding of the situation at hand.

 No.2055

File: 1541132750661.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2053
Like I said, I tried to break it down as a simpler item, because Manley routinely discusses countless items I would consider political, including Feminism which is literally a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, at significant length.
I gotta be blunt with you, this seems to be an issue of the administration fucking up with that lot.
He should've never been given a political ban. It clearly didn't help, at least not in its current form, and it certainly makes his own posting a bit more stressful for him, given that he's explicitly asked several times for more clarity on the subject, while being largely left with only more vague items.

>And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack, since you are attacking the person, and not their argument
I don't think I did that.
If you've got a post to cite that, then, by all means. But, I'm fairly sure I didn't do that. Rather, I tried to clarify the context, so that it'd be fine, I figured, since he's discussed other similar items in the past without evident issue. Again, we were literally discussing a political ideology.
Like, I'm really not sure at all what the ban covers, and still am not.
Also, if claiming someone's "dodging an issue" is a personal attack, then surely you'd agree your post was also a personal attack, and therefor, ironically, violates the rules in that regard.

>Are you saying you weren't upset that you couldn't respond? That is the effect produced by locking a thread.
Being unable to defend myself is a compounding issue.
Being lied about sucks as is.
Being unable to defend yourself from that lie makes it a whole lot worse.

 No.2056

File: 1541133036560.png (252.6 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop_b.png) ImgOps Google

I want to make it really clear here since i've had this issue since Manley's ban was started:
I have absolutely fuck-all understanding of where it applies.
Hell, ask LP, it's a routine thing for us to mention whenever he gets antsy. Usually it's met with a "well, this doesn't have to do with actual policies in America, so it's fine", which is hardly what "politics" encompasses.

He genuinely always seemed to just discuss topics on a whim, and take issue with topics on a similar whim. With the annoying penchant for saying you're "trying to get me banned", whenever you try to argue with him. See the anon from the night prior to this whole thread's fiasco.
He might think some subjects are fine, and others are not, but, I've got no telescope into his head, and I can't read minds. I don't have a clue what he believes he's allowed to talk about.

I straight up, 100% here, have absolutely no clue what the ban is actually for.
It seems to be entirely unenforced, and thoroughly useless.
As such, as I said in the thread, and Thorax was nice enough to confirm:
>>>/pony/857172
>" noonim didn't specifically use an example just to trap you. That isn't the kind of guy he is. Like I said, he probably doesn't even think or care about your politics ban. He's just making the arguments that make sense to him."

 No.2058

File: 1541133749013.png (159.26 KB, 1020x1024, 255:256, hmm.png) ImgOps Google

>>2054
>>When Manley pointed out that feminists doing bad things is not the same as anti feminists doing good things, you ignored that, and continued to debate against a point he had not made.
>I don't even remember that point ever being made.
He said it here
>>>/pony/850852

>When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.
>He didn't ask that, he responded incredibly rudely. He said, as I posted here, >>2050
He did, actually, here
>>>/pony/857093
>That's a political issue, you know I can't discuss those. Use another example.


The issue of feminism as a political topic has been discussed, and it has been determined that up to this point feminism has not been regarded as a political topic, and therefore is not among the topics Manley has been banned from talking about. We are discussing among the moderation staff whether or not it should be added for the future, but at present we have determined that Manley has not violated his ban, and has followed its restrictions admirably despite enormous pressure to break them.

>And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack, since you are attacking the person, and not their argument
I don't think I did that.
>>>/pony/857125
>it isn't fair that you get to use your van as a cudgel to bully others into agreeing with you or leaving off statements that you make that are incorrect.

>Being lied about sucks as is.
Saying something untrue without knowing its untrue is not a lie. lies are intentional misinformation. I have never lied about anyone.
>Being lied about sucks as is.
As has been explained, it was determined that opening the floor to further debate would have been folly. If this is not the crux of the issue, perhaps I have misunderstood something. But it has been my understanding that you are most upset about the thread being locked, disallowing you from responding to what you perceived to be false statements about your character.

>>2056
Thank you for your feedback on that. I'll bring it up for discussion to see if something can be done to make things less stressful on everyone.

 No.2059

>>2048
>During the thread, you displayed numerous signs that you were more interested in winning a perceived battle with Manley than you were in disproving his arguments...
Let me just say that on multiple occasions multiple people have had misunderstandings of what Noonim was trying to say.  Of course some (perhaps most) of the 'blame' for this goes on Noonim for not expressing himself clearly.  But I don't think it's fair in an official mod post to assert as fact (as opposed to indicating that it's only your perception which might be wrong) that Noonim was arguing in bad faith.

>>2054
>It's not cool to make a bunch of accusations about others based off what is becoming increasingly obvious is poor understanding of the situation at hand.
But now you too seem to be doing the same thing you complained of, Noonim.

 No.2060

File: 1541134477910.png (91.63 KB, 440x309, 440:309, 61b60ec0e5455529be3ec540f9….png) ImgOps Google

>>2058
>10/21/18
Besides that;
>he said it here
No he didn't.
The full text of that post is >>>/pony/850852
>"I didn't ask you for cherrypicked examples of feminists doing bad things. Of course you can do that. Anyone could do it with any group. You said that the burden of proof was on me to show that they were feminists who dont act the way you described. I'm asking you to do the same for anti-feminist. What anti-feminists are actually open to debate and not just dismissive of the movement as insane bitches?"
And, by the way, this post was a major contention, because the line there?
>"You said that the burden of proof was on me to show that they were feminists who dont act the way you described."
That's not what I said. That was never what I said.
Again; You should know this if you actually read the thread.

He did, actually, here
I was meaning after my clarification. But, yes, he mentioned it early on, and I expanded it to field it as something that should slip by. Since, so much else of his posts do.

>The issue of feminism as a political topic has been discussed, and it has been determined that up to this point feminism has not been regarded as a political topic, and therefore is not among the topics Manley has been banned from talking about. We are discussing among the moderation staff whether or not it should be added for the future, but at present we have determined that Manley has not violated his ban, and has followed its restrictions admirably despite enormous pressure to break them.
Okay. But, I hope you understand this adds MASSIVE confusion on what the ban applies to.
No reasonable poster should be expected to know, because nobody fucking knows, nobody fucking says, and nobody makes any of this shit clear.

>it isn't fair that you get to use your van as a cudgel to bully others into agreeing with you or leaving off statements that you make that are incorrect.
Fair enough, but, ironic, considering this is an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me.
So, if you're okay with agreeing your post was a personal attack, and that it was not an okay thing to do, then I can agree that I lost my cool there. I shouldn't've made accusations like that, that aren't necessarily true, even if I did believe them.

> If this is not the crux of the issue, perhaps I have misunderstood something.
The crux is what you said about me.
I am really not sure what I can say to make you understand this.

 No.2061

File: 1541134922926.png (131.25 KB, 377x311, 377:311, 1.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2059
That's part of the point, actually, but, yeah. I probably still shouldn't do it.
It's always a tad easier to assume the worst of someone who does the same to you. It's why I had a big trouble with Manley for a while now, thinking he was always willfully being dishonest.
Because it's super easy to do when the guy thinks you're some kind of evil racist, always trying to muddy any issue, trying to get him banned, and so on.
Well, that, and honestly some of the mixups, like the whole "feminists that don't act the way you described" and later "antifeminists don't deplatform people" seemed so blatant, I didn't think there were alternatives to willfully misinterpreting them. I mean, I really don't see how you misunderstand calls for evidence of antifeminists doing what was said to be done by feminists as the complete opposite, but, eh.

Though, funnily enough, that's also a decent example of my own miscommunication, as, I had mistakenly used "antifeminist" in the first place when I really meant something like "classical liberal", "liberalist", or "egalitarian". Too much time on youtube, I think.
We ended up sorting all that out, though, in a completely different thread, funnily enough.

 No.2062

File: 1541135655545.png (147.95 KB, 900x1115, 180:223, 133669232431.png) ImgOps Google

>>2060
>And, by the way, this post was a major contention, because the line there
A single line does not discredit an entire post. The fact that he stated
>I'm asking you to do the same for anti-feminist. What anti-feminists are actually open to debate and not just dismissive of the movement as insane bitches?
stands.

>You should know this if you actually read the thread.
based on what you've said, I can see why you think I didn't read the thread. I think it should be clear by this point that I did. Please do not continue to assume that I haven't read the thread. Making multiple official posts in a thread I had not actually read would definitely be a misuse of my authority as a moderator.

>I expanded it to field it as something that should slip by. Since, so much else of his posts do.
After which he reasserted that he can't talk about it. That should have been reason enough for you to continue discussion using a better example.

>confusion over the political ban
I understand that it is confusing. We had not considered feminism as a political issue before now.

>Fair enough, but, ironic, considering this is an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me.
You've lost me here. What do you mean by "an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me."?
>So, if you're okay with agreeing your post was a personal attack, and that it was not an okay thing to do,
I don't think you've been paying attention. I've explained why I will stand by the post I made. This was all simply to help you understand what it is that led to a stern public rebuke so that you can avoid it in the future. plenty of other users do it just fine. If having a patient discussion with you is what it takes to accomplish the same for you, I'm very willing to sit through it.

>The crux is what you said about me.
>more concerned with proving that the other is morally invalid than you are with discussing the topic at hand.
This?

 No.2063

File: 1541135697681.png (403.88 KB, 3000x3400, 15:17, 1236466__safe_solo_vector_….png) ImgOps Google


 No.2064

File: 1541136398943.jpg (90.62 KB, 437x416, 437:416, 18.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2062
>The fact that he stated
No it doesn't.
Because I never put the burden of proof on him to describe such an item, and I wouldn't, because that's not how proof works. You don't prove a negative.
It's not a productive argument, which is exactly why I didn't address it: It was built on a false premise.

>Please do not continue to assume that I haven't read the thread.
It's really hard not to, when you so thoroughly miss the point, but, fine.
I can just keep explaining items done.
It's easy enough.

>After which he reasserted that he can't talk about it. That should have been reason enough for you to continue discussion using a better example.
...Do you mean >>>/pony/857094 ?
I really hope you don't mean the post where Manley says "Oh boy, yeah, no I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... man. Just... What the fuck?"
Because that's a really, really, really bad example of much of anything.

>I understand that it is confusing. We had not considered feminism as a political issue before now.
It's... Literally a political ideology.
One that has made and is making major waves across the internet, and really the world in general.
I'm honestly not sure how you'd miss such a massive and important step.

>You've lost me here. What do you mean by "an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me."?
As you stated in >>2042
>" I'm not out to bully anyone, nor would I make assumptions about anyone without several indications that it was sound intuition. I made discussion and proper analysis, and made a judgement call. "
Essentially, I'm saying I made an assumption with several indications that it was sound intuition. As, y'know, you did.

>I don't think you've been paying attention. I've explained why I will stand by the post I made
At the same time as critiquing me for doing what you did, yes.
> This was all simply to help you understand what it is that led to a stern public rebuke so that you can avoid it in the future.
You can best avoid it in the future by not making negative assumptions of others, generally assuming the worst because you didn't actually bother to speak to the users involved.
> plenty of other users do it just fine
How many other users have been publicly berated with a false assumption made on their character, and then had the guy who made said false assumption, critique them for making false assumptions of others?

>This?
Along with the suggestion, as said multiple times in the thread, that I'm just out to discredit my opponent, yes.
Honestly, I don't get why you're only now understanding this is, and has always been, my issue.
Like, I've said it some dozen times in the thread.

>>2063
Dunno what that means bruv.

 No.2065

File: 1541136776579.png (104.56 KB, 458x217, 458:217, 1224214.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2059
Honest question, now, Anon: Am I really that bad at communicating?
I mostly ask because, on top of the whole issue of Scoots not really getting the main point, he also seemed to not follow the context of the argument me and Manley had, and, I keep having to repeat myself overall. And of course, I've never really had much luck getting Manley to understand me.

What exactly am I doing wrong? Are things too long-winded, maybe? Do I need to greentext more, or less?
I thought I had put out my words as clear as they can be.

 No.2066

>>2050
While I have tried to get clarification on what my ban intakes, I haven't be vague about what I think my ban constitutes. I've always stated that I believe it applies to the activities and people associated with the governance of the United States of America.

This is the definition I operate with, and I have not been told by the modstaff that this isn't the case. As such, feminism does not fall under this definition, but discussing a member of the supreme court would.

 No.2067

File: 1541137163746.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2066
Wait, so you can talk about foreign politics without any issue?
That's even weirder.

But, yeah, that's why I had originally clarified my use of Kavanaugh to be outside the activities, as it were. Though admittedly that leaves off the "people" part. I'm not really sure why it'd matter if you talk, say, about the car Bush drove, or the clothes Romney wore, and so on, for example.

I unno.
It's a weird thing, and thoroughly useless you ask me.
I really don't know why they bothered with it in the first place, truth be told.

 No.2068

File: 1541137382129.png (132.27 KB, 1016x787, 1016:787, huh.png) ImgOps Google

>>2064
asking for an example of an anti feminist who is open to debate is not a negative, and I'm not saying you put burden of proof on him for anything.

>...Do you mean >>>/pony/857094 ?
No, I meant >>>/pony/857121 after a brief debate over whether or not you were intentionally debating, he made it very clear that he still felt the topic was off limits to him.

>Essentially, I'm saying I made an assumption with several indications that it was sound intuition. As, y'know, you did.
Very well.

>How many other users have been publicly berated with a false assumption made on their character, and then had the guy who made said false assumption, critique them for making false assumptions of others?
I'm not seeing where I critiqued you for making a false assumption. that's an honest mistake. Is that what you think this is about?

 No.2069

File: 1541138053649.png (134.83 KB, 450x261, 50:29, 5.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2068
It's not a negative, it's asking me to prove a negative, and besides that, it was irrelevant to my argument.
It's also easy as fuck to do, and I could've literally referenced a guy that I have referenced countless times already in that thread: Sargon of Akkad. It'd be a worthless item to ignore maliciously, as again, so easy. The problem is, I didn't ignore it out of malice or dodging the argument: I was quite clear why I ignored it.
Because it was irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Ever hear the phrase "What's that got to do with the price of tea in China"?
That's what it boils down to.

>No, I meant in...
That was in reply to Boat, not me, and it was after he said I was intentionally trying to get him banned, which is why at that point the conversation moved away from the actual discussion of topics, and into me getting annoyed that he was doing, honestly, more or less the same thing you did.

>I'm not seeing where I critiqued you for making a false assumption. that's an honest mistake. Is that what you think this is about?
You said in >>2053
"And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack"
You were claiming that I was only out to prove myself right, and that I was just trying to discredit my opponent.
Is such a claim not also a personal attack?

>Is that what you think this is about?
Bro, I'm really, really trying here.
I've told you exactly what this is about so many times, here.
I just... If you can't follow along, maybe you can get someone else, perhaps?
This thread's got some seventy odd posts, already, and I really just can't keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
It's seriously depressing. And I really don't need more of that in my life right now.

 No.2070

>>2067
As far as I'm aware it only pertains to the US government. I don't know much about other places governments, so it's never come up.

And I'd say it's pretty clear that a court case a member of the supreme court had over his fitness to be on the supreme court is a different matter than the type of car a politician drives. Bush's car exists outside it's relation to Bush.

 No.2071

>>2069
>If you can't follow along, maybe you can get someone else, perhaps?

You really shouldn't be so condescending when people don't understand you. It's something you do a lot.

 No.2072

File: 1541138457948.png (310.51 KB, 583x433, 583:433, 10 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2070
True, but, I wasn't really talking about the case, as much as the response the allegation received.
Still, fair enough, I guess. I don't know how exactly the ban works, so, if you can't talk about political figures at all, that's that.
Should've brought up someone else, like that kid Mattress Girl went after, or that one football team. I dunno.
>>2071
I'm not being condescending.
I'm genuinely thoroughly exhausted.
It's 1 AM, I've had an absolutely awful week, and I'm having to keep repeating myself over and over again.
All the typing is causing some serious pain in my hand, too, where I had broke it a year ago, so that's not helping either.

Like I said, this whole thing is just starting to get more and more depressing, and, the way things are going, that's the last thing I need.

 No.2073

>>2072
Yeah, when I said "you know I can't discuss that. Use another example.", you should have done just that, not implied I was dodging something.

Well, if you are repeating yourself over and over and the other person is not getting it, why do you assume it's a problem with them and not the way you are trying to communicate it? Why not try communicating it a different way?

 No.2074

File: 1541138858888.png (395.97 KB, 945x969, 315:323, bryce_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2073
Meh. Maybe if you approached me more calmly like this, rather than running the whole "Oh boy, yeah, no I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... man. Just... What the fuck?" lot.
But, you're not entirely wrong.

I've tried that. I've rephrased it some dozen different ways.
I dunno how else to put it, man.
Like, there's only so many ways you can say "My issue specifically is with the accusation made here", at the end of the day.

 No.2075

>>2074
That came after I said, calmly "You know I can't discuss that. Pick another example." and you refused. Yeah, that was a bad response, but I tried calmly and got rebuked.

 No.2076

File: 1541139192355.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2075
Nah, what I had tried to do is rephrase it around the political aspect, since I figured the politics side is largely irrelevant to the treatment following an accusation.
Also... You did say "he got away with it", so, y'know. It seems you can say some things on the subject, for some reason.

 No.2079

I guess it's kinda amusingly fitting, given Manley T. McDragonpuncher's name and Noonim's avatars, that Manley and Noonim don't get along. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 No.2080

File: 1541141932910.png (445.5 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_giggle_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2079
People've pointed out that before, yeah.

 No.2081

File: 1541142625603.png (2.15 MB, 1488x2194, 744:1097, 1537091686245.png) ImgOps Google

>>2070
>As far as I'm aware it only pertains to the US government.
I'm sure it also applies to state and local governments.  And, you know, the purpose of your politics ban was to stop you from getting into the kinds of fights that you always get into when you try to argue in political threads.  So really, to comply with the spirit of your ban, you should ask yourself if you're about to argue in the same manner that you've done in political threads, and if so, then you shouldn't post like that in any thread that could reasonably be construed as relating to politics.

>>2065
>What exactly am I doing wrong?
One thing that might be helpful is to look at how people respond to your posts and see if they might be misinterpreting what you wrote.  Based on their response, look about over your post and see if what you wrote might be unclear, vague, or ambiguous in such a way that they are interpreting it differently than you intended.  If you think a miscommunication may have occurred, focus in on it and seek to clarify.

 No.2082

File: 1541142667701.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

this is a lot of text and back and forth for me.

i really, really do wish we could do this by e-mail, instead of like this.

What i will say of Manley's political subject ban is this...

Feminism, i think, is absolutely a political topic. As far as the political ban not having what you or lost pony perceive to be consequences, we don't exactly make that stuff public (for the reasons you see in this thread).

But, it has had an effect: a positive effect, even.

>>2076
He isn't, and you aren't allowed to lead him into trying to debate that, either.

i really cannot go and read all of this, noonim, or go back to read all of that huge thread. It's really giving the staff a headache too.

>>2070
Manley, as far as the topic of politics, we've absolutely discussed in private before that politics pertains to all matters political.

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."

so... please? no more. We're starting with a clean slate, but i do want you to know we're still keeping count here.

 No.2083

File: 1541142961795.png (368.56 KB, 827x969, 827:969, remy_shy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2081
I've been trying that. Guess I'll keep at it. Maybe I'll try being more brief.
>>2082
Email is impersonal, slow, and too cold in general. While I understand some people's preference for it... Can you imagine going through some 70+ different emails trying to keep track of what is what?
I wouldn't want to deal with that.

>He isn't, and you aren't allowed to lead him into trying to debate that, either.
Was never my goal. Like I said, I can't tell what limitations there are around his ban, unfortunately, as feminism, for example, was fine until now.

>i really cannot go and read all of this, noonim, or go back to read all of that huge thread. It's really giving the staff a headache too.
I totally understand. Most of it's been a back and forth from me and Scootaloo, here, who doesn't quite seem to understand that my issue here, at least as far as this thread goes, is entirely to do with the accusations made.

Honestly, there's not that much left for you, as far as that sort of thing goes. I would prefer the post be deleted or otherwise modified, though.
Although, this is less important now that it isn't on the front page any more... Still, though.

 No.2084

File: 1541144303421.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2083
i wouldn't say feminism is fine: it's just, we didn't catch it in time, and it's not really fair to go back so far now and retroactively act on something both parties got so confused over

scootaloo's post, you mean, deleted or modified?

 No.2085

File: 1541144471398.png (299.85 KB, 660x872, 165:218, zhong_serv_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2084
That's fine, I guess. It's a bit of a confusing ban in general.

>scootaloo's post
Yeah, basically.
It's not a huge deal now, though, since it isn't on the front page any more.


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