[ 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.2930[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1548786462877.gif (465.29 KB, 1006x1261, 1006:1261, 5cb03db7f499135264217cec1c….gif) ImgOps Google

For about 6 months I was under what was called a "political ban", where I was banned from discussing "political" topics. This ban has since expired, and I am currently operating under the assumption that I am no longer under it's restrictions. However, I have not received any official statement from any of the modstaff on the matter, and I have heard that they are considering reinstating the ban. I am making this thread to officially state my position that I feel it should NOT be reinstated. This thread can also serve as a place to discuss the issue publicly for the sake of transparency.

There were many issues this created for me and I feel that the ban did little good and much harm. For one thing, I was not allowed to defend my viewpoints on certain topics or discuss things as any other poster was allowed. This was alienating and stressful for me on many levels. Not only that, it allowed other posters to harass me by saying I was refusing to defend my position because I could not defend my position, rather than because I was not allowed to. This happened to me on a few occasions and was very hurtful and often felt like baiting. The parameters of the ban and what is and isn't considered “political" were never clearly defined, making it difficult to adhere to from the start. I often got no response or contradictory statements when seeking for this to be more clearly defined.  My second and probably most important point, is that despite all the stresses following it caused me, the political ban did not actually accomplish what it was created to achieve. My understanding is that it was created to lessen the heated arguments that were becoming a problem on the board. But preventing me from defending my position on political topics did not stop this from happening. People still reacted in the same ways and caused big arguments on other topics, such as video games and "SJWs". What is the point of extending a ban that did not achieve what it was created for? There are already rules in place to prevent harassment and derailing, the things this political ban attempted and failed to prevent, making it redundant. But beyond just the issues and stresses the ban caused me personally, banning specific people from discussing specific topic sets a bad precedent on the board. Almost anything can cause a heated debate. Someone's opinion on Star Wars characters could create a heated debate depending on how others react to it. Are we going to pick and choose what topics EVERY person on the board is allowed to discuss? That sounds like a bad path to go down. We run the risk of alienating people whose opinions go against the opinions of the site's majority, even on harmless or benign topics like Star Wars characters. Banning one poster from discussing a particular topic sets a bad precedent because it's either singling them out unfairly, or it is setting us up to be a place that harshly polices everyone's opinions.

In summary, the ban prevented me from conversing normally or defending my positions and makes me vulnerable to harassment. What was banned was ill-defined from the start and caused me stress trying to follow it. The ban did not accomplish what it was created for and everything it was designed to stop is already against the rules. And the ban sets a bad precedent on the board for policing people's opinions. For these reasons I feel it would be both unfair and unwise of the modstaff to reinstate this ban. I would like a public, official statement addressing this and stating whether or not the ban will be reinstated.

 No.2931

File: 1548788067383.png (148.9 KB, 376x400, 47:50, ohh you.png) ImgOps Google

I'd estimate you're probably gonna be on thin ice if it involves getting personal or too heated up in any discussion points.

No formal presence or absence of  a political ban will likeloy alleviate that.

Would you be able to quit on getting too involved, including making a statement you get too involved?

 No.2932

>>2931
I'm aware of that, and what you're suggesting was already the plan. But I'd still like a little transparency on the matter.

 No.2933

File: 1548791142491.gif (1.68 MB, 265x724, 265:724, a cold wind blows.gif) ImgOps Google

I really feel like you completely misunderstood the point of the ban. Yes, it seems redundant because it's trying to prevent something that is already against the rules. But the point was to keep you out of situations during which you've shown extreme difficulty in resisting activities that break those rules. Effectively "Manley gets in trouble every time he goes to the political debate club. If he is banned from that club, he is less likely to get in trouble, and he should in theory be more stress free."
It wasn't to "police other people's opinions. That's not even close to what was happening.
Ultimately the ban was intended to keep you from getting a full ban, so that you could still post on the site. However, you found other ways to throw yourself into situations you knew had a high risk of causing trouble, circumventing the entire point of the ban, and ultimately resulting in a 2 week actual ban from the site at the end of the year.

So yeah, I don't think it should be reinstated, but only because you are stubbornly inventive at finding ways to get into trouble, banning you from certain activities will only encourage poor behavior in others. That said, you are not alone. There are others that instigated those situations; I don't want you to think I'm blaming you for everything. You make yourself a pretty easy target, so if this Political Ban is to be left inactive, I personally would like to see from you a clear and somewhat effective effort to avoid jumping into arguments with people who regularly aggravate you. Debating would be fine, but if things get heated, you'll need to remain calm so that they are the ones dealt with, and not you.

Honestly this level of discipline would begin to spill over into other areas of your life, which I don't think you'll complain much of.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that your own lack of discipline is what made you such a target for trouble in the first place, so fixing that would fix most of your issues all at once, and if you want to see this ban lifted, you'll probably need to work on your personal discipline and self restraint.

 No.2934

>>2930
>I feel it should NOT be reinstated.
I agree, with the understanding that Rules {1,5,6,7} will be publicly enforced.  But I also still want the harsh ban escalation schedule relaxed a bit so that Manley doesn't quickly get himself completely banned for 6 months.

>>2933
^ This.  All of this.

 No.2935

>>2933
If that was the intention of the ban, this was not explained or discussed with me, despite you guys having multiple opportunities to do so, both on and off the site. From my point of view, the ban was like any other ban issued from the mods; a punishment. For "causing" escalating arguments. So I treated it as such, by trying to adhere to the restrictions of it. Which is why I constantly asked for clarification for what constituted "political".


I think it's unfair to say I "threw" myself into those situations. To say that implies you agree with the people who claim I'm "virtue signaling", i.e. only pretending to care about certain issues to impress people. I'm not. These issues ARE part of my life and affect it every day.

I felt like the modstaff weren't really paying attention to this issues or enforcing the rules around them. So I felt a duty to refute harmful rhetoric that was being spread on the board. After talking with some of you over the past 6 months, I feel like that issue can be dealt with in a more desirable way. After a conversation with brit, I'm hopeful that (some not all) of the people I've had confrontations with can be conversed with in a more civil manner.

>>2934
If my ban schedule would be affected or reset, it would only be fair if the same applied to the other posters that caused these escalating arguments. Which I would be ok with.

 No.2936

>>2935
>>2935
>this was not explained or discussed with me
Are you sure?  I vaguely remember explaining this concept to you myself.  Although I guess I could be misremembering.  Or maybe you didn't read my post.

 No.2937

>>2935
>To say that implies you agree with the people who claim I'm "virtue signaling", i.e. only pretending to care about certain issues to impress people
No, it doesn't imply that.  There was no implication that you were arguing in bad faith.  The implication is that you threw yourself into these arguments knowing that you have trouble refraining from violating the rules in such discussions.

 No.2938

>>2935
>ban schedule
All ban histories were reset when the escalation table was.announced. You recently earned yourself a 2-week ban.  So according to the escalation table, your next will be: 1 Month - 1 Year.  But I've also heard that the escalation table only exists on paper and isn't actually used by the mods.  So I dunno.

 No.2939

>>2936
You or some other anon mentioned it for the first time a few weeks ago, after the ban had already expired.

>>2938
I was told my last ban was for 2 weeks because I already had time on the escalation schedule. If what you say is true (that they were all supposed to be reset when the new escalation table was announced) then that means I could have been given a very long ban erroneously. Do you remember when that new table was announced? I don't remember.

 No.2940

i agree that it should not be reinstated.
to be honest ive always felt it was strange to give such a particular type of ban to a single user..
i also agree that the problem was not really alleviated by this ban.
the same kind of arguments have still been happening.

on a more personal level, this weird ban of manleys has probably affected the way i personally use this site. it used to be when these political arguments cropped up, they could be frustrating but there would at least be a discussion happening, and much of the time it would be manley leading the side of the discussion i agree with. Now, i do have some major disagreements with manleys argument style and feel his reasoning could use frankly a lot of work(sorry manley) it was still a comfort to see that side of the discussion being had, poorly or no.
since the ban occured ive just found these arguments to still occur, but without manley being able to speak on them properly such that the other viewpoint has become the dominant one, and those who still do argue against it are afraid to do so too vigorously, because this special kind of ban exists for someone already, so they feel the need to protect themselves from being the next.
i feel like this has had the affect of the general feeling of the site moving in a direction where i find myself coming back less and less, as im just very uncomfortable with the general atmosphere anymore, and strange as it is, i do feel like manleys ban is a part of that.

 No.2941

File: 1548806036920.png (136.65 KB, 800x600, 4:3, Ember_Storm_For_Wiki.png) ImgOps Google

>>2930
>Someone's opinion on Star Wars characters could create a heated debate depending on how others react to it.

 No.2942

I do personally think the ban should be re-instated, but I'm not terribly aggressive about that stance. You're going to get in trouble faster and harder if you're allowed to discuss politics again.

That being said, it would mean it's a product of your behavior, and I don't think we can stop you from acting how you like.

 No.2943

File: 1548808531279.jpg (107.01 KB, 804x960, 67:80, 1501372103509.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2930
You politics ban wouldn't be necessary if you would just read and think more carefully (before posting in disagreement with other users) and try extra hard to refrain from being uncivil to other users.  You can do this if you put your mind to it.

 No.2944

>>2942
I'd prefer it if we asked Savvy or Abby about this since you've shown personal bias against me.

>>2941
I don't get it.

 No.2945

File: 1548813740350.png (129.69 KB, 700x800, 7:8, 866908__safe_solo_solo mal….png) ImgOps Google

>>2944

It's just someone that gets really upset about Star Wars.

 No.2946

>>2943
Uncivility goes both ways. I can do those things, but the mods must also punish those who do not.

>>2945
I vaguely remember this person. Was he not convinced he was in a romantic relationship with Twilight or something?

>>2940
I think the fact that I was the only one standing up for that side of the argument was a big part of the problem. Thank you for actually saying this. I've heard from several people that they also agreed with my side of things, they just don't like confrontation. And I pointed out in the OP that this ban prevented me from actually defending my side of things. One poster in particular (who I will not name) would always try to assert that I had no argument when I said I could not continue the conversation because of the ban. It was pretty damaging to me, and it appears not just me.

 No.2947

File: 1548814335558.png (285.37 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large (14).png) ImgOps Google

>>2946

Yeah, that was the guy.

 No.2948

>>2947
Is that guy still around?

 No.2949

File: 1548814822041.jpeg (128.87 KB, 631x620, 631:620, 866536__safe_traditional ….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2948

I'm sure he still exists in some fashion.  Doesn't post here, though, to my knowledge.

 No.2950

>>2949
I meant on Ponychan.

 No.2951

File: 1548814941370.png (235.76 KB, 1280x896, 10:7, large (20).png) ImgOps Google

>>2950

I wouldn't know, I haven't been there in a while.

 No.2952

>>2951
We should get back on topic.

 No.2953

>>2948
Yeah, Ember still posts on Ponychan.

 No.2954

>>2953
They can have him.

 No.2955

File: 1548907979057.jpg (182.56 KB, 1032x774, 4:3, 1537474701107.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2954
That's awfully generous of you, Manley.

 No.2956

File: 1548912811248.png (613.6 KB, 1450x1500, 29:30, 1548466959906.png) ImgOps Google

>>2953
I summarized a clop fic about his OC for him today, and he did Not like it.

>>2930
If no one official has told you your political ban was still in effect, then it isn't.

It's my fault you think it might be, as i heard some mention from one of the staff (forget which) about some bans being extended and it was my conclusion-jumping that underlies this whole idea.

There is zero confirmation that my baseless assumption was correct, and thats all it was.  I'm sorry.

You're good.

I miss you on /pony.  I hope you can find a way to manage easier conversation on challenging topics.  I know it's been hard for me to do so.

See you out there.

 No.2957

>>2956
You're not the only person I heard that the mods were considering extending it from, don't worry.

But you're right. Until I hear an official statement from them, then it isn't in effect because they allowed it to expire. I am operating under the assumption I am allowed to discuss political issues now. But I'm still be cautious about that.

But I made this thread to have a place to publicly discuss the matter.

 No.2958

File: 1548913968368.png (58.11 KB, 450x448, 225:224, 867531__safe_plot_goggles_….png) ImgOps Google

>>2957

Quick, go make a heavy political topic before someone says something!

 No.2959

>>2958
No, see that's the opposite of what I should do. Doing that would just be sending up a flare and saying "See, we NEED that political ban" when I don't want that.

 No.2960

File: 1548919604876.gif (2.59 MB, 800x450, 16:9, medium (7).gif) ImgOps Google

>>2930

Having now been able to take the time to read through the thread (mostly) i'd like to weigh in on this.

I think, i was personally harmed somewhat similarly to anyone else, by Manley's "argument style" as it's described itt.  This and the atmosphere created by the posters and staff here triggered my own unsociable behavior that can be similar to Manley's in ways including feeling compelled to advocate a certain position, feeling hurt, and not seeing/accepting how my behavior was causing others harm.  I feel that this both gives me a certain perspective on the topic as well as a certain authority to speak to it here.

It's my opinion that the things i found most frustrating when dealing with Manley were approached very constructively in the thread with brit, and that Manley both showed an ability to understand the issues and accommodate the feelings of others.  I think Manley can continue to do so, without need for any kind of individual restrictions.

Many including me have pointed out that disregard for the general rule of treating each other with kindness (which as a result has been eroded to a "guideline" like the Pirate's Code, Arrr) is the true issue here, not what the topic is.

I believe Mr. Manley will likely still run into trouble, as i also undoubtedly will.  However, it's been observed that the problem was not resolved by the "political ban" applied to one person alone.  I agree with the OP that the imposition of such a tailored ban is difficult to understand.

Such a ban has been tried, and has failed.  I do not think a ban version 2.0 can succeed either.

I am firmly against such a ban being tried again, and i feel that if it is actively being considered then the OP has a right to know that it is, and that if he is not timely noticed of same itt very soon then the staff is estopped from applying any such ban.

In short, such a ban is both futile and counterproductive and should be officially declared dead.

I also think the statutory ban escalation schedule is absolutely unconscionable and mandatory sentencing has been proven unjust time and time again and such an instrument of unfairness has no place here.

Really, this whole over-seriousness thing is just silly.  I think we can take a more adaptive, realtime and fair approach by dropping the whole thing.  If someone's behaving like an ass, intentionally or otherwise, why not discuss it like mature people and when that fails take a short break and let bygones be bygones.  No one should have to fear that past transgressions put them "on thin ice" in a fun pony place.  I mean come on, people.  The more seriously we take the whole thing, the more the fun is gone.

Let's just have fun again and forget this seriousness nonsense.

 No.2961

>>2960
>Manley's "argument style" as it's described itt
I think calling it an "argument style" is overly generous.  In most of the posts that Manley gets in trouble for, what he is saying isn't an argument.  It's just a thinly veiled personal insult.  

Manley, my advice to you (in threads about politics or other similar controversial subjects) is to avoid criticising anyone personally (except public figures like Trump).  Instead, only criticize ideas and policies and the like.

 No.2962

>>2961
That's an unfair generalization.

>>2960
> if it is actively being considered then the OP has a right to know that it is

This is actually why I made this thread. I was against the idea of this decision being made without my input, or the input of the community it was supposedly created to benefit.

As for the so-called "ban schedule", I BELIEVE it was set up the way that it is to more harshly punish spammers and shit-posters, who simply wait out short bans to continue their schtick. But you are right, it DOES have the negative affect on regular posters you just described.

Maybe, instead of getting rid of the ban schedule all together, perhaps have it automatically reset after a set duration if the person in question does not re-offend. Maybe... 6 months?

 No.2963

>>2962
>That's an unfair generalization.
Well it's based on what I've seen.  In any case, the advice I wrote in the 2nd paragraph of that post would still be of help to you.

 No.2964

File: 1548968029160.png (250.15 KB, 850x735, 170:147, 888309__safe_solo_glasses_….png) ImgOps Google

>>2962
>Maybe, instead of getting rid of the ban schedule all together, perhaps have it automatically reset after a set duration if the person in question does not re-offend. Maybe... 6 months?

It does reset, and I think more rapidly than that.  Unless that was changed and I forgot.

 No.2965

>>2964
Then I want to know what previous infringements my last 2-week ban was based on and when they happened.

I also want to know if the fact that all pervious ban histories were supposed to be reset when the new escalation table was introduced was considered when issuing such a long ban.

You guys kicked me out right before Christmas for a very long time and made me feel very unwelcome here. If I was accidentally issued a ban longer than I should have been I deserve to know and I deserve an apology.

 No.2966

>>2965
How do you expect *me* to know that?  I'm just a random anon.  But I will way that IMHO your ban was well-deserved.  You were informed multiple times that your replies to Noonim were insulting and disrespectful, yet you continued them and then did the same to Iara.  

 No.2967

>>2966
That was intended for Mondo, obviously. I will fix it.

And AS A MATTER OF PERSONAL OPINION AND NOT AN ACCUSATION I'm not convinced either of those two were not just trying to get me in trouble purposefully. However, that doesn't change the fact that the way the rules are set up now, that does not matter.

Whether or not someone genuinely felt insulted by something does not change whether or not that thing is an "insult" according to the rules. I can accept that some things are always considered "insults" regardless of someone's true reaction to it, and be more cautious around those two in the future.

However, I think the rules should be more clear on what is and isn't always considered an insult.

 No.2968

>>2967
>what is ... considered an insult
Let me give you a little help and offer this test: Giving all benefit of the doubt to the other party, if you were in his shoes, would you feel insulted or disrespected?  E.g., if you were just arguing your position, and someone accused you of "just trying to get someone in trouble", how would you feel?  So, don't accuse Noonim of just trying to get you in trouble.  I know Noonim well enough that I can say without any reasonable doubt that he is not trying to get you in trouble.

 No.2969

>>2968
Well, I've never tried to get Noonim in trouble. I'm not sure he's ever gotten in trouble, to be honest. So it would be an unfair and untrue accusation if he were to accuse me of such.

But he's also not innocent of resorting to personal insults when he loses his temper.  There have been times I've just been arguing my position and he comes out cursing and insulting. Which is why it's probably better I just avoid engaging with him. If he insults, but I don't respond, then he'll get in trouble and not me. This is my plan going forward, for Iara too.

 No.2970

>>2969
>But he's also not innocent of resorting to personal insults when he loses his temper.
True.

>>2969
>There have been times I've just been arguing my position and he comes out cursing and insulting.
I've noticed that miscommunication often occurs in political conversations with Noonim.  So my advice to you (and to Noonim) is to step back and try to be very clear and precise in your wording and arguments, and to ask for clarification before assuming bad motives.  

 No.2971

>>2960
I'd agree to this largely. Only thing I'd add is that I find it generally objectionable to treat a user to a different standard to the rest. As a rule, I do not like people getting punished for what others wouldn't be.

 No.2972

File: 1548974519698.jpg (665.99 KB, 651x1024, 651:1024, large (15).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2965
>>2967

Man, my memory isn't good enough to dredge up that sort of thing.  The idea is just that if you only have a small infraction every couple of months and you're not a consistent problem then we don't really need to do anything drastic, and we don't necessarily sit on hard lines and check exactly when someone's last infraction was.  If we can't remember if something happen, then it was long enough ago that it isn't a problem.

Your stuff, especially around that time, was very memorable because all of it was happening within like a month.  I honestly can't remember if or where we write that stuff down for future reference because I'm pretty sure it hasn't come up with almost any other user.  Maybe like Steam Twist, but that was years ago anyway.  A couple other problem users we've remembered stuff recently enough to ban them, but then not enough to have to remember if something was happening a month or more ago.

 No.2973

>>2967
I had hoped I have it a quite thorough breakdown before, for you. Hostile accusations of intent are generally quite insulting when they aren't true, and of course, yours were not. I was not out to bait you into trouble, I had a genuine problem with your constant aggressive attacks on my character.

For why on all of this, I would direct you to my thread on this subject and especially my post here.
http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/2658.html#2853

Assumptions of character like that can be incredibly harmful. I am quite certain you would not like it if I were to do the same to you.

 No.2974

>>2972
Memory is not a good metric to use. It can be faulty, details could be gotten wrong.

There needs to be consistent rules and time frames for all users, and if I'm going to be more severely punished for an infraction, then there should be record of what is causing the harsher punishment. Especially when there is a set escalation scale.

And this also does NOT answer my other question: Was the fact that all previous ban histories were supposed to be reset when the new escalation table was introduced was considered when issuing such a long ban?

This is all stuff the modstaff needs to be more transparent about.

 No.2975

>>2973
If you are willing to admit that you were not trying to get me in trouble purposefully here, then I will take you at your word. I apologize if my comments seemed to be attacks on your character, and I'll be more careful about that in the future.

 No.2976

>>2969
I have gotten in trouble a few times. But, beyond that, I would say the exact same to you.
It is an unfair and untrue accusation.

>But he's also not innocent of resorting to personal insults when he loses his temper.
This is true. I have a nasty habbit of replying to insults with the same. I tend to give as I get. That's an unproductive action I'm trying to avoid. The urge to fight back is naturally quite strong. But it should be largely avoided now thanks to having an outlet for that.

 No.2977

>>2975
I've literally said this to you dozens of times.
But alright. I suppose it's all the same. Even if "admit" is an incredibly strange way to phrase it.

 No.2978

File: 1548976563839.png (357.36 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 870694__safe_scarf_micro_s….png) ImgOps Google

>>2974
>Was the fact that all previous ban histories were supposed to be reset when the new escalation table was introduced was considered when issuing such a long ban?

[i]All[/] previous ban histories were not considered, for sure, because that's a really long history.  Only recent bans and warnings were considered.  Though, notably, we had escalated how firm we were going to be with such bans over the Christmas season.  The problem was a general one and was seemingly rapidly inflating, so I think we pushed a bit harder to try to keep it under control.

Again, though, my memory is really bad, and you're gonna have to ask other people if you want better details than that.

 No.2979

>>2978
That's why this thread is here. Where are these "other people"?

These are questions I deserve answers to, and the modstaff being cryptic and secretive about their motivations and implementations of the rules helps no one.  

 No.2980

File: 1548977916704.png (199.12 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large (12).png) ImgOps Google

>>2979
>Where are these "other people"?

Busy, mostly.  Everyone I've seen recently has already commented in the thread.

 No.2981

File: 1548978419721.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2980
It might be a good idea for situations like this to gather for a proper "official statement", by gathering comments from everyone over the course of a day, give or take, in whatever groups typically message in, be it discord Skype or whatever.

Would probably go a long ways towards helping the issues of hearsay, rumors, and user discussion, when it comes to particular administrative actions.
Incidentally, in the same Bean, it might be appropriate to use proper mod tanks when responding an official function, as it is easy to lose statements under constant reply from non moderators.
this, admittedly, might be my own problem love just simply being terrible with names, though. So, maybe others don't have that issue.

 No.2982

>>2981
>it might be appropriate to use proper mod tanks when responding an official function
I think tanks would be overkill.  Humvees or MRAPs should be enough.

 No.2983

File: 1548983018170.png (445.5 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_giggle_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2982
I dunno, man, seems like a good IFV is needed at minimum!

 No.2988

>>2982
I will call Arty on you

 No.2989

>>2967
>whether or not someone genuinely felt insulted by something does not change whether or not that thing is an "insult" according to the rules.

This is exactly where you are very, very wrong Manley.

I offer this constructively and not as disparagement but it's very important that you accept that your words can hurt deeply whether you intend them to or not.

When someone says that hurt, your habit of blaming them for it, instead of saying you're sorry is at the root of the problem.

It might not be your fault your words hurt someone, but telling them they cannot be hurt just because you didnt mean to hurt them is very much your fault.

I thought you understood this now, after the discussion you had with Brit.  Your "cringe" thread that got you banned is packed with examples, and Luna's ban notice was very clear as to why it was so severe and what it was about.  I suggest you read that thread and the Luna post very carefully.

I miss you Manley and i want you here.  I know getting banned for Christmas was fucked up.  But you do need to understand that you did it to yourself, and understand why.

 No.2992

File: 1549132483325.jpg (34.96 KB, 640x480, 4:3, not my birthday.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2988
Ponyville does not have a !Pinkie Pie

 No.3002

File: 1549177300655.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

Manley, i just wanted to let you know:

no, you aren't on a continuing political ban. We are not going to extend the political ban, and that was not our intention.

A political ban may be on the table for the future though, and that is going to be highly dependent on whether you can continue to keep to the rules.

Please, please try to be civil.

 No.3004

>>3002
I feel like I have been for the past several days, Moony. But thank you for the clear-cut answer. I understand the situation. I am no longer under a political ban at this moment, but am under scrutiny for rule-breaking. That is all I ask. I will continue to try my hardest to be civil.

But I still have some unanswered questions I posed in >>2965

 No.3010

>>3004

the 2-week ban wasn't an accident, and the wording of the ban was originally intended to be far more harsh

abby put everything explaining the reasons for your ban and its severity in your ban post, which you can still read on /canterlot/

 No.3014

File: 1549208317179.jpg (82.92 KB, 625x632, 625:632, 367r6g.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2992
But Ponyville does have a Positively Pinkie.

 No.3027

>>3010
That doesn't answer my questions, though.

>What specific previous infringements was my last 2-week ban based on and when did they happened?


>Was the fact that all previous ban histories were supposed to be reset when the new escalation table was introduced  considered when issuing such a long ban?

 No.3054

File: 1549268796381.png (191.81 KB, 720x1195, 144:239, Capture _2019-02-04-00-18-….png) ImgOps Google

>>3027
What part of >>2869 exactly, is difficult to understand?

Go through the cringe thread and count how many times you called someone something that would hurt their feelings.

Like calling them a school shooter for agreeing with you on the gunshow loophole.  Yes, it still hurts me now all this time after, and it doesn't matter if you intended for it to hurt, any more than the ant below your shoe is less crushed if you didn't see it there.

I am trying to help you.  Don't get mad about it, in fact it's impossible for you to be upset because i don't intend to upset you.

 No.3057

>>3054
It does not answer my questions!

It does not give me specific previous infringements that this last 2-week ban was based on and does not tell me when they happened.

It also does not tell me if the fact that all previous ban histories were supposed to be reset when the new escalation table was introduced was considered before issuing such a long ban.  Those are the questions I want answers to.

Also, I never called you a school shooter. You took what I said out of context and heard what you wanted to hear. Stop bringing up things from months ago I thought we put behind us so that we could move on and be civil towards each other. I'm not holding on to any grudges against you. Also, you're not a mod. You're not equipped or authorized to answer the questions I'm asking.

 No.3059

>>3057
The >>>/rules/ post says that the escalation table is only a guideline, not mandatory:
>If a ban is given that does not escalate in this order, again excluding First Degree rule violations, that ban must be thoroughly explained by the issuing staff member such that the public can understand that reasoning.
You got such an explanation accompanying your ban.

 No.3060

>>3057
I never agreed that you got away with that shit you said to me and i think enough witnesses were around that no one's going to believe that you didn't say it or that i wanted to be abused as you did.

Denying that you caused harm is neither civilized nor putting anything behind.

I did my best to help you but you are simply unable to accept that you've ever been wrong.

I am finished with this conversation, in fact any conversation with you ever because you've never said you were sorry for what you said and what it did to me.  You've only insisted that you did nothing wrong, just like you are now doing in your demand for examples.

That's fucked up.  No, we can't be friends if you won't even give me the tiniest shred of respect to acknowledge your words hurt me.

 No.3061

>>3060
You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying I didn't hurt you. It's clear you were hurt. I'm saying I didn't say what you are accusing me of saying.

If you were hurt by what I said, I apologize for the miscommunication. It was not my intention to hurt you. But I'd really like it if we could move on from this. There's nothing I can do that hasn't already been done. I've apologized, I've clarified what I meant. A few times. What else do you want?

 No.3062

Keep it civil in here, please c:

 No.3063

Screw it, no more topic bans, just straight-up bans from now on.

 No.3064

File: 1549423045494.jpg (43.38 KB, 736x658, 368:329, pinkyflutters.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3061
>what does a lost pony want

How about acknowledging what you did?  Instead of denial.

A sincere apology has never been offered to me.  You do see, do you not, that an "if" conditioned apology for "the miscommunication" is a denial that you said what you said.

You went on for more than three days publicly here saying things like you were afraid I would go on a shooting spree, including threatening me that you'd call the police on me.

Rainstream was very adamant with me, in her belief that I had "scared" you.  I apologized to you profusely for your reaction to my stupid joke intended to emphasize the danger in the lack of background checks at gun show sales (in solidarity with your point).  But I have yet to receive any direct acknowledgment from you that your accusation hurt my feelings, or that you are sorry for that, in fact you even deny having made the accusation.  An accusation that was clear, public, and convincing to third parties such as Rainstream.

To me, it seems that you have never, ever admitted that you were wrong.  Yes, you say that I was wrong, and that you are sorry I was wrong, and that I caused myself pain by being wrong.  That isn't fair, and frankly, it is cruel.  Because it not only fails to acknowledge what you did but blames me for everything.  It is a lie.  A bald-face, outright stinking lie that hurts me more every time you repeat it.

How can I leave something in the past, when it is forever renewed by being misrepresented, the true facts never having been acknowledged?

>>3062
I'm very truly sorry, Moons.  I know I should simply stfu but it's very hard when confronted with a situation that is so frustrating to me.  So...dishonest.  So hurtful.  I don't know what I am supposed to do to make it stop hurting, to move on.


Am I wrong, Moons, for speaking out in this thread?

 No.3065

>>3064
You know what, I would deny that things went down the way you are describing, but thinking on it, I honestly do not remember what was said. This must have been MONTHS ago and I do not remember the details of what happened anymore.

So fine, I'm sorry for implying... whatever you're saying I implied. I'm sorry for hurting you. But I do not remember doing it, so all I can offer is an apology. And for the record, you don't "scare" me. Not anymore.

 No.3066

>>3065
I also remember it happening as LP says it happened.  LP told a stupid joke, and yes, he is to blame for that.  But you over-reacted and said very hurtful things to LP, and you are to blame for your actions there.  LP is right that you owe him an apology.  

 No.3067

>>3065
And also, you should work on your empathy for others.  Like in this thread >>>/pony/911857 , you were to oblivious to how your words were disrespectful and hurtful to Rose.

 No.3068

>>3065
>so all I can offer is an apology.
And yet you still seem incapable of actually offering one because you have yet to do so, after all this.  It's like taking responsibility is too great a burden.

>And for the record, you don't "scare" me. Not anymore
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

If you want a refresher lookup your own log file that you named "lpconvo".

>>3066
Thank you.  Do you have any suggestion for me as to a graceful exit to this conversation?  I feel like i fell into a well.

 No.3069

>>3068
> because you have yet to do so

What the fuck do you call >>3065
>So fine, I'm sorry for implying... whatever you're saying I implied
>>3061
>If you were hurt by what I said, I apologize for the miscommunication.

I have apologized twice now.


>>3067
I'm not sure by what you mean by "work on" or even what that would entail. I misunderstood what Rose was saying. That's all. He didn't say "I don't want to argue" he said "You're wrong, but I want to say so politely." When he established he didn't want to argue, I stopped arguing.

 No.3071

>>3069
Do you seriously consider that an apology?
It's genuinely one of the weakest apologies I've ever heard. Comes across as though you believe you've done nothing wrong and the other guy's just crazy. Extremely passive aggressive, I'd say.

The other one is marginally better, but, it frames it as a "I'm sorry you misunderstood me and as a result hurt yourself" type of deal, which still holds the same troubles.

 No.3072

File: 1549484755380.png (2.18 MB, 1920x1382, 960:691, cgseb.png) ImgOps Google

>>3069
As to Rose, I already explained to you several times what "let's agree to disagree" means.
I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that it's just "You're wrong, but I want to say so politely".
There's a lot more to it. What it means is "I respect your difference of opinion on this matter, and do not wish to continue leading to unpleasant arguments". That's, I'd say, a far more accurate breakdown than "you're wrong, but I'm being polite".

 No.3073

>>3069
>What the fuck do you call ...
I'd call it something that has the form of an apology but not the substance.  You didn't even clearly admit that what you did was wrong.

 No.3074

>>3069
>I'm not sure by what you mean by "work on" or even what that would entail.
Try imagining yourself in the shoes of the person you're talking to.  What effect would your words have?

>>3069
>I misunderstood what Rose was saying. That's all.
No, that's not all.  You rudely said "You're wrong" to Rose. In the context of that thread, what you said was uncalled for.

 No.3075

File: 1549496354516.png (137.46 KB, 786x1016, 393:508, pinkypout2.png) ImgOps Google

>>3071
Exactly, Nooms.  Thank you.

>>3073
This.

>>3069
>"what the fuck do you call"
Using profanity against me here when I say your non-apology is not satisfactory, feels like punishment for not being meekly happy with being blamed.

It is very abusive.

 No.3076

File: 1549501111593.png (83.07 KB, 517x240, 517:240, rose_agreetodisagree.png) ImgOps Google

>>3074

I just finished reading that thread.  

>>3069
Rose most certainly NEVER told you that you were wrong.  He said he agrees to disagree, which means exactly what it says:  that he disagrees, and doesn't wish to argue.  No one in the history of language has ever misinterpreted this statement as "You are WRONG".

When someone agrees to disagree with you, you do not continue repeatedly telling them that they are wrong, and accusing them of knowing they are wrong by refusing to defend their position.  It means they don't want to argue, so leave them alone.  Yet, you badgered him until he wished to be anywhere else but here, pic related.

Thorax stepped in and explained it to you, and you told him that he is wrong.

I simply cannot understand it.

 No.3077

>>3076
>Rose most certainly NEVER told you that you were wrong.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?

 No.3078

>>3077
I edited to fix the links right after posting, must not have updated timely for you.


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