[ home ] [ pony / townhall / 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.2984

File: 1549071330565.png (202.28 KB, 1001x798, 143:114, nyoron_by_iklone-d8ylry0.png) ImgOps Google

>be me
>load up the front page of Google News
>see an article (about the largest-ever seizure of illegally possessed fentanyl) with an interesting take on the deadliness of fentanyl
>make a thread, posting a link to the article and its first sentence
>get banned for "bait"
Nyoro~n

 No.2985

You chose the title "opioid epidemic" while linking to a news article about a Mexican being caught bringing drugs into the US (a hot-button political topic), from a source known for their political bias on the subject of immigration and border security.

Also, by using the title "Opioid Epidemic" with that story, you are strongly implying that the major cause of the opioid epidemic is cases like this (people smuggling drugs across the US-Mexico border) when that's not the case. Over-prescription by US doctors is the leading cause by a wide margin. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic#Causes)

Also, the mentioning of how many Americans could potentially be "killed" by the drugs by the article is also misleading. The goal of the arrested party was more than likely to sell the drugs at a profit with no goal or desire to kill anyone. Wording it the way the they did sounds like dishonest fear-mongering, not about actually wanting to discuss the fact that relatively small amounts of fentanyl can be deadly.

If you weren't trying to be intentionally inflammatory with what you posted, I would be very surprised. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not, I thought I'd explain it to you. It's less what you posted, but how you posted it.

 No.2986

>>2985
>Also, by using the title "Opioid Epidemic" with that story, you are strongly implying that the major cause of the opioid epidemic is cases like this (people smuggling drugs across the US-Mexico border) when that's not the case.
Huh?  How did you get that implication?  I certainly didn't intend to imply anything like that.  The news article is about the subject of the opioid epidemic, so that's what I chose as the thread title.

>hot-button political topic
The story wasn't about politics at all though.  It was a story about a particular criminal getting caught with drugs, with additional commentary about fentanyl.

>from a source known for their political bias
Most mainstream media is biased.  It shows up in, e.g., what details they choose to report.

>Also, the mentioning of how many Americans could potentially be "killed" by the drugs by the article is also misleading. The goal of the arrested party was more than likely to sell the drugs at a profit with no goal or desire to kill anyone.
Most opioid deaths are accidental -- isn't this fairly well known?  I don't think anyone would assume that the fentanyl was being intended to be used for intentional homicide.
Plus, from this information (i.e., the number of deaths it could cause) it's easy to establish a lower bound on the number of non-fatal dosages.  It would supply 1 million people with fentanyl for 2 months at one dose/day.  That's a shitload of fentanyl!

 No.2987

True story, but Moony (and maybe others behind the scenes) doesn't really believe in your good intentions when it comes to newsy and politicalish threads. You honestly get a lot of (what I think is uncalled for) scrutiny. I sometimes deflect some of the flak you would get, but there's only so much I can do. I just thought you should be aware, that's how things stand right now.

 No.2990

>>2987
Wait, there was nothing baity about the text of the post?

How is that bannable?  I saw the same topic on mainstream news and it said the huge potential death number.

The same sedative that Michael Jackson died of, and that i said "pass" on for my scopy.  It's quite a substance.

 No.2991

>>2985
Also, a Senate committee member was just blasting the opiod overdose epidemic as a justification for wall funding, comparing the deaths each year to 911.

Lame, but not bait.  Mischaracterizing the situation, but a Senator.

 No.2997

>>2990
What is bait is subjective. There's got to be a point where someone makes that decision (what is and isn't bait) and two mods agreed in the moment that it looked like bait. I wasn't around for that decision or I might have disagreed.

I'll see if I can lure some of the other mods here to explain themselves. I think that's only fair, to you and them.

 No.2998

File: 1549176056434.jpg (8.87 KB, 275x219, 275:219, Disappointed Fluttershy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Let's talk, anon.

Your thread was deleted by accident, but it was my intention to issue you a ban personally. Seeing that you are posting here, right now, the mod who gave you your ban currently was far more lenient than i would have been.

There was a miscommunication, which led to your ban, and the current circumstance: your thread was initially going to be locked, and have an explanation for you to read.

Herein, now, is your explanation.

 No.2999

>>2997
I'm just a spectator and i didn't even see the subject OP.  No one owes me any explanation unless they feel like it.

My point was just that the news can be quite spicy all by itself and i think we can handle discussing it in general.

I know keeping this site safe and cozy is more complicated than just what i can see, and its impossible to expect every decision is going to be perfect all the time.:pinkie11:

 No.3000

File: 1549176732695.png (160 KB, 640x360, 16:9, angry shy.png) ImgOps Google

Politics on Ponyville is a privilege. It is not the purpose of the site. And if the users want to discuss it, that is fine: fine as long as it doesn't take away from everyone else's enjoyment of the site.

More and more, it has. And so, the staff administration has taken steps to reign it in.

We passed this effort, some time back:

http://ponyville.us/arch/res/1826.html

The Politics on Ponyville Proposition.

In it, we outlined in explicit detail our policy on political drama.

You're a user. You went to fox news. You put up a fentanyl bust, that for whatever reason, also implicated a very sensitive political topic that was clearly designed as a dog whistle.

Fine. This would generally be enough for the staff to consider whether this was political drama, outside of any other context.

Anon, you have a long and extremely sordid history of political drama. Second only to one other user the largest source of political drama on the site.

i truly, truly do not care where anyone stands on these political issues. My personal views i have put completely aside in the enforcement of our rules, and i have hammered users who lean in my direction most of all.

You do not get to transparently post a political dog whistle of a thread, with your immense history of political drama, and just have us turn a blind eye.

We've been lenient, very lenient, with your behavior, anon.

This is a stern warning, that we will escalate our bans for your behavior in the future, and that a political subject matter ban is absolutely on the table if this behavior continues. Frankly, all things considered, i think it is very fair, given the circumstances of your behavior, and previous warnings.

You're often a great poster. i love having you around. But the political games must stop. i will not tolerate this community becoming a political battleground.

If you must share political posts in the future, consider that your posts will be subject to heightened scrutiny, and do not start trouble. please.

 No.3001

File: 1549177107816.jpg (11.17 KB, 300x168, 25:14, disappointed sad flutters.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

To put a cap on my statements, i don't like putting on this hat, so to speak. i have had to have stern conversations now with several users about political behavior. No other issue has been like this.

it isn't a partisan thing either: i wouldn't accept someone posting the Pravda or whatever here and trying to start controversy either.

It bothers me, it bothers me a lot, to have to be stern like this. And this is really an issue with so few users, that effects so many.

In every situation like this, i think, there is a sort of "carrot and stick" way of going about things. This is the carrot: i truly, and honestly, do not want to ban you or cause you trouble, or do anything to inhibit your ability to post, anon.
Please... do me a favor, and opt not to be so political here. Don't try to play me either, and pretend you haven't been, and that your dog whistle fox news thread was supposed to be some centrist, "sharing the news" sort of thing.

Anon, i wasn't born yesterday. i know not many things, this is true. But these things, i know.

Please... just cut it out. And we can leave it here, and for good.

 No.3003

>>2999
>I'm just a spectator and i didn't even see the subject OP.  No one owes me any explanation unless they feel like it.
It was meant to be the general plural "you". I do think that our decisions should be transparent so explanations are owed as far as I'm concerned, not necessarily to singular you, but to the site in general.

 No.3005

>>2998
Moony, was my comment in >>2985 acceptable under the current rules of discussing politics and civility?

 No.3006

File: 1549186508928.png (94.79 KB, 554x392, 277:196, mlp_eggs_by_raineartz-d606….png) ImgOps Google

>>3000
>also implicated a very sensitive political topic
You mean Trump's proposed wall?  I don't see the connection, and frankly I'm wondering if people have actually read the article or if they just read the headline and made faulty assumptions based on that.  This incident wasn't about someone illegally entering the country.  The drug smuggler entered through a legal port of entry and hid the drugs inside his tractor-trailer.  Trump's proposed wall would have been completely irrelevant in stopping an incident like this.  As far as I know, routine border inspections of commercial vehicles for contraband is not a very sensitive political topic.

What would you have wanted me to do?  Should I have included (in the body of my thread) the bit about it being a legal port of entry?  Should I have censored out the part about it being a border check?  Should I just completely refrain from posting threads about interesting current events that people might mistakenly believe are related to major political controversies?

>the mod who gave you your ban currently was far more lenient than i would have been.
As far I knew, the "political drama" policy only applies to actually political topics.  I consider it quite unfair that you would have given me a long ban for something that is not actually political.  If the drug smuggler had crossed the border illegally, then I would have refrained from posting the story because of the political undertones that it would have had.  But in the light of the fact that it was a legal border crossing, I don't see any political undertones here.  If you want me to try to anticipate how others might see political undertones based on incorrect assumptions, I will do my best to do that going forward.

>You went to fox news.
Is that supposed to count against me?  Fox News is the only major right-of-center TV news station.  Am I only supposed to post stories from left-of-center stations?  

>that was clearly designed as a dog whistle.
I respectfully disagree.  This story was run on CNN and other left-of-center news stations as well.

 No.3007

>>3005
I would consider it acceptable.  If you were talking to Noonim, I would suggest changing the first sentence of the last paragraph (
>If you weren't trying to be intentionally inflammatory with what you posted, I would be very surprised.
) to something like:
<The text of your post suggests an intention of being inflammatory.
That would make it clearer that you're criticizing the post and not the poster.

 No.3009

>>3006

i feel like it's pretty obvious how people were gonna react to the way you worded the thread

there were a whole lot of ways you could've worded what you posted to make it seem like a genuine discussion

you could've asked some involving questions, found a less infamously biased news source running the story, and put effort into creating discussion

you just dropped somethin' that people have strong opinions toward in the middle of the page without much context or tact

 No.3011

File: 1549204446159.jpg (11.17 KB, 300x168, 25:14, disappointed sad flutters.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3005
Manley, if you must, ask me in private: i was already going to mention in this thread that i wasn't very happy that you came into it, but thought it best to keep to the subject matter.

>>3006
...must we play this game, anon?

>>3009
Just as Dizzy said: you and i both know you aren't dumb, anon.

You didn't pick the Fox News link that starts off with "Mexican National" and implicates FAST, while also being five sentences long, because of its incredible reporting.

You haven't posted threads of the exact same nature in the past either, because those topics just so happened to be the most important current events.

Maybe you genuinely believe that your thread wasn't political. And the staff has been willing to overlook like, the first five times this has happened. We've issued warnings too: you have been informed of this issue.

i won't comment on the "left-of-center" and "right-of-center" comments, except to wish that you'd consider being less partisan, and that if you must be so partisan here, to remember that politics on Ponyville has become a hot topic, and that you've been the one waving the torch around almost more than anyone.

 No.3012

>>3009
These days, there's not really many non-biased news sources any more.
Not unless you start looking at really local stuff, but, those can still be pretty biased.

 No.3013

>>3012

there's varying degrees of bias

fox news is infamous, anon

it's prolly the most hated and controversial news network in existence, there are so many other options with less provocative reputations

 No.3015

File: 1549212124210.png (252.6 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>3013
It really depends on who you ask. If you ask Democrats, absolutely. If you ask Republicans, and quite a few centrists, no. Personally, while I dislike Fox, I find they're just as biased as any other major media, with the only difference being their particular leaning.
Should we forbid articles from CNN on the same grounds? They're exceptionally biased. Personally, I would say far more than Fox is.

On an unrelated note my name fell off and I have no idea why.

 No.3016

File: 1549212360008.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>3015
>>3013
Speaking for the staff here, we're not going to get into whether one media company is biased over another: that's going to be a matter of opinion, and not an issue for canterlot.

 No.3017

>>3016
When you cite the source as part of your reasoning, you bring that up.

If you are going to be fair about it, you are going to need two equally treat other news sites in the same manner.
should I start reporting any threats I see you with a CNN article linked?

 No.3018

File: 1549213277182.png (111.14 KB, 600x300, 2:1, office-2016-for-cats.png) ImgOps Google

>>3009
>i feel like it's pretty obvious how people were gonna react to the way you worded the thread
I expected people to get interested enough to read the article and come back and write their thoughts if they had something to say.  But I suppose I can be kinda bad at predicting how normal people will react.  Goes with being an aspie, I guess.  The thread didn't have any vitriolic political bickering before it got cut down, though, so maybe I was right.

>there were a whole lot of ways you could've worded what you posted to make it seem like a genuine discussion
>you could've asked some involving questions, found a less infamously biased news source running the story, and put effort into creating discussion
Thank you for the advice, I'll keep that in mind for next time.

>>3011
>You didn't pick the Fox News link that starts off with "Mexican National" and implicates FAST, while also being five sentences long, because of its incredible reporting.
I picked that article to read because it was the article that caught my eye on Google News.  And then after reading it, knowing that it didn't implicate the hot-button wall topic, I decided to post it here.

>You haven't posted threads of the exact same nature in the past either, because those topics just so happened to be the most important current events.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying.  Here some of my recent threads:
https://ponyville.us/pony/res/908978.html (Fox News story about food recall)
https://ponyville.us/pony/res/907238.html (BBC News story about end of shutdown)
https://ponyville.us/pony/res/905071.html (NYT story about Trump's failed attempt to get wall funding in exchange for temporary DACA funding)

>Maybe you genuinely believe that your thread wasn't political.
Yes, I did.  And I still believe that.  If people make an incorrect assumption instead of actually reading the linked article, is that my fault?  Evidently it is (at least if I could have reasonably predicted it), so I will keep that in mind for the future.

 No.3019

>>3018
>If people make an incorrect assumption instead of actually reading the linked article, is that my fault?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and has feathers like a duck, you must forgive one for seeing a duck.

If your intention is to be apolitical and just share the news, then you have given me zero reason to believe that.

It is important that you reconsider your perspectives, for future posts that "share news"

 No.3020

File: 1549215730534.jpg (17.74 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault (2).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3009
>>2998

While it's been made clear the subject thread was deleted by accident, i can't as a member of our community here emphasize enough, the importance of preserving things that are considered bannable offenses so that we may consider and discuss them knowledgeably based on information and not simply recall of those few who saw it.

The different positions on this particular OP are as distorted by perspective of witnesses as the Pony Point Of View episode with the sea monster and cucumber sandwiches.

Moons and Dizzy, Fox news is not in and of itself a bannable violation and it's clear Moons' sternness is based on Anon's text.  If he is "playing games" the deletion of the thread prevents a third person from judging whether this is true or whether Anon is genuine and the staff overreacted.

Which reminds me, perhaps there should be some kind of post buffer that preserves edited and deleted posts for some period of time so they can be recovered, for at least a few days or something.

 No.3021

>>3019
While forgiveness over a mistake is perfectly reasonable, I don't really feel that's actually what you're arguing for here, so I am unconvinced the analogy is applicable.

 No.3022

File: 1549216541390.png (309.28 KB, 1024x711, 1024:711, en_garde__by_rakkuguy-d7z2….png) ImgOps Google

>>3019
I see.  I will give more thought to how others might my interpret my threads in the future.

 No.3024

File: 1549217930248.jpg (21.04 KB, 400x400, 1:1, _not_so__serious_pinkie_by….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3018

Anon, those threads seemed fine to me and added meaningful conversation here as well as some real world perspective on each other as people.

From a few bits you said itt i think you are the anon who has said comforting things to me sometimes when i was having difficulty dealing with the situation between me and other posters.  I have a hard time sorting out anons.  

Why don't you take a name?

 No.3025

>>3024
As much as I'd hate to say it, a name would likely solve your issues.
There's a bit of a bias held by folk when it comes to anons. They see them automatically as troublemakers.
A name would likely mean you don't get as many folks assuming the worst and reporting you.

 No.3028

>>3020
It has very little to do with Fox news per session, and very much to do with past behavior indicating malice in the present behavior.

 No.3033

File: 1549246746963.jpg (206.6 KB, 625x418, 625:418, 1505139334594.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3024
>>3025
Yeah, perhaps I should adopt a name for regular use.  I'll think about it.  I'm a bit attached to posting as anon from my days on 4chan.

 No.3034

I've tried to rewrite my thread to be less vulnerable to an incendiary interpretation.  This time I mainly used the NPR story.  If anyone has time to give it a quick read, I'd appreciate feedback on whether this version seems compliant with the rules.  (This will be for future reference; I'm not planning on recreating the thread.)

"""
U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized a record-breaking amount of fentanyl from a produce truck attempting to enter the country at Arizona's Port of Nogales crossing.  Over 114 kg of fentanyl was seized.  Given that a mere 2 mg of fentanyl is a lethal dose, this means that the seized fentanyl would have provided over 57 million dosages.

Do you have any thoughts on how the US might best approach solving the opioid epidemic?  Do we need a revision to the guidelines for doctors prescribing opioids?  More oversight of drug companies that push potentially dangerous drugs?  More frequent and more thorough inspections of deliveries arriving from outside the country?  Better treatment programs for people who become addicted?

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690616787/concealed-by-cucumbers-massive-fentanyl-stash-found-in-produce-truck-in-arizona

https://www.foxnews.com/us/fentanyl-seized-by-border-patrol-in-record-bust-could-have-killed-57m-officials-say
"""

 No.3035

File: 1549250347564.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3034
>>3034
it's better, but not primarily due to it being less partisan. Why not just find a better source, period, and use only one?

>>3017
As i said above, it's not the source, but the reporting: the link is to an article five sentences long, of which two are related to a deeply partisan topic which is not pertinent to the "news" aspect of the matter.

It feels like still trying to stir the pot, just adding some layers to hopefully skirt past the rules, when the essence of it still appears intended singularly designed to create controversy.

And again, if that's not the intent, it doesn't come across as not being the intent.

>>3021
i don't see this as a mistake, and i'm not really treating it as such. This isn't the first time we've been through this exact same thing with this exact same anon.

i'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but i remain extremely unconvinced that this is all unintentional.

 No.3036

File: 1549251348509.png (424.55 KB, 1700x1517, 1700:1517, 1487079583319.png) ImgOps Google

>>3035
>it's better, but not primarily due to it being less partisan.
I'm not sure I understand.  Are saying that my revised post is still partisan?  And if, to which side?

My first sentences comes almost verbatim from the first sentence of the NPR story.  Is that sentence okay?  

In the 2nd paragraph, I tried to balance a right-leaning suggestion (better security for shipments over border) with a left-leaning suggestion (better treatment programs for addicts).

>Why not just find a better source, period, and use only one?
I cited Fox News for the size of a lethal dose, since that info wasn't in the NPR story.  But I have now tracked down a more authoritative source from DEA, which I can cite instead:  https://www.dea.gov/galleries/drug-images/fentanyl, image 4.

 No.3037

File: 1549251670017.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>3036
What i mean to say is, the issue isn't the partisanship, per se: it's in the presentation.

It really looks, and feels, and appears to be... bait. And you have a pretty long history of baiting.

The DEA source is a lot better... yes. i'm not getting my point across well. let me think.

 No.3038

File: 1549252434965.png (410.12 KB, 602x761, 602:761, 1441572718770.png) ImgOps Google

>>3036
I suppose I should jump in here. I placed the ban and deleted the thread. What I saw was a potentially volatile political topic, with a very misleading headline, about a very small article that doesn't adequately cover all of the facts. It was the perfect storm for a bait thread, and I wasn't interested in waiting around to watch the flame war. Whether that was your intent or not, that was a very potential outcome. If you truly intended to start a discussion, my apologies for the mix up, but you should work on your thread OP. A better explanation would have been better. Maybe on 4chan it made sense to just leave a topic and let people form their own questions. I get that. But here it's a much better idea to have your own questions ready. Does that make sense?

 No.3039

>>3038
>If you truly intended to start a discussion, my apologies for the mix up
No worries.  I recognize that sometimes I fail to anticipate how my threads will be seen by others.  If my thread is likely to act as bait, well you gotta do what you gotta do as mod.

 No.3040

>>3035
>It feels like still trying to stir the pot, just adding some layers to hopefully skirt past the rules, when the essence of it still appears intended singularly designed to create controversy.
I guess I just don't see it that way.  It's a straight-forward factual report of a seizure of drugs entering the country, with some information about how potent fentanyl is.  Where's the controversy coming from?  I tend to take things more literally than most people, so maybe I'm missing some "reading between the lines" that other people might do.  But it does seem rather remote from the big "border security" controversy, which is mainly about Trump's proposed wall.

What about the 2nd paragraph -- do you consider that to be baity?  E.g., would that paragraph by itself be okay for thread?

 No.3041

File: 1549254946718.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>3040
hm... why not give more context to the discussion? instead of dropping an open ended question thread, perhaps give some of your perspective for people to talk about.

i actually think that might help a bit?

 No.3042

File: 1549255156176.png (191.59 KB, 976x1024, 61:64, a35356024d6c833085dedb255f….png) ImgOps Google

>>3038
Your action is understandable.

The bust is an event that has legitimate news and politicians going bananas indicated in particular by framing it in terms of lethal doses.

Oddly the opiates seized aren't ever discussed in terms of lethal doses but street value.

Fentanyl is a pretty scary thing to even be using without an anesthesia team and monitoring.  What would such a massive amount be coming in illegally for?  I had no idea there was even a non-legitimate market for it.

The topic itself IS a bit...stark, for our pony home.  But i think it is something we should be able to discuss if we choose.  Deleting the OP entirely creates an unknown that is troubling, even if it was warranted to do so.

 No.3043

File: 1549255493608.gif (1.25 MB, 246x280, 123:140, 1535600618474.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3033
Omigosh i'm excited!  I know you've been here and you've been helpful to me and others but it would like gaining a new community member if you were named.

What sort of name would it be?  Would it be a pony name?

>>3041
It's always so wonderful how you are always willing to be so sincerely helpful even after such deep frustration, Moons.

 No.3044

File: 1549255657118.png (310.51 KB, 583x433, 583:433, 10 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3033
I've been there, man.
My recommendation is find a character you like, or have a fair few reaction images of, and use that as a functioning name for a bit, just to kind of test the waters.
That's what I did, anyway.

 No.3045

File: 1549256257974.png (481.59 KB, 691x758, 691:758, Sad shy.png) ImgOps Google

>>3043
if i were a better person, i would go directly to the helpful part, and skip the deep frustration part.

 No.3046

File: 1549256711098.png (208.29 KB, 750x460, 75:46, pinkie_and_fluttershy_by_j….png) ImgOps Google

>>3045

We're emotional creatures, Moons.  I aspire to be the kind of person you are.  

 No.3047

>>3041
>perhaps give some of your perspective for people to talk about.
Heh, I was avoiding doing that because it would be expressly political.  But I guess the Political Drama policy is really about what responses are likely to be provoked rather than the content of the post itself.  So here's another attempt:
"""
U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized a record-breaking amount of fentanyl from a produce truck attempting to enter the country at Arizona's Port of Nogales crossing.  Over 114 kg of fentanyl was seized.  Given that a mere 2 mg of fentanyl is a lethal dose, this means that the seized fentanyl would have provided over 57 million dosages.

Personally, I think the war on drugs does more harm than good and that the country would be better off if the DEA were abolished completely, with nothing to take its place.  But stuff like fentanyl scares me.  I'd venture that stuff like undiluted fentanyl should be regulated by the government as a poison rather than a drug.  And if I were in a hospital, I certainly wouldn't want any fentanyl getting pumped inside my blood.  What do you all think about the ongoing opioid problem?

Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690616787/concealed-by-cucumbers-massive-fentanyl-stash-found-in-produce-truck-in-arizona
https://www.dea.gov/galleries/drug-images/fentanyl, image 4.
""

Any feedback on this revised version would be welcome.

 No.3048

File: 1549257459852.png (861.52 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, archlinux-squidgirl2.png) ImgOps Google

>>3043
>>3044
Hmm... yeah.  I have a name+tripcode that I sometimes use when my identity might actually be important.  But it's not such a great name.  I literally generated it pseudo-randomly.

 No.3049

File: 1549257869562.png (173.04 KB, 488x750, 244:375, 139859864941.png) ImgOps Google

>>3048
>I literally generated it pseudo-randomly.

It's not like the rest of us have these great deeply meaningful names.

 No.3050

File: 1549259216722.jpg (21.04 KB, 400x400, 1:1, _not_so__serious_pinkie_by….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3049
Says "pesticides", ha!

>>3048
Gosh i only care that i can identify you.  If you want a carefully chosen trip code Whelp is often willing to do that for people.  

Mikie gave me his old one.

Any old thing would do!

 No.3051

>>3049
I never was able to figure out a name for myself so I choose to just use the name I arbitrarily picked for myself as my developer capcode.

That's how good I am at picking out a name other then anonymous.

 No.3052

>>3048
Hey, if it works, it works, right? Psuedo-randomly is how plenty of folks've done it. That or a joke.

 No.3053

File: 1549268173137.png (155.13 KB, 899x888, 899:888, thinking1.png) ImgOps Google

>>3051
Wait you mean you're not the actual bug king?

I mean, you're still cool and all, but i'm disappointed.

>>3048
I wonder what that psuedo-random character string happens to be.

 No.3055

>>3053
>I wonder what that psuedo-random character string happens to be.
I did something like
    echo $(sort -R /usr/share/dict/words | head -n 2)

a few times until I got something reasonable.

 No.3056

File: 1549309116527.jpg (66.04 KB, 250x335, 50:67, twinkletwirl2_sr.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3055
I actually meant the string you chose, not your method.

 No.3079

>>3056
"
ChainWall
".  I originally picked it for Discord.  Luckily the 2nd word was short enough that I could generate a tripcode starting with it

 No.3082

>>3079
wait, I already love you.

This morning, I was just excluded from a new site that's been up just a coupe days because it's frowned on sternly by the new userbase to post with names and I am simply unable to post anon for mental reasons.  I can't even conceive of communication without identifying myself as a unique subject, it's some kind of mental weakness but one jerk went off about how it means I want my "tripfag dick sucked" etc so to avoid disrupting the place I am excluded from there.

I guess what I'm saying is if you're not comfortable posting with a name I'm sorry to push you on it.  I don't know why I impose my view of reality on everyone all the time and it's not right.


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