/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Can somebody give me the TL;DR?

Ban users = problems solved?

>>3762

Manley and lost pony got banned for two weeks, and as far as I can tell, if they come back after the two weeks and start their shit again, it's a permaban.

The rest of the thread is a combination of people defending them mixed with a Festivus Airing of Grievences both about them and how things even got to this point.

>>3763
>>3763

don't forget the pessimism that the staff will follow through with a permaban being permanent in the case of one of them

>>3763
>>3764
It's probably worth throwing in there's a fair bit of question about the way the particular threat of permabans was phrased.
Needless to say, the suggestion that both'd be banned purely for a single user's actions is not ideal.

>>3765
I really don't think that's going to happen.

If an effort is made, it will be seen.

But it better be a damn good and sincere effort.

At this point though, in my own opinion, I don't think a place like this is necessarily a mentally healthy place for everyone.

>>3766
Well, that's the thing: No effort is required to simply not post.
Yet, simply not posting can still result in a user getting in trouble, going by the way it was phrased.
If one of them does something, regardless of if the other does anything, both are banned. The only exception to this was if it was proven one was doing so specifically to get the other banned.

>>3767
>Yet, simply not posting can still result in a user getting in trouble, going by the way it was phrased.


That's what I'm saying isn't going to happen.

By that reasoning one could just make a random post saying "fuck you" to the other, and both would get banned even if the other did nothing.

Yeah, no, that's stupid and I don't think the staff is stupid. I think it's pretty stupid to even think they would do something so obviously wrong.

But I don't think any of this is going to be a problem anyway.

>>3768
If that's the case, they really should rephrase it.
>"After this two week period, if either user engages directly OR indirectly with the other user, i.e., making thinly veiled references to the other, an IMMEDIATE permaban shall follow for both users, unless it can be shown one user acted with malice to purposefully pull the both of them down (self-destructive revenge). "

>>3768
>Yeah, no, that's stupid
But that is how it is literally worded.  I agree that the site staff certainly won't actually do that, but the way that it is worded is really bad.

I will say

In spite of all the drama and all
with Manley and Lost Pony gone, that's like a good chunk of Ponyville traffic gone.

>>3583
>they've torn the site apart lately.
Eh, they've certainly given the site staff a headache.  But any ordinary user who didn't want to see their drama could just hide Manley's threads, like Boat did.

I've been thinking of possible alternatives to permabans for Lost Pony and Manley.  I've noticed that Lost Pony sometimes gets really angry and make nasty posts, and then cools down a few days later.  So my suggestion is that, instead of a permaban, Lost Pony can be made an offer: he will agree that mods will feel free to ban him for a few days whenever his posts are even vaguely angry or too confrontational with another user, not as punishment, but as giving him time to cool down.  (Such a ban could be issued with a message like "User was given a few days to cool down" so that other users will know that he is gone for a few days.)

And I think Manley has a problem with being stubborn and too confrontational when he disagrees with other people, so I think he can be offered a similar deal: Whenever he gets too confrontational (at the mods' sole discretion), he'll be given a mandatory leave of absence for a day or two, even if he isn't breaking any of the rules.

I think this can be done in way that doesn't require a lot of effort from the site staff.  It might not be entirely fair to Manley and Lost Pony, but it's better for them than a permaban.  This site doesn't have many posters; at the PACTA vote, I think we had around 20--30 people?  If there's a good alternative to permanently jettisoning 7% of the current userbase, it seems to me like a wise idea to explore it.

Also, in regards to the nuke clause: it has the benefit of being an easily administered "bright line" rule, but it has a significant drawback of covering a lot of innocent behavior.  Like if Manley and Lost Pony are just having a friendly discussion about Pokemon, they'll both get permabanned for engaging with each other.  I think it can be changed to cover only negative engagement without too much more effort from the site staff for enforcement.

>>3774
Or if you guys want to keep the rule as a firm "no engagement" rule, then at least give Lost Pony and Manley the ability to filter each other so that they're not tempted to talk to each other.

>>3775
A filter, in general, would solve the majority of these issues.
I know there's distaste for the concept, but, it isn't like a name's a permanent thing. If someone decides to rebrand themselves, after discovering most folk've filtered them, they can always do so.

>>3776
Yeah.  I still think it's kinda fucked up that Lost Pony and Manley will get permabanned for just having a friendly discussion about Pokemon though.  If the site staff want to suggest that LP and Manley completely avoid each other, that's a fine suggestion, but issuing a permaban just for some friendly conversation seems really unjust.

>>3777
The whole phrasing is off that way. People're saying the mods'd probably not do stuff like that, but, like, that's how it's been phrased. That's how it's presented here.
I dunno.

Personally, though, I'm of the opinion if you're going to force users to ignore others, a filter ought be an option, regardless.

>>3778

Personally, I'm skeptical that having a filter option available would make any difference in this case because there is no real guarantee that it would even be used.

And considering that Manley has at times jumped into threads to announce that he is hiding it, only to jump back in later and admitted that he unhid the thread "to see if anyone was talking about me behind my back" I would seriously doubt Manley would use the filter if he felt the need to keep watch of someone he had a grudge against.

Plus, filters may hide post by certain user names, but they certainly don't hide responses to post by the person being filtered ... which just draws people into turning off filters to see what's going on in a thread.

>>3779
Manly'd be the one I imagine most'd filter, though. Primarily because of that attitude.
You aren't exactly wrong, though. People still get in to fights without them. But, I think it'd lessen them significantly.

>>3774
The mods aren't always going to be there in time to stop a situation from happening. They would still have plenty of opportunities to get themselves into trouble.

>>3777
Being unable to interact with each other is a small price to pay for ruining the site with stupid fights for months on end. They clearly can't get along, and a suggestion without the threat of a permaban behind it is obviously going to be ignored the first time one of them posts something that sets the other one of.

>>3781
Well, probably worth noting, it isn't just them two.
Manley's had quite a few fights with other users just as well, after all. Usually going the same way.
Only real difference is, LP is less level-headed when he runs in to these fights.

>After this two week period, if either user engages directly OR indirectly with the other user, i.e., making thinly veiled references to the other, an IMMEDIATE permaban shall follow for both users, unless it can be shown one user acted with malice to purposefully pull the both of them down (self-destructive revenge).
What exactly does "engage" mean in this context?  Suppose Lost Pony comes back after his ban is over and makes a thread genuinely apologizing to Manley and other people.  Does that count as "engaging" with Manley?  A genuine apology certainly isn't malicious, so if it does count as "engag[ing]", then it would cause both Lost Pony and Manley to be immediately permabanned.  Buy permabanning Manley in this case would be absurd, so my conclusion is that such an apology would not count as "engag[ing]".  Which leaves me very confused about what "engage" means here.

>>3783
To be frank, I don't believe making an apology over this would be genuine.

>>3784
Doushite?  Lost Pony can get hot-headed in the moment, but I've talked to him after the ban, and he sure seems to regret baiting Manley in that sexy Pokemon thread.

>>3785
i think you mean dostedt

>>3785
If you want to put up the effort to make a huge public apology thread, you better truthfully mean it and keep straight from there on.

Only, what likely happens is that you lose control again 2 days later, shit over Manley and the site staff for being assholes, threaten to leave and flush all good intentions in your apology to the sewer.

Best to just get back in the groove, try to be as kind as possible, if you really care apologise to others and person and try to not slip up.

I feel that apology threads and such are just big pieces of playing the victim.

>>3789
I'd agree with this. There's also the trouble of exactly what the apology's for.
Given that it's his reaction to someone else generally stirring up trouble and constantly poking or tossing around comments, an apology runs the risk of excusing that behavior.

>>3791
>There's also the trouble of exactly what the apology's for.
Pretty sure it would be mainly for jumping into Manley's sexy Pokemon thread and poking Manley again about that fight about whether lizards have empathy.

>>3792
Near as I could tell, he didn't. Not until Manley started getting pissy at his mere presence, anyway. First post he made was him defending Manley from the pedophilia accusation he had got.

Look, I'm certainly not going to say LP did nothing wrong, here. He definitely overreacted. But, when it comes to an apology, you've really got to be in the complete wrong, else you end up providing an excuse for otherwise scummy behavior. Especially when the behavior you're apologizing for was something that's been built up over a long time of general rough treatment from the other guy.

>>3789
>I feel that apology threads and such are just big pieces of playing the victim.
How so?  I don't see how admitting that one is at fault and apologizing for it is "playing the victim".  Seems kinda the opposite.

But let's consider another scenario.  Suppose Lost Pony makes a thread, and Manley reads the OP and gets really interested in the topic and responds (either forgetting or without noticing who made the thread) with a good, high-quality post.  Neither user did anything malicious.  Does this count as engagement?  If so, then both posters will be permabanned, but it seems absurd to ban them in that scenario, so I conclude that it doesn't count as "engagement".  But then the question is, what does count as "engagement"?

>>3795
Artee has a point. Yes, you're right that someone saying they are at fault and apologizing for it is the complete opposite of playing the victim, but that's rarely how people actually make apology threads.

They tend to say sorry, sure, but not really admit their fault 100% or end up making excuse after excuse about their behavior, rather than just saying sorry and trying to make up for it.

Really, you get both types of Apology threads. It's pretty easy to determine which kind is which, though.

>>3795
>I don't see how admitting that one is at fault and apologizing for it is "playing the victim".  Seems kinda the opposite.
You would think so, but I've actually seen lost pony do a perfect example of what Artee is talking about (on Ponychan).

>>3797
>>3797
> I've actually seen lost pony do a perfect example of what Artee is talking about (on Ponychan).
[Citation needed]  

>>3798
Saying that something was all his fault, but then throwing in "it's obvious you don't want to talk to me anymore because you've found better friends", thereby making the person he's apologizing to look like an asshole.

I explained that that was what I thought of his apology, and while he denied that that was his intention, he still thanked me for the insight. And he and that person are mostly okay with each other nowadays. But shit like that deserves to be called out.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that lost pony was generally untrustworthy. I was just saying that it's a thing that can happen.

There's a SteamTwist syndrome.

Grovel along about how you'll improve your life and how you see you made mistakes and will do better from now on.

Then 3 threads in make a huge post about how you're always the victim and all the mods and posters have been out to get you.

>>3800
No need to bring him into this.

My clock says ban's up.

Posting here to minimize attention whoring perception; i have a few points.

1.  I am very, truly and deeply sorry, Manley.  For baiting you, then harassing you, for thinking ill of you and being a huge pain in your ass and getting you in trouble for the last two years.  You didn't deserve it, and i don't think you deserved this ban either.  You've always been a friend to me even at our worst, and i've been a real shithead to you.

2.  I am truly sorry, Moons, for creating a fuss on your site then screaming at you in front of everypony.  I'm even more sorry for the things i said to you offsite.  I wish i was as good a friend as you are.

3.  I take full responsibility for the whole debacle.  My behavior was monstrous.  However, there will be no groveling or begging, no false promises of doing better and frankly, aside from Moons and Manley, im not really sorry to the rest of you who chose to stand by and "be offended" while i was having an autistic meltdown.  This is what happens to me, and if any of you had gotten off your judgy high-horse to help me, maybe i wouldn't have hurt people as much as i did.  Not saying it's your job or anyone's fault but my own, but im saying y'all got some nerve for some of the shit said about me itt.  Regardless, i love you all anyway and if you think a little hateful word here or there is gonna drive me off you clearly haven't met a lost pony.  *extends hoof.  Hi, nice to meet you.  Maybe, we can start over?

4.  I absolutely adore a good roleplay, and being secured silently into the stocks in the town center while you all have your way with me was so exciting and midieval!!  Center of attention without having to say a word.  Im not sure how it was punishment, exactly, but a delightful time together nonetheless.  I hope we can do it again, under better circumstances hopefully.

See you all on /pony.  I feel this experience has bonded us together in new ways and i look forward to posting together again.  We are here forever.  Let's make the best of it!

>>3808
Great non-apology, you sure didn't learn your lesson at all. Good job

>We are here forever.
Given this post, that's unlikely in your case.

>>3809
Parts 1 and 2, and the first two sentences of part 3, constitute an apology.  And I think it's a good apology.  The rest of his post... well, it isn't part of the apology.

>>3810
Personally, I am still of The stance he shouldn't have apologized, and I think his post is a great example of part of the reason why.
You really need to be fairly careful with apologies. Do them wrong, and people will take them in a rather hostile light. Even if you do them right, you still run the problem of excusing behavior done by another, assuming you weren't the only one in the wrong.
I just don't think it's healthy, all around.

Why are people still posting in my thread?

The role-play is over.  We all had a great time.  Please move along now.

>>3812
your thread?
this is an Admins thread?!

>>3813
ikr!

You should get yourself one.

>>3814
L-Lewd!

BTW, I'm still waiting for a mod to respond to my question about what "engage" means in >>>/pony/923566 :
>After this two week period, if either user engages directly OR indirectly with the other user, i.e., making thinly veiled references to the other, an IMMEDIATE permaban shall follow for both users, unless it can be shown one user acted with malice to purposefully pull the both of them down (self-destructive revenge).

Suppose Lost Pony makes a thread, and Manley reads the OP and gets really interested in the topic and responds (either forgetting or without noticing who made the thread) with a good, high-quality post.  Neither user did anything malicious.  Does this count as engagement?  If so, then both posters will be permabanned, but it seems absurd to ban them in that scenario, so I conclude that it doesn't count as "engage[ment]".  But then the question is, what does count as "engage[ment]"?

>>3808
>This is what happens to me, and if any of you had gotten off your judgy high-horse to help me, maybe i wouldn't have hurt people as much as i did
>help me

Legit question, not a troll.

How in the blue hell am I supposed to do that? I am sorry for your volatile emotional state, but it is the definition of something beyond my control and I feel very strange getting blamed and then not blamed for it. My manifestation in your world is limited to a couple of lines of glowy text on a computer screen that you probably won't heed.

>>3817
Unless you were one of the few itt getting their free pokes in while i was silenced, that was not intended for you.  Im sorry if it hit you by mistake.  (Edit:  also you never know what a small reality-based couple of lines of glowy text might accomplish)

>>3816
Chain, that has been asked and answered under the "sink both ships" doctrine of malice exception.  If i am permabanned for my direct statements to Manley in my apology or by mentioning him by reference now, then i alone will be permabanned and he will be free to post.

Therefore, while a lost pony remains un-permabanned, "engage" is established to mean "in squabbling".



>>3815
>lewd
Well it says stop looking...

>>3818
>Chain, that has been asked and answered
I never got a direct answer (from the mods) to the question posed in >>3816.  And Manley wants a precise answer too, so that he knows exactly what he needs to avoid doing on /pony/.

>>3819
As one of only two people subject to said restriction, a lost pony is specifically NOT burdening mod staff to clarify what was stated clearly in the original ban notice:

"rule breaking incivility"

Seems crystal clear to me.  I know you mean well, Chain, but please do not provoke the staff to tighten my collar further when it is around my neck and not your own.

>>3819
The way the declaration was phrased was " if either user engages directly OR indirectly with the other user". I NEED some clarification on what "engagement" means in this context. Because I am hearing mixed things from different sources. To me "engaging" would include any sort of interaction at all. Including speaking directly to them or even referencing them in any way. I am formally requesting a direct, detailed explanation on what "engaging" means before I make my decision on returning to this website. I dealt with this kind of vaguely defined nonsense quite enough under your so-called "political" ban that refused to explain what was and wasn't "political". I would also like to state that I am in agreement with the idea that perma-banning both of us if ONE person violates those rules is also unfair and would like to request clarification on that as well.

If you want my honest opinion, these seem like half-hearted measures that don't really address the root of the problem. Telling two users not to "engage" each other or they will be banned doesn't really fix the problem. It's basically just making those users feel unwanted on the website so the staff doesn't have to actually DO anything. No attempt was made to contact either of us directly over this issue, or the mediate an understanding between the two users before this drastic and unfair ruling was placed with no prior discussion. On a more personal level, this ruling is also completely lacking. It only includes one person and not other people who frequently target me with argumentation like Noonim. The way this ruling is worded, I could argue with Noonim 100 more times and I should not get in trouble because he was not included in the original message. Just one other user was. But we all know that's not what the staff wants. I feel like I'd still be punished for things not clearly defined in the scope of this "emergency ban" and that also feels unfair to me.

In all honesty, I do NOT feel welcome on this site anymore and I'm not sure if I want to return. This situation puts me on thin ice for things that are not clearly defined. Not only that, putting me in this situation is going to attract who don't like me and want me gone. They know they only have to push me a little bit to get rid of me forever. They will have their sights on me, it's like blood in the water. I also do not trust the mod-staff here to be completely unbiased in this issue. There are people on the mod-staff with personal biases against me; at least one has accused me of terrible things and insulting my mental health. Even the user base here seems divided on whether or not they even want me here in the first place. A not small portion of the site would rather see me leave. So like I said, I don't feel welcome here, and it's probably because I'm NOT welcome here. I have not decided if I will return, but I need this information I've requested before I can make that choice.


1) I require a direct, detailed explanation on what "engaging" means in the context of the two parties involved in this emergency ban.

2) I require clarification on whether or not one party violating the established terms of this "engagement" will result in both parties being banned, even if one party does not engage or retaliate in any way.

3) I need to discuss the possibility of other users who like to target me with argumentation being included as well, depending on the terms of 1 and 2.

4) I need an official confirmation that members of the modstaff are going to operate without personal biases on these matters to the best of their ability.

I'm gonna post this here for a bit, but I think I should make the items in this thread their own post so they can be more clearly seen by the modstaff.

>>3821
a lost pony second's Manley's concerns.

I've made sure Manley is aware that this is a very busy week for Moons at work, and we both hope Moons is able to schedule a time to meet with Manley or with both of us in the following week to work out everything Manley needs to feel comfortable posting with us in the future.

a lost pony is ready to help or btfo as desired.  Moons please help us, thank you.