[ 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.3826[View All]

File: 1553186637921.png (178.32 KB, 582x752, 291:376, 411477543.png) ImgOps Google

It seems like my post in the previous thread was lost under all the other posts, so I've decided to to make a new thread on this topic for the modstaff to see.

Recently I was put under new rules pertaining to interacting with another user. The original post is here  >>>/pony/923566 and the thread discussing it is here >>>/canterlot/3564 The exact wording of these new rules was "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." Because of this, 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. This thread is [b[my formal request for a direct, detailed explanation on what "engaging" means[/b]. I have dealt with this kind of vaguely defined nonsense in regards to interacting with other users quite enough under the previous under so-called "political" ban that refused to explain or clarify what was and wasn't "political". This vague ruling caused me much undue stress and frustration and I am hesitant to deal with such a situation again.  

The second part of the ruling I need clarification on is "if either user engages...an IMMEDIATE permaban shall follow for both users." The way this is currently worded, this would seem to state that one party violating the established terms of what "engagement" is will result in both parties being banned, even if the other party does not engage or retaliate in any way. If this is the case, I would like to express that I am in agreement with the sentiment put forth by a few other users that this is completely unfair. I would like to request clarification on this as well.. Do both parties get permabanned if one person "engages" or does "engaging" require a mutual statement and response?

I require this information before I can make my decision on whether or not I will be returning to this website.

On the topic of my returning to the site: Much of this is my own personal opinion on the situation, but I feel like this is a good time to explain my intentions. It is my opinion that these actions taken by the modstaff seem like half-hearted measures that don't really address the root of the problems. Telling two users not to "engage" each other or they will be banned doesn't really fix the root of the issue. 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 to mediate an understanding between the two users before this drastic and potentially unfair ruling was placed on both of us with no prior discussion. It is also my opinion that 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 any another poster not included in this ruling 100 more times and I should not get in trouble because just one poster was included in the original message. But we all know this is clearly not what the staff wants and that it is more than likely that THIS new ruling we are discussing right now would be used to reflect on things seemingly not covered by it and as precedent to give me harsher punishments for issues not covered by it in the future. That feels unfair to me.

In all honesty, I do NOT feel welcome on this site anymore. I'm am currently not sure if I want to return. In addition to everything I just discussed, I've read through the post discussing this topic and it is clear that even the user base here seems divided on whether or not they even want me around. To be fair, some expressed a desire for me to stay, but a not small portion of the site would rather see me leave or be forced out. This situation puts me in a situation that is going to attract those who don't like me and want me gone. They know they only have to under my skin to tempt me into violating the (currently nebulously defined) rulings surrounding me to get rid of me forever. They will have their sights on me, it's like blood in the water. An environment with people this hostile to you is not conducive for feeling welcomed or able to freely share your ideas and opinions as other users on this site can. But ultimately the choice to leave or stay is still mine and not theirs until or unless I get removed from the site. I have not made my final decision on the matter and I require this information I've requested before I can make that choice. To reiterate:

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 terms of "engagement" in (1)  will result in both parties being banned, even if the opposite 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 in this ruling of non-engagement as well, depending on the terms of (1) and (2).

4) I want anything we establish in (1), (2) or (3) to be made public so that these new rules are clearly defined to those involved and to all users in regards to reporting other users.
212 posts and 64 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4043

>>4042
You're right that it is futile. You make no effort to listen to others, or understand their positions, and instead quickly resort to attacking them until they ultimately lose patience.

At this point, I'm not sure there's a point in trying to get you to understand. Best hope, I guess, is for the staff to be a bit stricter in their job.

 No.4044

>>4027
>The problem is, no one else shows me any empathy. Anon didn't have to say I'm "against free speech"
How does that constitute failing to show you empathy?  You said that you wanted to suppress a category of speech that is Constitutionally protected in the US.  How else should that be described besides saying that you're against free speech?

 No.4045

>>4044
Exactly this.

 No.4046

File: 1553723634893.png (538.24 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, pink hoof up.png) ImgOps Google

>>4044

The issue isn't who has what political opinion.

The issue that has imbued this thread is that others posting without names are allowed unfettered to be rude to Manley and at the present time Manley is being required to be excessively polite under threat of consequences.

>>4026
I have been one of the main people bitching that Manley is still rude and I've been absolutely wrong.

With two weeks to ponder (of which it only took me a couple days actually) I thought back to my entire two year history of arguing with Manley and realized that much of what I thought was him being rude was him reacting to my being very rude first.

This is the issue with "civility".  Those who drumbeat for it (including myself often, and itt thread some anons to an astounding degree) are very rude themselves while telling others not to be rude.

If we were all perfect people we wouldn't be having this conversation, yet again.  Some are even upset with me specifically for having an epiphany and realizing how rude I've been, and turning around and trying to mitigate the damage I've caused by arguing against the "manley is rude" doctrine that is being used to excuse people's rudeness towards him in this thread, for days now.

Yes, a lost pony is rude.  Often.  And projects rudeness onto others, and claims civility.  That time is at least somewhat mitigated, with the realization of its truth.  I have been very rude, to many here and I've alienated a lot of the posters on this site because of it.  From my high horse self-righteous saddle of truth (ha, not) I wish to deliver the disagreeable message from on high that people lecturing Manley about rudeness in this thread are in fact being very rude to him.

Not as rude as I have, but at least as rude as he is accused of being.

Bottom line, Manley's rudeness is no more intentional than the rest of yours, people.  At the same time you criticize his conclusion that you are rude on purpose, you accuse him of being rude on purpose.  We're all fucking rude, okay?  If you can't admit it to yourselves, as I have, then you have ZERO chance of ever being less rude and therefore have ZERO standing to tell Manley to stop being rude.

You staffers either.  If you don't think it was rude to hang Manley and myself out to dry for two weeks while people threw lies and whined about us, without opportunity to respond, then I'm sorry but you are the rudest of the bunch.  Aside from myself of course, I am king of rude hill and it takes one to know one.

We're all rude.  Except for maybe Star, and except for Ella and just maybe, I'm not sure, I haven't caught Wizard being rude, or Z, of Groove, ok alright yes there are plenty of people on this site who aren't rude but.  The majority of us are all rude.

If you don't like it, then ban me because it is the truth.  But ban me alone, not anyone else who cannot control what I'm going to sperg out about next. Seems to me, many of my spergouts have been over the lack of civility issue, and I am also the king on uncivil discourse around here, again it takes one to know one.

Civility is an endangered species here.  It is unfair to lecture anyone regarding rudeness without first acknowledging one's own.  I acknowledge mine.  Now send me away or accept what I have to say, or do both as you choose.  As I've told Moony, I'm here forever until I am permabanned.  I'm not just going to go away.  But I am trying to be less rude.  I know that today, that effort has failed.  But I'm not the only one being rude around here.

signed, a rude pony.

 No.4047

>>4044
Only if you treat "free speech" as an absolute. I love almost all aspects of free speech. I love freedom of the press, I love the ability to criticize leadership. Even when the other side uses it, like when someone accused Obama (falsely) of not being born in the US. He was an idiot, and his motives were questionable, but it was his right to criticize the president.  

But if what anon says is true, and there is no laws against hate speech in the United States (which I'm willing to admit, I could find no evidence that there is so he is likely correct), then I cannot support that. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, they did so by spreading propaganda and lies. By convincing the populace of racist, incorrect ideologies. Allowing such things to be spread is antithetical to the values I feel this nation should uphold. This is why those ideas are banned in Germany. They saw first hand the damage they can do. They know that allowing it is a greater threat to freedom than baring it.

The way he chose to frame the statement "you don't support one aspect of free speech so you against all aspects of it" is incorrect. I simply do not see the issue in black and white. That is why "we have different standards" was a less rude way of putting that. But instead of admitting that he should not have spoken in absolutes, he doubled-down and insisted he was right, and insulted me along the way. It really only proves my point that hostility is the norm here, even when I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt that wasn't intentionally trying to smear me with what he said.

 No.4048

>>4047
>those ideas are banned
The entire concept of free speech is that unpopular, heretical ideas (even ones that you hate and believe dangerous) SHOULD NOT be banned.

 No.4049

>>4048
Its still not correct to say I'm against it on the whole.

But for my own curiosity, how can you square that with your own personal values, knowing the Nazis existed?

 No.4050

>>4046
>Bottom line, Manley's rudeness is no more intentional than the rest of yours, people.
Nobody is claiming that Manley is *intentionally* being rude.  Personally I think he is simply negligent.  He automatically assumes the worst of other people and never bothers to consider that he might be wrong about it.  His incivility causes a lot of problems, like just now when that anon lost his patience and was rude back.

 No.4051

>>4047
I am not treating it as an absolute. I am treating it in the same regard as every single Reference I've ever seen to free speech has been, up until this point. That is to say, political speech is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if you are a communist, a Nazi, a Christian, a Muslim, whatever. Everybody has the same right to express themselves freely. The only limitations I'm aware of on Free speech are specifically in regards to inciting panic, and direct calls to violence or other unlawful Behavior.

that is the standard that the United States holds itself to, and near as I can tell, most all philosophers I have read on the subject agree with. Not to mention, like I said, the average definition by the majority of individuals I've ever spoken to on this subject. Even the people who are for censorship of certain people, tend to be my experience agree with this definition. They argue about pragmatism, not the actual right. They say that the right has to be in some cases set aside, in order to preserve the future. But they still recognize the same standard definition of freedom of speech as I've already described.

>The way he chose to frame the statement "you don't support one aspect of free speech so you against all aspects of it" is incorrect.
Good thing that's a flat-out lie and not what I did at all.

>he doubled-down and insisted he was right,
again, factually false. I'll flat-out li yumei to misrepresent your opponents. What I had done was very specific very pointed. I responded to your insult. I responded to your accusation that I was behaving in a non empathetic Manor. The fact is, I was being perfectly empathetic. as far as this aspect is concerned, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not I was right or wrong. The fact is, I was not behaving in a non empathetic manner, and that was a baseless insult you decide to make, because frankly, near as I can tell, you are completely incapable of basic human decency. It's why you are on the chopping block for a permanent ban, and frankly, at this point, I am in full hearted support for your banning.

seriously, if you are going to be like this every single time you ever run into anybody who disagrees with you, I can't see you ever being civil. It seems like every single conversation I've ever had the displeasure to engage with you has always resulted in this. It seems like no matter what I do, no matter what I say, you will misrepresent it, misconstrue it,, and throw out tons of baseless hostile accusations instead of behaving in a reasonable manner.

It's probably a mistake of me to get this emotionally invested, but, frankly, I just can't bring myself to care at this point. You've been behaving like an utter asshole for so long, and up until now, the staff has done nothing about it. I can only hope that that stops. I hope they decide, rightfully so, to permanently ban you, because that is what you ultimately deserve.

 No.4052

>>4050
>anon lost his patience and was rude back

I can't really tell one anon from another, in general (I know this is an weakness I have) but I am sure there are at least 2 anons itt.  Manley has been getting barbed by rude anons for two days nonstop, and it's now Manley's fault that one of them became frustrated and became rude?  Then why isn't it anon's fault that manley lost his patience and became rude?

For two years I've been blaming Manley for my own rudeness without realizing I frustrated him with my rudeness first.  When does the finger-pointing stop, and when do we take responsibility for our own rudeness?

Exactly how is it constructive to roast Manley for his rudeness, negligent or otherwise, while now, in
>>4051
>flat-out lie

accusing him of lying?  Lying has an element of intent.  It is impossible to "lie" without menaing to, and this many posts in on this political argument topic that has been derailing this canterlot thread for two days, why is it not assumed that Manley has perhaps mistakenly misunderstood or mistakenly mis-stated a detail (assuming it is in fact incorrect, which I lack the attention span to even confirm, maybe it's accurate nad not untrue at all, I dunno)?

If anons get to swarm like ees and make assumptions of malintent against Manley, how is it OK for them and not OK for Manley?

Seriously, the free speech issue has done nothing but illustrate that the problem with Manley's "civility" is no worse than that of other people.  Historically, perhaps Manley is more willing to get stuck in these conversations than others are, but within those conversations he is far from the only rude person involved.

 No.4053

>>4049
I didn't say you were against it on the whole. The concept of free speech is that everyone, no matter how bad your ideas, can speak freely.
it isn't that you want to censor everyone, it's that you want to censor at all. That is what makes you against free speech, by my standards. but, given that at this point I have no real interest in giving you so much courtesy, there's no real point in me saying by my standards. That standard is by the entire world near as I can tell, standard. Even places like the UK understand that are there hate speech legislation is a limitation against Free speech. They just see it as a necessary evil, so to speak, to prevent particular bad behavior. And frankly, they are a great example of exactly why you don't want to ban certain types of speech.

By the standards as set by philosophers, US law, not to mention the general populace on average, yes, you are against free speech. I was being kind saying it was a different standard. No real reason for that now.

 No.4054

>>4049
Speaking for myself, it's simple as understanding that the German populist did not have a constitution guaranteeing their particular rights. It was very easy for the Nazis to take over, and use that lack of basic right to ensure their particular political opponents were censored. They used that lack of human Rights to ensure they had absolute power over the populace. If anything, I find that the Nazis are a great example of why we must fight for human rights, no matter what

 No.4055

>>4049
>But for my own curiosity, how can you square that with your own personal values, knowing the Nazis existed?
If you think Nazis came to power through exercising their free speech, you are mistaken.  They employed illegal violence to intimide their political opponents and used various other shady techniques to seize power.

But in any case, freedom is not without costs.  Malicious individuals can abuse their freedoms and harm others.  But overall, freedom of speech is definitely a net positive, especially when you consider that being able to voice one's heartfelt opinions is something that everybody wants to be able to do.

 No.4056

>>4053
>against free speech, by my standards

Ah, so yestrday perhaps you could have stated that instead of "so you are against free speech" as a flat statement that any reasonable person could reasonably foresee would cause Manley to react defensively.

Seeing how this kind of quibble is at the core of ALL the uncivility on this site, making a better effort to avoid engaging it might be a better solution than whipping Manley for it.

:pinkie11:

 No.4057

>>4052
Probably because he always does this. I don't know what magic we gave you the patience to accept his constant hostile assumptions, but I don't have it.

this is not something that has only happened once, or is easily excusable as a misunderstanding. This is something he has literally done every single time I've had an argument with him. this is something he's done to you, as well. This is something that I had to go to extreme lengths in order to get the staff to finally react to, and Ban the guy at one point for, because of how far and how insane he decided to take it.

if it isn't him lying, it's him literally making up conversations in his head. I don't know which is worse, but, either way, somebody that broken should not be here.

 No.4058

Further, why is this derailment still ongoing.

It's clear here that no one has the high ground on not having either baited rudeness (negligently or intentionally) or directly engaged in rudeness, which is the topic at hand, not the issue of free speech.

I recommend everyone step away from the keyboard and think about how their own actions have caused this debacle and try to come back at it later with a less....uncivil approach to the issue of making constructive suggestions of civil conduct to others.

 No.4059

>>4056
I disagree. Near as I can tell, dealing with manly is not like dealing with any rational normal reasonable human being in the world. It's why I only man she ever has this particular problem when it comes to arguments with me.

I was kind about it. After it was clear that he has radically different standards for free speech, I decided I would entertain it, even though it goes directly against the vast majority standard English definition of free speech. I decided I'd act with a little bit of empathy. It was completely undeserved, and thrones back straight into my face. I completely regret it. I never should have given Manley any kind of courtesy. It is quite clear at this point that he doesn't care about it, he will use it to hurt you because that's the kind of person he is.

no, I do not believe any rational reasonable human being would expect this kind of reaction from somebody. Because most rational reasonable human beings assume they are working with other reasonable human beings themselves. Unfortunately, Manley is an exceptional case of somebody who does not operate in that manner.

 No.4060

>>4058
I would remind you that you've been bullied and generally harassed, lied about, and attacks constantly for ages by manly, and so you should personally know very full well exactly what kind of a person he is. It is completely backwards to me that you would decide to suddenly defend his actions like this. It makes no sense. I don't know why you are doing it. maybe you were hoping to Garner some kind of empathy so the mods don't put you on the chopping block next, but, you need to realize, he's done this himself.

I wouldn't be responding the way I am if he had behaved in a reasonable manner like everybody else on this site.
I seriously cannot stress that enough. Everybody else on this site does not have the problems that Manley as a poster does.
near as I can tell, nobody behaves in this completely backwards and unreasonable manner other than him.

so what do you expect from me? Do you expect me to treat him with kid gloves, ignore his constant hostile attacks, his general rudeness, and accept it?
I won't do that. I'm not the kind of person who excuses bad behavior like that. I'd much rather call it out, for what it is.

 No.4061

>>4056
>Seeing how this kind of quibble is at the core of ALL the uncivility on this site, making a better effort to avoid engaging it might be a better solution than whipping Manley for it.
If you ignore a bully it just grows stronger.
Why on Earth would you ever recommend ignoring bad behavior like that? It's not going to go away. It's just going to Fester, as though it's okay.
we shouldn't allow that kind of behavior to grow, and become something commonplace, something accepted, something that the victims of are to blame for.

 No.4062

>>4046
>We're all fucking rude, okay?  If you can't admit it to yourselves, as I have, then you have ZERO chance of ever being less rude and therefore have ZERO standing to tell Manley to stop being rude.
Eh, I think I manage to have decently civil discussions (even on politics) with others.  E.g., my interaction with Rose in http://ponyville.us/pony/res/931742.html .  I think that conversation would have been far rockier if I had been discussing the matter with Manley.

 No.4063

>>4062
I would ultimately say the same. I tend to have decent conversations with most people, but, manly isn't most people.

 No.4064

>>4062
Because you respect Rose.

 No.4065

>>4064
Yes, I respect people who are civil with me and treat me with respect.  If you wish to be treated with respect, I urge you to treat others with respect too.  You have a bad reputation on this site for disrespectful arguing, and the best way to shed that reputation is to start being extra careful to be civil and respectful to others.

 No.4066

>>4065
Any attempt is met with immediate hostility, as you just proved.

 No.4067

>>4066
It will take a very long time, I wager, for you to get rid of the reputation you've earned. That's unfortunate, but, you reap what you sow, so, ultimately oh, that's going to have to be on you.

 No.4068

>>4067
Its not possible to get rid of, so atamepts at civility are fruitless.

 No.4069

>>4068
With that attitude, you'd be right. You can't possibly fix a problem if you think there's no hope.
So what do you think, then? Should we just get rid of you?

 No.4070

>>4069
I tried to be civil and you accused me of not know how time works.

 No.4071

>>4070
Moony just got through telling me that rudeness cant be countered with rudeness. Why am I the only one held to that standard? Its not possible to force one user to follow rules of interaction others are not bound by. It just singles them out.

 No.4072

>>4070
well, given that you're referencing it again, I do have to wonder if you do understand the concept of linear time. After all, it was brought up as a result of your incivility. Or did you forget the accusatory claim I wasn't being empathetic.

 No.4073

>>4071
The problem is, near as I can tell, you find incivility where there is none.
You act as though and I for an eye is acceptable, when you've perceived something that is not there.

 No.4074

>>4062
Probably not you, I'm referring mostly to the anons around here of which it seems there may be as many as four? responding to my post? or at least 2, like I said which is entirely confusing to me so I am sorry to have blasted away so broadly, then again as I stated I am quite rude.

I really don't have time to properly read or rebut any o these posts
>>4059
>>4060
>>4061
>>4062
but at a glance I see a major issue right here:
> would remind you that you've been bullied and generally harassed, lied about, and attacks constantly for ages by manly, and so you should personally know very full well exactly what kind of a person he is

First, Manley have never lied to me or about me.  I've had a hard time grasping my own contribution to the issues I have experienced with him, and right back to the beginning with the big one I went on about for two years (which I will not specifically state here under the "sink both ships" special nonagression clause the two of us are subject to) where I remembered antagonizing Manley for several hours while he got increasingly bent out of shape; so:  upon review after ONLY two years of ongoing crisis it became clear to me that my own behavior in fact underlied that entire thing that hurt me so much.

In the four posts I linked to there are several admissions of doing to Manley what you all complain he does to others, and specifically the statement directly to me that I know "the kind of a person he is", I find the above links to be admissions of egregious misconduct directly against a member of this site in violation of its civility rules.

Again.  Gentlemen.  How can you expect Manley to learn from what you SAY while ignoring what you DO?

itt it's cited repeatedly that he feels his actions are not incongruent with the behavior pattersn he's subjected to on this site, to which you all whine "two wrongs don't make a right" while then justifying your own hostility under the same "two wrongs don't make a right".

Now.  I will most unkindly call you HYPOCRITS.  Yes, that's what you are, and yes, it takes one to know one.  I too am a hypocrit, and tbh you all are minor offenders compared to me.  I am far more huypocritical than you ever could be, you can't fool me.

In conclusion:  what Manley does cannot justify the way you all are addressing him in this thread, and continuing to do so only confuses him as to why he must obey rules that those who lecture him about them, simply do not.

You justify your actions based on him, hence he justifies his based on you.  If anything, I feel that perhaps he is teaching YOU bad habits rather than the other way around.  I dunno, in addition to being uncivil and hypocritical, I'm also pretty stupid so maybe I just don't know.  But it seems wrong to me.
>>4059

 No.4075

>>4071
>Why am I the only one held to that standard

a lost pony suggests that perhaps the answer lies here:
>>4069
>Should we just get rid of you?

The un-named posters in this thread, whoever they are, seem more interested in helping Manley self-destruct than helping him improve his behavior.

In fact, a lost pony observes that any reasonable person can see that their objective is to help him off the site.

It is uncivilized, and I cannot understand how this is allowed to continue.  a lost pony will not report, but suggest tyhat perhaps Manley ignore all posts made without a named poster because under these circumstances it is impossible to sort them out and know who is a genuine person and who is a troll.

 No.4076

>>4075
While I feel like some are trying to help, I have to agree. Even if it isn't something being intentionally done.

 No.4077

>>4075
hey, I tried, for quite a while. Meanwhile, what did you do other than make excuses for him, and tell everybody else that they are the ones wrong?

I don't know what's wrong with you, maybe it's some kind of issue with your particular mental problems, but, it's generally a shit idea to excuse bad behavior like this. And, sure, some people are getting rude to manly back, but, that excuse is Jack shit.

I really wish you would stop being so massively counterproductive.

 No.4078

>>4072
>Of course I understand linear time. To suggest otherwise is to imply I am mentally deficient.

I'm asking you to stop doing that. You are taking advantage of the position I've been put in to repeatedly insult me. That still isn't allowed.

 No.4079

>>4076
What I want is for him to stoptreating me and others as he does. Given that he seems to refuse to ever listen, no matter how politely people explain things to him, until such a time as they lose patience and apparently LP starts bitching at them, I think the only option, unfortunately, is moderator intervention.

I mean, to be perfectly honest, at this point, I'm not sure I care. He is the primary source of the majority of stress I have on this website, and I have to say, it's much more comfortable without him. I feel much more able to post freely when he isn't around.

 No.4080

>>4078
Again, you directly insulted me first. maybe an eye for an eye is still wrong, but, until such a time as the moderators ban us both, I won't be content to give a damn.

 No.4081

>>4080
So you are openly admitting you're breaking the rules right now?

 No.4082

>>4081
that would depend on if being snarky to somebody is actually a violation of the rules, which, near as I can tell, isn't the case. A direct insult like calling somebody on empathetic, however, might very well be.

either way, I'd be more than happy to get an administrator involved, as, unlike you, I stick to the rules for most my posting. Assuming they don't throw in the usual bias, where you getting insane amount of leniency, I'd say it's a fair trade

 No.4083

>>4075
> but suggest tyhat perhaps Manley ignore all posts made without a named poster because under these circumstances it is impossible to sort them out and know who is a genuine person and who is a troll.

That's probably a good idea. From now on, I will not respond to any posters who do not have a name attached to them.

 No.4084

File: 1553742577726.png (97.08 KB, 385x379, 385:379, muffin-of-fshy.png) ImgOps Google

>>4066
>Any attempt is met with immediate hostility
(1) You seem to perceive hostility where none might really exist on part of the person with whom you're talking.
(2) It will take some time to shed your old reputation.  But it can be done.  You can't give up after just a couple of posts.                                                                                  

 No.4085

>>4079
I'm sorry you feel that way.

You also always have the option to tell someone to stop posting in your thread, no questions asked, and I think people don't take advantage of this enough here.

But I also understand that you want to be able to participate in other threads as well, not just your own.

 No.4086

>>4085
With people like that on the site, it's hard for me to feel welcome here.

 No.4087

>>4077
>what did you do other than make excuses for him, and tell everybody else that they are the ones wrong?

WHEN did i make any excuse for Manley in this thread?  I'm criticizing your approach because all you are doing here is antagonizing him, getting in free digs because you feel it's payback time.

>I don't know what's wrong with you, maybe it's some kind of issue with your particular mental problems,

Gosh, i might be autistic but i don't find it surprising that you would consider rational thinking to be a mental illness.  Good thing you don't suffer from it.

>but, it's generally a shit idea to excuse bad behavior like this.
It's also shit to make up lies about what people said.  Was that you accusing Manley of lies or is that a different pest in this thread?  

>And, sure, some people are getting rude to manly back, but, that excuse is Jack shit.
Ah so continuing the cycle of rudeness is productive.

>I really wish you would stop being so massively counterproductive.

Right back at you, smart guy.

 No.4088

File: 1553752203455.jpg (55.6 KB, 720x775, 144:155, facebook_1553742346952.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4082
>if being snarky to somebody is actually a violation of the rules, which, near as I can tell, isn't the case

So, its against the rules when Manley does it and you've taken it on yourself to moderate this site and punish him for it,

But it's not against the rules when you do it.

And people (maybe you, how many of you are there here?) accuse a lost pony of mental illness.  If that kind of doublethink is how normal thinking is supposed to work, i hope i am never afflicted with sanity.

a lost pony has prepared a pastry for the anon(s) in this thread, pic related.

 No.4089

File: 1553752969064.png (175.21 KB, 828x965, 828:965, derpy_by_coaldustthestrang….png) ImgOps Google

>>4088
Muffins > Cupcakes

 No.4090

File: 1553756776917.gif (1.37 MB, 498x280, 249:140, 1553634390704.gif) ImgOps Google

>>4089
Theyre muffier.

 No.4091

Thread is being locked for now. I would urge Manley to create a new thread, and maybe seek help from friends in how exactly he should word it.

If the anon who had an issue with Manley, seen here:  >>4080 could directly message me via email at dizzyneal@hotmail.com or at my discord, Brazie#1755, that would be appreciated. Talking directly would be much preferred to issuing impersonal warnings or painful carpet bans.

I want to be clear that it immensely blows that both parties are hurting each other like this, but there is so much intensity involved that cutting things here is the only course of action I can see helping anyone. The whole staff will discuss what happened here when they can.

 No.4092

The tag is now Abby#1755, sorry for the confusion, anon.


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