[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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.

 No.3827

File: 1553206735028.jpg (82.28 KB, 800x646, 400:323, b7b102f13320d8f6ea5f4e6f57….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3826
just don't talk to each other at all.

Pretend the other doesn't exist.

 No.3828

File: 1553211492692.jpg (81.31 KB, 600x429, 200:143, 2304DangerZoneFig3.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3827
That doesn't really address the scenario I described in >>3816:
>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]"?

 No.3829

File: 1553212502497.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3828
He would either need to realize that he made a post in Lost's thread and delete it, or get banned.

 No.3830

>>3829
But why would lostpony get banned just because Manley posted in his thread?  That doesn't make any sense.

 No.3831

File: 1553213325909.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3830
Assuming both means 'one or the other' not 'at the same time'.

Unless Lost decides to talk to him as well.

 No.3832

>>3831
>Assuming ["]both["] means 'one or the other'
Why would you assume that "both" means the opposite of its ordinary definition?

 No.3833

File: 1553213587779.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3832
Because it wasn't used in a logical way.

 No.3834

>>3833
Well then maybe I should assume that "permabanned" really means "be given a 'user of the month' award"?  If we just make up new definitions for ordinary words, miscommunication is certain to happen.

 No.3835

File: 1553213794938.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3834
Unless you have a reason for both parties to be banned if only one breaks the rules of engagement.

 No.3836

>>3835
>both parties to be banned if only one breaks the rules
Yes, that's exactly the problem that I (and Noonim and Manley and probably everyone else) have with the edict as written.  It is absurd, arbitrary, and capricious to ban one user just because a different user broke a rule.  And that is what leads me to believe that "engage" must mean something other than "engage in one-way communication".

 No.3837

File: 1553214566731.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3836
Which leads me to believe that that wasn't the intention of the word.

 No.3838

File: 1553214679565.jpg (24.1 KB, 256x293, 256:293, pinkythink.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Gentlemen.

Manley is not asking any of us but the mod staff so any discussion here is derailment.  The discussion thread is the other one.

It has been established that "engagement" does not include non-hostile interaction or I would already be permabanned.  

Manley is asking for very clear guidelines from the staff be established and made pubic so that he does not have to worry about being punished for any misunderstanding.  Also, he is correctly concerned about the influence of third parties, which is confirmed is a real issue by Einhorn's statement that he'd provoke us.

>>3835
Specifically, this is the sort of thing that is odd about the arrangement by its own language.  It does not take two to tango, for us both to receive our gold stars and be sent on our ways.

I'm personally OK with this, because for all his grumpiness Manley is stable and not going to go bananas on me or anything like that.  But, I certainly see how it would make anyone uncomfortable to have his fate decided by an unstable whacko like a lost pony.  I have gone bonkers on Manley several times and I don't think it's fair to him, to hold him ransom for my behavior.

 No.3839

>>3837
I shoudln't have to assume or speculate on what they meant. If both party's ability to post on the site are potentially on the line, then it needs to be clearly defined.

>>3827
That doesn't address 2 or 3. And that's you opinion on the matter. I've heard different things on what "engage" could mean, your definition included. I need an official stance on the matter.

 No.3840

File: 1553215031449.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3839
We'll soon find out, seeing as the post above yours exists.

 No.3841

>>3837
If it isn't the intention, it should be clarified.
At this point, quite a lot of time has passed, and the particular issue of this has been brought up a large number of times, without much in the way of any response.

 No.3842

File: 1553221370340.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3843

It's been a few days. Are the mods discussing this issue?

 No.3844

File: 1553463633563.png (209.31 KB, 613x555, 613:555, serious time.png) ImgOps Google

If you are not feeling welcome, imagine how the community feels, when you brazenly disregard the rules and start fires everywhere, Manley.

You get what you put in, as the saying goes.

Let's talk. If you want to feel welcome, then follow our rules. You don't get to be above the law.

Let's first start by making something abundantly clear: these new restrictions are a mercy, not a punishment.

But for this last chance, you'd have just been permabanned in the last wave. And that would've been that.

We need to start from this mindset, first and foremost, before we can discuss anything else:

This is your last chance, and it was given out of a belief in your better nature. If it was a decision purely in the community's interest, this would've been over a lot longer ago than this.

 No.3845

File: 1553464512704.png (154.03 KB, 826x966, 59:69, sigh.png) ImgOps Google

(1) It is fair to ask for a clarification of the term "engage."

Here, we define it to mean "occupy, attract, or involve" conflict.

To give further context, it means you can post in the same threads as each other, but if you post something that is made to attract the other into any kind of conflict, no matter how small that conflict may be, you will both be banned (excepting the caveat, which we will get to).

It's an exercise in self-control, and putting yourself in other people's shoes.

Both of you should think to yourselves: "wait, will this get LP or Manley upset, such that they will feel a need to respond and argue?"

If the answer is even remotely, vaguely a yes, the reconsider and don't post.

Is it very strict? Yes. But that's where we are. If you can demonstrate that self-control, after a time, we can reduce the restriction. But there has been no evidence of restraint so far.

(2) Engagement as above, that is to say, communication between relevant parties that causes, invites, or attracts conflict, will cause both you and LP to be banned, UNLESS it can be shown one of you acted with malice to purposefully destroy you both.

It does NOT protect you from a thread where you have made something that the other party could be offended by, and then you do not respond to them, or invite them in. If you have made a thread or post that could cause conflict between the two of you, it is now on you both not to turn that into conflict, directly or indirectly

(3) Although the permaban situation is only relevant between you and LP, you will also be held accountable, though maybe not necessarily through permaban, for inciting further dramatics on the board itself between you and other users.

Do some people try to cause you trouble? Yes, there's evidence of that. As you've been instructed every single time we've talked about this - do not engage, do not reply, do not address that person, or any conversation they start, and instead, report the post, bring it directly to me if you must, or another mod.

(4) It already is public. It's on you now to show us you can follow the rules like everyone else, or otherwise take responsibility for breaking them. i will not suffer anymore to be either of your shields against the angry public.

 No.3846

>>3844
I HAVE been following your rules, Moony. Even when they didn't make sense and weren't clearly defined, like your "political" ban where the staff refused to clarify what was and wasn't "political". It caused me undue stress following the restrictions of that ban but I did so. For months. I also find it unfair for you to accuse me of "starting fires" when it's very clear from the other thread there are users here who want me gone and target me.   It shouldn't be on me to ignore those people, it should be on you to stop THEM from breaking the rules by harassing me.

No one else here is being made to feel unwelcome because they aren't being put under harsh restrictions or being talked about like they are a pest. Only me.

>>3845
So this pretty much means I'm not allowed on the site. I cannot control what lp does or thinks, or how he would react to things. I have, on numerous occasions, posted something I saw as completely innocuous that lp has gotten upset over and started arguments about. How am I responsible for his reactions to something? Or he I, for that matter. That is a completely unrealistic and unfair situation to put someone in. There's more than a black and white solution of "get rid of the pests" or "make the pests want to leave by putting them in unfair situations." There's also an element to this I'll probably have to discuss with you in private.

 No.3847

File: 1553470427617.png (747.63 KB, 800x800, 1:1, mtr_1541814103033.png) ImgOps Google

>>3845
>It does NOT protect you from a thread where you have made something that the other party could be offended by, and then you do not respond to them, or invite them in. If you have made a thread or post that could cause conflict between the two of you, it is now on you both not to turn that into conflict, directly or indirectly
I don't think it's fair to permaban Manley just for mispredicting whether something could offend or cause conflict with lostpony.  E.g., suppose Manley posts an image of a vintage USDA food pyramid, and lostpony replies with angry but heart-felt tirade against corrupt agribusinesses that lead to grains being over-represented in the food pyramid.  Lostpony's post wasn't necessarily malicious or trying to bring down Manley (and in fact he might not even have noticed that it was Manley who made the post).  So why should Manley get perma'd in this situation?

 No.3848

File: 1553470808631.jpg (39.53 KB, 403x592, 403:592, 1489025467665.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3846
>It shouldn't be on me to ignore those people, it should be on you to stop THEM from breaking the rules by harassing me.
Eh, I disagree.  If you break the rules, you're responsible for your own behavior, even if others egged you on.

 No.3849

>>3848
harassing other users is against the rules for a reason. Arguing with other users is not.

 No.3850

File: 1553472095451.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>3846
>>3846
no, you very well and truly have not, despite what you think.

they somehow make enough sense for every other user to follow them.

your political ban is clear as can be, and your violations of that ban were overtly political. And i had warned you even then, if you have doubts, just ask

you didn't, and you chose not to even bother in the slightest with trying to keep to it

>>3847
i guess it is true that if Manley posts something totally irrelevant and LP gets mad, or vice-versa, it wouldn't be fair

and yet, all of this would be considered by the team, i think, if we were to make a determination. it wouldn't just be the rule, in a vacuum.

 No.3851

>>3850
If I violated the political ban, then I was never told that by the staff, nor was I punished for posting political content. I was punished for other things, but never that. So it's confusing for you to say that when it was never brought up or established.

 No.3852

>>3846
>I also find it unfair for you to accuse me of "starting fires"
I think it's accurate to say that you've (figuratively) started fires.  You have a combination of (1) strongly-held controversial opinions and (2) an incendiary manner of arguing with people.  Your arguing with people has led to a lot of drama over the years.  Really the root cause of a lot of your difficulties is your poor quality of arguing.  I've given you some hints on how to improve (e.g., a lot of what I say in >>3505 applies especially to you), and others have also tried to help you, and I suggest you try really hard to improve.

>>3846
>the staff refused to clarify what was and wasn't "political".
To be fair, you ignored clarifications because of some silly non-sense like "the clarification wasn't posted with an official mod tag" (>>2642).

>>3850
>And i had warned you even then, if you have doubts, just ask
>
>you didn't, and you chose not to even bother in the slightest with trying to keep to it
well tbh Manley's question here >>1785 (edit: >>1789) went unanswered for over 3 months.

 No.3853

>>3852
>well tbh Manley's question here >>1785 (OP) went unanswered for over 3 months.
oops, wrong post, i meant >>1789

 No.3854

>>3852
My opinions should not be "controversial". If anything, they are fairly common.

And if I did something that was a violation of the political ban, then I should have been made aware of that fact when the punishment for violating it was given out. That never happened.

 No.3855

>>3854
>My opinions should not be "controversial".
Well, they are. The very fact that they've given rise to public arguments with other users means that they are controversial, by definition.
>If anything, they are fairly common.
If you mean "common" in the sense of "widespread": an opinion can be both widespread and very controversial.  In the US, it is not unusual for (1) one opinion to be held by a majority of the electorate and (2) the diametrically opposite opinion to be held by a slightly smaller minority.

 No.3856

>>3855
So you're not using "controversial" in a negative context, only that they literally cause disagreements. Well, in that cause, literally any opinion or stance has the potential to be "controversial".

 No.3857

File: 1553475598370.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3856
Very true. But your disagreements tend to be far more heated than anyone else's. If they weren't, we wouldn't have this thread.

 No.3858

>>3857
How am I responsible for what other people don't like?

 No.3859

File: 1553476622597.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3858
Didn't say that, but alright.

 No.3860

File: 1553477167748.jpg (34.71 KB, 512x512, 1:1, glaceon-uguuuu.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3857
^ this

>>3858
What you are responsible for is your poor-quality, incendiary manner of arguing.  Let me repeat what I said earlier (in >>3505):
>I think a major source of nastiness on this site is treating discussion of a disagreement as some sort of a verbal battle instead of as a shared search for truth and knowledge.
I strongly encourage you, Manley, to try to see things from other people's points of view, and especially try to imagine how they would react to what you're about to say.  You've been banned multiple times for insulting people.

 No.3861

>>3860
In my opinion, the problem stems from a select handful of people who choose to react to things I say in a certain way. I can interact with most of the site without such heated arguments.

 No.3862

File: 1553478503197.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3861
Which is why you were both banned.

 No.3863

File: 1553478737925.jpg (110.17 KB, 540x776, 135:194, keanu-481-years.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3861
> I can interact with most of the site without such heated arguments.
You've had arguing-related drama with Noonim, lostpony, Boat, Star, Jade, Butt, and me.  And probably others too that I don't remember.  It's high time that you acknowledge your own faults and try to improve your behavior rather than blaming others.  I'm certainly not saying that everyone else is perfect, but you need to acknowledge that some of the blame lies with you and work to improve your own behavior.

 No.3864

>>3863
Actually, I'm friends with Star and Jade.

 No.3865

File: 1553479235988.jpg (94.84 KB, 928x696, 4:3, 1466902585902.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3864
I didn't claim that all heated arguments permanently destroy friendships.  And what about the rest of my post?  I'm trying to help you not get yourself banned again, but I feel that what I'm saying is going in one ear and out the other.

 No.3866

>>3865
I don't know what to tell you. I don't think my "controversial" opinions are going to change because I don't find anything wrong with most of them. In fact, many of them are integral to my life and what's going on in the world around me right now. So i'm not so sure I can just STOP believing things to fit in better on this site.

 No.3867

>>3866
Your controversial opinions are not the problem.  The problem is your incendiary manner of arguing with people.

 No.3868

File: 1553479686438.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

>>3867
Beat me to it.

 No.3869

To further elaborate, look here: https://www.ponychan.net/ef/res/245712.html (warning: big thread, might crash a phone browser)
That is a thread in which a self-proclaimed Nazi, a leftist, a libertarian, and others manage to have a halfway-decent conversation about politics without it turning into a dumpster fire.  

 No.3870

>>3869
That website has no rules for "civility" or against insulting others. Everyone is allowed to freely express what they really think. So that's probably why it gives the illusion of civility to an outside observer. Because no one is hiding their true intentions or opinions.

 No.3871

>>3870
>That website has no rules for "civility" or against insulting others.
From the thread pinned to the top of the board (https://www.ponychan.net/ef/res/131298.html):
"""
Civility/Trolling
You are free to speak your mind, but know that personal attacks and attempts to goad other users into them are not allowed. You are free to challenge each other, but basic civility should be maintained. The staff does not care "who started it" and all those involved will be held accountable, so if a user is continually trying to goad you, please report them so staff can handle the situation. Consider using the filters in the settings as a self moderation measure if you find yourself wanting to be unnecessarily confrontational with another.
"""

 No.3872

>>3871
Strange, that wasn't a rule when I was there because people would insult me all the time. But fair enough.

 No.3873

File: 1553485418375.jpg (52.71 KB, 600x600, 1:1, Cheerilee-build-a-bear-pon….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3845
>(2) Engagement as above, that is to say, communication between relevant parties that causes, invites, or attracts conflict, will cause both you and LP to be banned, UNLESS it can be shown one of you acted with malice to purposefully destroy you both.

I propose that the exception also include negligence.

What got Manley mad at me (the one day ban thread) was something i said to Manley that i should have known would upset him, but i stupidly failed to connect the things i knew together to realize he was angry for dam good reason.  As a result i felt like he was the bad guy and things escalated.
Hidden bit elaborates on "escalated" but is immaterial to my point here:
(Also, following the one-day ban i was allowed to harass Manley for an awful long time and his only response that could be considered responding was posting the argument against me on Canterlot which YOU invited him to post, Moony and he remained reasonable in that thread even though i went bonkers)


Negligence is to carelessly or wrecklessly cause harm that a reasonable person could have forseen.  I am not a reasonable person so i may do something that causes harm negligently, but was not deliberately malicious.

I will never deliberately bait Manley but i could make a similar mistake again.  If that were to happen and i post something that falls within "engaging", it makes no sense to permaban Manley if he does not also engage.  Therefore negligence really should be added to the exception.

The way it is worded now, if i do bait him negligently and he does not respond to it, he would be caught in my screwup and that's not fair or reasonable to either of us.

I accept that my autistic behavior has marginalized me with many posters here, and that it's no excuse and i'm on my last chance.  But it is absurdly unfair to tie Manley's fate to my own acting out, completely independent of his own behavior.

A satisfactory official clarification to this most peculiar special "rule", that protects Mr. Manley from things i might inadvertently do as well as things i might willfully do, absolutely must be made.

Not one person in this thread (i'm talking about you in particular, Tracer as well as you, Moony) doubts that i am capable of acting in irrational ways that Manley has a right to be protected from as long as his own behavior is OK.

Please remove this burden from us both by correcting this error.  Thank you.

 No.3874

>>3873
>The way it is worded now, if i do bait him negligently and he does not respond to it, he would be caught in my screwup and that's not fair or reasonable to either of us.
Moony already acknowledged this in >>3850:
>i guess it is true that if Manley posts something totally irrelevant and LP gets mad, or vice-versa, it wouldn't be fair
>and yet, all of this would be considered by the team, i think, if we were to make a determination. it wouldn't just be the rule, in a vacuum.
An official correction of the wording "if either user engages ... an IMMEDIATE permaban shall follow for both users" would be nice, but i think it's safe to say that the mods won't do something absurd like banning one poster on account of a different user misbehaving.

 No.3875

File: 1553486332948.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google


 No.3876

File: 1553486586633.png (962.58 KB, 1600x1200, 4:3, tsukihi-1487257334006.png) ImgOps Google

>>3873
>he remained reasonable in that thread even though i went bonkers
I happen to agree that Manley didn't do anything bad enough after his (much deserved) one-day ban to warrant his 2-week ban.  But was he truly reasonable?  I don't entirely agree: he never admitted his fault for insulting you in that thread, even though Noonim and I explained it to him in great detail.  And I'm worried that Manley still doesn't realize why his post was wrongful, and I'm worried that he will commit a similar offense in the future and get banned again.

 No.3877

File: 1553488478382.jpg (51.68 KB, 765x807, 255:269, 1539084651264.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Also, Manley, I suggest you learn from how Mint Horse posts.  His opinions are way more controversial than yours, but somehow he manages to be respectful to other users even when they clearly hate his opinions.

 No.3878

File: 1553488593756.jpg (46.7 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 26710x.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3876
>>3875
Manley did get mad, yes, and he received his appropriate punishment in his one day ban.  Whether he understood its meaning is not for you or Noonim to decide, Chain.  Nor was it for me to decide.

Everything that followed between Manley and me was 100% my fault.  He:
*ignored my attacks for hours
*only responded when, and in the way Moony asked him to.

Yet, he received the same punishment I did.  I deserved it, he didn't.  Why.  Well, Moony's now admitted that above:  for his past transgressions.

>>3874
>and LP gets mad, or vice-versa, it wouldn't be fair
>and yet, all of this would be considered by the team

In light of Manley receiving both 2 weeks and being tied to me when it was entirely my fault, why would Manley (or anyone else) expect a fair ruling from the staff following another lost pony meltdown?

Further, there is absolutely ZERO reason why the rule should not say "if either of the two engages the other (in the ways Moons described above), the offending party or parties will be permabanned".  That would fix all ambiguity and close all loopholes.

If the true purpose of this rule is as stated, to prevent us from arguing with each other on this site, then there is no reason why it should not simply be corrected to say so.

 No.3879

>>3866
You don't have to change your opinions. Most people are okay with that. Good example'd be when that one fellow replied with something along the lines of "Let's agree to disagree".
Differing opinions is fine. That's normal. At the end of the day, everyone has different perspectives, and, we can't always see perfectly eye to eye after some discussion.

Problem mostly comes down to assumptions of others. Assuming intention, primarily. I think your reaction to Ponychan's assumed lack of civility enforcement, and how you percieve that effecting the site, >>3870 , does a good point of setting this out.
You seem to be a bit paranoid of others. Always assuming people're hiding, never actually dealing with you honestly.
That's a dangerous way to look at things. I know, I've been in that kind of a rut before.

 No.3880

>>3876
He didn't understand his ban over Christmas either, so, I'd be inclined to say he doesn't understand what he's banned for in general.
Again, I think this stems from his automatic assumption that others're dealing with him untruthfully. He doesn't seem to take what is said at face value.
It seems he believes that, on this site, people hide their true intentions, and so, if he doesn't agree with something said, it's more inclined to be taken as a trap, a deception, or so on.

 No.3881

File: 1553489195193.png (119.97 KB, 627x503, 627:503, shotgun-3957-0-1449008453.png) ImgOps Google

>>3878
>Whether he understood its meaning is not for you or Noonim to decide, Chain.  Nor was it for me to decide.
We are all entitled to our own opinions.  In my opinion, Manley is asking for trouble if he continues posting on /pony/ without understanding why his past behavior violated the rules.  How can he avoid breaking the rules if he doesn't understand them?

Pic unrelated.

 No.3882

File: 1553489538626.jpg (91.82 KB, 640x896, 5:7, 1430594723378.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3878
>Further, there is absolutely ZERO reason why the rule should not say "if either of the two engages the other (in the ways Moons described above), the offending party or parties will be permabanned".  That would fix all ambiguity and close all loopholes.
Yeah, I think that would be a good rewrite.

 No.3884

>>3877
Isn't he the Nazi? I don't like what you're implying here. My opinions are the exact opposite of his, why would they both be controversial? The site should have a stance on that.

>>3879
I've had a lot of run ins with people from this community who were not honest with me. It has caused me a lot of undue pain. I do not think all posters here have ulterior motives, but some do. It would be foolish to assume otherwise.

>>3882
I think this ruling needs to be re-written this way to reflect the amendments Moony made in >>3845

 No.3885

>>3884
That attitude is exactly why you get in heaps of trouble, though.

 No.3886

>>3885
In what way?

 No.3887

>>3886
Like I said; Assuming people're out to get you, or are behaving dishonestly, or are trying to deceive you, and so on, is liable to lead to a lot of misunderstandings and only escalate hostilities.
I've certainly seen this habbit lead to more than a few fights, after all.

Maybe just try to take people at face value. I think it'd help a whole lot.

 No.3888

>>3887
taking some people at face value means they actually believe a bunch of harmful, hateful rhetoric and there's nothing we can do about that. How is that helpful?

 No.3889

>>3888
I shouldn't have to explain this, but, it's generally far more disruptive to believe people are immoral, as opposed to simply wrong.
One says they're a bad person, the other just says they believe something that's not correct.

This does raise another problem you've got, however. The complete zealotry you seem to have to your own positions, which require you to constantly battle anyone who ever says anything contrary to what you believe, even if they've politely asked to agree to disagree.
It's lesser, but, it is why you get in to the fights in the first place. The other issue with assuming the worst in people is why those fights tend to break rules, is all.

 No.3890

>>3889
So you honestly think someone can believe something bad but not be bad?

 No.3891

>>3890
Yeah?
Is this genuinely something you don't think is commonplace?
Most people believe in something bad. People're often misinformed, growing up to believe what others tell them. Hell, look at religion, as a general concept.
There's plenty of nasty stuff in there, a lot of folk believe, but they're not bad people for being wrong.

 No.3892

>>3891
Could you pick another example? I'm not all that religious, but I'm not against religion either.

 No.3893

>>3892
Nor am I.

Another example'd be political parties, I'd say.
Many people vote the way that they do because of their area, or family. They don't really think about it all that much.
There's also culture. Ultimately what is "good" or "bad" comes down to your particular culture, after all, so, it's only natural someone might try to be a "good" person, but, because of their culture, interpret that particular standard in a different way to you.
Acts that'd be considered downright horrible to you might, to them, be considered standard, or perhaps even 'good'.

 No.3894

>>3893
Political parties would probably have been a good example... a few years ago. Now, not so much.

But I get what you're saying about culture. Still, if someone thinks bad things, and does bad things, doesn't that by definition make them a bad person? Like, how can someone think black people are dumber than whites, and discriminate against black people, based on that belief and not be a "bad" person? That doesn't make sense.

 No.3895

>>3894
Now, I would say, more than ever. The political system has gotten split far worse than it has ever been. The two sides do not trust one another.

>Like, how can someone think black people are dumber than whites, and discriminate against black people, based on that belief and not be a "bad" person?
You need to be looking at their why.
If you just dismiss them as "bad" people, you'll never get anywhere. You'll just end up in more fights, and of course, you'll never convince them. You won't convince anyone.
All you'll do is virtue signal to those who agree with you. Not really worth anything.

Personally, how I look at "bad" people is, if they're actively selfish.
Selfish people tend to be bad. They aren't always, naturally, but, I can far more reliably find bad people who are genuinely bad from their actual character in selfish people, than I would any other metric.
That's because they're self-centered.
The nazi, the communist, the christian, the muslim, they all have reasons for what they believe.
I might not agree with it. But, they've got a rationale. They want to do good. They want to help others, often. It's just that they have massively different standards.
You don't fix the places they're wrong by berating them, insulting them, and saying to everyone that they're bad people. That just makes them more and more insular. It makes them radicalize. It generally makes things worse.
You fix this type of thing by talking to them. Explaining why you believe what you do, and getting them to do the same.
A dialogue is how you spread your ideals. Preaching only works on believers.

 No.3896

>>3895
It's been my experience that they won't listen to you.

I mean, look at how I was treated. I was taught bad things about gay people. Things that upset people. And people got upset. They yelled at me about it. They treated me like I was a bad guy. Some of them still do. Until my beliefs changed. Until I realized what I thought and what I was taught hurt people, and I re-evaluated what those things were. I'm still not perfect, but I'm better now.

 No.3897

>>3896
My experience suggests otherwise. I've talked to a lot of people. Most the time, I've been able to convey my ideas.
I think your issue is largely due to the way you see them. You immediately classify them as bad people, on top of the troubles of assuming they're behaving dishonestly.

>I mean, look at how I was treated. I was taught bad things about gay people. Things that upset people. And people got upset. They yelled at me about it. They treated me like I was a bad guy. Some of them still do. Until my beliefs changed. Until I realized what I thought and what I was taught hurt people, and I re-evaluated what those things were. I'm still not perfect, but I'm better now.
...This'd seem to directly prove my point.
Moreover, it'd seem to explain exactly why it's bad to assume people're bad just because they believe wrong things. That it's far more productive to treat them with some level of decency.

Shouldn't your own personal experience demonstrate why it's best not to assume everyone's a bad person just because of some bad ideas?
Perhaps this is more of an issue with empathy.

 No.3898

>>3897
Not if I WAS bad. If I was, because I was hurting people, then their actions are justified. Otherwise, those people just mistreated me for no reason and didn't care if I changed at all. Which is worse?

 No.3899

>>3898
OR, once again, they were just WRONG.

Seriously, I'm starting to genuinely wonder if it's a lack of empathy.
Like, can you put yourself in their shoes?
Think about how you feel, how you felt, and apply that to them.
I assume you don't like to cause pain towards others, right? So, why're you doing something harmful, that you seem to recognize as harmful when done to yourself, to others?

 No.3900

>>3899
I'm asking if it was harmful. Or did it stop me from hurting more people?

 No.3901

>>3900
I don't think you learned by being treated like shit.
I'd say you learned when people explained why it was wrong what you did.

'Least that's my experience with these things. Teaching people things by beating them down doesn't tend to work well. Typically, that shit gets abusive really fast.

 No.3902

>>3901
If that's what you believe, then you'd be saying the way I was treated was wrong.

 No.3903

>>3902
Have you been paying attention?
That's literally my point, man.

I do not understand how you're so unable to follow along, here.
Genuinely, it's like you say one thing at one point, and then do a complete reversal the next second. It's really weird.

 No.3904

>>3903
It's just strange because no one's ever said that. I just assumed that's what you DO to people who have harmful views or opinions that need to change. Because it worked, I realized I was hurting people and I examined my beliefs and what I was taught.

 No.3905

>>3904
Attacking people constantly, generally calling them shitty people, insulting them, and otherwise abusing them tends to net you really awful results
Maybe you were lucky.  I don't know. Most people respond poorly to that sort of thing. They tend to respond better to people genuinely trying to communicate, empathize, and understand them, and trying to get the other person to do the same in return.

 No.3906

>>3905
Well, I think we are kind of getting off-track here. We aren't dealing with the disagreements about which Star Trek captain is best like in days past (it's Picard), but with literal Nazis.

 No.3907

>>3906
Pretty sure most the guys you seem to be picking fights with, insulting, and generally assuming the absolute worst of aren't nazis.

 No.3908

>>3906
Wait a minute, if i say it's Kirk are we gonna get permabanned?

(It really is Picard tho)

 No.3909

File: 1553498848117.jpg (15.7 KB, 250x305, 50:61, 250px-BenSisko.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3906
>>3908
You're both wrong.
It's Sisko.

 No.3910

>>3907
Kinda hard to tell when they are both saying the same things. But granted yes, I don't know of anyone on this site in particular who identifies as a Nazi. I was speaking in general, not just of this site.

 No.3911

>>3909
His ship didn't even move.

 No.3912

File: 1553499470464.png (169.55 KB, 2518x1072, 1259:536, loVCcmp.png) ImgOps Google

>>3910
Well, let's try to focus on the site, for now. While I ultimately feel the same way for nazis, nobody here is a nazi, and nobody has ever said anything that's the "same thing" as the nazis that I know of.
I'm mostly trying to get you out of the funk that's getting you in trouble, repeatedly, after all. I think empathy is the primary solution there.

>>3911
Just makes him even better.
Problem with Picard is, he's the pretentious leader of a perfect ship run by perfect people, entirely unrelatable by virtue of their complete perfection, stuffed in to the fringe exploration missions where hard choices were few and far between.

Meanwhile, Sisko dealt with real people, with genuine flaws and failings, he made deals with crooks, criminals and spies to do what had to be done, he killed and robbed where he needed to, and never let some pansy "prime directive" stop him.

Picard's the kind of guy you end up reading about in the history books, the sort of idealistic hero that gets shot down the line due to never backing down, and is constantly praised for changing the world even though he inevitably dies long before actually doing much of anything.
Sisko's the kind of guy you never hear about. Not only because the kind of stuff he did is the sort of thing nobody could ever admit to, but, because, at the end of the day, he's just another run-of-the-mill captain down the list. Not the captain of the best ship in the star system. He's the captain of a defuct and barely strung together space station orbiting a zealous bunch of rebels who just got off from the shackles of a tyrannical regime, with him having to keep these two power-mad loonies in check.  
And he does it.
He might not do it through honest means, he might not do it through heroism and valor, dignity and honor. But, he damn well gets the job done, when the going gets tough.

My main reason for liking him, though, is he was far more human of a character.

 No.3913

File: 1553499876929.png (182.73 KB, 590x520, 59:52, 1549990300129.png) ImgOps Google

>>3912
>Problem with Picard is, he's the pretentious leader of a perfect ship run by perfect people, entirely unrelatable by virtue of their complete perfection, stuffed in to the fringe exploration missions where hard choices were few and far between.

This suggests you did not watch past the first season.

Sisko hauled off and decked Discord, and for that i give him props.  Just like Kirk, he dealt with real people in a strong way.

But, as a command officer, able to bring out the best in his staff and enable them to offer solutions beyond his own capability, Picard was hands-down the best.

If you disagree then youre a bad person, so there.

 No.3914

>>3912
Depends on what you mean by "the same thing". People here have expressed ideas that fall in like with things like nationalism and bigotry. How is one supposed to react to someone who is basically saying people like you and your family don't belong here while also trying to pretend it's not a bigoted view to hold?

 No.3915

>>3914
Back up a step.  Who said that stuff?

 No.3916

>>3914
Problem is that nationalism does not equate to collectivist authoritarian identitarianism, ala nazis.
You can be a 'nationalist", and an individualist, for example, which'd be about as far as you could get from nazis.

>who is basically saying
Are they actually saying that, or is it you assuming the worst?
Because I've never seen this happen.
But I have seen you assume that's what's happening.

 No.3917

>>3913
I watched a fair ways in to TNG. It was mostly the same stuff, occasionally tougher whatnot, but usually the same. Like I said, hard choices were few and far between. And, honestly, they still had nothing on Sisko's "Murder a man in cold blood and frame it on someone else to save the federation" choice.

Picard couldn't do that.

 No.3918

File: 1553500783352.png (221.84 KB, 775x1031, 775:1031, captain_jean_luc_picard_po….png) ImgOps Google

>>3917
Yeah see, thats wrong Picard has lots of very hard choices all the time and they even had the episode where he did his boisterous youth choices differently and ended up a lame nobody.

Sisko is a warrior.  A different type of leader who shines in a different time and he got his time.  If you imagine in-universe that his exploits arent heralded as much as Picard's then i think you're just refusing to accept that there are different kinds of "best" and conforming things incorrectly to your narrative.

 No.3919

>>3918
I don't know about "warrior". Sisko's the kind of guy who's made entire planets uninhabitable for generations. He makes the hardest choices, with the most questionability as far as morality goes.
History celebrates heroes, with exceptional actions.
I don't know how well the history books'd remember a guy who's name'd have to be scrubbed as best as possible from starfleet records, given the likely controversy from some of the stuff he's done.

Picard is a refined tool, well made and capable of precise work provide you work with restraint. A tool treated with respect, marveled at its precision, its achievements.
Sisko is a sledgehammer. Forgotten in some darkened corner, buried away, with nobody to bat an eye at the walls he's taken down.

 No.3920

>>3915 I'm going to try and avoid naming names in this thread to keep us on topic. Ask me in private later. I'm so I guess now this is the moment of truth to find out if this response counts as "engagement".

>>3916
I probably meant white nationalism, specifically. My bad. The idea that the US is a nation for whites and that thr rights of other peoples matter less, if at all.

 No.3921

>>3920
I've not seen that before.
Maybe the one time Mint or whoever it was stopped by, briefly. But, I don't think he'd slip there.
Has this actually happened here, or is it another assumption of what people "actually" mean?

 No.3922

File: 1553501622033.jpg (461.45 KB, 900x900, 1:1, ceda56f935be6c4d08ba0b0b60….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3920
Sounds good.

>>3921
I can't put my finger on it but i think that stuff has kinda happened and no, it wasnt Mint Horse.  Minty's on strict non-racial behavior here especially with how things went for him on pchan in the last week.

>>3919
These are reasons why "best captain" is a crummy argument.  They are both required for survival and success and i love them both.

Perhaps, you admire Sisko because he has what you lack and aspire to have, and i admire Picard for the same reason.

 No.3923

>>3921
I dont have the logs of the conversations or anything, but you know ive had many arguments on the site about immigration, white nationalism, fascism, and racial topics where people habe expressed harmful views.

I dont like your implication that im making things up. You know that there are ways people get around saying what they actually mean when it comes to topics with taboos like white nationalism. "Dog whistle" terms like "globalist" and "zionist".the site even has rules against a small number of the terms like this. Like the triple parenthesis around something. So the idea that someone could mean something other than exactly what their %100 literaly words is not far-fetched.

 No.3924

>>3922
Like I said, my main reason for liking him is he's far more human.
Picard doesn't seem to have flaws.
Now, sure, there's people like that out there, but, I can't really relate to them
>>3923
"Dogwhistle" is a dogwhistle for far left extremists.
Not really productive, is it? I prefer to take the words at their face. "Zionist" has a meaning, after all. The context'd point that out. Same for the parenthesis, though it's also a bit of a meme, and it kind of annoys me that it can't be used more freely, without immediately following that connotation. But, unfortunately, a lot of memes like that can't really be used outside of very specific areas. A bit similar, ultimately, to the "newfag" item I suppose. Either way, I'd recommend instead of calling it a "dogwhistle", which is thoroughly worthless and just makes you look like a zealot looking for heresy, to look at flatly what has actually been said.

I'm not really implying you're making things up. Just that, in my experiences with dealing with you, you see a lot of things that I do not, which usually results in you getting into massive fights because you accuse people of things that they've never said, never believed, or never did.
Without examples, though, I can only say that I have not seen it myself.

 No.3925

>>3924
Picard has many flaws and you just ignored the example i gave.  There are countless others and he agonized on such things during many of his yes, many hard choices.

Just because someone has achieved a refined degree of skill at a high-level job doesn't remove their flaws.  You just don't see beyond that shiny gloss to what's beneath because you aren't looking.

Similarly, you have not experienced racial discrimination and prejudice as Manley has.  I underestimated its psychological power too, before i experienced it myself.

Trust me, there is a certain amount of what Manley's describing here on this site and while Manley might be seeing more than is there, you must consider the possibility that you are seeing less than is there.  Just like you don't notice Picard's flaws.

While i think you make some good points for Manley to consider, you are also overlooking your own perspective in your approach, which is counterproductive to reaching an understanding.

 No.3926

>>3925
The problem is his flaws are very few, and hardly flaws most of the time. Though, if I'm entirely honest with you, I don't really remember any at all, anyway. Certainly nothing like Sisko's.

I have absolutely no idea where the rest of your post comes from, though, so, I'm just going to ignore it.
I'll chock it up to your incredibly strange desire to excuse any criticisms of him for whatever reason, as of late.

 No.3927

File: 1553525810868.png (158.79 KB, 415x374, 415:374, img-3137434-2-tumblr_m4pli….png) ImgOps Google

>>3926
>I have absolutely no idea where the rest of your post comes from, though, so, I'm just going to ignore it.

The disregard of information that requires critical thinking to process does seem to be the norm, yes.  I wonder if it's always been this way and i just didn't notice it before.

 No.3928

>>3927
Inane and unrelated ramblings that do not fit in anything said is not what I would consider "critical thinking".

If I am discussing whether or not a dog is wet with someone, and you come in telling me about the dog's teeth, it's ultimately unrelated to the discussion at hand.
It's some random information that is useless for the context of the discussion, and so should be disregarded, given there's no purpose in bringing it up.

 No.3929

>>3924
>Dogwhistle" is a dogwhistle for far left extremists.

That... doesnt make any sense. I hope you are being hyperbolic to make a point. But my point was, words like "globalist" have textbook definitions, but people use them to mean things other than its literal dictionary definition. This is known, because the site has rules against some of these terms. So its not imagining things to say that someone could mean something other than what they say.

 No.3930

>>3928

I presented a clear and relevant analysis of a situation specifically related to the discussion and you disregard its value without comprehension because you didn't want to or perhaps because you don't like the point i was making.  Which is fine, but you now accuse me of presenting irrelevancy based on some peculiar "wet dog" statement that means exactly nothing (and you state that it meams nothing) as an analogy for my meaningful statement.  I think you might be attempting to provoke me but i really can't even be sure.  I'm vulnerable to this sort of exchange so i will stop here.

>>3929
Manley some of what anon is saying makes no sense to me, and while i can't really be sure if he is trying to be helpful, i recommend you avoid letting him derail your topic into extraneous political terminology and instead wait for staff input on your questions.

Imo getting dragged into exactly this type of frustrating and unproductive back-and-forth discussions is part of what people are upset about.  I hope a mod will weigh in on your topical concerns at some point and i feel patience is a good idea here.  

I'm not telling you what to do, but just pointing out how i see that this discussion with anon is taking a rather unproductive turn *in my opinion.

Take care, and be careful of our fragile position right now.  Good luck!

 No.3931

>>3929
It was to prove a point, yes. Point being, dismissing people because they use a word you don't like is ineffective, and results in you looking like a close-minded zealot most of the time.

Don't think the site has rules against "globalist".
Racist slurs are banned, yes, but, "globalist" has a meaning, and is applicable in a wide variety of settings, by a bunch of different types of people.
I wouldn't consider echo quotes to be a "dogwhistle", given its blantant meaning. Same for zionist. The whole point of a "dogwhistle" is that it's not obvious, from what I understand.
>>3930
I disagree that it was relevant. I do not see any relevant. It's not that I do not like it, it's that it is completely worthless to me, because it doesn't make a single difference to anything I said. I can only respond to what is actually written, tangibly presented. Not what someone thinks up in their own mind, ties together with their own mental threads.

Look, I get it. You've always had troubles with this type of thing, and, so, I understand where you're coming from, and why you believe what you do.
It's just, I am not you.
So, maybe instead of being insulting about it, you can just take me at my words? Please?
I genuinely don't understand why that's so hard for so many people to do.
If I say something, if I write it out, I mean what I say. Not some other shitty in-between-the-lines bullshit you decide to pull out. I'm not "disregarding information", or "ignoring something I don't like", I'm trying my damnedest to respond to what is actually there.

If you don't understand me, that's fine. You don't have to. I'd just much rather you didn't make a bunch of insulting assumptions about me.
Ironically, this is a complaint I had for Manley, as well. But, he's gotten much better about that sort of thing. Sadly, you seem to've gotten worse.

 No.3932

>>3931
Just because somehing is obvious to YOU doesnt mean it cant be used to hide someones true intentions from other people unfamiliar with it.

 No.3933

>>3932
As said before, I'd rather deal with what is actually in front of me, as opposed to assuming everyone's a dishonest actor.
Tends to result better, in my experience. Ultimately, a liar will still lie, even if you know he's going to do it, one way or the other. Meanwhile, if you treat someone who's trying to be honest, as though they're being dishonest, they'll end up resenting you for it.

 No.3934

File: 1553538860801.png (6.45 KB, 224x225, 224:225, images (2).png) ImgOps Google

>>3931

I am very slow and quite retarded, but i do learn eventually when the same thing happens enough times.

 No.3935

>>3934
Let's get back on topic

 No.3936

>>3884
>Isn't he the Nazi?
Yes.
>I don't like what you're implying here.
It's the truth, whether you like it or not: Mint, despite being a literal Nazi, manages to have more civil and less incendiary political discussion than you do.  The fact that your political arguments always end up as a shitstorm, despite your views being far less controversial than Mint's, says something negative about the way that you discuss political matters.  And this extends to most of your arguments here, not just the political ones.

Moony is telling you "shape up or ship out".  I suggest you shape up and learn to refrain from your hostile manner of arguing that turns so many people against you.

 No.3937

File: 1553549370586.png (635.97 KB, 1280x1579, 1280:1579, 1521152322698.png) ImgOps Google

>>3935
Let's review:
your points:
1.) Moons clarified in >>3845
Are you satisfied with his clarification?

2.) I feel we both would like a more clear standard than "the staff will decide fairly" and would like this made simpler and less subjective by replacing the "either party sinks both ships except if malice" with something closer to "whichever party engages gets banned" such that if either party follows the rule to not engage, he is safe automatically without regard for a lost pony's bullshit.

3.) I've only made things much worse for you by meddling in this issue edit* anything regarding your disagreements with others that do not involve me *end edit.  If you want my input or need my help in any way, please ask me privately or publicly.

4.) Results should be published where it can be seen.

Do you think our restrictions should be published right in the rules thread?  I see good and bad in that, but I will join you in whichever you want.

If you agree with this summary, then please confirm and if this needs refinement please clarify and I'll change my position to match.

At that point, I think we should refrain from too much discussion with the userbase and wait for the staff's response, but I will stand by to follow your lead.

 No.3938

>>3884
>My opinions are the exact opposite of his, why would they both be controversial?
The opposite of an extreme position is another extreme position.  And extreme positions are usually controversial.  And sometimes a topic itself is controversial (e.g., most of the current political issues), and then all opinions on that topic tend to be controversial.

>The site should have a stance on that.
A stance on what?  I don't think you should get another politics ban.  The problem isn't your opinions but rather how you argue about them with other users.

 No.3939

>>3936
It doesnt say that, it says his voews are more accepted when they should not be. I also dont appreciate my views being compared to hiss as if they are similar. Hes a nazi.

 No.3940

>>3938
My views are NOT "extreme".

 No.3941

>>3939
>it says his voews are more accepted
Nani?  Where does it say that?

>>3939
>I also dont appreciate my views being compared to hiss as if they are similar.
I don't think it was ever implied that your views were similar to his.  In fact, the negation of that was heavily implied.

>>3940
I agree, as a general matter.

 No.3942

>>3941
>Where does it say that?

The fact that they let someone call themselves a Nazi and post that rhetoric on the site means it's accepted. The fact that no one gives them a hard time about being a nazi means it's accepted there. That's what "accepted" means. Otherwise the site would get rid of him.

And comparing us together is implying my views are similar to his. Otherwise, there is no comparison.

>>3938
>A stance on what?
A moral stance on the things I have been arguing. Is the site against white nationalism, for example. If it is, then people shouldn't be allowed to espouse those views on the site. If it isn't, then I don't need to be here.

 No.3943

>>3942
>The fact that no one gives them a hard time about being a nazi means it's accepted there
Have look looked at the threads in question?  Literally everyone who responds to those posts gives him a hard time about his views.

>>3942
>And comparing us together is implying my views are similar to his. Otherwise, there is no comparison.
The comparison was between the manner of discussing politics.  Ceteris paribus, someone with more extreme views will have more difficulty having a civil discussion.  Yet, despite your views being way more mainstream than Mint's, you have much greater difficulty maintaining a civil discussion.  That says something about your style of arguing.

 No.3944

>>3943
I glanced at it. And they aren't "giving him a hard time" about it. I've seen a hard time. That's not it.

I think it says more about the way people on this site treat more than what I'm arguing. And really, it's only a select handful of people arguing with me every time, as I've said.

 No.3945

>>3942
>The fact that they let someone call themselves a Nazi and post that rhetoric on the site means it's accepted
That's definitely not how it works.
That's the kind of incredibly dangerous "You're either with me or against me" mentality that's probably a part of why you constantly get in to trouble.

 No.3946

>>3942
I disagree that this site (a site about MLP:FIM and for its current and former fandom) should formally adopt stances against various fringe political ideologies.

>>3942
>... people shouldn't be allowed to espouse those views on the site
I disagree, except to the extent that it would constitute shitposting, spamming, or violation of another rule, or if becomes a recurring and disruptive problem.  I don't think anyone has ever seriously (as opposed to shitpostingly) argued for white nationalism on this site.

 No.3947

>>3946
It should if it's going to allow those things to be discussed on the site. The site had rules against using slurs on it because it does not condone racism or bigotry. Why is this different?

 No.3948

>>3944
>I glanced at it.
Well if you read it more carefully, you'll see that literally everyone voices disagreement about his Nazi views.  

>>3944
>And they aren't "giving him a hard time" about it.
If by "hard time" you mean "disrespectful" and/or "not showing empathy", then yes.  But then that's a good thing.  Being disrespectful and refusing to try to see things from others' perspectives generally causes a lot of trouble, including for you.

 No.3949

>>3948
No one seems to care when it's done to me, though. Which we've established.

 No.3950

>>3949
I'd agree that it's wrong when it happens to you.
Though, you also have to understand, it's wrong when you do it to others, as well.
And, I'd take a step further and say, I think it's done to you often because of how eager you are to do it to others. It's easy to justify bad behavior when it's in retaliation, after all.

 No.3951

>>3947
>The site had rules against using slurs on it because it does not condone racism or bigotry. Why is this different?
Slurs are just hateful insults.  Using them serves no legitimate purpose in a civilized discussion.  They are prohibited for the same reason that saying "You're a fucking moron" to someone is prohibited.  White nationalism isn't inherently hateful (although in practice most white nationalists probably do hate racial minorities).

 No.3952

>>3945
^this

 No.3953

>>3952
>>3945
You guys don't experience what I do. There's really no room for sitting on the fence.

 No.3954

>>3951
I honestly don't believe the rules against slurs are just part of the civility rules. I think it's pretty clear that slurs in particular are singled out while no other kinds of insults are because the site is against racism and bigotry on the whole. If a mod wants to confirm or deny this, I'd love to hear from them.

 No.3955

>>3954
>>3954
Pretty sure if someone insisted on spouting insults like "Trump voters are all shit-brained cousin-fuckers" he'd be shown the door too, just the same as slurs.

 No.3956

>>3955
Because that violates the civility rules. But slurs are forbade specifically, not just under the terms of remaining civil.

If using slurs was only against the rules because  they violate the civility rules, there would be no reason to mention them specifically in the rules because no other types of insults are specifically mentioned. The fact that slurs are mentioned specifically at all means they are a special case, and leads me to believe it's because the site is against bigotry and racism on the whole. But I'd urge the mods to comment on this if that isn't the case.

 No.3957

>>3956
Rule page http://ponyville.us/rules/res/2.html
Ctrl+F "slur"
0 matches

As per http://ponyville.us/rules/res/6.html, the use of slurs falls under Rules 1 and/or 8:
>Slurs are prohibited on Ponyville, as per Rules 1 and 8.
>
>Rule 1 pertains to use of slurs that is merely disrespectful (...).
>
>Rule 8 pertains to use of slurs for the purpose of insulting or provoking another user.

 No.3958

File: 1553579769134.jpg (67.27 KB, 400x700, 4:7, 1474884980445.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3953
>>3942
In regards to Mint posting about his Nazi philosophy on /ef/: "I disapprove of what [he] says, but I will defend to the death [his] right to say it".

Pic unrelated.

 No.3959

>>3957
The fact that slur needed to be defined shows that they are a special case beyond just being insulting. No other insulting terms are specifically invoked.

Are you contesting that this site condemns racism and bigotry outright? If you are not, this conversation has no need to continue. If you are, I disagree with you and this conversation has no need to continue. I will let the modstaff establish which one of us is correct.

>>3958
Why don't we ask the people in Auschwitz if it's a good idea to defend the rights of Nazis to spread hate. Oh wait, you can't. They are dead. Germany forbids Nazi symbols and propaganda for a reason. Because they know the outcome of letting it be spread better than anyone.

 No.3960

File: 1553581313178.jpg (86.05 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, DAcHq2pXcAES0-h.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3959
>The fact that slur needed to be defined shows that they are a special case beyond just being insulting.
No, the reason is that it was controversial whether the use of slurs is always insulting/disrespectful.  Some people felt that the terms "newfag" and "oldfag" were acceptable to use despite having the root "fag", a slur.  The site staff decided otherwise and declared that all uses of slurs are considered disrepectful/insulting.

>Are you contesting that this site condemns racism and bigotry outright?
It probably goes against the general philosophy of the site.  But there is no rule against making posts supportive of the ideologies of racism or white nationalism.

>>3959
>Germany forbids Nazi symbols and propaganda for a reason
Historically because they were the loser in WW2 and the Allies didn't want Naziism to rise again in Germany.  And it persists even today because unfortunately the German electorate doesn't value freedom as much as Americans do.

 No.3961

>>3960
>But there is no rule against making posts supportive of the ideologies of racism or white nationalism.

I want a mod to confirm or deny this right here. Just because something isn't expressly against the rules does not mean it is expressly allowed or that it is condoned.

You're also completely wrong about everything you said about Nazism, but I feel like you're just trying to bait me into a political debate for either no reason or some ulterior motive, so I'm choosing to end this conversation.

 No.3962

>>3961
> I feel like you're just trying to bait
I'm not trying to bait you.  I'm just discussing with you points that you brought up.  I actually would have much preferred avoiding this digression.  This thread was supposed to be about you and LP, not about racism and other such things.

>You're also completely wrong about everything you said about Nazism, but ... I'm choosing to end this conversation.
Just for future reference, it's kinda rude to say "You're also completely wrong" when ending a conversation.  Just say something like "This tangent is getting too political for me to comfortably continue, so we'll just have to agree to disagree" or something like that.

 No.3963

>>3962
It was your choice to make assertions and statements about Germany's laws and stances on Nazis you know are loaded. You didn't have to do that, but it's why I'm ending this now.

It's not the politicism that's making me uncomfortable. It's the fact that this thread is not about discussing that topic, and this site does not want me discussing political topics. I ended it for those reasons, not because I am unable to to discuss it.

And I said "You are wrong" because I don't agree with you. From my point of view, you are wrong. Just because I am not choosing not to continue does not mean I think you are right or or should be forced to say I do.

 No.3964

>>3963
>And I said "You are wrong" because I don't agree with you. From my point of view, you are wrong. Just because I am not choosing not to continue does not mean I think you are right or or should be forced to say I do.
Okay, but what you said is still rude.  If you don't see this, I encourage you to think some more about it.  Saying rude things like that is part of the reason why you get in trouble so much.

 No.3965

>>3964
What's a non-rude way to say "I think you're wrong but I don't want to argue about this." Because that's literally what I said.

 No.3966

>>3965
The last posts are a good example of the danger zone.  Its many posts back and forth accomplish nothing but frustration, which makes you look bad.  Anon is not on thin ice, you are.

Suggestion:
If you feel someone is wrong, you can say you disagree.  It doesn't say the other person is wrong, so shouldn't upset them.  Hopefully.

Also dont try and convince that person.  Being right is less important than getting along.

(Edit:  ikr, pretty hypocritical coming from me)

 No.3967

File: 1553589014052.png (141.73 KB, 600x700, 6:7, Whaaa....!.png) ImgOps Google

Alright, so... I'm only gonna say a few things and then defer to Moony since I've asked questions regarding the actual topic in the mod chat but as of Sun night still have yet to get an answer.  Moony is unfortunately extremely busy.

First and foremost... Manley?  Our BIGGEST issue with you is how you act, period.  The vast majority of times you've gotten into fights has been due to your own attitude/rudeness/lack of tact/lack of empathy/etc.  There is no rule allowing 'an eye for an eye', regardless how strongly you may feel against someone else.  I don't know why you need a staff member to say this (and I have a peculiar feeling you're gonna denounce what I say, change the goal post, wait until Moony replies again, then wait until he posts with the same info under the mod/admin tag).  The community has been trying to beat you over the head with this over and over... and over, for years.  Yet you refuse to change.  Having controversial opinions is one thing, how you convey them is another.  We don't care how you view someone, we don't care if you hate someone, we don't care if you agree/disagree with someone; we care about how you act.  We need you to act with more civility/empathy and so far you have not.  To date, you have not shown that you understand this (albeit there were a few times I almost felt like you did, but then showed otherwise days later and returned to blaming others).  THAT is our issue with you.  THAT is why you keep on being banned and the like.  You may feel it's unfair.  You may feel like it's only other people's fault, but for the vast majority of the time it's been yours and yours alone.  Yes, some people have deliberately tried to upset you, but the vast majority of people have not.  Only you can choose how you act; no one else.  If you choose to act in a manner that breaks the rules, that's on you.  If you feel someone is trying to deliberately upset you, report it, and stop conversing in said conversation (and please, stop just reporting 'harassment' [be more specific, say why you feel it's against the rules and what rules specifically]).  If you continue, you're walking a tightrope that you are not equipped to deal with without breaking the rules yourself.  We don't care how 'right' you feel you are in a conversation; we care about how well people are getting along with one another and how well they can disagree with one another.

Stop accusing people, stop shutting yourself off to others' advice, stop judging people at every turn you get and start having an open and empathetic mind.  I'm not asking you to change your opinion, I'm asking you to change how you act and how you convey yourself.  Not to mention being able to 'agree to disagree' with someone in a civil and non-rude manner.


On the Nazi thing, we absolutely have deleted blatantly racist posts and banned racists in the past (in the last week we have actually).  There's more to that but it's too late for me atm and I need to bed.
We forbade slurs by name originally due to otherwise not being able to denounce usage of words like 'Oldfag' and the like without it being in writing. (among other things)  It was something quite a few of us were trying to get away from, especially considering quite a few of us are in the LGBT community.  We did not feel such things were conducive to a positive environment.

 No.3969

>>3953
I'm not sitting on the fence. Again, this is an incredibly dangerous way of looking at things.
The world is not binary.
>>3959
And Germany is an utter mess. A terrible place, full of authoritarian policies that restrict the rights of the individual.

Personally, I'm opposed to people's rights being violated.
I guess you're against free speech, so, I'm not really going to be easily able to convince you otherwise. But, I hope you understand, supporting basic human rights like free speech doesn't mean one accepts naziism or anything like that.
Again, incredibly dangerous way of looking at things. Given the censorship aspect, seems to be a way of looking at things that'd directly lead to a tyrannical state, ala something like the Soviet Union.
>>3963
This is a problem you have, as well. You refuse to argue with people, sometimes, while also saying "You are wrong". Comes across as a religious zealout, and it's a huge part of why you rub people the wrong way. 'Least that's how I feel on it.
Makes you look incredibly rude. You had this specific problem in the past with I believe it was Rose but I might be wrong, when they had said something along the lines of "let's agree to disagree", and you continued obnoxiously.
>>3965
"Let's agree to disagree".

 No.3970

>>3969
>I guess you're against free speech

See, what the hell is this? This is a completely loaded, uncivil accusation to make. You know for a fact that if I had said this to you, I'd be in trouble. No, I'm not "against free speech", but I do believe that some things should not be covered under it. That's why this country still has laws against hate speech. But I don't want to argue about that in this thread. I'd suggest you make a thread elsewhere to discuss it, but I'm not allowed to discuss politics on this site. I am not be expressly forbidden from doing so now, but any time an attempt is made, people ignore baity remarks like
>I guess you're against free speech
from people like you and focus only on the things I say. I'm cannot freely express my opinions on a matter on this site, and that leaves me in a compromised position in defending my side. It was why the "political ban" was so stressful for me. It allowed people to say whatever they wanted and I could not defend my position. It wasn't fair, but even without an explicit ban, I know I can't discuss this matter with you as freely as someone else can. Still, I resent your accusation I'm "against free speech". That sounds a lot like you trying to bait me, and if it is not, it's not a civil way to discuss this topic.

 No.3971

>>3967
So is the site against racism and bigotry on the whole or not? The fact that you've deleted racist comments and banned racists would seem to suggest that, but I'd like to hear that officially.

As for everything else you said, the problem is I'm not sure what you mean by "how I act". I don't do anything that other people do not. Mondo makes jokes about inappropriate things. Numerous people make loaded accusations and/or assumptions about other people like >>3969
just did. The fact of the matter is, you let those people slide but you focus on me. But I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with the way I talk to people. I can't always agree with everyone, and all I know is that "having an opinion that would make someone want to argue with you is not allowed because only you will be punished."

 No.3972

File: 1553617923250.png (13.77 KB, 300x330, 10:11, duty_calls.png) ImgOps Google

>>3969
>against free speech
>religious zealot
>obnoxiously

Be honest now.  Are trying to help Manley understand anything, or are you just getting in some free digs?  I really can't be sure either way.

You are telling Manley not to do the exact things you are currently doing and it's very hypocritical and only putting Manley on the defensive and it's distracting him from whatever your point is.

Regardless of your intent, you are being very rude.  Please take a different approach.

>>3971
Manley.  Please keep in mind that anon is doing the exact thing to you, that you are accused of.  Doesn't feel good, does it?  It drove me nuts yesterday (short trip) and your reacting to it is distracting you from the substantive parts of this discussion.

1)  please try to avoid phrasing things in ways that make others feel they are being confronted like anon is making you feel confronted
2)  please read wizard's post again without attempting to defend against it and see what you can take from it.  There are good points in there.

I think, this site is against things like racism but it's more in favor of free speech than it is against racism.  In other words, when you say someone is wrong that is challenging them to defend their position in a way that saying you disagree does not.

Analogy:
Just because you don't come into the streets to confront protesters doesn't mean you agree with them.  Just let them march by with their banners and it will soon be over.  If you step in front of them and tell them they are wrong, you become even more wrong than they are because you are preventing their free speech.

Lastly, yes the rules are now different for you because of the frustration the staff feels about your ongoing argumentation with people.  Even when i did what i did the other week, and you did what you were supposed to and ignored me all day while i sperged out on you, you were punished too.  For you, the right to argue is now lost.  It's not fair, but it is what it is.

The way i see it, anon is a good practice exercize.  He's wrong, hypocritical, and argumentative.  If you implement a new approach and simply tell him "i disagree" but otherwise ignore him, then you will survive this situation.

All you need to do, to stay out of any arguments on this site is say "i disagree" and not engage.  Please try it.  It's not fair but, you don't have to try and fix everything.  Just let them be wrong.  Thats all you have to do.

 No.3973

>>3972
>For you, the right to argue is now lost.  It's not fair, but it is what it is.

I'm not sure I can post on a site where I do not have the same rights as others. And moreover, I'm not sure I WANT to post on a site where I do not have the same rights as others. It makes me a target, and it tears down my views because I cannot defend them. I don't wish to be used as a tool for others to use to tear down everything I stand for.

 No.3974

File: 1553624031928.gif (206.49 KB, 550x400, 11:8, giphy (4).gif) ImgOps Google

>>3973
>It makes me a target, and it tears down my views because I cannot defend them. I don't wish to be used as a tool for others to use to tear down everything I stand for.

But, you don't have to see it that way.  You aren't helping anyone tear down your beliefs to just not go into those areas.

Why can't you just discuss sexy pokemon and videogames and whatnot without getting into topics where you disagree?

Championing causes can't succeed here.  No one wants to be confronted on their wrong beliefs.  I ruined some friendships on pchan by getting outraged over the xenophobic justification of punishing children at the border for their parents trying to prevent them from being killed.  It didn't have any positive results and any chance i had to influence people's thinking was lost because i alienated them.

Being here among people who don't think the way you do politically doesn't hurt your causes or advance theirs.  It helps those who disagree to see that other viewpoints exist, which in itself is as much as you can do.

Neither of us is responsible to fight against other views.  It only gets us both in trouble and further entrenches people in their wrong viewpoints.

Can't we just hang out and be cool with people?  Discuss ponies pokemon, games, toothaches or school or anything under the sun but political views?

I know its hard.  But can't we try?

 No.3975

>>3974
>Why can't you just discuss sexy pokemon and videogames and whatnot without getting into topics where you disagree?

Because things come up and people who are free to express their opinions on things can comment on those things. Just before the last ban, Noonim tried to start an argument with me because the topic of teaching anti-racism in cartoons came up. http://ponyville.us/pony/res/923161.html#923295

On any other site, I could say "I think it's important to teach kids about racism and how it's bad" without people trying to jump all over me and get me in trouble. He continued to try and force me into an argument even after I told him numerous times I wasn't going to argue with him. But no one said anything to him.

>>3974
>Championing causes can't succeed here.  No one wants to be confronted on their wrong beliefs.

I keep getting conflicting messages on here about that. Some people say I don't have to hide my opinions, but it's how they are presented, but when I ask "How is the right way to present them" they don't have an answer. Because what you say is right. People don't want to face that what they think might be incorrect and the react the I just showed every single time, no matter HOW it's presented. So that means I'm in a position where I can't defend my stances on things, even when I'm not the one who brings them up.

There's never going to be a time when I am %100 apolitical because I live in a country where there are Nazis marching in the streets saying "Jews will not replace us". It's unrealistic to ask me never to talk about the things going on in my life and I think deep down the people here KNOW that. But they aren't willing to do anything about how those people react to the very real things in my life. Only tell me to live my life somewhere else.

 No.3976

File: 1553625861541.gif (389.29 KB, 450x940, 45:94, 6af.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3975
Well, Noonim just wants to argue and if you say you don't want to argue, he'll provoke you into an argument about whether you want to argue.

At a glance that part of that thread looked OK, not really sure how it went before or after.

Just avoid telling people they are wrong.  If they disagree, don't respond at all.

Look at me, i can't resist pushing Post when i should just shrug, and here i am with you on the precipice of permaban.

All we need to do is be ready to stfu when we have nothing positive to say.  We can assert what we think and leave it at that.  Thats positive.  Saying people wrong is negative.  Apparently saying we disagree is bait, which is bullshit.  So post nothing at all, or just repeat what we think.

Example:

I think racism messages in cartoons are bad.
>no it's good

Options:
1.  Youre wrong
2.  I disagree
3.  Nothing
4.  Well i still think its bad, but you do you

Right answers:  3 or 4
Wrong answers:  1 or 2

Does this help?  Im trying it myself since returning and so far it seems to be working.  I kinda failed to do so a bit with anon in this thread and it kinda blew up so im just ignoring him for the most part rn.  Which seems to be working.

Please give it a try.

 No.3977

>>3976
3 and 4 don't allow me to say WHY I think that they are good, but the other person still can. If I'm not allowed to freely express myself here, then I don't think I want to post here. But people are saying I can, I just have to do it a certain way and won't tell me what that way is. It makes me think there isn't a way at all.

 No.3978

>>3970
I'm sorry, I must of misunderstood what you meant by "Why don't we ask the people in Auschwitz if it's a good idea to defend the rights of Nazis to spread hate. Oh wait, you can't. They are dead. Germany forbids Nazi symbols and propaganda for a reason. Because they know the outcome of letting it be spread better than anyone."
Sounds pretty heavily anti-free speech to me.
>but I do believe that some things should not be covered under it
Then it isn't free speech.
Don't say you support free speech, when you're okay with censorship.
>That's why this country still has laws against hate speech.
I don't know what country you're in, but, in mine, there are no laws against hate speech, because that's free speech. Places I know of, like the UK, have those laws, and they go massively out of bounds, to the point of arresting literal comedians. I'd rather not follow them.
> That sounds a lot like you trying to bait me, and if it is not, it's not a civil way to discuss this topic.
I am not trying to bait you. I am directly responding to your advocation that certain people be forbidden from speaking freely, because of their politics.

 No.3979

>>3972
I'm trying to get him to understand. Unfortunately, as usual, it's a bit of a brick wall's attempt.
Though, to be honest, I don't really care what you think, because at this point, after every bit of fuss you made and justly so, you've suddenly decided to do a massive 180 turn, and seem to be actively trying to defend everything he says and does.
It's throwing me for a bit of a loop.

 No.3980

>>3978
You ARE trying to bait me. Because I said I would not be discussing this furter in this thread and yet you insist on making accusations that I don't support free speech and that the US has no laws against hate speech. If you really want to hear my opinion on this, make a thread about it. But I suspect you do not.

 No.3981

File: 1553627522224.jpg (58.49 KB, 720x720, 1:1, facebook_1553268426892.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3977
There is a way.  Let's add option 5 which is also correct and 6 which is wrong:

5.  I think it's bad because (positive reasons why you think it's bad only) it normalizes the stereotypes and ingrains a feeling that it's ok to treat people differently when i think cartoons should be cognizant of the responsibility to engender positive things like treating people the same with the same rights, not laughing at them or mistreating them for being different

See how thats positive?  Now,

6.  I think it's wrong and you're wrong for feeling that way.

See how it's ok to say the racism in cartoons is bad without saying people are wrong for thinking it's ok?

 No.3982

File: 1553627616810.png (349.92 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_annoyed_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>3975
>, Noonim tried to start an argument with me because the topic of teaching anti-racism in cartoons came up
I didn't try to start any argument.
All I did was give my opinion. I specifically responded to the idea that "you had to learn it somewhere the first time. "
I didn't.
It was a natural result of my beliefs. You don't judge people for the actions of another. It's not fair. That simple.
>He continued to try and force me into an argument even after I told him numerous times I wasn't going to argue with him. But no one said anything to him.
That's just a flat out lie, man
Fortunately, you decided to include a link to the thread that outright proves you're lying about this:
>>>/pony/923366
My contention was that you decided to respond in a rude manner. That's it. You can disagree all you want, I just would rather not have some shitty "There's literally nothing I can respond to this with that won't make you argue with me for hours.".

Incidentally; The same issue for the "numerous claims" part. Just flat out untrue. Firstly because there's only two posts you made. The other being "Because I don't agree with you. But I also don't want to argue with you for hours today. I'm allowed to do both, Mondo said so.".

 No.3983

File: 1553627659312.png (166.96 KB, 964x1024, 241:256, large (12).png) ImgOps Google

>>3971
I'm not gonna justify a response to that currently since you still don't understand the biggest point of my post.

People have been giving you examples... again, for years, ad nauseum.  I don't feel that I should have to give you even more examples that you may just ignore or try to 'defend' again like you've always have done.  The vast majority of time you get into an argument, you tend to derail it yourself (or give in to whomever is trying to upset you) and start acting out in a manner that is against the rules.
Don't.
Move.
The.
Goalpost.
Just... don't.  This is about your actions, how those break the rules, and not how others may or may not be breaking the rules.  If you again feel that someone else has broken a rule, report it in as detailed a manner as you can as to why you believe it breaks the rules.  The rest is then is up to us staff, not you.  Yes, it CAN take a few hours to a day for us to get to it, but we SHOULD be able to get to and review it.  Even IF it's a mod that you believe is breaking the rules... report it.  Said mod isn't able to act on their own reported posts.  I know you feel like we've been picking on you, but the fact of the matter is... is that the vast majority of the community here feels the opposite.  That we've been showing favoritism to you.  That if it was anyone else, we would've perma'd you years ago.  And to some degree, they're right, but that's only because operating a 'lenient' (without anarchy reigning) website is not an easy thing to do.  Nor is it easy to juggle each staff members' own various opinions, interpretations, and availability.  It's why we tried making the rules and ban lengths as black and white as possible.  Both to users, and to our own staff.  It's then also why it may seem ALP has been getting the short end of the stick lately versus your years of getting off comparatively scott free.

Getting back on track...  

>>3977
That's part of your problem: NOT BEING ABLE TO WALK AWAY.  I'll again say... we don't care how 'right' you feel you are.  We care about how well people can converse with one another.  You argue HORRIBLY.  You have never shown that you're able to hold an argument civilly, for the most part.  If you can't do that (responding in a civil and empathetic manner that doesn't upset the other person), then don't respond to the rest of that argument; period.  The issue isn't about whether or not you can freely express yourself; it's how you respond.  That's on you, not us.  If you can't understand that, then I don't know what else to tell you that hundreds of others have tried to get nailed into your head.

>>3980
WALK THE FUCK AWAY
NOW

 No.3984

>>3976
>Well, Noonim just wants to argud and if you say you don't want to argue, he'll provoke you into an argument about whether you want to argue.
That's not at all what I fucking want.
I don't understand what it is with people where they've got to automatically start injecting my intentions with malice.
It's a massive dick move, dude. Seriously.

 No.3985

>>3980
I'm only meaning to defend my actions, given that you seem to want to accuse me of doing something I've not done.
I've made my statements for why I believe what you've said constitutes being against free speech. If you want to end it there, fine: Let's agree to disagree.
But, don't accuse me of malice because I have a different standard for free speech, to you.

>and that the US has no laws against hate crimes.
hate crimes =/= hate speech

 No.3986

File: 1553628387907.gif (30.49 KB, 200x200, 1:1, Kd1f.gif) ImgOps Google

>>3979
>I don't really care what you think
This statement is entirely obvious and doesn't really need to be stated.

>I'm trying to get him to understand
How's that working out for you?  You're engaging in exactly the kind of insulting you're-wrong accusations that you are criticizing him for.  Is this do-what-i-say-not-what-i-do approaching working out well?  Then why don't you change your approach as you are preaching that Manley must do?

>>3983
>the importance of being able to walk away

This.  Omigosh this, Manley.  Please focus on this and take what is happening itt as an opportunity to exercise it.  I sincerely feel you should focus entirely on Wizard right now, posting under a mod tag, and ignore everything else thats happening here rn.

>>3984
Theres nothing malicious about liking to argue.  That's a strawman, and a great way to get what you want from me:  an argument.  Even you classified yourself as one of the three, and seemed afraid you'd be removed too once Manley and I are gone.  If not for liking to argue, then i wonder why you felt that way.

-----

Suddenly i feel that my input is directly counterproductive to what i'm trying to accomplish here.  If anyone objects to what i've said or feels offended, you are probably right and i apologize.  I'm going to check out of this conversation for a while in hopes of not making things worse.

 No.3987

File: 1553628863530.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>3986
Look, if that's genuinely what you think, I think you and I are done.
Contrary to your insulting assumptions, I do not like to argue. I would much rather prefer not to. Problem is, I have quite strong beliefs as well as a sense of justice, and that leads me to argue fairly regularly.

Frankly, I'm rather sick and tired of the constant number of jerks who insist I must be doing what I'm doing because I just "like arguing". As though I've not actually got any real beliefs I feel strongly about, I'm just doing what I do to bait people, to try to get a reaction.
If you are honestly one of these people, fine. Please just stop talking to me, then. I hate that sort of thing. Nothing irritates me more, drives me further up the wall, than being accused of something I've not done. Of being something I'm not.
If you think the only reason I'm doing all this is to try to get you in an argument, fine. Believe whatever you want. Just ignore me, then. Stop talking to me. I'd sure as hell be a lot happier. Would mean I don't have to respond to mean-spirited comments like that.

 No.3988

I'm gonna take a nap as I'm exhausted (this plus very little sleep).  Hopefully another staff member jumps in.

 No.3989

File: 1553630329391.gif (105.4 KB, 550x400, 11:8, full (13).gif) ImgOps Google

>>3987
>If you think the only reason I'm doing all this is to try to get you in an argument, fine. Believe whatever you want. Just ignore me, then. Stop talking to me. I'd sure as hell be a lot happier. Would mean I don't have to respond to mean-spirited comments like that.

I said nothing of the sort.  Nor did i say you're trying to start an argument with me, and frankly you can't.

I suggest you dissect the feelings in your post for yourself and sort out which ones were really caused by my simple words that you "like to argue", and which are caused by yourself.

Assuming what you say is true, and i have no reason to doubt your honesty so I take your assertion at face value in spite of what i concluded from observation,

We are three because we all share this problem of being dragged into arguments by our own doing, hating it while being perceived as enjoying it, blaming others for it while it is we ourselves who are at fault for trapping ourselves into a corner because someone is wrong on the internet.

Stop it, my friend.  It's that simple:  just don't do it anymore.  Please.

Hugz!


>>3988
Rest well Wizard.  And thanks.

 No.3990

>>3989
>That's a strawman, and a great way to get what you want from me:  an argument.  
>Well, Noonim just wants to argud and if you say you don't want to argue, he'll provoke you into an argument about whether you want to argue.

 No.3992

File: 1553631625909.jpg (11.17 KB, 300x168, 25:14, images.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

...*sigh*

Let me read everything. i hear it's bad.

 No.3993

File: 1553631916084.jpg (6.59 KB, 236x236, 1:1, happypretty7.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3992
I felt it has been productive.

I hope it has been.

Edit:  its me again isn't it.  I'm so sorry everyone, i really thought i was helping.  I was doing my best.  Im sorry.

>>3990
Please read >>3989 again.
also, im sorry.

 No.3994

>>3987
>Frankly, I'm rather sick and tired of the constant number of jerks who insist I must be doing what I'm doing because I just "like arguing". As though I've not actually got any real beliefs I feel strongly about, I'm just doing what I do to bait people, to try to get a reaction.
Hmm, I think you're interpreting "likes arguing" differently (and much more negatively) than loapony meant it.  I don't think he meant "likes arguing for its own sake" or "likes arguing just to bait people".  I think there's a more neutral interpretation of "has strongly held opinions and likes to argue in favor of them".

 No.3995

>>3980
>You ARE trying to bait me. Because I said I would not be discussing this furter in this thread and yet you insist on making accusations that I don't support free speech
No, he is not baiting you.  You don't get to say a controversial opinion and then expect people to not respond.  If want to stop discussing a subject, then STOP DISCUSSING IT.  Don't try to get the last word in.

>and that the US has no laws against hate speech
Since nobody has cited any Supreme Court rulings, let me cite a relevant one that will hopefully resolve this question: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).

 No.3996

>>3995
>You don't get to say a controversial opinion and then expect people to not respond.  
Then why am I expected not to respond?

 No.3997

>>3995
>making accusations that I don't support free speech and that the US has no laws against hate speech

you've misread the sentence structure, the "dont" applies to the "no laws"

It's Manley's position that the US HAS laws against hate speech.  No one has cited any rulings from the High Court because, I don't think anyone here disputes that there are laws in the US against hate speech.

>You don't get to say a controversial opinion and then expect people to not respond

While I agree with the idea of this, I still can't get over the fact that the way it is stated is being stuffed down Manley's throat in a way that makes it get coughed back up for obvious reasons.

Please keep constructive suggestions to a constructive tone.  Is it really that hard to say, "telling people your opinion invites them to respond" or something like that.

I understand that people are very frustrated about this, but please pay attention to how your suggestions sound to the listener.  If you want to beat Manley into submission, of course he is going to respond defensively.  I know, I tried it for two years.  If something is stated in a tone like "if you try and get the last word, the other person will likely respond".

>>3996
I hope I am not out of line in responding to this.  I mean this is the most gentle and supportive way:  if you do not want people to respond, you can either just not reply to their statment that you disagree with, or say something like " i don't want to talk abot that with you" without adding that you disagree with it or what you think about it.

I don't know if it will work or not, I am not really even sure what is going on around here.  I just wish we could post ponies n pokemon together without getting into trouble all the time.  I'm done with trying to convince anyone of what is right or wrong.  I just want to post ponies and hang out with some friends, feel like I have a social life outside of work or crawling myself to court to fight my opponents.

I really wish we could just all get along.  Instead, I've likely aready just gotten us banned this morning, and if that has happened I wanto to take this chance before I am silenced to say that I am just so, so sorry to everyone for screwing up again and again and again.

 No.3998

>>3997
>It's Manley's position that the US HAS laws against hate speech.
Then he is factually incorrect.  So-called "hate speech" is Constitutionally protected.  Please read RAV cited above.

 No.3999

>>3996
You're welcome to respond *if* you can do so in a civil, respectful, rule-abiding manner.  The reason the mods are telling you to not respond is because you have a long history of responding in a rule-breaking manner.

 No.4000

>>3998
oh right I was mixing up my concepts, there are laws against hate speech that includes calls to violence.

I don't really care, I'm used to being wrong.  I am tired of the whole situation and I just wish it could stop and we could all just be nice to each other (acknowledging I have transgressed plenty on this myself particularly in the quest to be "right") notwithstanding who thinks what or how wrong I or anyone else is.

It seems such a small and easy thing, but remains elusive and is further away the closer it seems to be getting.

 No.4001

@_@

 No.4002

File: 1553642642146.jpg (12.31 KB, 205x246, 5:6, pinkyangel.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4001

does that mean we are OK upon review, or do some of us get the axe?

edit:
the suspense is killing me, Moons.  if it needs to be done, please just cut my head off already.  I support your call, whatever it is.
*hugs

 No.4004

>>4002
I am also waiting for Moony to respond.

 No.4005

>>4003
Start a thread for that if you want to discuss it. I may or may not participate, since I technically am still allowed to.

 No.4006

File: 1553654675496.jpg (121.42 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, that muffin.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4002
we're okay, though i do not think this thread was productive. if anything, it makes me worried that what we've all talked about is still not getting through.

 No.4007

>>4006
You said "Be civil or I will kick you out."

I'm being civil. I'm not sure what else you want, Moony.

 No.4008

File: 1553655351371.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4007
that's not what i said, and i don't appreciate the misrepresentation.

you follow the rules, as we've discussed, you have no trouble. but if you break the rules again, this time, big trouble.

i think that's more accurate. we've talked this to death, from every angle. i'm no longer accepting the "i didn't know" caveat anymore, based on some minor, inconsequential detail, or some interpretation of this or that word.

we're clear now. i like you. i like, generally, your posts. i just don't want to see anymore fighting.

 No.4009

>>4008
I don't think it's a misrepresentation, Moony. You are putting me in a position where I cannot defend the things I believe in, where I do not have the same rights as the other posters to defend the things I believe in, and where I can be used as a tool to tear down the things I believe in.

This is not expressly what was said, but it is the effect of the restrictions I have been placed under. You tell me I can talk about things but must be "civil", but you wont' tell me what "civil" is. I've always been civil except on a few rare occasions where my words were considered direct insults, times I was punished for.  

In this very thread, I was not allowed to defend my stance on hate speech and hate speech was allowed to be put on a pedestal because any attempt to defend my position would be seen as hostile and get me in trouble. I don't know what you want from me, I honestly do not. There is no way I can exist on this site completely apolitically or without ever disagreeing with another poster. It's not possible. So I'm at an impasse here.

 No.4010

File: 1553657069479.webm (3.72 MB, 1553321785710.webm)

>>4007
It's clear that Wizard felt your accusation of baiting was wrong, and while imo there definitely was some baiting, i agree with him that calling a person out for baiting is not a good idea.  It upsets them, just like my words accidentally upset Nooms.  We should avoid that.

>>3983
>it may seem alp has been getting the short end of the stick lately

I don't feel ive been getting the short end of the stick.  Ive learned some valuable lessons about how things that seem to come at me and hurt my feelings, actually begin with me provoking those things in the first place (even tho some of them took me 2 years to recognize) and my outburst a few weeks ago was just awful.  All im upset about is another person's fate hanging on my next meltdown.

>>4009
Please Manley.  
Wizard defined civil here: >>3983
>responding in a civil and empathetic manner that doesn't upset the other person

Moons said be civil or get big trouble.  Fighting with me gets us kicked out.

I don't think anyone put hate speech on a pedestal and i dont think anything got torn down because you couldn't champion for it.


I feel it's time to suck it up, and go post on /pony.  Please start a comic or pokemon thread or something if you're ready, and lets see if we can make it a positive experience

 No.4011

>>4009
Other people seem to be able to be civil without any troubles.

 No.4012

>>4009
> I've always been civil except on a few rare occasions where my words were considered direct insults, times I was punished for.  
Eh, I can't really agree with that.  You've also been incivil when you indirectly insulted people (e.g., your insinuation that lostpony is an "asshole", saying that Trump voters are all racists, etc.), saying "You're also completely wrong ... I'm choosing to end this conversation", etc.

 No.4013

File: 1553659194378.jpeg (188.11 KB, 669x800, 669:800, derpy-dreaming-of-muffin.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4006
>pic
Oh, a muffin!  I love muffins!  They're my favorite food!  (Although I can't eat too many, because they're high in carbs.)  Iara can confirm that I love muffins!

 No.4014

>>4010
Saying "if you don't support hate speech then you are against freedom of speech" is putting it on a pedestal. Which is what anon said right here >>3969

>>4010
>I feel it's time to suck it up,
That's just it. I don't think I can. I don't think I can just stand around and let the things I care about be torn down, or worse yet, be used as a tool to help tear them down. And if that's what's being asked of me, I cannot be here.

 No.4015

>>4012
in all fairness a lost pony IS a huge asshole.

Ha Trump voters are all racist, prove me wrong!

[spoiler]just kidding[/i]

Srsly tho can we stop with the Manley beat-down already?  He's demoralized enough for now.  I think he'll be better once he gets back out there on /pony but theres only so much of this that's constructive.

 No.4016

File: 1553659416734.gif (587.25 KB, 190x265, 38:53, Im sickened but curious.gif) ImgOps Google

>>4013
Yes you do.
Now stick to the current topic in /canterlot/.

 No.4017

File: 1553659621388.png (68.92 KB, 894x894, 1:1, cheerup1.png) ImgOps Google

>>4013
Iara despises ponies and threw me under the bus, don't care what she thinks.

>>4014
Come back to Ponychan with me.  Except for Ember Storm screeching at any ponyville people, you'd be welcome and i don't think anyone cares if you yell at Ember.

I'll get you in.  Just ask. Plenty of right-wingers but you can battle them all you want, wont get you banned.

 No.4018

File: 1553661532873.png (80.95 KB, 484x327, 484:327, 133411698921.png) ImgOps Google

>>4009
If i invite you to my house for tea, and while doing so give a rousing political argument, but end up destroying my coffee table, you may be 100% right, but you definitely aren't getting invited over for tea in the future.

We've been over this. 100% your behavior. Everybody else behaves. i share many of our opinions. You would be allowed to stand up for your opinions in ways that aren't against the rules. Do it that way. Or dont don't at all.

You having values you believe in does not put you above our community rules.

 No.4019

>>4018
I don't know how else to act. This is how ive always been. So theres little I can do.

 No.4020

File: 1553662925241.png (69.59 KB, 634x948, 317:474, ef-blue-flower.png) ImgOps Google

>>4019
Is it really so hard to imagine how other people in thread will feel about how you're about to post?  Try putting yourself in their shoes, imagining that you're on the receiving end of what you're about to post.  Will it make you feel bad or upset?  Then don't post it!  You need to put more effort in your posting to avoid unintentional incivility.

 No.4021

>>4020
And that means I cant defend what I care about...

 No.4022

File: 1553663381959.png (496.83 KB, 1566x1630, 783:815, wink1.png) ImgOps Google

>>4018

You can't invite Manley over for tea without inviting a lost pony too, that would be rude!

 No.4023

File: 1553663506372.png (227.84 KB, 353x297, 353:297, 1510569943683.png) ImgOps Google

>>4021
No, it just means that you need to put more effort into it.  Like fact-checking your post before you hit the "submit" button.  Like asking yourself, "Am I sure I'm not misinterpreting Noonim's post?".  Like trying to work with other users instead of seeing them as adversaries.  Like asking, "Did I phrase this in the most respectful way possible?  Is it unnecessarily hostile?".  

Anyhow, my bedtime is overdue.  Goodnight, Manley.  Please re-read all the helpful posts you've received in this thread and try to improve your behavior accordingly.  You can do this.  Ganbatte!

 No.4024

File: 1553663545886.gif (90.65 KB, 680x298, 340:149, coffee1.gif) ImgOps Google

>>4021
Please note, the incivility thing isn't part of the instant permaban clause.

You're allowed to make a mistake.

And hey don't be hoggin all Moony's tea!

 No.4025

>>4014
If by pedestal, you mean understanding that Free speech means some people can say some unfortunate things, yes. I really do not believe that fighting for basic human rights means you support, say, communism oh, because you defend the Communists right to voice their particular political positions. that isn't putting anything on a pedestal. That's setting a flat standard for everything.

You don't have to support hate speech. I certainly don't. It's just that I'm not an advocate for censorship, because I believe in basic human rights. It's quite simple.

 No.4026

File: 1553717741138.jpg (Spoiler Image, 64.07 KB, 700x630, 10:9, dk5wc6-82bb179a-2b94-4734-….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4019
>This is how ive always been. So theres little I can do.

Aww that not true man. You've changed so much from when I first met you, and it's been pretty cool to watch you grow and become the person you are right now.

You can change if you want to, don't let your mind play that trick on you. It's hard, but you can and already have in a lot of ways.

 No.4027

>>4026
>You've changed so much from when I first met you

No one really seems to notice or care around here. All I hear is "we've been telling you for years and you're still not what we want."

>>4020
The problem is, no one else shows me any empathy. Anon didn't have to say I'm "against free speech" in >>3978
because I don't support hate speech. That was NOT the nicest way to word that because he changed it later to "I have a different standard for free speech, to you" in >>3985. Those aren't the same thing. One is way ruder than the other, but he still gets to say it the first way, the way people normally communicate, because no one else is under ridiculous standards no one can live up to like I am.

 No.4028

>>4027
That's probably largely because until now I didn't know there was a definition for free speech that specifically excluded certain political speech.
Until now, I thought this was the standard for everywhere, given that it's how the right was laid out in the US Constitution, how most all philosophers on the subject Ive read had set it, and how every activist I've met until now has defined it.

Sorry, but, it's quite difficult to predict a massive deviation from the set standard definition of a particular term.

Though I do find it particularly ironic that you're whining about this, while also equating allowing everyone to speak freely as supporting and putting Nazis on a pedestal.
I would have thought that's a far more extreme, and otherwise hostile, assumption to make.

 No.4029

>>4028
I think you're missing the point.

 No.4030

>>4029
Your point is somehow I'm being unempathetic because I can't magically read your mind and find out that you've got a radically different definition from the standard English version, not to mention the majority of the populace. Yes.

Sorry about that. I just expected you to be using the same definition as most everyone else, not to mention the major philosopher on the subject, direct text, and law.

 No.4031

>>4030
To clarify here, my point is, it isn't unempathetic to make a reasonable assumption based on the basic definitions of words.
Like, if you say something is "red", and I say " no it isn't, it's blue", and you say "well it's red by my definition", I'm not being unempathetic, I'm just applying the standard definition.
Evidently your definition deviates from the standard, is all

 No.4032

>>4030
No, you're being incredibly rude RIGHT NOW.

You worded it the way you did specifically to be rude. Because you said the same thing, in a less rude way, a few posts later. You went from  "You're against free speech" in >>3978 to "we have different standards for free speech" in >>3985. Same idea, but expressed in a much less rude way.

And now, the way you are describing it, you are more focused on proving that you are right and I am wrong by over emphasizing the literal definition of the word over your behavior. There's no reason to do that other than a desire to show yourself as superior. That is NOT fostering a place for the sharing of ideas, that's you trying to win.

 No.4033

>>4032
One post was prior to the other.
Do you understand the concept of linear time?
Basically, some things happen before other things.

 No.4034

>>4032
>And now, the way you are describing it, you are more focused on proving that you are right and I am wrong by over emphasizing the literal definition of the word over your behavior. There's no reason to do that other than a desire to show yourself as superior.
No. This is simply untrue.
What I am trying to do is refute your accusation that I was being unempathetic. That is it. Because I wasn't being unempathetic. I responded as any individual would. The reason I am defending my actions is because you decided to insult me.

is it wrong to make an attempt to defend one's actions when falsely accused by somebody like yourself? is it wrong for me to try to explain my irrational, and why it does not logically follow that I was behaving in an unempathetic manner?

 No.4035

>>4033
The way you phrased that is incredibly rude. Of course I understand linear time. To suggest otherwise is to imply I am mentally deficient. This is more evidence to how I am held to a different standard than the rest of the board.  

My point was, you expressed the same idea two different ways (at different times). One way was rude, the other was not. You chose to use the rude way FIRST. You are allowed to say it both ways, I am not.

 No.4036

>>4035
I agree that is incredibly rude. I phrased it that way because you are being incredibly rude to me. You insulted me by claiming I was behaving it on empathetic manner. That is not true. Frankly, I am losing patience with you. I understand and I for a nice not exactly productive, but when someone is being an ass, it's common to respond in an assish manner back.

I responded in a way that you took as rude, because I used the standard English definition, and then, when it was revealed that you do not use the standard English definition, I've replied in a different manner. That is it. I acted in an incredibly empathetic way. Frankly, I am now feeling like I did much more than you deserved. I should just maintain my earlier position, as it's pretty clear at this point that you don't care anyway.

 No.4037

>>4035
To use the example in reference to earlier, if you say that a dog is blue, but it is in fact red, and I say that dog isn't blue, it's red, and then you respond saying that it's your definition of blue, it isn't me being unempathetic for the initial statements.

if I choose after I discover that you are using a different definition for the word blue than everybody else, to say, you have a different definition of the word blue, that's reasonable of me. It's actually quite empathetic, I'd say, given that it doesn't follow everyone else's.

 No.4038

Can everyone not see the knots this guy is having to twist himself in to convince us he wasn't rude?

Rudeness is just the default on this board, but I would not be allowed to respond in the way he did in >>3978

 No.4039

>>4038
Whatever, man. I tried explaining it as reasonably as I could, if you call me unempathetic again I'll just report you

 No.4040

>>4039
Um, implying I don't know how time works is NOT being reasonable.

 No.4041

>>4040
That was me losing my temper a bit, so I decided to be a tad condiscending, yes.
You kept throwing something I did before I knew you weren't using the standard definition, as evidence of some kind.
All you did was prove I was being quite considerate. I'll try to avoid losing my patience, and instead just report when you insult me, instead. Easier that way.

 No.4042

>>4041
Hostility like this is why this request of civility is futile. Even when I make the attempt, peope react this way with condescension.

 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 ]