[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.5847

File: 1595299111788.jpg (20.45 KB, 320x320, 1:1, Star-Vs-The-Forces-Of-Evil….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is my first time here.

So.... Hi! Nice to meet you!

 No.5848

File: 1595299194530.png (474.7 KB, 2564x2143, 2564:2143, d8r53fh-aff86203-abd0-4391….png) ImgOps Google

>beautiful alpaca.

So it's forced anon here? I was looking forward to transferring my trip

 No.5849

>>5848
Hello!

Yes, this board is for discussing political/controversial topics. The forced anon is an attempt to keep civility. If you want to use your trip you can do so on the /pony/ board where we have lighter discussions.

Is there a topic you wished to discuss on here?

 No.5850

>>5849
No. Is /pony/ meant only for the show discussions or is it comparable to /oat/ in that it is light hearted?

 No.5851

>>5850
More like /oat/. We rarely talk about the show itself anymore. Yeah, this board is specifically for discussing political topics. It's attempt to keep far-right people from cluttering up the other boards.

 No.5852

File: 1595300942727.jpg (29.04 KB, 352x550, 16:25, 184427554-352-k626295.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5851
Kk....kk....


Well, whY do you wanna talk about?

 No.5853

File: 1595301198622.png (203.19 KB, 600x450, 4:3, derpy shy 3.png) ImgOps Google

oh dear... you have found the debate board! It's forced anon in here!

 No.5854

File: 1595301375817.jpg (29.04 KB, 352x550, 16:25, 184427554-352-k626295.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>5853
>>5853
Learned the hard way! ♥️♥️♥️

 No.5855

>>5852
I dunno. You like video games?

 No.5856

File: 1595306102070.gif (1.9 MB, 1000x400, 5:2, sweetie-pede.gif) ImgOps Google

>>5851
>It's attempt to keep far-right people from cluttering up the other boards.
Why do you single out only one half of the political spectrum?  The divisive and combative nature of the former /pony/ politics threads wasn't the result of just one side.  Both sides contributed to it to a significant degree.

 No.5857

>>5855
>>5855
Unfortunately no, I only have a cell phone. But lately, I have been playing a mobile game set in feudal Japan.

>>5856
Yay!

 No.5858

File: 1595345278084.jpeg (444.86 KB, 600x852, 50:71, 9A2FC92C-8338-4159-A659-5….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Hello Kady

 No.5859

>>5856
Because only one side were bigots and contributing to an unwelcome atmosphere to certain groups of people? The other side was trying to combat bigotry. It was the fighting that was the issue, not that side's stance on not being a bigot.

 No.5860

File: 1595360949304.png (203.45 KB, 900x1492, 225:373, sweetie_belle_in_perplexit….png) ImgOps Google

>>5859
I dunno man, I kinda remember some people being bigoted against those who supported Trump over Hillary, even going so far as to proclaim that all Trump supporters are racists, and contributing to an unwelcoming atmosphere for those posters who planned to vote Republican in the 2016 election.  

 No.5861

>>5860
If you want to debate why Trump is a racist I suggest you start another thread for that.

 No.5862

>>5859
Personally, my experience has been that the left has far more biggoted individuals in it.

But I guess if you are okay with racial discrimination, segregation, erosion of civil liberties, or other such authoritarian practices, they're nice enough

 No.5863

>>5862
There's already another thread for this nonsense.

 No.5864

>>5863
If you dislike being challenged on your statements, I would recommend avoiding making such definitive claims about groups others may be a part of, and so find offense in your characterisation.

 No.5865

>>5864
I don't mind that at all. It's clearly wrong and intentionally inflammatory, but we already have place for discussing that topic in >>5815. There's no need to discuss the same topic in two threads.

 No.5866

>>5865
The trouble is, I find your claims made about the right "clearly wrong and intentionally inflammatory".
I am certainly going to call out it when I see it.

 No.5867

>>5866
you presented no evidence against it, you just "whatabout"-ism'd the other side. And again, we have a place to discuss this topic already.

 No.5868

>>5867
The claim made was that only one side do this.
>>5859
>"Because only one side were bigots and contributing to an unwelcome atmosphere to certain groups of people? The other side was trying to combat bigotry. It was the fighting that was the issue, not that side's stance on not being a bigot"

"Whataboutism" is applicable to demonstrate this is objectively false.
If I say "This place is the only place with caves", I do not have to disprove the existence of caves there to demonstrate that statement to be false.
I merely need to show there are other caves out there all over the world.

 No.5869

>>5868
Except you didn't. You made a bunch of accusations and you didn't actually give anything that supported those claims. Which you still could, in >>5815, the thread which already exists to discuss this topic.

 No.5870

File: 1595454577450.png (15.42 KB, 241x275, 241:275, lola47.png) ImgOps Google

To end this debate, as one of the primary contributors to the creation of this board let me make it clear, /townhall/ was created for several reasons including:

1. We wanted to separate the serious discussion topics from the rest of the board because they were often dragging down the experience for people who wanted /pony/ to be more lighthearted and casual. But we still wanted to give people the chance to use the site for these kinds of debates.

2. Certain posters would not/could not talk with each other in a fair and unbiased manner. Instead of good faith discussion, it deliberately became mudslinging. Which is why forced anon was a feature of this board.

3. Rules lawyering was out of control, the staff was dealing with /canterlot/ thread after /canterlot/ thread filled with rules lawyering (ironically this board made it worse, but this was the problem we were trying to solve). /townhall/ is designed to be strict and formal and rigid, with a higher standard placed on the user to ensure they have an appropriate tone and they are presenting an appropriate argument.

4. I dunno, I really liked /dis/ back in the day and I wanted to see something similar come back to life. I probably should post here more often.

What it wasn't, was a way to target any side of the political spectrum. It did have the effect of giving us more tools to address extremism, but it wasn't ever part of the staff discussion that we had to deal with the "leftist/rightist problem".

I'd be happy if we didn't continue any discussion on who are the extremists on ponyville (or whatever else you guys are fighting over). I don't want to have to spend time figuring out which rules you are breaking, I'll probably just toss a ban at anyone who continues that line of discussion here.

 No.5871

File: 1595455843857.png (683.18 KB, 830x1067, 830:1067, caa0443d89d81fbb9751f2f617….png) ImgOps Google

So yeah Kady, as you can see here, this is kinda why this board exists at all

 No.5872

>>5870
I'm pretty sure only one side is arguing that it was over a particular sect, and for that matter, only one side bothered suggesting anything on individuals using the site.
My argument was entirely in opposition to that idea, not to say it's some other side responsible.

But I digress, you guys have never been good at directing complaint to whom it is actually relevant.
Easier to take a generalist approach, even if it's inaccurate I guess.

 No.5873

File: 1595461646117.png (10.02 KB, 181x273, 181:273, lola58.png) ImgOps Google

>>5872
I don't recall the part where I said all sides did x y or z. I'm not interested in wasting time breaking it down and telling the audience who did what bad when there's nothing on the line here.

But if you'd like, I can point out every way you were out of line in this thread.

 No.5874

>>5873
>"I'd be happy if we didn't continue any discussion on who are the extremists on ponyville (or whatever else you guys are fighting over). I don't want to have to spend time figuring out which rules you are breaking, I'll probably just toss a ban at anyone who continues that line of discussion here."

 No.5875

File: 1595462270927.png (16.74 KB, 218x311, 218:311, lola48.png) ImgOps Google

>>5874
I'm not sure what your quote here is supposed to prove. Everything I said is factual accurate and fair.

You were participating in a discussion on who are the extremists on ponyville. I didn't want to spend time figuring out what rule I needed to quote if you guys were going to continue that discussion. And, I probably should be tossing a ban on you right now for ignoring my warning instead of wasting my time.

I hope you see the irony behind me saying rules lawyering was a problem and you are trying to pull that on me right now.

 No.5876

>>5847
Hello, Beautiful Alpaca.  I will be given a name.  Nice to meet you in the context of this thread.

 No.5877

>>5875
Let's put it like this: you have someone who says "ponyville staff is full of sexual abusers", and you come in and say "No they aren't", would it be fair of me to classify that as you arguing "which staff members are sexual abusers"?

Personally, I don't think it would be. I would take offense at that, if it were me.
But, maybe our standards are different.

If so I would apologize, as ultimately mine was a presumption of intent as general rudeness as opposed to the way you look at things

As to rules lawyering, to be quite frank, I couldn't care less.
I don't really see staff enforcement all that different from 4chan, truthfully, and I wouldn't really worry about it there either.

 No.5878

File: 1595463699100.png (12.97 KB, 253x329, 253:329, lola30.png) ImgOps Google

>>5877
>Let's put it like this: you have someone who says "ponyville staff is full of sexual abusers", and you come in and say "No they aren't", would it be fair of me to classify that as you arguing "which staff members are sexual abusers"?

On this board? Yes, it would be fair to classify me that way. Generally speaking, if you participate in rules breaking posts and the escalation of rules breaking posts you'll probably earn a warning. That is the nature of this board, you are supposed to report this post >>5859 and let a mod take care of it. You are not supposed to get in the mud and fight with them.

Also your characterization of you responding with "No they aren't" is intellectually dishonest. Not only did you not report, and not say "No they aren't", you actually fired back with an equally vitriolic and caustic statement.
>>5862
>Personally, my experience has been that the left has far more biggoted individuals in it.
>But I guess if you are okay with racial discrimination, segregation, erosion of civil liberties, or other such authoritarian practices, they're nice enough

Your follow up is arguably as bad or worse in terms of rules breaking behavior for this board because you added even more fuel to the fire, escalating the situation deliberately. You didn't start it for sure, but someone causing a fuss doesn't give you free reign to respond in kind.

If you didn't want any guff from me, if you wanted only the other guy to be singled out, then you could have reported it, or been more like >>5860
who was actually fair, accurate, and unbiased. I'd probably have preferred they reported it as well and let us handle it, but at least they were actually acting in a factual, non aggressive, honest manner.

 No.5879

>>5878
I think you misunderstand my complaint. It's not about the rules, my trouble is the insult I find in classifying my argument in that regard.

But, like I said, if that's how you see it, you wouldn't take offense in the example I gave, fair enough.

As to reporting, to be quite frank, it's never done a thing for me in the past, and so ultimately, again as with 4chan, I don't tend to bother.
Maybe if it is cp spam or something.
Either way, best to rely on one's self than the unreliable.

 No.5880

File: 1595464885513.png (9.44 KB, 190x244, 95:122, lola7.png) ImgOps Google

>>5879
If you want to continue your intellectually dishonest facade, be my guest. I'm not here to soothe your 'insulted' ego.

You are feeling very frank today! Your feedback is noted, thanks I guess. I don't care if you do not report, that's not a requirement to participate on this board. Follow the rules, or don't haha. Nobody seems to actually report things on this board so it'll probably go unnoticed.

 No.5881

>>5880
Ah, yes, speaking honestly means your dishonest. Of course
Like I said, if it was not your intended to be dismissive or belittling, then I apologize for presuming send intention.

As to the rules, I don't care.
In much the same way as I would not care what /b/'s janitor has to say about a post he took issue with, and likewise in the same way as it would be a waste of time to try to debate The rules with a /b/ janitor, I have no cost to do so here. Again, you rather drastically misunderstand my arguments here.
Your presumption of motive is ultimately irrelevant to me.
You can believe me, or don't. It will not change what I say or do.
I will say there is no rational advantage for me here, none that I can see anyway, from building animosity with one of the staff members. But if that is what you think is happening that is what you think is happening

 No.5882

File: 1595466608417.png (18.58 KB, 403x326, 403:326, lola28.png) ImgOps Google

>>5881
I'd rather not get into it, but intellectual dishonesty is a very different animal than someone just lying. You can be intellectually dishonest while speaking only things you believe are truths.

It was not my intention at all to be dismissive or belittling. I am literally just calling things how I see them, I don't really have the time or energy to waste on pettiness.

If I may be frank with you this time, and I take you at face value that I am drastically misunderstanding your arguments, then you are kinda bad at communication. All I can really tell from your posts is that you care very little about many things, except that the mod doesn't insult you which is something you care enough to criticize me for.

But if you have something you really want to clear up, please go ahead. I don't have the kind of ego you probably think I do, I don't need you to be the bad guy or the one who was wrong. I just don't like being accused of inaccuracy or doing a shitty job because I saw no need to break apart all the nuance in a thread where nobody was even getting more than a slap on the wrist. I don't even like moderating, it's a volunteer gig that I kinda hate doing (for precisely the conversation we are having now).

 No.5883

>>5882
True. But, again, there's no cause to be. No advantage to be gained.

>It was not my intention at all to be dismissive or belittling. I am literally just calling things how I see them, I don't really have the time or energy to waste on pettiness.
Fair enough. Like I said, as long as you wouldn't take offense in the example I gave you, I am not ultimately justified and expecting my standards to supercede your own, especially without you knowing mine to begin with.
That's on me.

>except that the mod doesn't insult you which is something you care enough to criticize me for.
I care that anyone does so. It doesn't matter to me if you are a moderator. I am inclined to treat you as I would any other poster.
The most you given that regard is the unfortunate tie of that particular groups' issues and histories, which I admit do influence me in regards to my presumptions.

As to whether or not I am bad at explaining things, possibly. Probably.
I blame it on being very direct and very literal.
Unfortunate reality is that most people aren't, and so this causes communication issues. Difficult to unlearn, and I'm not entirely sure I want to, as I don't see that rigidity as inherently bad.

> I just don't like being accused of inaccuracy or doing a shitty job
Like I said, the only issue I had was in regards to the framing of the argument.
But so long as you are fine with such framing in the example I gave earlier, I can't really complain, as you are at least consistent within your own standards. It's ultimately unreasonable to keep people to somebody else's standards, especially standards they don't know.
The moderation aspect is irrelevant to me. I would take issue with that from any poster. If you are wanting to know why specifically I took issue with it, I could explain that further, but, I'm not inclined to hold grudge on it further.
Well, I admit, the accusation of intellectual is irritable, but that's at least another matter, and ultimately excusable given the evident misunderstanding

 No.5884

File: 1595468246688.png (13.62 KB, 268x310, 134:155, lola38.png) ImgOps Google

>>5883
Cool, well I'm legitimately glad to clear that up. I'm sorry if I was being short with you, I have a very very long history of dealing with people who are out to pick apart fucking every innocuous thing I have to say with a mod tag on. Which, you don't even give a shit that I am a mod, that's kinda wonderful to me, haha.

I think you still are breaking the rules of the board in this thread, whether you care about that or not, but you're alright with me otherwise. Thanks for putting in the time to be understood, I don't like the feeling that I'm not hearing a person who wants to be heard.

 No.5885

>>5884
No worries. Like I said, it's kind of on me for jumping to conclusions and all.
Whole point of language is to facilitate understanding, yet despite that it does a rather sorry job at times.
Thanks for staying on until that point was reached


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