No.2133[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1536527863226.png (2.95 MB, 1500x2000, 3:4, Silly smile Celestia.png) ImgOps Google
Hello everypony! Thank you all for your attention. Your Ponyville staff has been hard at work thinking up ideas on how to improve the site after considering your feedback, both in individual discussions, and through our recently posted poll.
We'd like to share an initial set of suggested changes for your consideration! Please take a look below:
-Start-Ponyville Administrative Consistency and Transparency ActI. The Rules BoardA new board will be created that is not open to public posting. It shall contain the Rules, mirrored from the frontpage, but contain previous site mandates and policy changes as well, such that a clear record can be easily accessed and reviewed by the userbase.
This shall also allow the staff to build a history of decisions to base new decisions on, and allow the userbase to see the consistency in the staff's actions from a much clearer perspective.
II. The Moderator's HoofbookWe are working on a comprehensive Moderator's Hoofbook that outlines all the duties and responsibilities of a Ponyville moderator. This Hoofbook will go over our enforcement policies, our typical means of response, and give a transparent look at how we go about handling reports, issuing warnings, and interacting with the community.
It is my hope that by making this resource available to the public, you will be able to see just what the thought process is behind our decision-making, but also know that we are being held accountable to a consistent standard.
The Hoofbook is a work in progress at this time. You can observe the current progress of the Hoofbook, give your feedback, and watch its progress, here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16JC305hFhpl6hepFw69fhDW17LP8p366DYxH9bO6tp0/edit?usp=sharingIII. The SFW SwitchOur esteemed Administrator Developer, !!Thorax, has proposed what we feel is a useful tool for both users who prefer slightly more raunchy content and those who do not. The SFW switch works thusly: First, a user who wants to post something slightly raunchy, perhaps content that is not quite at the level of breaking the rules but might be on the line, simply clicks a little box as they post their image that says (NSFW)
Upon posting this post, everything functions as normal: there is no big SPOILER cover that comes up, nothing like that. However - if a user elects to go to their options and flick the SFW switch, posts that have been tagged with the NSFW tag will disappear.
This system puts the onus on both parties, both those who prefer more adult content, and those who prefer less adult content, to put in to the effort to adjusting the site to their tastes.
The UI design for this switch has not been finalized yet, but !!Thorax has confirmed that this SFW switch is very possible to do.
IV. Revisions to Penalty PolicyPonyville's policy has always been lenience, and it shall remain this way. It has been made clear to us, however, that the current system of warnings, forgiveness, bans, and guidance is a perplexing system that remains inscrutable to the userbase. Frankly, it hasn't been very clear to the staff, either. This creates the appearance of favoritism for some users that can seem, and even sometimes be, very unfair.
As such, this proposed revision to the Penalty Policy has strict guidelines:Behavioral Rules shall be sorted into three tiers of enforcement
First Degree: the most serious offenses, including malicious spamming, raiding, doxxing, malicious impersonation or sockpuppeting, illegal behavior, will be met with a ban for the first offense. Users with no notable history with the site may be met with a permaban immediately, depending on the circumstances (i.e., live raid).
Second Degree: lesser offenses that shall be met with a warning, followed by a ban if, 1. the behavior immediately continues within a reasonable time after the warning [i.e., warning must be seen], or; 2. if the behavior stops, but has a second occurrence within the time span of a week.
2nd Degree offenses include incredibly offensive speech, sh*tposting, and extreme hostility in conduct, baiting or goading users into conflict
Third Degree: least serious offenses, including rude statements, thread derailing against OP's wishes, advertising without staff permission, and disrespectful conduct shall be met with multiple warnings, and shall be escalated only to bans if the behavior immediately continues again, or if the behavior occurs multiple times from the same user over a reasonable period of time, or if the behavior causes enough disturbance on the site to warrant substantial staff attention (i.e., more than once a week).
As more rules are added, considered, and discussed, they shall be organized into the degree system as is necessary.
V. Order of BansExcluding First Degree rule violations, bans shall generally escalate in this order. If a ban is given that does not escalate in this order, again excluding First Degree rule violations, that ban must be thoroughly explained by the issuing staff member such that the public can understand that reasoning.
1st Ban: 2 Hours - 4 Hours
2nd Ban: 1 Day - 3 Days
3rd Ban: 1 Week - 2 Weeks
4th Ban: 1 Month - 1 Year, or Permaban, depending on circumstances and potential discussion with user
5th Ban: 6 Months - 1 Year, or Permaban
VI. Report Escalation and Increase ScrutinyA major issue the staff has had concerning political drama or threads full of user insults is that the staff does not tend to receive reports concerning these issues until the dispute or drama is already well underway. To incentivize reporting, and encourage reporting sooner rather than later, a system of report escalation and increased scrutiny shall be implemented.
The increase scrutiny standard shall be taken and modified from the 3P1 Political Drama policy currently found on /arch/ - if you report, the post you reported shall be weighed more heavily against that poster than if a staff member had stumbled upon that offending post on his or her own.
VII. The Revised Rules of Behavioral Conduct[Third Degree]
Rule 1. Please keep posts generally respectful towards others;
Rule 2. Do not post in a thread for the purpose of being rude or inciting trouble;
Rule 3. Do not derail a thread intentionally. Please generally be respectful to the current topic and atmosphere of the thread. If an OP asks you to stop derailing, please do so;
Rule 4. Please do not engage in advertising or promotion of any kind without first contacting site administration. Pony fanart, stories, music are generally acceptable.
[Second Degree]
Rule 5. Please do not act with extreme hostility towards any user, this includes all manner of insults, threats, and name-calling;
Rule 6. Do not bait or goad another user into engaging in rule-breaking content. In the event of such an occurrence, both the baiting user and baited user shall be found in violation of this rule. The baited user has a responsibility to not rise to the bait, as well;
Rule 7. Do not post content of an aggressively, ironically, or trollishly poor quality, designed to derail discussions, or otherwise make the site unusable or intolerable to our regular community;
Rule 8. Do not post threads or posts that are deliberate provocations to certain users, or deliberate provocations concerning the topics of Race, Religion, Nationality, Political Opinion, or Membership of a Particular Social Group;
[First Degree]
Rule 9. Malicious spamming or raiding, on and off site, are disallowed. Do not encourage spamming or raiding any other community;
Rule 10. "Doxxing" and sharing of others' personal information against their will is disallowed;
Rule 11. All content that is illegal under the law of the United States is expressly and absolutely prohibited on Ponyville.us;
Rule 12. Malicious impersonation, or sockpuppeting, is strictly disallowed, i.e., pretending to be another user to manipulate a discussion or hurt their credibility.
Why are these organized backwards, from Third to First Degree? The First Degree rules are something that any community would do. The Third Degree rules, however, highlight the character of Ponyville as a website, and as such should be placed first in order to convey that sense of impact and importance, even if their degree of punishment might be lesser.
Why not ban evading? Ban evading is either done by accident, or on purpose. If it is done by accident, a permaban to follow seems unduly harsh. If it is done on purpose, a permaban to follow is useless. The staff will use better tactics in both situation than to just follow up with a permaban.
VIII. The Revised Rules of Adult ContentRule 1. Posting risque and suggestive content is permitted in moderation;
Rule 2. Please do not post content depicting anatomic genitalia, either real or imaginary, gore, extreme violence;
Rule 3. Content that concerns sexual fixations that differ from those typical to the general populace and is also offensively obscene to the reasonable person is disallowed;
Rule 4. Posting of sexually charged content, designed for and appealing to a predominantly sexual interest, that involves people or imaginary characters under the age of 17, or assumed to be under that age by a reasonable person, is prohibited.
RULE SUMMARY: Sexy things fine. Underage sexy things, not fine. Fetish stuff, not fine if gross to non-fetish having person. If SFW switch system adopted, much more leeway.
-End-Thank you all for taking the time to read this. After one week's time, at this time next Sunday, we shall be holding a community vote for another period of a week, in which we shall choose whether or not to ratify these propositions: each one will be independently voted on.
Some of the propositions maybe minced into sub-propositions to be voted on, or substantially revised, pending community joint discussion, and the incoming poll results.
The community poll can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdmf0EefVyOtfeMz5lcRO2dNxlKLemym-PExdk8wlmXfyjj3A/viewform?usp=sf_linkResults will be posted on Wednesday of this coming week.
Please let us know what you think of these proposed changes, in the thread below!
No.2134
File: 1536528122818.png (203.19 KB, 600x450, 4:3, derpy shy 3.png) ImgOps Google
Your staff has come up with some pros and cons to certain propositions as well, for you all to discuss.
i'll share some of them in a moment, but i think i need a break for a bit!
No.2135
File: 1536528255605.png (98.33 KB, 320x319, 320:319, yay its time to be smart.png) ImgOps Google
We're also considering some substantial internal changes to our mod tools, in order to better handle your reports in the future.
A big, big special thanks to !!Thorax, !!Scootaloo, and !!Trixie, our dev team, for their help.
No.2136
File: 1536528361690.png (123.38 KB, 384x383, 384:383, woop.png) ImgOps Google
>>2133>III. The SFW SwitchWe're also getting the porn switch?
No.2138
>>2133>Please do not post content depicting anatomic genitalia, either real or imaginaryThis new rule seems to cover even artistic, strictly non-pornographic works, e.g., Michelangelo's
David. Is this really what you want? Also, what is non-anatomic genitalia?
No.2139
File: 1536529040483.jpg (11.34 KB, 395x372, 395:372, oh gosh wat.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2137>>2135Moons, you're really signing in on this?
No.2140
File: 1536529091832.jpg (72.41 KB, 540x743, 540:743, tumblr_pekuzfNhOB1v65ktno1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Hard, hard No on the SFW Switch idea. I was against it when it was proposed, I'm against it now.
Softer, but still adamant, No on the rule changes, as a whole. We don't need new rules, we need the moderators to enforce the rules we have better.
Cutting up our current rules into different degrees of penalty is an okay idea, but we don't have to change our rules to do it. The rules as they are now are, in my opinion, perfectly fine. Again, the moderators just have to enforce them better.
My basic underlying point: All this is just making mountains out of molehills.
No.2141
>>2140>Hard, hard No on the SFW Switch idea. I was against it when it was proposed, I'm against it now.I like it
The rules are designed partly to be easier to enforce. Part of the problem was that the escalation system wasn't useful when different degrees of offenses were brought into the picture.
As for the change of the rules of adult content, I don't think a revision is a bad idea. The revision is designed to address some recent grievances that have been popping up.
No.2143
File: 1536529728698.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google
>>2136>>2139it's not at porn switch. the content that is current controversial, i.e., sexy stuff that might rub up against the rule
if you read it closely, it does not allow pornography at all
>>2140the new proposed rules, you will note, are not more strict, just less vague. i wrote quite a few of them with you in mind, Jade
A lot of these propositions are there to help moderator behavior become more consistent and to show you how the process works too!
No.2144
File: 1536529842116.png (300.37 KB, 540x343, 540:343, tumblr_p415quq6rv1rcp98qo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2143I simply repeat what I said twice before: We don't need new rules.
No.2145
File: 1536529906242.png (137.32 KB, 384x383, 384:383, who knew.png) ImgOps Google
>>2143If I read closely, you cover fetish and paedophilia, but leave a glaring hole for regular sexual activity.
And you cap it off with a switch that allows for posting it as long as it's behind a switch.
No.2148
File: 1536530161535.jpg (69.76 KB, 540x748, 135:187, tumblr_p8va7xP8BE1r3yew1o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Also, I find it pretty ironic that nobody cares about filtering posts
now when it's about
slightly NSFW images, but everyone threw a hissy fit when people wanted the capability to filter out annoying
posters.
>>2146Well, I think your opinion shouldn't and doesn't matter if you're posting as Anon.
No.2154
>>2149Well the problem is that some people like the current state of the site where you can post risque stuff but where there's no porn.
If I was to guess, most would prefer it stayed that way, and a few would like the option to get rid of the risque stuff. Leaving a loophole for porn is in very few people's interest.
No.2155
File: 1536530513213.jpg (18.85 KB, 395x372, 395:372, this diaper is strangely c….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2149Cause Moony would be hosting a porn site, and I don't think he'd ever want that.
I think people can easily share that content elsewhere.
No.2156
File: 1536530533917.jpg (73.51 KB, 540x764, 135:191, tumblr_p96jiiGXcb1qa2g3fo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2152this was waaaaaaay back in like the first year of the site. It was mostly the mods back then, too, I didn't hear too much from other users themselves.
>>2150you're not helping your case, bud.
No.2157
File: 1536530561020.png (137.53 KB, 327x525, 109:175, tumblr_p9qaw3bu2g1xtcb78o1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2155Yeah, there's this perfectly good
other Chan for that.
No.2159
File: 1536530736053.jpg (73.11 KB, 540x757, 540:757, tumblr_p18wwgp30B1v4srp6o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2158>social stigmaThere's never been any backlash on me for it.
But indifference certainly makes sense. Or they weren't aware of it, since not too many people seemed to check Canterlot often back then.
No.2160
File: 1536530801563.png (167.17 KB, 344x372, 86:93, well shit.png) ImgOps Google
>>2154Perhaps people can be urged to use spoiler tags for risque and mods can take actions to hide controversial images in the same way.
But really, only for risque stuff, not explicit.
Even with the best of intention, a switch feature, with Ponychan's modus operandi, signifies this
>>2149 .
Though there woumd need to be a risque spoiler rule that you can't show images when mousing over.
No.2161
>>2154>>2155But you don't have to see it. You just tell the site you don't want to see it and the site remains functionally the same for you as it does now. I'm not one to post porn anywhere but as long as it's not illegal and there is an option to hide it if you don't want to see it then why not?
>>2156And you have yet to make a case for why an Anon opinion shouldn't matter.
No.2162
File: 1536530885181.jpg (65.79 KB, 540x759, 180:253, tumblr_p90yn5ALkw1r3yew1o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2161I don't feel the need to, since the only people who have said anything have been anons.
You can see why that causes a problem.
No.2163
>>2154This.
I don't really like some of the really risk stuff, but it doesn't bother me to skip over it.
Porn though, that I would be pretty uncomfortable with here.
I don't have a problem with it on a whole, but I would rather go to other sites to see it, instead of around friends that I have known for a long while.
I was kinda ok with it over on ponychan for a while, but then I changed my mind. It's just meh.
>>2148>Well, I think your opinion shouldn't and doesn't matter if you're posting as Anon.Eh, as long as they aren't breaking rules, I still see it as being part of the community. And it's not like they are swapping IP address es all the time. That, I think, shouldn't be allowed.
No.2164
File: 1536530961227.jpg (119.39 KB, 900x1180, 45:59, kisspng-derpy-hooves-muffi….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
We should add a rule against posting cupcakes. This is a muffin chan, and cupcakes are the adversary.
No.2166
>>2162You really do though. Just because I chose not to reveal who I am doesn't mean I'm not a thinking, feeling, person with opinions that I want to have heard like you.
>>2165Okay. I see your point there. Thank you for elaborating.
No.2169
File: 1536531183683.jpg (50.27 KB, 438x810, 73:135, tumblr_p8xn736zad1r3yew1o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
im gonna look at the rules and say what i don't like about them
The first section of rules, Rule 1 thru 4 are basically the normal rules we've already had since forever, so I don't have a problem with them.
The second set is where I have a couple problems.
>Rule 6. Do not bait or goad another user into engaging in rule-breaking content. In the event of such an occurrence, both the baiting user and baited user shall be found in violation of this rule. The baited user has a responsibility to not rise to the bait, as well;
The first half of this rule is good, but the second half is dumb. Only the person who has baited the other person should be in trouble. It's unfair to the victim to punish them because the aggressor pushed them too far.
>Rule 7. Do not post content of an aggressively, ironically, or trollishly poor quality, designed to derail discussions, or otherwise make the site unusable or intolerable to our regular community;
Not too much a problem with this one as a general question: What exactly constitutes the sort of thing described in this rule? there's got to be some specific stuff in mind, right?
No.2170
File: 1536531293008.jpg (127.19 KB, 540x753, 180:251, tumblr_pa19bfutnw1v7g0jxo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2166I really don't. Come off anon, stop being a coward, and I'll treat you like a real person. Until then, you're a faceless, nameless, nobody who I could care less about.
If you don't like it, too bad.
Anyways, this is not really the place for this, so I'm not going to continue it after this post
No.2173
File: 1536531587436.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2145i don't think so: it allows for sexy things, but not sexual activity, certainly.
It shouldn't be that different from our current rules. if you think that it will be so different, we can change the rules to be more strict too.
>>2155we are not doing that, in any situation
>>2163there will never be pornography allowed on Ponyville
No.2174
File: 1536531630510.png (95.73 KB, 240x380, 12:19, eh heh 2.png) ImgOps Google
Hey, let me make it clear, with capcode attached:
Ponyville will never have pornography allowed on it. The SFW switch is not for that purpose.
We literally cannot do that, i believe, as per our hosting agreement.
No.2175
>>2169>The first half of this rule is good, but the second half is dumb. Only the person who has baited the other person should be in trouble. It's unfair to the victim to punish them because the aggressor pushed them too far.You're very quick to form strong opinions. I think it's a good rule. If claiming that you've been baited is a strong defense against mod action, then almost every argument would after a mod enters the equation, devolve into an argument with no resolution about who was baiting who. If it's clear that only one person Is participating in the argument, though, you know who's instigating it.
The challenge then becomes to forego inflammatory debates and instead just report people that you think are crossing a line against you. A behavior that is desired anyway.
>Not too much a problem with this one as a general question: What exactly constitutes the sort of thing described in this rule? there's got to be some specific stuff in mind, right?I think it has to be general. Trolls will tailor their posts to be annoying and site-damaging, while circumventing the rules to the best of their ability. A catchall is required, specific examples will be circumvented.
No.2177
File: 1536531777034.png (71.02 KB, 151x302, 1:2, tumblr_p7kgkjTxre1xpi5ppo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2171I mean, if the rule violation is the baitee telling the baiter that they're an asshole, or a piece of shit, then I don't think they should be punished for it. Even if they go off on a rant about the situation with a bunch of mean words.
If they go so far as to violate one of the other rules like malicious sockpuppetting or impersonation, or something else, then yeah, that's going a bit too far and should be punished.
I'm just saying that getting angry about it and saying some mean words in return shouldn't really be punished. But if the person decides to go on some weird mission of vengeance against the person with derails and malicious activity, then yeah, that's pretty far off.
>>2172I don't care.
No.2178
File: 1536531833947.png (17.61 KB, 334x317, 334:317, 268722__UNOPT__safe_rule-6….png) ImgOps Google
>>2148>Also, I find it pretty ironic that nobody cares about filtering posts now when it's about slightly NSFW images, but everyone threw a hissy fit when people wanted the capability to filter out annoying posters.Those come off as starkly different to me, mostly in the usual problematic terms of third parties viewing the site over someone's shoulder. It's also a lot easier to ignore text than to ignore a picture.
>>2170First of all, rude. Second of all, the rest of us still care about anon posters.
No.2179
File: 1536531860891.png (206.52 KB, 400x570, 40:57, tumblr_p75mju34rU1x7smj5o2….png) ImgOps Google
>>2176I don't know if you saw it, but I edited my post to say I won't be continuing this discussion here.
Just a heads up
No.2180
File: 1536531887236.jpg (769.34 KB, 1280x1659, 1280:1659, Royal Portrait.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
In my most humble opinion I don't find very useful the SFW Switch.
I think as a community everybody needs to give their part and be more responsable in what we post everyday.
Post in moderation and not going in to twisted extremes.
Besides! How nobody uses the spoiler filter honestly I think no one will use the SFW Switch. I understand that one of ponyville goals is too make a safe and comfort site for eveybody but the SWF Switch is meh.
It will be better if we are more tolerant and respectful to each other.
BESIDES! We are adults for fucking sake!
In my case about people wanting to post adult content generally I don't mind it. Sometimes I would like to post adult content too but of course in moderation.
As always I'm going to keep my good behaviour
No.2182
File: 1536531896370.png (225.52 KB, 394x321, 394:321, they had a sale.png) ImgOps Google
>>2173You could stuff 'explicit sexual acts' in rule 2
To some regards you could put implied with risque stuff, but bad crops can also be taken more rule 2-ish
No.2183
File: 1536531960924.png (2.16 MB, 4000x4000, 1:1, 1102418__safe_artist-colon….png) ImgOps Google
Just as a quick note.
We'll never allow pornography on the site, period. The 'switch' as Moony is calling it, is just for stuff near the line but isn't breaking any rules.
The thread itself, imo, was probably posted prematurely as Moony is quite exhausted from writing the hoofbook. So for some context...
No, the community didn't vote for porn (and even if it did, it wouldn't happen) and the poll is still ongoing. If you know Moony well enough, you'd know he'd never helm a website with porn in it.
Annnd something was already said! Woo for slow mobile posting!
No.2184
File: 1536531989231.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google
>>2181That's probably a good idea. I'm sure it would be doable, too.
No.2185
File: 1536532002474.png (268.36 KB, 540x764, 135:191, tumblr_pbug43ETQ61qa2g3fo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2183Don't worry, it can bear repeating. Just shows how adamant you are. Solidarity!
No.2186
File: 1536532037577.jpg (39.46 KB, 302x516, 151:258, tumblr_p8uq1tASGD1r7cj5no6….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2181The spoiler image thing is already togglable, iirc, so it probably won't be a problem
No.2188
File: 1536532301557.jpg (53.75 KB, 540x763, 540:763, tumblr_p87p7iQtzH1rp8y35o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2187I couldn't care less.
If that's really what you take from me saying I don't want to derail this thread with a discussion about how I don't trust Anon posters, then I don't really have any interest in talking to you about anything.
No.2189
File: 1536532315306.png (234.47 KB, 446x454, 223:227, I want it to be a surprise.png) ImgOps Google
>>2183Just be very careful how you implement the SFW switch and how you advertise it on the board. Because with Pchan in mind, it can be interpreted poorly.
Do also mind the challenge of intent. Because I don't want to respond positively on some thread does not mean I aim to insult OP.
No.2191
File: 1536532908754.png (589.64 KB, 1280x1280, 1:1, tumblr_pbkgcufM7r1w6vs9wo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2190We should devise a more punny name.
Like the unlewdifier or something
No.2193
File: 1536533005863.png (606.02 KB, 1280x1280, 1:1, tumblr_pb2owuRWQt1w6vs9wo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2192lol, I like it.
Superprude goggles.
No.2195
File: 1536533131380.jpg (22.58 KB, 425x680, 5:8, tumblr_pahpexCtB81r100h5o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2193Protect The Innocent Club?
No.2197
File: 1536533163077.png (41.13 KB, 379x380, 379:380, tophat lurk.png) ImgOps Google
Foalsafe
No.2198
File: 1536533217842.png (614.92 KB, 540x764, 135:191, tumblr_p73yir07oQ1w169g0o1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2197ooooh I like that, it's even pony themed!
No.2199
>>2197oh, that's nice!
It kinda sounds like failsafe too, that's a bonus.
No.2200
File: 1536533254069.gif (979.71 KB, 380x380, 1:1, NSFWOONA.gif) ImgOps Google
No.2201
>>2200Is that gonna be the spoiler image lol
Edit: actually as funny as that is, I think i'd prefer if it just blocked out the picture and left little indication that it had been there. As seamless and unobtrusive as possible basically, but with the option to unspoiler.
No.2202
File: 1536533468462.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google
>>2201From what I recall, there wasn't going to be a spoiler image. If you have prude mode turned on there just wouldn't be an image attached.
No.2203
File: 1536533584442.png (136.9 KB, 384x383, 384:383, do tell.png) ImgOps Google
The ponypony in me definitely likes some silly pony theming.
>>2201I suppose you do have a point.
No.2205
File: 1536533618984.png (285.13 KB, 540x710, 54:71, tumblr_pc064ggj151rp8y35o1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2202that's... kinda... I don't know...
oh, so it would just look like a normal text post with no picture
i was like "wouldn't that look kinda... weird?" but it's not really that abnormal. I was thinking of what happened when you press Hide file.
No.2208
File: 1536533811753.jpg (51.35 KB, 540x699, 180:233, tumblr_p201bh466Q1x0zsc5o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
anyways, yeah, if the SFW filter thing gets approved, I'm definitely pulling out the folders of stuff I normally wouldn't post here under normal circumstances. (Which are not super NSFW, just more risque than I normally post)
>ok hand emoji
No.2210
File: 1536533973977.png (325.09 KB, 741x768, 247:256, 206964__UNOPT__safe_rainbo….png) ImgOps Google
>>2209Under this, is what I'm guessing: "Rule 4. Posting of sexually charged content, designed for and appealing to a predominantly sexual interest, that involves people or imaginary characters under the age of 17, or assumed to be under that age by a reasonable person, is prohibited."
No.2212
>>2209That's a fucking bomb of a question.
I think it's pretty obvious to any reasonable person that they are presented as kids. If they're presented as kids, then lewding them creates the same impression as it would if you lewded other kids. We don't want to subject the userbase to that, so they should be treated as kids.
>>2210>>2211And thank goodness for that revision if it goes through
No.2214
File: 1536534142766.png (203.19 KB, 600x450, 4:3, derpy shy 3.png) ImgOps Google
>>2197right now, Foalsafe is my favorite
No.2215
>>2210Yes, that rule. Where do they lie?
>>2211But then wouldn't a hundred "lolicon" characters from anime, who's actual canonical ages are higher than 17 also fall under this?
>>2212I know. I want to get it out of the way now so there is no confusion over it. I'm not arguing they should be exempt. But we have no canon ages for these characters.
No.2217
File: 1536534274477.png (165.75 KB, 847x943, 847:943, 138922253666.png) ImgOps Google
>>2215>But then wouldn't a hundred "lolicon" characters from anime, who's actual canonical ages are higher than 17 also fall under this?Under this part: "or assumed to be under that age by a reasonable person"
Aka: Not allowed.
No.2218
File: 1536534297315.jpg (32.93 KB, 540x304, 135:76, tumblr_p348dm2orD1r92e4to2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Why don't we specify
"children bodies is a no no"
No.2220
>>2215>But then wouldn't a hundred "lolicon" characters from anime, who's actual canonical ages are higher than 17 also fall under this?Yeah, like I said in
>>2213, the rule should refer to sexual maturity rather than human-specific ages.
No.2221
File: 1536534453745.png (1.31 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, konata.png) ImgOps Google
>>2217I just want to be clear. Because there are characters in anime who look younger than they are. For a less-sexual example, Konata from "Lucky Star" (in the center with blue hair) is 18 years old, but is shorter and has a flatter chest than her friends. Therefore she would not be allowed?
No.2223
File: 1536534528413.png (Spoiler Image, 311.59 KB, 500x810, 50:81, tumblr_pcg4fbZtA11w97c5wo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2221There's a pretty clear visual difference between "Flat chest" women and "loli" art.
case in point, behind the spoiler
No.2224
>>2222>>2221Perhaps something like.
If their appearance suggests them to be underage to a reasonable person.
No.2225
File: 1536534658096.jpg (46.12 KB, 540x750, 18:25, tumblr_p8lev4XATX1qz64n4o2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Please define what a "Reasonable Person" is.
Because that's a pretty subjective thing. Pretty sure most people think they are reasonable.
No.2226
File: 1536534755973.png (211.91 KB, 980x900, 49:45, Well.png) ImgOps Google
>>2214Same.
>>2221In suggestive manners, probably not allowed due to someone who doesn't watch anime would more than likely see her as a child.
>>2222The issue is what the artist is trying to convey, rather than what's being determined as 'canon'. If it looks like an underage person to a non anime, non cartoon watching person - it's considered underage. Basically, if your boss comes up and sees the image, would you be fired or have the police called on you? If the answer is yes (or be written up), then it's not allowed.
No.2230
File: 1536534919578.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2225>>2225a "reasonable person" is the most widely used legal standard in common law countries to describe the hypothetical average person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct, such that this person might serve as a comparative standard when determining liability.
No.2231
>>2230oh, that's kinda cool
I didn't know that was a thing
No.2232
File: 1536534979661.png (149.05 KB, 507x454, 507:454, nom.png) ImgOps Google
Would the song Underage Bichon be hardbanned?
No.2234
File: 1536535034524.jpg (57.87 KB, 540x382, 270:191, tumblr_p83yl6S0an1v4sp9no1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2230That... still leaves a whoooole lot of wiggle room.
No.2236
File: 1536535186342.jpg (146.49 KB, 990x1199, 90:109, da5071aadef878575f829445c0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2218So long as nobody hassles my kobolds.
I've certainly never thought of them as anywhere near children, but I have had people before mag me a little bit about it. Though, that was mostly puritanical /pol/ types over on /tg/.
I blame the people who conflate small with young.
No.2237
File: 1536535236097.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2234...i mean, sort of? it leaves room for interpretation, both by users, and staff, of course.
but it is, quite literally, the international standard of law.
It is democracies world wide use as the gold standard. It is used because it leaves only the wiggle room that is practical, and because writing laws that do not account for the reasonable person have, historically, been enormous disasters.
No.2238
File: 1536535253291.png (123.37 KB, 900x627, 300:209, But.........png) ImgOps Google
>>2223>>2227Yeaaaaaaaaaah, I'd definitely say that's pushing it.
>>2235That doesn't matter. If the art that they're drawn in makes them look underage - then they're underage in the case of our rules. They look exactly the same as they did when the show started, just with cutie marks. (and the cutie marks don't matter imo in this case)
No.2243
File: 1536535436242.gif (284.93 KB, 268x320, 67:80, tumblr_pas7fblDUX1rxhcsqo1….gif) ImgOps Google
>>2237Seems like a bit of an oversight, to be honest.
Just because something is "the standard" doesn't mean it
should be
>>2238My point exactly.
the fact that it's only "pushing it" is the reason I posted it, and under a spoiler to boot. It's not something I would normally post here.
No.2245
File: 1536535570737.png (92.95 KB, 792x871, 792:871, Smiling shy.png) ImgOps Google
>>2236>>2218>>2236>>2217the language remains as is.
The rules board in Prop I will help us, over time, determine the scope of these new rules.
It will contain precedent decisions that will slowly fortify the rules, and make them more solid, so to speak
For example, look at the character Nowi, from Fire Emblem... a controversial character from that game.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/5/54/Nowi_%28FE13_Artwork%29.png/revision/latest?cb=20160803011607That's her actual design, in game. She looks... like... 14. But she's a thousand year old dragon thing.
That picture is fine: it isn't lewd. it's creepy, maybe, not not lewd.
A sexual face though? Maybe less acceptable: what would a reasonable person think about this?
Well, she looks 14. She's from a video game series, where she is stated to be like a thousand.
Okay, so maybe we've got more leeway.
What about Manley's example? Oh, this character is stated to be 18. she looks 12. That's a little more iffy.
What about a cutie mark crusader? Or a character that is absolutely underage? Well, a reasonable person would think this is the most restrictive, surely. A character wearing a bathing suit is absolutely fine: again, maybe creepy, but fine
but making a sexual face? not okay.
just some conjecture, as to how the analysis would be.
No.2246
File: 1536535808258.png (Spoiler Image, 483.51 KB, 808x1206, 404:603, 196282__suggestive_apple b….png) ImgOps Google
How bout a joke like this?
No.2247
File: 1536535839423.jpg (100.55 KB, 636x900, 53:75, __gwendolyn_odin_sphere_dr….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2245So Tiki is okay to post here?
No.2248
File: 1536535878789.jpg (55.05 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 1532932985358.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
No.2250
File: 1536535972399.png (68.35 KB, 276x279, 92:93, Smile FillyFlutte.png) ImgOps Google
>>2243hm... well, i'd be willing to hear you out of course, Jade.
Why is it an oversight? i think the alternative is what one might call black letter law: a rule that is not up to any reasonable dispute.
the issue is, it is impossible to implement black letter law in the majority of cases. You need, first, a long history of debate that establishes the law, and second, the subject to be clear cut.
Content based rules are always going to be subjective. There is no way to phrase a content based rule that 100% eliminates the need for an individual to judge something.
Let's say we make a rule "no genitals, no intercourse or related activities, no pornographic content ..." and just list tons and tons of different things.
But it doesn't lock down those things: every single picture that comes up still needs to be interpreted. Is that genitalia? Do cloacas count? If they do, what if it doesn't appear sexual? What does that even mean?
In other words, it's turtles all the way down: there is no end to the subjective possibility in content based rules.
So, we add the reasonable person standard: a lens by which we filter the endless subjectivity into the hypothetical average person
>>2247yes, and nowi is too. But understand that getting too raunchy roleplaying as them or posting too raunchy pictures of them might cross the line. if the line is crossed, a gentle warning might be given just to make sure the standard is understood.
No.2251
File: 1536535997935.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2246i don't see at all why that would be disallowed
it would be allowed now, even
No.2253
File: 1536536157826.png (146.75 KB, 341x314, 341:314, pinkie pwease.png) ImgOps Google
>>2251Technically, kids dealing with 'adult' stuff.
But they're not participants.
No.2255
File: 1536536240210.jpg (36.78 KB, 540x710, 54:71, tumblr_p39lzkGwcL1qzljvuo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2250I think something as subjective and enigmatic as "the reasonable person" shouldn't have a place in law. It should be down to specifics.
Because it doesn't matter your system, if you determine a specific group of people as "not reasonable", you can just go and fuck with them with the law. Since any "reasonable person" would see it THIS was, but they just aren't "reasonable people".
In the case of this site, I think something more specific should be the thing that makes something against the rules or not, something less subjective than "reasonable person", if not completely objective if possible.
"Reasonable person" just doesn't work.
No.2256
File: 1536536249724.jpg (51.48 KB, 925x864, 925:864, 140496173156.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2243Good good.
>>2246I'm not against it?
Nothing is shown and it's innocently implied.
No.2258
>>2245That first character doesn't even look underage to me. Sure, she's got a flat chest, but, that seems to be about it.
But, I guess either way, it is fine anyway.
No.2259
File: 1536536416601.jpg (66.53 KB, 540x720, 3:4, tumblr_p5pmk7gdka1qa2g3fo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2250>>2255Like, it's really NOT that hard to come up with a list of what isn't acceptable to post.
There's no need to ask the questions more than once.
For example, your own example "Do cloacas count?".
The answer is simply "yes". Put it on the list "Cloacas count as unacceptable sexual content".
IF you're going to have an entire board that goes into detail about every rule, then you shouldn't have a problem coming up with a list to make it obvious what isn't allowed.
No messing around with what a "reasonable person" is.
No.2261
>>2259I just wanna say I think this is wrong
I think it is not possible to create an exhaustive list that is satisfactory as a solution to the problem.
>>2260Good to hear that :)
No.2262
File: 1536536598214.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2259Except again, there is a reason -why- we don't make lists like that.
We don't want rules to be that hard and fast. Sea cucumbers have cloacas, not just... lizards or whatever it is noonim likes.
i posted a picture of a sea cucumber while i was in Taiwan. A rules maximalist would want me penalized for that.
And that is what happens, UNLESS a reasonable person standard is put in
There's a very good reason why we use that standard, and it is because become dysfunctionally tyrannical.
i mean, you can understand, right? You can totally see why it would be such a horrible idea just to have a giant list of not allowed things?
No.2263
File: 1536537042758.jpg (40.95 KB, 540x381, 180:127, tumblr_p531bdWaGm1w97c5wo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2262No, I can't see that. Having a list of not allowed things is exactly how it should be.
When you posted a picture of the sea cucumber, were you posting an image that showed it's cloaca as a central, important part of the image? No, I don't think so.
My Point, in big letters so it's obvious: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "REASONABLE PERSON". SUCH A THING SHOULD NOT BE THE DECIDING FACTOR IN WHAT IS OR ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES.
We don't say "This rule is decided upon what The Dragon thinks is okay." because dragons don't exist. So unless you declare a person as "The Dragon" there's no real way for it to work.
So unless a "reasonable person" is qualified, it doesn't work.
If you don't want a giant list of what is or isn't allowed, and you want a more subjective view on what does and doesn't break the rules, then say that it's "up to the moderation staff". Don't just put some random, meaningless term like "reasonable person" as the deciding factor. If you're going to be subjective, be subjective, don't pretend to be basing it on an objective ideal that doesn't exist.
No.2264
File: 1536537092052.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2262>>2259Someone brought up Michaelangelo's David - i was considering putting in the reasonable person standard into Rule 2, for just that reason:
it is ridiculous to disallow the posting of David, or the Birth of Venus, or what have you, because of genitalia. Patently ridiculous.
When we do not include the reasonable person standard, then we have to create also a list of exclusions.
"No cloacas, except animals, real or imagined, that are unsexy - unsexy, defined as being non-humanoid, without humanoid characteristics, and non-mammalian, without mammalian characteristics, including but not limited to sea cucumbers, certain insects, and other invertebrate species."
Okay, but then someone posts a picture of a cloaca of some random lizard, really close up, and its really gross, and everyone hates it.
then we revise the rule. Also, no closeups of lizards.
But then someone posts something else. we change it again.
And the rule, JUST for cloacas, gets longer, and longer, and longer, and longer...
until it looks like some of the worst cases of American law, that are thousands and thousands of unbelievably dense pages.
We can't make rules this way. We use the reasonable person standard because the alternative is a ridiculously gigantic set of laws that constantly grows and becomes ever more ridiculous.
No.2265
File: 1536537208476.jpg (69.5 KB, 418x600, 209:300, tumblr_p7jk6fHKUq1s0qr92o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2263I bring this up because we
all know that the decision to delete an image is up to whatever moderator sees it and wants to delete it anyways.
It's just dumb and
wrong to pretend otherwise and makes it look like you're trying to hide the way things work despite saying you're trying to be open.
No.2266
File: 1536537288263.png (327.54 KB, 540x669, 180:223, tumblr_p9fvjjescU1tlf1n6o1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2264>it is ridiculous to disallow the posting of David, or the Birth of Venus, or what have you, because of genitalia. Patently ridiculous. This is just false.
It's no more ridiculous to say "no david" as it is to say "no naked furry dude with his dick out".
If you're going to ban nudity, ban nudity, don't be wishy washy.
No.2267
>>2265no one's pretending it's not up to the moderator
but the reasonable person standard gives something to fall back on, and allows people to argue with the moderator.
if the rule text says
"the moderator decides"
then nothing can be disputed because it just is the way the moderator decided to be.
If the rules text says:
"a reasonable person has to view it as being this"
Then you can say, well hey, I don't think a reasonable person would see it that way, and you actually have leverage.
No.2268
>>2263It's not meaningless!! It is a universal standard! The best we, as a species, have come up with!
The reason we don't use "up to the moderation staff" is because that's the same as a reasonable person + bias. We remove the + bias, because its less efficient, yes?
We use symbols and things all the time to help make other things in the world easier to understand.
The reasonable person is not the deciding factor: it is a lens that allows us to act without bias, but to still look at something objectively.
>>2265The reasonable person standard gives the users the opportunity to argue otherwise! It is a third party perspective that none of us are, but all of us can relate back to
It's not dumb at all: we know in court, the judge is deciding. but we don't say "oh, by the judge's standard."
We say by the reasonable person, because it's the judge's job to look from your perspective: from the people's perspective, not the judge's perspective. We don't want the judge to be looking only from his perspective.
Likewise, i don't want our staff, not even me, to be reading these reports from our personal perspective.
i despise that sort of tyrannical behavior.
the reasonable person standard then exists so that the moderator reads the situation from the people's perspective. that is important to me.
No.2269
File: 1536537374389.jpg (39.31 KB, 540x767, 540:767, tumblr_p32oyh18Sj1qa2g3fo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2267There's no such thing as an objectively reasonable person, though.
when your fall back is something that doesn't exist, it's a bad fall back
No.2270
File: 1536537438888.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2266wishy washy?? Things don't have to be black and white. If there is a good way to allow the Birth of Venus, but ban hardcore pornography, why should we arbitrarily ban both?
i don't see the logic at all
No.2271
>>2266What you want is an ontologically objective ruling on everything. This is not possible.
>>2269The system is subjective. That's not bad. That means it functions. It wouldn't function if subjective rulings weren't allowed.
Better than no fall back.
No.2272
File: 1536537497391.png (2.78 MB, 2200x1700, 22:17, 1521869696155.png) ImgOps Google
So, on the SFW switch-I don't personally think we need it.
I don't think it will be used anymore than the spoiler image, and honestly will probably be used more by the people that don't want to see stuff, than the people that do. I might be wrong there, but that's what I think will happen.
I agree with Einhorn here:
>>2180>BESIDES! We are adults for fucking sake! If it is something that is honestly tipping over the point that is literally not safe to have it up on your laptop at work, then maybe we should refrain from posting it, or at least make the active choice to use the spoiler.
Ladies in very risk bikinis, as far as I know, isn't going to get you fired from work unless it's a very conservative work place, and in which case you probably don't want to be on an image board while at work anyway.
So that's my two cents on it.
No.2273
File: 1536537553136.jpg (41.65 KB, 464x810, 232:405, tumblr_p58y4rtyWB1qa2g3fo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2268THEN THE UNIVERSAL STANDARD IS WRONG, MOONY
I said this already! Just because something is standard, does not mean it is right!
there's always going to be bias! the best thing to do is be clear about it! don't try to obfuscate it by saying it's not biased because there's some mythical "reasonable person" that has the objective truth of it.
If you actually want to be transparent, you
have to be transparent.
>>2270Nudity is nudity. If you're going to ban it, ban it across the board. It's hypocritical not to.
>>2271The system is subjective, that's the point, but we're trying to pretend it isn't by saying there's a "reasonable person" who would know for sure if something should be against the rules or not.
No.2274
File: 1536537672393.jpg (48.01 KB, 540x540, 1:1, tumblr_p372uhQYUT1wculwlo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2272Yeah, but, see... you shouldn't be posting here if you're at work anyways, right? You should be doing your job, yeah?
If I had this website up at work, it wouldn't matter what was on it, I would get in trouble for it.
Basing off what would and wouldn't get you in trouble at work is kinda iffy.
That's just a general problem with the idea of NSFW in general.
No.2276
File: 1536537885429.png (427.83 KB, 540x608, 135:152, tumblr_pcdypnNkUP1sp4ql3o1….png) ImgOps Google
sigh
this is just getting circular, saying the same things over and over.
My objection to the wording has been noted, I'm sure. not that it means anything, it never does
So that's enough of that. We should just stop and clear the ground for a different discussion.
No.2277
>>2274Well I don't completely agree.
We have a break room, and I regular browse ponyville while up there, but I wouldn't DARE browse 4chan, even on a blueboard. There is a much higher risk of something getting me in trouble there, then on here, if my boss or higher co-worker, were to glance at my phone and see what was on it.
>>2275Yes, that is a very different distinction.
And honestly, I myself would probably put a picture of David behind a spoiler tag because of the nudity.
But I don't think we need a whole 'nother check system for it, when we could also just use the spoiler if we feel like it might be pushing the bounds too much.
No.2278
File: 1536537907392.jpg (10.68 KB, 359x403, 359:403, GASP.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2269i don't... understand the logic behind this.
There's no fall back - this is a standard.
It's optimization. The perfect world doesn't exist: so let's not try to improve, is the same logic.
>>2273But Jade, the universal standard is RIGHT! i use it all the time! i use it at work: it makes perfect sense.
There is always going to be bias! that is why we use tools to try to eliminate it, instead of just shrugging our shoulders and allowing it to maximize
>>2273Nudity is not just nudity!! There are SURELY different kinds! That's why we have things like public indecency laws, and why we consider that sort of thing grotesque, while we consider the Birth of Venus beautiful.
it is absolutely not the same!! And not at all hypocritical. these things are absolutely different!
No.2279
File: 1536537973262.jpg (29.3 KB, 500x287, 500:287, oh dear me.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2276>My objection to the wording has been noted, I'm sure. not that it means anything, it never doesGAH! STOP THAT PLEASE! Jade, that is SO FRUSTRATING! i've worked SO HARD on these rules to try to make you happy!!!
IT MEANS SOMETHING!! PLEASE DON'T SAY THAT! I WORK SO HARD FOR YOU!
i'm literally trying to argue with you right now to reduce the power of the moderators to favor the populace more! ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WANT?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WANT!! WHY AREN'T YOU HAPPY?
No.2280
File: 1536538019555.jpg (48.04 KB, 540x544, 135:136, tumblr_p6zw1f9iV51r7cj5no2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2278Well, I don't understand your logic any more than you do mine, Moony.
Just gotta chalk it up to a difference in how we see the world, and what we believe is or isn't right.
No.2281
>>2273Nowhere does it say that the reasonable person would know for sure, or that they even exist.
>>2276Agree to disagree, sounds good.
No.2282
>>2244But the CMC are shown to have aged, hence why they have their cutie marks...
Oh wait, are we talking about something else now?
No.2284
File: 1536538284659.png (314.42 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, tumblr_ooknq96BF51w6vs9wo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2283Maybe it's time you got that sleep in, Moons.
You deserve some rest, man.
No.2285
File: 1536538307401.jpg (46.21 KB, 540x750, 18:25, tumblr_p8lev4XATX1qz64n4o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2279Moony, it was crossed out for a reason.
I know you think you're making changes that would "help" me, or that I would like, but the point of the matter is, I don't
want any changes to the rules. I think they are fine as is. My problem isn't that the moderators have power, my problem is that the wrong people are moderators.
But I can't exactly expect any moderators, even those I could choose myself, to be completely in line with how I think they should act.
I complain, because I am annoyed with things. But I don't have a better answer, nor do I expect to be catered to. Complaining just helps me deal with it.
>>2281>or that they even exist. the fact that it's in the rules implies they exist. Don't be intentionally stupid.
No.2286
File: 1536538364285.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google
>>2272>Ladies in very risk bikinis, as far as I know, isn't going to get you fired from work unless it's a very conservative work place, and in which case you probably don't want to be on an image board while at work anyway.My friend seemed to imply it would get him in trouble the other day. Specifically, the conversation regarded scantily clad women in video game posters or banner ads. So definitely nothing that would even be taken as especially sexual in the grand majority of cases, but he seemed to find even general sexiness a potential problem.
I dunno. I disagreed, but maybe that's actually pretty common.
No.2287
File: 1536538458400.jpg (58.04 KB, 500x707, 500:707, tumblr_p85cyajL7j1r3yew1o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2286It really can be a potential problem.
A lot of businesses have a no tolerance policy for stuff, like schools do.
But it really depends on who your bosses are, or your coworkers. Sometimes they'll just shrug it off. Sometimes they'll make it a big deal.
It's just very situational.
No.2288
File: 1536538525739.jpg (10.75 KB, 300x210, 10:7, this is not a pipe.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2285They can be purely hypothetical and still be useful as a concept. Good and evil are also abstract concepts, but that doesn't stop us from using them as measuring sticks.
Are you familiar with the term 'this is not a pipe'? The idea is that the idea of a pipe is not a pipe. It's a construct, or an ideal, that we use to shape wood into certain shapes in order to smoke grass. As such, the reasonable person is not a physical thing, but rather a concept that we use to shape our conduct to something that is conducive to a positive environment. They don't have to exist, in order to be useful.
No.2290
File: 1536538597809.jpg (33.36 KB, 675x633, 225:211, Cute frown Fluttershy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2285...okay okay, sorry Jade. you know i do care a ton, a ton, about what you think.
i don't want you to feel upset, or annoyed, and feel somewhat powerless to help that. i don't want you to just get so upset that you disappear or anything, but don't know what to do sometimes.
>>2287>>2286i would get fired, and maybe blacklisted, for bringing something like that into a court room.
No.2291
File: 1536538603613.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google
>>2289Well we caught that much. Like you said, though, I don't think that discussion is going to go anywhere.
No.2294
File: 1536538815466.jpg (47.63 KB, 374x810, 187:405, tumblr_p7gsw8A17q1uqjshqo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2290Moony, there's a difference between looking at something in a break room at work and BRINGING IT INTO THE COURTROOM
tho i guess that's the point
also, more to the point...
There's nothing you really can do. As this
>>2292anon said, you can't cater to people. I wouldn't want to be catered to anyways. I just want my objections to be noted and taken into consideration, that's it. If my objection ends up not being folded into the changes, so be it.
I'm not just going to disappear, either. If I leave the site, I'm going to make a thread about me leaving. Unless something bad happens and I die. then that;s not really possible.
No.2295
File: 1536538862935.png (71.83 KB, 225x251, 225:251, Princess_Cadance_ID_S4E11.png) ImgOps Google
>>2286>>2287>>2290Yea, that's why I said:
>unless it's a very conservative work place, and in which case you probably don't want to be on an image board while at work anyway.Because you guys are right, it's situational.
I work at a grocery store, where we have girls and guys come in in their swim trunks all summer long, so having a picture of that on my phone isn't going to get me in trouble.
But nudity might, so I am careful with that.
No.2296
File: 1536538863927.jpg (59.59 KB, 540x733, 540:733, tumblr_p5md5qcpEn1rp8y35o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2291Exactly, hence my short and to the point post about it.
No.2298
>>2290>i don't want you to feel upset, or annoyed, and feel somewhat powerless to help that. i don't want you to just get so upset that you disappear or anything, but don't know what to do sometimes.People who
don't cause massive shitfests over everything are quite prone to feeling like that.
No.2299
File: 1536538945727.png (198.86 KB, 429x686, 429:686, tumblr_p44nf6CI8Q1r3fop8o1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2297I'm sure you do.
I don't think you're stupid, I think you were being intentionally dumb. There's a difference.
Well, I don't think that anymore, since you made another post explaining what you meant. But still, at the time...
No.2300
File: 1536539070500.jpg (56.26 KB, 540x540, 1:1, tumblr_pafadq7NOd1r100h5o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2298>People who don't cause massive shitfests over everythingCan we just ban this anon, please?
Somehow they believe that me disagreeing and saying my disagreement is "causing a massive shitfest".
They don't really seem very conducive to an open site.
No.2301
File: 1536539072865.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2292...i have been doing what i think is good for the site, but people aren't happy.
these propositions are, i think also what i think is good for the site, but a lot clearer and, hopefully, also people are happy.
i do not trust me, nor do i think a populace should trust a "supreme" leader, to know absolutely what is best for the community
it is wise for me to do what people want, and temper that with my own input, than to allow myself to pretend i know best... that way lies tyranny. we have seen such on this side of the internet before, and i am keen to prevent its like from occurring again.
>>2294even at the breakroom at the courtroom though...
>>2294...that makes me feel happy: happy you will stay, and that you care, but i cannot figure out why that makes me happy. happy in like, a sappy, bleary sort of way :c
>>2293it kind of is, depending on the employer, and no, you can't c:
>>2295gosh, i am sorry ella. i wanted to give my two cents as to the swimsuit poster thing we were takling about, but i hadn't paid any attention at all to the context
i would like to think that sort of thing would be totally alright. i'd not want us to be too conservative or anything: we are for fun, not work, after all!
i won't speak as to my opinion on the SFW-Switch, so as not to sway too much the public opinion
No.2302
File: 1536539111871.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google
>>2300>>2298...please, let's be civil. i have set a bad example: please do not follow my example.
let's try our best to be calm and good friends.
No.2303
File: 1536539134005.png (207.97 KB, 1208x1035, 1208:1035, Cutest fluttershy point ev….png) ImgOps Google
>>2297me too, i am stupid
No.2305
File: 1536539198112.jpg (44 KB, 540x675, 4:5, tumblr_p8i8u82Crq1x09hz0o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2301Moony, there's still a pretty big difference between a normal work environment and the courtroom work environment.
Think of a stereotypical lawfirm office from a TV show. That's still a pretty strict environment, I'm sure, but not on the level of the courthouse.
No.2306
File: 1536539220212.jpeg (361.14 KB, 691x600, 691:600, 2.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>2303I don't think so, but I do think you should respect yourself more.
No.2308
File: 1536539296818.png (316.09 KB, 540x740, 27:37, tumblr_p8sh41cYpL1w169g0o1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2307Yes, our policy is to let people speak their minds and object to things, and make posts about it, even get into arguments; and not call those things "shitfests"
So bye.
No.2309
File: 1536539309123.png (113.36 KB, 350x277, 350:277, 1521296819146.png) ImgOps Google
>>2301Maybe after everything is all said and done then, we can hear your opinion.
You might be the moderator, but you are also an active member in the community and I would still like to hear it.
No.2310
File: 1536539443035.png (116.63 KB, 360x409, 360:409, Rarity flutterhug.png) ImgOps Google
>>2305i guess that is true...
>>2306>>2304:c
>>2309...well, maybe. i worry though about influencing the public discourse too much <3 i love that picture. it is the Ella-est one.
No.2312
File: 1536539619078.jpg (30.56 KB, 540x537, 180:179, tumblr_p4dsiuKEbM1qa2g3fo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2310Heck, I wouldn't even bring my personal laptop into a courtroom for that reason.
No.2313
File: 1536539652660.png (1.83 MB, 1300x2000, 13:20, __princess_and_queen_of_he….png) ImgOps Google
>>2272There times and moments to post things but with moderation.
There is a quote on the internet "Think Twice before you post"
Wee need to act more mature and be more responsable in what we post and say.
In my opinion is one of the things we are lacking lately in ponyville.
Even me I did it many times.
We aren't perfect after all and we make mistakes.
I don't find useful the SFW Switch or enforce or add more rules I think the rules we have are great but sometimes we don't follow it at 100%
No.2314
>>2310It's Wheats fault. Wheat got me addicted to that picture.
(Honestly, I always think of him whenever I see that picture.)
No.2315
File: 1536540544064.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2313You are a very clever pony, Einhorn c:
>>2314Now i will think of you both when i see it!
No.2317
File: 1536540897735.png (942.68 KB, 566x800, 283:400, __force_of_will__ff3b09afc….png) ImgOps Google
>>2315Thank you Moony.
>>2316Yes.
No.2321
File: 1536542393073.png (228.23 KB, 540x705, 36:47, tumblr_p8h5p88qXA1qa2g3fo2….png) ImgOps Google
>>2319Well, the squeaky wheel and all that.
But I'm with you, I've even said it in this thread. I don't want things to be done just for me, just because I made a big deal about it. I'm fine as long as my objection is noted.
>>2316yee
No.2323
>>2321I do appreciate you putting up with it. For the record I do like you. A few of us have just reached a point of general apathy and the only way through it is to lash out.
>>2320My concern about that is an apathy that honestly was an issue even before the conception.
No.2325
File: 1536573427454.jpg (54.15 KB, 465x587, 465:587, 6a3fb16.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I think rule 3 on adult content could quite easily be abused.
No.2327
>>2326Rule 34 of course.
If Rule 3 exists, then there is porn of it.
No.2328
File: 1536611520272.jpg (Spoiler Image, 56.63 KB, 450x269, 450:269, petit_spirou_17_centre.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I wonder if petit spirou style comedy falls under paedophilia.
No.2330
>>2133with apologies for not following this thread more closely, I would like to ask for clarification on a particular point of the adult content rules.
Does this mean that discussion of pedophilic content is prohibited or only images? To be clear, do I have to continue to hear jokes about how ponies are eligible to fuck if they have cutie marks or worse, serious debate positions taken that the show fails to state a precise age, or age of consent, or that all the fillies in ponyville might be attending an adult school because it's never specified that it's a children's school.
Sure it's a funny joke ha (NOT) but I just want mod clarification of whether this is considered a violation of the rules or not because reading them, it still seems unclear to me. If it's deemed compliant, I'm not objecting, but I do want a "pre-ruling" on whether I am supposed to ignore or report it when I see it because I'm a bit dense and I can't figure it out for myself.
thanks!
No.2331
File: 1536612182650.png (241.97 KB, 456x461, 456:461, ah well.png) ImgOps Google
>>2330I take discussing sexual stuff about underage characters is probably pretty taboo as well.
Discussing paedophilia as a subject...
I think it always pays off when people don't turn out to be creepoes.
No.2332
File: 1536612466877.png (131.29 KB, 763x1024, 763:1024, pinkyT.png) ImgOps Google
>>2331I'd have thought that too but at some point I saw this exact debate of CMCs being of age right in this thread and I'd like a mod to clarify whether debating the issue is in violation of the new rules.
On the one hoof, if they are of age, it's not pedophilic content, and on the other, that they're obviously children in canon makes it clearly pedophilic as far as I am concerned.
It's clear not everypony agrees with me on this so I'd like an official ruling for clarity, ad I'd also appreciate if that is something that can be stated one way or the other on the new "stare decisis" board I think is described somewhere in the new rules so it can be referred to and settle such arguments as to appropriateness when they crop up.
No.2333
File: 1536612909841.jpg (19.19 KB, 395x372, 395:372, that's not my fetish.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2332Am I missing the talk about having sex with the CMC?
No.2334
File: 1536613588873.png (346.34 KB, 900x630, 10:7, pinkie_padded_pie_by_hourg….png) ImgOps Google
>>2333well for example I saw it go by here:
>>2282The fact that many other animated shows have characters who don't age year after year doesn't seem to mitigate the perception of some that the CMCs are now 8 years older therefore can be fucked legally.
While it's been pointed out these are fictional characters and under the Miller test which applies this makes it not illegal, to me this violates basic sensibility and constitutes pedophilic content but I am thankfully now able to separate this from my own personal feelings? because these are not actual creatures that can actually be sexually abused so, I am OK either way but again I want this clarified as to being OK so I can shut up and leave people alone about it or, being not OK so I should report it if I see it.
I think this is one of the key areas I was interested in for this rule change, aside from having my sexy Pinky images possibly disallowed to serve the sensibility of others. I think, that non-sexual diapered Pinky images are probably still OK but, I guess I should escalate my question to include this aspect as well. therefore my favorite naptime Pinky image under the caring ministrations of Mrs. Cake. It's not sexual but, it could offend people and I know this image was discussed in particular and found to be OK under the previous rules so if that has changed, I'd like to hear about it as well as whether CMC cutie marks mean they are not underage anymore.
I do not think it is an unfair test of the new rules and transparency to petition for a specific ruling on these two issues. Otherwise, I argue that the rules changes perhaps have not actually changed a thing, and I am confident that Moony's self-destructively long and hard dedication to us here cannot be a wasted sacrifice, so I am certain that a ruling on these two questions should be forthcoming soon.
No.2335
File: 1536613920317.png (433.03 KB, 900x900, 1:1, that's so not fashion.png) ImgOps Google
>>2334Regardless of whether you think the CMC are legal or not in headcanon, they're still shaped like kids so they are no go.
It's probably safer to ask whether they're allowed to drive.
>>2334I do find the image somewhat questionable as to why Pinkie would wear diapers and use a pacifier while she's asleep.
You know from the show that it is not intentional.
Then again, it is not that explicit for me. As long as she's not having sexual joy or scat is involved it's merely lowkey fetishist.
No.2336
File: 1536614756969.png (47.81 KB, 264x250, 132:125, pinkyhoofs.png) ImgOps Google
>>2335I personally know some adult baby people who don't even associate the habit with sex so much as re-creating a secure environment with nurturing care.
To me, that is what is illustrated in the Pinky image. While I appreciate fetisihistic diaper content as well (so long as they are unsoiled), that is not why I like that image. It's the feeling of being nurturingly cared for, sleeping sweetly in a protected setting. From the Yakity-sax episode meltdown, Pinky's insecurity is clearly canon and the image clearly reflects a possible reason why she lives with the Cakes. I don't believe in head-canon Artee, I just find it a sweet fantasy image of cared-for security and frankly, I see it as completely apart from any sexuality whatsoever.
The diaper pinky images you post, are a bit more confusing to me in their intent but are also in my view not clearly sexual so still good under the rules.
Of course, these may both fall under the "nsfw" switch classification because some find adults in diapers inherently abhorrent regardless of whether we see them sexually. This concerns me a great deal, actually because many images I like to use to convey feelings are likely to offend someone or other and I am not entirely sure whether I am qualified to know when each of them should be nsfw switched or not.
I get into enough trouble around here because of my autistic oversensitivities and temper, so if we are actually doing this "not NFSW but still not quite SFW" switch thing, I think I need some clarification on things to stay out of trouble.
Again, while I agree with you that the CMCs are not eligible for sexual discussion or humor, I'd like that clearly stated by a mod and have that clearly identified on the transparency board so I can either accept it and not sperg out on everyone over it, or point at the prohibition specifically so people like Manley don't just tell me I'm being autistic and to shut up. Such people are right in their minds, and I am right in mine: I want the issue made clear so there is no argument.
No.2338
>>2337omfg speak of the Manley and he appears
Do you not remember pages and pages and pages of our squabbles which paraphrase down to me being a whiny little bitch about something you said, and you telling me to just stop feeling that way. I don't need to rehash this here now, so if you disagree I don't object. That is how I saw it and to be clear, I invoked your name as an example of people who should not have to put up with my freaking out and rightly tell me to shut up and go away when I'm behaving that way.
No.2339
File: 1536615300250.png (274.21 KB, 446x454, 223:227, card crush.png) ImgOps Google
>>2336>From the Yakity-sax episode meltdown, Pinky's insecurity is clearly canonI think that was already clear since Party of One
and about every Pinkie centered episode really, maybe even Griffon the brush off?
Hah.
It could make a textwall on how Pinkie deals with insecurities and needs confirmation.
>>2336>The diaper pinky images you post, are a bit more confusing to me in their intent Reaction images screencapped from Baby Cakes to animate the posts. It's not about the diapers, but capturing the expressions the images have.
> so if we are actually doing this "not NFSW but still not quite SFW" switch thing, I think I need some clarification on things to stay out of trouble.I think the most important thing to stand by is to avoid explicit sexual stuff. Even when the switch is placed. If you have Pinkie Pie legs up under a bedsheet with a sweaty Big mac poking out, just keep it on your PC, even if the painis is covered.
No.2340
File: 1536616144374.jpg (37.29 KB, 640x744, 80:93, pinkyseaponybubble.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2339Sure and if you add a three-times longer textwall of those insecurities with added-in denial and temper and take away the pony sweetness you would be describing me. Point is, many things such as your images that contain things people don't like are not about sex in any way and if the rule is based on elements of an image that people associate with sexual fetish and not the intent of sexual content then it's harder for me to judge whether I'm supposed to push the button or not.
More to the point, I want to know what things are unacceptable not just to prevent me from doing them but also to know when others area not supposed to do them. If I find "CMCs are legal" bullshit offensive, I need to be able to refer to a guide as to whether it's acceptable, and if it is, I'll keep quiet and not burden everyone with projecting my values onto others and freaking out. Which I think I've repeated enough times now that I think the message has been made clear and I need to take a big step back and be patient for the answer because I think it'll be coming.
No.2341
>>2340Mind that I gave up on the motherchan because social interactions got too hard on me. And never feel like going back no more.
Somethings I feel
There's a report button if things would offend you, a mod can judge based on that. It is a preferable option to an angry /canterlot/ thread or in thread drama.
Mods will likely not ban you over a litle mistake, but if your image is deleted or spoilered and you've not intentially done it, just accept it and don't get mad against everyone over it.
It's a task for the mods, everlasting to be as unbiased as possible in dealing with things. And I know being unbiased is a good intention, but hard to put in practise.
No.2342
File: 1536617009268.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2330>>2331The word content is used purposefully to be inclusive of conversations that go too far as well
No.2343
File: 1536617917884.png (290.11 KB, 873x1024, 873:1024, pinkytutu3.png) ImgOps Google
>>2342Excellent Moons! I'm grateful for your work.
What about CMCs being underage/of age for sex? Can we take that for granted (hence report it when it happens) or is that a valid debate topic (that I should just ignore if it bothers me)?
No.2344
File: 1536618150564.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2343Yes, i think we can safely say the CMC's are underage. They literally go to elementary school.
Talking about whether children, real or imagined, or appropriate to be thinking about in that way is not something allowed under the newly proposed rules, where it was sort of a blind spot in the old rules.
No.2345
File: 1536618284888.png (157.75 KB, 507x454, 507:454, let us consider.png) ImgOps Google
>>2343>>2344Mind that I think there's a significant difference between a discussion on the age and legal status of the CMC and discussing having sex with them.
No.2346
File: 1536618370775.png (125.53 KB, 643x556, 643:556, smart moony on computer.png) ImgOps Google
>>2345The age is fine. The legal status, i.e., whether they are over the age of consent for sex, is not really acceptable
No.2348
File: 1536618820660.png (46.92 KB, 300x168, 25:14, ajsoldier.png) ImgOps Google
>>2347or go to war, yes.
But not to sex.
No.2349
File: 1536630988962.jpg (149.37 KB, 490x384, 245:192, 1532120359042.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2133>4th Ban: 1 Month - 1 Year, or Permaban, depending on circumstances and potential discussion with user>5th Ban: 6 Months - 1 Year, or PermabanI think this automatic escalation is a bit harsh, especially if the bans are for different categories of offenses. Unless someone is really shitting up the place or has demonstrated an inability to make a net positive contribution to the site, do we really need bans longer than a couple of weeks?
No.2350
File: 1536631686431.png (153.61 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 834.png) ImgOps Google
>>2349I agree thats a pretty steep ban schedule especially when not weighted by severity of offense.
No.2351
File: 1536635371858.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google
>>2349>>2350It depends on the nature of the offense. Our conversations with the users and the poll results both seem to users on the one hand do like the leniency, but also feel like it gets taken advantage of by some users.
Ideally, warnings would still be the way to go. But i think users have made it clear that they are unhappy with how some users can apparently get away time and time again with warnings, only to continue that behavior down the road.
Now, all the proposals are up for modification. These are not set in stone just yet.
But the order of bans is written specifically for bans: if a person has gone through their warnings, and is into their bans, and has gotten banned four times? That is a lot of bans.
So far, i think only one single user has accrued more than four bans in the past, and that user is permabanned at the moment, pending appeal.
No.2352
File: 1536649009721.jpg (94.7 KB, 1069x822, 1069:822, f9372f8.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2326Against LGBT sort of content, by virtue of the fact that it could be considered
>sexual fixations that differ from those typical to the general populace Which is an argument,I expect someone abusing moderation staff in their favor would be likely to use.
No.2354
File: 1536678422098.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2352>>2352the second part of that rule is qualified with an "and"
"offensively obscene to the reasonable person"
LGBTQ is not that.
Behavioral rule 8. is also protective of LGBTQ, as per the membership of a particular social group clause
>>823923having been made aware now of the uselessness of the word "fetish", the new proposed rules do away with that word and try to be more specific
No.2355
File: 1536681879756.jpeg (9.64 KB, 209x242, 19:22, download (2).jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>2354>does away with fetish You can take our lives
But you can never take our fetishes!!
No.2357
>>2356But, pissing is always fucking.
Srsly i don't envy the task of trying to specify such a topic with clear, objective words.
After all, we're talking about two layers beyond the actual things depicted:
1. Intent by implication
2. Perceived intent by inference
Lacking both, something isn't actually in violation and establishing either is purely subjective.
Is it even possible to describe in a fair, objective and standard way to determine violations that is clear to a reasonable person?
No.2360
File: 1536700629786.jpg (28.35 KB, 505x435, 101:87, MitsuPern_zps382fb136.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I am in favor of the rule changes and clarifications. Just wanted to say that.
I also look forwards to the Foalsafe filter.
No.2361
File: 1536703189036.gif (992.12 KB, 389x259, 389:259, 1126.gif) ImgOps Google
>>2360That freakin face
I'm sorry Sherlock, but holy shit my sides
No.2362
File: 1536703883687.png (53.35 KB, 256x256, 1:1, solanor icon.png) ImgOps Google
>>2361I rarely pull from that folder XD I didn't even realize which pic I posted until this. Oops.
I swear I'm actually in favor of the adjustments and not being a sarcastic shit XD
No.2364
File: 1536704615638.png (306 KB, 420x411, 140:137, The_Accusers.png) ImgOps Google
>>2363It's Mitsunari from Sengoku Basara 3. I think it's either in Masamune's opening cutscene or in his own.
No.2365
File: 1536719654896.jpg (746.72 KB, 1280x1024, 5:4, 1456372713415.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2351>[leniency] gets taken advantage of by some users.>users have made it clear that they are unhappy with how some users can apparently get away time and time again with warnings, only to continue that behavior down the road.I don't think anybody will be complaining about leniency and clamoring for more punishment if people get week-long bans. Automatic escalation to month-long bans just doesn't seem necessary. If someone really needs to be banned for a whole month, IMHO the mods should make that decision based on the whole situation rather than just doing it automatically based merely on the number of previous bans.
Also, is there any reset in the ban schedule? If someone gets 3 bans, but then behaves well for months before slipping up again, it seems unfair to slap them so hard just because they screwed up in the distant past.
No.2366
>>2365This is a good point. But how long a time-frame should a reset be? If it resets after a week, then it deflates the punishment.
I'd say something like 6 months?
No.2368
File: 1536723822832.png (11.57 KB, 110x110, 1:1, PHI.png) ImgOps Google
>>2133>Rule 8. Do not post threads or posts that are ... deliberate provocations concerning the topics of ... Membership of a Particular Social GroupWhat does "Social Group" mean? Would saying "The Philadelphia Eagles suck" be bannable? Would saying "Philadelphia Eagles
fans suck" be bannable?
No.2369
File: 1536724309978.png (247.84 KB, 362x356, 181:178, Thinking-Deep-Thoughts.png) ImgOps Google
Most of this seems logical enough.
Going to agree that the phrasing of "or deliberate provocations concerning the topics of Race, Religion, Nationality, Political Opinion, or Membership of a Particular Social Group;" doesn't seem right to me.
There's a ton of social groups out there as well as plenty that maybe deserve rational criticism, and even something as light as gentle mocking might get interpreted as provocation. It's particularly true when we're talking about a product. Like "Apple and its fans just suck" or "Fortnite is melting its fans' brains" or whatever sound possibly bannable now.
No.2370
File: 1536760830048.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google
>>2369>>2368This is a great question! The "race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or member of a particular social group" standard comes to us, actually, from the Geneva Convention, and is used in every Western country to define the standard of persecution
"well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion ..."
This standard has an extremely long, as one might imagine, history of precedent to draw off of.
The others seems obvious, but what about member of a particular social group?
This one is easily the most complex, but i can narrow it down for you with one simple explanation
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/14/2986.pdfMatter of Acosta, and similar decisions in the UK and other countries, explain this to us:
First, a "particular social group" is an immutable characteristic. Your gender, or sexual orientation, are immutable characteristics.
Your kinship ties or past life experiences are immutable characteristics. And an immutable characteristic is a common trait that is unchangeable or truly fundamental to an one's identity.
Second: Particular social groups must exist outside of the insult (or persecution); in other words, we cannot say "posters of Ponyville who were insulted by [user]" is a particular social group
...i could go on.
but that is the very fundamental gist of it, and i think it's good enough. After reading through the hate speech statutes of like five different countries, i felt using what i know and feel is most effective, the Geneva Convention on Refugees, is the best.
No.2371
File: 1536787816368.jpg (30.08 KB, 433x810, 433:810, tumblr_p596x5FEXH1w9s694o2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2370TL;DR
No, saying "-sports team/sports team fans- are -insult-" is not against the rule. (However, it is mean and if someone feels attacked by it, they'll probably report you.)
No.2372
File: 1536788295321.png (560.42 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, pinkyteethgrin.png) ImgOps Google
>>2371Presumably the distinction should be well-explained in the Hoofbook and/or in the transparency board? so that mods will know where the line is to disregard such reports, and users will be able to inform themselves to avoid accidentally making frivolous reports.
this whole rule change is a bit tldr for me, so I hope I'll be able to absorb it through osmosis and stay out of trouble.
No.2374
File: 1536789040688.jpg (56.91 KB, 540x792, 15:22, tumblr_p8mjsyZcZa1rp8y35o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2372I mean more along the lines of a report of the general rule "don't be a fucking asshole". I didn't say they would report for the rule that was being discussed.
No.2378
File: 1536790965127.jpg (39.93 KB, 470x457, 470:457, Anxious Fluttershy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2374>>2372i admit, i sometimes wonder if this sort of carefully thought out thing is the best approach, or whether just two rules that say "don't be mean" and "don't do lewd stuff" would suffice
No.2379
File: 1536791895471.jpg (59.61 KB, 540x806, 270:403, tumblr_p89n9rt1A31qa2g3fo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2377thank you
>>2378most people don't really care about your real-world counterparts that you use for the reasoning of the rules.
Just have the rules and enforce them. That's how everyone does it, and it works. Explaining everything is good for real world stuff where the consequences for stuff actually matters.
No.2380
File: 1536792785789.png (110.91 KB, 500x558, 250:279, pinkywork2.png) ImgOps Google
>>2378>don't be mean>don't do lewd stuffWow Moons this would be much more clear and not waste so much of your time. Except some of us want to allow a little bit of lewd stuff so maybe should say "excessively lewd"
>>2373>>2375Holy cow these are from the actual physical books! So rare but, this needs to be Shepardized the old-fashioned way in the books, so much fun for nostalgia...
>>2374>"don't be a fucking asshole"I think this would unironically be a good rule, actually.
No.2381
File: 1536793388903.jpg (90.9 KB, 540x763, 540:763, 1536535760154.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2365>is there any reset in the ban schedule? Is there?
No.2382
File: 1536793549904.jpg (53.19 KB, 567x800, 567:800, 1465146513940.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2378>whether just two rules that say "don't be mean" and "don't do lewd stuff" would sufficeNah, that would be too vague and just lead to people arguing that what they posted wasn't mean or lewd. You'd need a whole collection of past ruling to clarify the rules. Having a relatively short list of more fleshed-out rules is more concise and likely to be read than a bunch of previous rulings.
No.2383
File: 1536794796343.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>2381right now, no. We can discuss one as we go forward but for now, there is none. There are only like, two or three users with more than one ban.
If the new rules pass, there will be a clean slate. And if a ban lenience period is needed we can discuss one and implement one in short order.
But so far, it doesn't seem necessary to me. i thought about it a while!
>>2379i do not mind if they do not care, but my observation of imageboard rules is that they are virtually useless, unless they are carefully tuned
As you have pointed out to me before, Jade, just because everyone does it, doesn't mean it works: a big part of why we came here was because of how much it didn't work
>>2382i would agree, anon
No.2384
File: 1536796170911.png (730.62 KB, 1334x802, 667:401, pinkysad.png) ImgOps Google
>>2383Someone pointed out above that going from a one-week ban to a one-month ban is a steep curve.
Moons I know you are trying to put some strictness into the new rules to combat a feeling over over-lenience, however I wholeheartedly feel that perhaps the pendulum swings a bit too far on this particular point in the new rules. Why should a one-week ban escalate automatically to one month?
One week bans are imo sufficient to disincentivize problems.
As a diagnosed anxiety patient, if I received a one-week ban I would have a hard time with anxiety having an automatic one-month ban hanging over my head should I make another mistake. Should I have a psychological event and act out sufficiently to receive a single one-week ban it would effectively constitute a permaban.
No.2385
File: 1536796431788.png (333.81 KB, 540x699, 180:233, tumblr_p365mcFwzu1u86t2qo1….png) ImgOps Google
>>2384To be fair, LP, you are kind of an outlier with that.
No.2386
File: 1536796487052.jpg (81.44 KB, 528x810, 88:135, tumblr_p2ncvk1RWZ1qzljvuo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2383They're virtually useless even if they are tuned, Moony.
The rules don't actually matter. It's how they're enforced that does.
No.2388
File: 1536800566938.png (143 KB, 350x400, 7:8, this is not a party.png) ImgOps Google
>>2387>>2384...i suppose i can relook at the policy.
i was hoping that exact anxiety might keep users interested in keeping to the rules after receiving several warnings, and then bans.
maybe we can change it to be something like "of the same offense, within a period equal to the period of the ban?"
And then, if you do, the ban reverts to the previous level
i need to think about this and make a chart
No.2390
File: 1536803234701.jpg (102.93 KB, 1979x1381, 1979:1381, pinkywork1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2388I dunno Moonsy it's just a visceral response to the concept of statutory sentencing. You've put an awful lot into this thing and I haven't even put in the effort to give it a proper read-through and today I kinda had a bit of a meltdown anyway over a silly minor difference of opinion with Jade and as you know I am prone to those and while I
think I put a cork in my behavior before causing any harm I'm not even sure. Whatever you think is best for the majority of users of this site is probably best.
No.2394
>>2392We should add a good/evil option to posting.
"Here small child, have all my clothing and money" and "CHILD, GIVE ME YOUR FLESH MEATS", respectively.
No.2396
>>2395I would post a lot more if I didn't actually have to post a post that I also had to think up and write down.
Thinking is hard....
No.2397
File: 1536873026535.png (219.89 KB, 1013x1024, 1013:1024, pinkyshrug.png) ImgOps Google
>>2396>thinking is harda lost pony hasn't tried this "thinking" of which you speak. does it hurt?
No.2398
File: 1536890153929.jpeg (196.6 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, B6D0722E-DCDD-4D7F-A15F-0….jpeg) ImgOps Google
Also, Aryanne is not a Nazi...
Just ask a lost pony
She may be your Nazi, but she's my non-Nazi
No.2399
>>2383I think it should be something baked into the rules from the start, Moony. There may not be a need for it immediately, but it shouldn't be something that should be tackled when it first comes up. Because assumedly, the only time it will come up is if someone HAS been good for a long time and then (accidentally or otherwise) re-offends. At that point, they will be working against the harsh punishment the rules say they get, and may have a harder time appealing.
It should be tackled before anyone is put in that position. I like the idea of the reset period being the same length of time as the last ban. But only if there's a statute of limitations put on it. So that say, one person could not keep re-offending every other week with week-long bans.
No.2400
>>2399What you area describing is ex post facto.
No, it's not fair to judge people after they've offended by applying new policy that is decided after the offense. This I believe is why Moons is proposing wiping the slate clean for those of us who have "pre-existing" bans, so we begin fresh.
As to the reset period, you do point out where a bottom limit should be longer while the never-expires is a limit that is too high.
tbc my word salad intends to say, good points mr. manley.
No.2401
>>2397Very much.
Avoid it if you can.
No.2402
File: 1536917726954.png (43.75 KB, 300x200, 3:2, 329394000.png) ImgOps Google
>>2398She has a swastika on her butt...
No.2403
>>2402Why are you looking at her butt..?
That's lewd...
No.2405
>>2404Watch the dang movie if you're gonna try and tease me with that picture.
>>2403How could you not? It's the part of the picture closest to the screen. In either case, it's dumb to day the pony isn't a Nazi when it's got a swastika cutie mark and was created by a place known for having a large number of nazis. But we are supposed to be talking about the new rules, not racist memes.
No.2407
File: 1536953099270.png (61.74 KB, 773x279, 773:279, noonim will not listen to ….png) ImgOps Google
>>2406Not a swastika. Those are manji and manji are a mirrored image compared to what we know as a swastika. But don't try to start arguments with me if you've gone on record as not being willing to listen to me no matter what I say.
No.2408
File: 1536953271666.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google
>>2406>>2407You two really need to stop talking to each other if it's just gonna result in fighting every time.
No.2410
File: 1536955939490.gif (493.46 KB, 500x363, 500:363, tumblr_inline_nkcth6oTIW1r….gif) ImgOps Google
>>2407I'm not willing to listen to you because you don't ever return the favor, and instead pull some holier-than-thou nonsense, labeling people falsely as bigots and racists and what-have-you, and of course with massive indignation if anyone does the same to you.
But this lot here is mostly just a meme, anyway.
No.2412
File: 1536958938135.png (181.51 KB, 900x1350, 2:3, 200d9d6192c2cf2b4bd74a263f….png) ImgOps Google
>>2407Come to think of it, you're using that post in the wrong context, anyway. It was specially about your assumptions of character, not any logically built argumentation.
It was specifically in response to your post >>823550 in which you accused me of "ad hominem".
Ironically, your use of this here is effectively the same thing. You're dismissing someone's argument because they do not care for your constant slandering and hostile assumptions.
In that context, I completely stand by it. What you think is not representative of reality, so I do not care for it.
No.2413
>>2412I'm dismissing your argument because you've made it clear you will not listen to an response from me, no matter what is said. And I will do so any other time you try to start an argument like you did it in
>>2406. (incorrectly) Countering something I said is grounds for trying to start an argument, no matter how much you try and rationalize it. Also posts like
>>2410accusing me of false things are grounds for harassment. I'll be reporting any future posts of that nature. Final statement on the matter. Drop it.
No.2414
File: 1536959828583.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2413>>2412Hey, you folks were asked informally to stop, though not very directly.
Please consider this though, a formal warning: this is not the thread or the place for this, and if you continue, we'll have to take administrative action.
No.2416
>>2414Although this does hold the benefit of raising an issue I wanted to bring that for a while. This site is in dire need of a filter system. If we are doing some sort of fancy NSFW filter, then it shouldn't be too difficult to work. Especially considering the groundwork has already been laid it on numerous other sites.
I filter system would stop these types of issues.
No.2417
File: 1536961410324.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google
>>2416>>2415filtering is a dangerous road to go down, but it's something the community has discussed from time to time.
after this initiative, i think we might also do a poll and have a conversation about that too. thank you for raising that, noonim.
No.2419
File: 1536961867000.png (2.38 MB, 2100x1446, 350:241, 1690891.png) ImgOps Google
>>2405Gosh if i watch the movie i'll just have more ammo for mouse-teasing you.
Is it a good movie? Heres some saucy rarity, everypony likes that.
Um tho as to Aryane, regardless of the orientation of the symbol and how much i love the aesthetic quality of that particular plush especially that hat omigosh, 1) googling her shows things like her symbol means "hate in your heart" and such, and 2) she is wearing a very snappy and beautifully made uniform which is unfortunately clearly not in keeping with the buddhist symbol.
Omigosh i want that wonderful plush but im afraid she's symbolically not in keeping with the old rules which are currently in effect? nor is her symbolic meaning consistent with pony as i see it.
I think its probably ironic? But damn she's always drawn so pretty and that plush is so wonderful. Aesthetically, not symbolicly.
If i got that thing i'd have to hide ot from my jewish gf for sure.
Next time manley i'm posting more sexy mice.
No.2421
>>2419But I hate Rarity. And yeah, I like the movie. There's really only one sexy mouse in it, so it wouldn't give you anything you don't already have.
Ok, you lost me on most of that. Let's go back to talking about the reset period for bans.
No.2423
>>2422In all honesty, I'm not the type of person who would say that nazis can never be joked about, and I have heard the argument that mockery of the nazis and the nazi party can be a form of satire that serves to make them and their ideology less credible.
But this pony doesn't seem to be that. There's nothing about the pony that says that nazis or their ideology are deserving of mockery or that she is bad for being one. It's not making a statement against it. If anything, it only serves to give historical monsters a cute mascot they can use, which is something I am against.
No.2425
File: 1536977208570.png (510.39 KB, 1280x791, 1280:791, 589878546.png) ImgOps Google
>>2424Your criticisms are as valuable as my septic tank, Noonim
No.2427
File: 1536980165067.png (209.72 KB, 348x329, 348:329, adorable pinky.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>2425A septic tank is quite valuable, especially when you consider where all of your shit'd end up being without it. So, thanks!
No.2429
File: 1536981288980.png (297.38 KB, 843x737, 843:737, 1430688607069.png) ImgOps Google
>>2428For what it's worth, I feel for you. She's probably not a 'hate symbol'. Just edgy trash.
Griffons > ponies, anyway.
No.2430
File: 1536981435712.jpeg (422.74 KB, 1026x1024, 513:512, 45324335432534.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>2429Maybe you could make a site called Griffonville.us
No.2431
File: 1536981505451.png (228.86 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 1430916672590.png) ImgOps Google
>>2430Maybe! I've thought about it before. But, I'm no coder.
No.2432
File: 1536981909064.gif (2.19 MB, 808x551, 808:551, 67545686574.gif) ImgOps Google
>>2431How inconsiderate of me...
my apologies
No.2433
File: 1536992620999.png (695.59 KB, 686x960, 343:480, Bianca4.png) ImgOps Google
>>2428But you did right here:
>>2398She
is a fine pony. Why not start a thread about her?
I wonder if i should start mouseville.us. i need more mice.
No.2434
>>2433That
is a pretty slick plush. Certainly see why you liked it.
No.2435
File: 1537060656667.png (191.34 KB, 661x760, 661:760, classy shy.png) ImgOps Google
hi folks! just a quick update: i will be opening the PACTA for a vote starting maybe late tonight or early tomorrow.
The poll results will also be released at that time, with some very simple conclusions drawn from the results.
Life is very busy, so thanks for your patience!!
No.2436
File: 1537065857531.jpg (89.82 KB, 500x667, 500:667, 危険熱場に注意柵の中入らないでください.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2133>Rule 3. Content that concerns sexual fixations that differ from those typical to the general populace and is also offensively obscene to the reasonable person is disallowed;Does that imply that content that is offensively obscene to the reasonable person is allowed as long it doesn't concern sexual fixations that differ from those typical to the general populace?
No.2437
File: 1537086519862.jpg (47.01 KB, 655x372, 655:372, 1537072335273.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2436I find that particular wording to be most concerning as it implies a strong bias against things more "fringe" vs mainstream.
No.2438
File: 1537147878836.jpg (362.92 KB, 600x416, 75:52, pizza-in-japan.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2437> it implies a strong bias against things more "fringe" vs mainstream.There certainly is against certain non-mainstream things, e.g., lolicon stuff. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
No.2439
>>2438I think by definition it does.
There are things that are bad for a reason. Then there are things that are not bad for a reason, but are less common. Under the guideline, those less common things become as bad as those things that are bad for a reason.
For example, are we equating transgenderism with pedophilia?
A strict reading of this could create that which invokes absurdity, therefore the wording is fatally flawed as a standard.
No.2440
File: 1537187351951.jpg (36.78 KB, 540x710, 54:71, tumblr_p39lzkGwcL1qzljvuo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2439well, people can take anything to extreme, absurd conclusions if they really want to do it, it doesn't really matter what the writing is unless it's so explicit and minute that it defeats the purpose of having an easily defined set of rules to refer to.
Remember, guys, we're not just talking about randos deciding the fates of people on the site. Who cares how many times something gets reported for an absurd reason when we have mods who can determine what is absurd and what isn't.
Even if someone comes in and tries to argue the absurd logical extents of any sub-par rule wordings, the mods we have won't take their arguments worth shit because they'll
know it's absurd to extrapolate these things.
Sure these things
could be argued, but we have nobody here on staff that would take them seriously past an explanatory debate level.
Anyways, if someone who would take these things to absurd logical extremes has somehow wormed their way into the mod staff, it doesn't matter how well worded our rules are: We're already fucked.
No.2441
File: 1537187404178.jpg (36.47 KB, 406x810, 203:405, tumblr_p20ehh46mo1rp8y35o2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>2440in short;There's nothing to really worry about here. Even the strictest of our mods won't take absurd claims to be anything more than that.
No.2442
File: 1537208318607.png (191.59 KB, 976x1024, 61:64, a35356024d6c833085dedb255f….png) ImgOps Google
>>2440>>2441In which case then why do we need to implement a new rule set filled with such complexity that can be misconstrued, and mandatory sentencing guidelines that can so easily create unintentional injustice?
Perhaps the rules are fine as they stand, but with the addition of the "transparency board" that will allow the staff consensus that clarify ambiguities as they are found and posters to easily reference those clarifications.
The Framers understood the need to keep the founding document simple and have the judiciary clarify along the way, in a comprehensive adaptive way and the result has been the longest-running successful constitutional democracy in recorded history.
>>2133Moonses i love you dearly and i know you have invested unfathonable effort into this endeavor. However i think attempting to refine perfection from a statutory perspective isn't going to work as you envision. There are too many dangerous pitfalls introduced in your new rule set, no matter how you have agonized over it.
As they stand, a lost pony is forced to vote against implementation of the new rules, and asks everypony to carefully consider voting against as well.
No.2443
>>2441I'll just copy-paste something i said elsewhere;
"
My problem isn't them not enforcing the letter of the law, that's actually in a lot of ways my fear. There's one thing that gives me trouble, it's vague and up to interpretation rules. Rules that require a lot of personal judgement make it very hard to predict, and it is very easy to accidentally break those rules."
