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

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.4473[Reply]

File: 1560836327598.jpg (15.8 KB, 320x320, 1:1, 437ce33.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It has come to my attention that the same two posters who are always fighting and disrupting threads, and making big paranoid fiascos on /canterlot/ when any moderator actions are taken are still fighting and making big paranoid fiascos about it on canterlot. Even now, after a forced anon board has been added.

I think it's really time for the mods to consider taking a heavier hand with these two considering just how apparent it is that they are more willing to try and manipulate the mods via /canterlot/ in response to nearly every action they make.
8 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4528

File: 1560923549463.png (139.94 KB, 388x478, 194:239, pinkie cabaret.png) ImgOps Google

Just serve everyone a permaban and set fire to the servers.

For realsies, I'd rather have nopony permabanned or banned for a long time, but know, all arguing parties involved, you're all doing a shitty job.

 No.4533

File: 1560929490460.jpg (25.33 KB, 288x450, 16:25, 124990734-288-k933515.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4500
I strongly disagree with the comparison to children.

I have seen this argument, or a similar one, before and didn't like it then either.

No one here is a child.

Do I think some behaviours shown at times are childish or immature? Yes, of course. I've done childish and immature things in the heat of the moment. But to imply that the people who are having problems, and the mods supposedly handling those problems in a similar manner to handling a bratty child, well to me that's pretty disrespectful.

They aren't children. And the mods are not parents. They are adults trying to do a job. Not an easy job quite obviously, but a job nonetheless.

Without this community they have no job to perform. And us as the community, without the staff, will not be a community for very long either.

All of us here are adults, all of us here are in this together if we want to stay here, and hopefully all of us will be able to figure it out together.

 No.4596

File: 1561921521430.png (964.39 KB, 967x891, 967:891, silly7glasses.png) ImgOps Google

>>4500
Why must a heavier hand be used?

>yet they still play like it's actually entirely the fault of the mod staff (and sometimes the rest of the community) being unfair to them specifically.

Perhaps there is an issue with expectations that the staff will interfere and cure all personal disagreements because the rules are a bit lofty.

Why do uninvolved bystanders to a squabble feel so offended around here anyway?  If they fight to the death perhaps rather than feel responsible to dissect who's right and who's wrong the staff might warn them both to argue somewhere else.  Or let them finish killing each other.

The feelings of hurt and being trapped that i experienced from people who have no stake in the discussion stomping around validating one thing or another caused me more pain than anything i ever felt directly from arguing with either of these two.

I wonder if the rule was get involved in mutual combat, don't expect staff to rescue you if this ongoing crying-to-mom might disappear and if this hurts bystanders then its their own fault for watching a train wreck when they should move along, nothing to see here.

Who decided that the staff are our personal peacemakers?  That's not a service anyone is paying for so why does this site feel responsible to be police officer, baby sitter and psychologist?

In short, just let them fight or tell them to stop fighting.  Who did what and who's more wronger just isn't necessary for the site to determine.


 No.3801[Reply]

File: 1552687086447.jpg (194.06 KB, 750x1000, 3:4, bb21226c2a6d0cf9875f374383….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hi I got a small problem.

I'm on my phone about 50% of the time I'm here. I use the Quick Reply box because obviously.

I dont know of its my phone or the browser or the site or what, but every time the Quick Reply box pops up, about a quarter of it is cut off from the screen on the right side. It makes it so I cant see the far right side of my posts. Even turning my phone sideways does nothing.

I also can't move the box. Putting my finger on it and trying to move it does nothing but highlight text.

If anyone knows whats causing this or how to fix it that would be great.
17 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4604

File: 1561957577827.jpg (164.82 KB, 755x670, 151:134, Confused-Fluttershy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4603
...well... Zeke's working on something for us. Maybe we should be early adopters. i had no idea t+3 software was so bad. ....i cannot even remember how Foreground and i picked it.

If i was involved, it was probably something like "oh, this one's popular!"

 No.4606

>>4604
Gochan still has a long ways to go before it reaches feature parity with the variant of Tinyboard that we're using now.

 No.4612

File: 1562019121494.png (496.63 KB, 655x694, 655:694, 22a7bee6e44c405b37310264bd….png) ImgOps Google

>>4603
I was only trying to scare you.

(Oops sorry humor)


 No.4610[Reply]

File: 1562000509053.jpg (101.52 KB, 582x246, 97:41, frown.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

When I voiced concerns about the new rules concerning /canterlot/ and the streamlining of the moderation process, I was told that attempts would be made by the modstaff to not let the mods !!Scootaloo and (the collection of identities who operate under the name of) !!Luna make decisions about or take disciplinary actions against me alone to avoid potential bias. I have off-site history with these individuals, and while I don't feel it's necessary to go into the details of that history here, I will if asked to. To keep it short, they have both said and/or done some pretty horrendous things to me in the past. I feel my fear of potential bias is warranted because of those past actions.

However, in >>>/pony/960354, >>>/pony/960370  it appears that !!Luna made a decision and acted alone in issuing a judgement and punishment for a perceived violation of the rules. I would like to formally request that another member of the mod staff overlook this issued punishment and also formally request the same be done to ALL future punishments coming from these individuals I mentioned above. Preferable BEFORE the punishment has already been issued and served. I think this is important to ensure there is no personal bias in these decisions.

-
As a side note: While I cannot change the punishment that was issued now, as it has already been served in full, I would like to contest the motivations for the decision that was made, since I was not offered the chance to appeal and this event might have an effect on any further escalation of punishments.

>>>/pony/960370 claims that I "attacking" and "disrespecting" other people. The ban message contained more, and included a list of rules I had purportedly broken, but that has since expired. I do not agree with the assessment that I violated those rules. The three individuals who posted in >>>/pony/960156, >>>/pony/960158 and >>>/pony/960211 (if they are in fact three separate individuals) have a known, consistent history of behavior that skirts the lines of violating the site's rules against trolling and "shitposting", and if they are not actually three separate individuals our rules against sock-puppeting. It is a fair thing to wonder about and question the nature of this person(s) who acts in such a bizarre manner for seemingly no reason, especially when invited to question it as I was in >>>/pony/960358. My quesPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4611

Alright, so I'm not gonna lie, we all forgot about the thing with those two mods.  We will try to be more vigilant on that in the future.

But despite your justifications for doing so, and even despite the poster possibly being okay with it, harsh sounding questioning like that isn't allowed in the site.  It can put off other posters, making them wonder how they'd be judged, even if they aren't part of the conversation.  The same reason we've never allowed slurs, even between people using them amongst themselves as friends.  A third party won't necessarily know the context, and a new poster might be frightened away by our exclusion of their identity as someone who's mentally ill.  "Insane" "nutsos" who "just talk to themselves" are welcome on the site.

And I know I've warned you before on this, too, maybe with less detail, but it's not the first time you've said these sorts of things to that particular poster(s?).  I get how weird tulpas can be, and if it were to come up in conversation I would definitely suggest people not mess around with creating tulpas, but posters who have created tulpas and also the tulpas themselves are still considered ordinary users of the site and are protected by all the same rules.


 No.4549[Reply]

File: 1561485048028.png (344.21 KB, 900x900, 1:1, 20154__safe_artist-colon-s….png) ImgOps Google

>>4545
>No other users may post in that thread.
>“Meta” matters will not be permitted on other boards, outside of /canterlot/, with the policy strictly enforced.

So, basically, any and all discussion about site matters between users is prohibited?
16 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4566

>>4564
>I am not mistaken on what this means
Oh, I was focusing more on this:
>>4560
>Anyone who  would dare be unhappy at the state of things, where some people are able to insult and generally treat others like shit, are obviously not worth giving a damn about.
You might be pleasantly surprised about how the new moderating system works.  You might even find that it addresses some of the issues that you brought up in the past.  That's why I suggest that you wait and see rather than just dismissing it.

 No.4568

File: 1561507159458.png (170.78 KB, 1838x678, 919:339, Rules.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4566
I'm rather skeptical. Like I said, it seems to be the same, only with a much more loose individual action, which wasn't a major problem anyway since that was usually the case as it was.

Most of them are either combined or condensed, and there's not much added in, except for the clause of back-punishing users.
Which, obviously, I don't like.
The escalation policy was also one that was supposed to be already in place. It's jsut it was never really used.

So, the only practical change made was that now, people can act completely by their own desire. But, like I said to Val, >>>/pony/957929
>". If the argument is that biases won't matter because it balances out, then allowing any mod to act in an individual capacity by their own judgement alone is going to mean a biased individual can act based on that bias without any mediating force."
Add to that, it ensures a much less consistent enforcement of the rules, ala old Ponychan under Orange way back in the day, where nobody really knows what to expect until someone gets banned for something.

It's certainly possible that this'll mean some of the issues I've had'll be adressed, but, if it is, that'll be because a very small bit of the staff're free to engage those particular issues as they believe necessary. The problem is, other staff who felt these issues were completely without merit or value'll also be able to completely dismiss them. Meaning that, theoretically 20% of the time something to address my issue'd actually happen.
Otherwise, the problem of inconsistency comes to play.

And, to be quite honest, inconsistency is not something I'm okay with, even if it would be to my benefit. It's why I, for example, rather strongly opposed Manley's political ban.
No user should be subjugated to a rule or standard not enforced on the others.

 No.4573

File: 1561569767626.jpg (36.8 KB, 579x402, 193:134, 332-1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4549
>no talking among posters

Shhhh the staff might hear us talking.  Lets share secrets about them.

(I heard Moons doesn't actually look like Fluttershy !)


 No.4589[Reply]

File: 1561893982145.png (194.53 KB, 642x579, 214:193, Capture _2019-06-30-03-54-….png) ImgOps Google

1.  Someone please explain if this is something on my end: often i get the X boxes as in pic attached.  I am unable to read a post intended for me that might be important.

2.  While i am posting a thread for something so small lets add a suggestion:  if /canterlot is such a serious place then can we have unique anon ID tags on this board please?

Thanks Staff!!  when you have time.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4593

>>4591
nvm, i found it: >>>/pony/959710
You're getting boxes because your browser is missing a font with glyphs for the Unicode codepoints in that post.  You can copy and paste the text into http://www.babelstone.co.uk/Unicode/whatisit.html and it will tell you what the characters are:

U+1D62B : MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF ITALIC SMALL J
U+1D636 : MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF ITALIC SMALL U
U+1D634 : MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF ITALIC SMALL S
U+1D635 : MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF ITALIC SMALL T
U+0020 : SPACE [SP]
U+1D629 : MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF ITALIC SMALL H
U+1D622 : MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF ITALIC SMALL A
U+1D625 : MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF ITALIC SMALL D

 No.4594

File: 1561910313591.png (243.1 KB, 600x600, 1:1, I've already been hypnotiz….png) ImgOps Google

Lea likes to use lingojam...

It's unfortunate that your browser doesn't render that...

 No.4595

File: 1561920244601.png (27.82 KB, 692x174, 346:87, Capture _2019-06-30-11-40-….png) ImgOps Google

>>4593
Gosh thx!  Much appreciated.  

>>4592
I dont know anything about /pol because i've never gone there.  I dont support forced-anything in general, and no im not talking about the odd animal thing on /townhall.

the unique-id im talking about looks like this on /ef, pic attached.  It allows everyone to identify between multiple anons and cuts down on misunderstanding followed by "im not that anon".


 No.4314[Reply]

File: 1560741234574.png (43.75 KB, 300x200, 3:2, 329394000.png) ImgOps Google

it has come to my attention that another poster here is plotting to start a harassment campaign against me. He has outlined this plan here  >>>/pony/955004

The issue with Noonim and his harassing me have become too much to bear. He is constantly trying to pick arguments with me, and bad-mouthing me publicly. Even when he is not involved in the thread of discussion. I never engage Noonim first and have not in a good while. While he was using his filter to block me, things have gone smoothly on the site. But announcing he plans to start a harassment campaign against me is very upsetting, and the fact that he claims he has never received an official warning for his actions here >>>/pony/955007 is even more upsetting.

I feel like his harassment of me is in violation of the rules of this board and he has demonstrated a very clear bias against me. I do not wish to engage Noonim ever again. I do not wish for him to be present in my threads, or to butt into my other conversations to insult me and accuse me things. I want him to leave me alone, but he has time and time again shown his refusal to do so. Not only that, he has very clearly stated that he feels justified in harassing me because of some sort of twisted sense of "justice". This needs to stop. It is causing me very real stress.
34 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4535

>>4534
>You claim you give me lots of posts explaining it, but that has not been my experience with you.
to that, I would point to our last interaction on Town Hall. every post I made in reply to you further expanded on my position, and explain it in different ways. this is what I do every time. It's why I feel like you don't actually listen to what I say, and end up getting frustrated, because you literally sit there and claim that I wasn't expanding on what I meant at all, even though rather large percentages of my posts are explicitly dedicated to that purpose specifically.

whether or not you feel like it was a case, every single time you have asked me to explain something I have done so. You never seem to listen to that exclamation, you never seem to give it the time of day, but, it is always there. I always expand on exactly what I have said. That's why I am so quickly frustrated wish you a lot of these times, because you refuse to even accept that much.

how am I supposed to communicate with a guy who refuses to even accept that I'm trying to communicate with him in the first place?
how can I give somebody like that the benefit of the doubt, when literally every single time I reply to his post further explaining my position, he keeps on insisting that I've never explain my position once?

I don't know if there's some kind of particular issue with you reading my posts, whether it's some kind of problem you have or if it's something you just can't grasp do to your own way of thinking, but, never had this problem with anybody else.
nobody else insists that after literal dozens of posts, with paragraphs upon paragraphs of text explain my position in excruciating detail, that I never elaborate.
this is something that I have genuinely only experienced with you, and for the life of me I cannot understand why you do it. It seems strange to sit here even now claiming that I never expand on what I mean, given that literally every single time we end up in an argument, you can see hundreds of posts made, with hundreds of words, every single time, further explaining exactly what I meant and exactly what I had said and exactly how I meant it. Even when I'm trying to defend myself against things that I had viewed as insults, I further explain exactly why I had said what I said. I tried to expand on my positiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.4539

File: 1561072389979.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>4534

Just using the /townhall/ thread from the other day as an example, you do seem to miss the parts of his posts where he's clarifying his position.  Take this post from "Charitable Llama":

>I don't have to know. It's a flat rule, near as I can tell. If it applies in any circumstances where a kid is attacked, then it'd apply to these situations as well. You seem to misunderstand my point, here.

>If you said "Anyone who hits someone should be imprisoned", that applies to every single situation where someone is hit, regardless of the context involved. It'd apply in a situation where a thug punches a grandmother and steals her purse, as well as a situation where a woman punches a would-be rapist before running away. It's not "assuming malice on the part of the punched" to point this out. The situation is directly covered within the perimeters set.

You responded to this part, quoting "It's a flat rule, near as I can tell" and arguing "Except it's not, and unless you can prove that, hthen you can't keep saying that it is."  Which kinda goes back to how you had me change your OP a bit later to show that it's an example and not necessarily a logical conclusion.  But the real issue here is this:

>Also, stop trying to turn this thread into a debate on animal euthanasia. If you want to discuss whether it's ethical to put down animals, start another thread.
>You're the one who put it in your OP. You used it as a justification to execute pedophiles. If that particular justification is trash, and built on a bad premise, then it'd put a major flaw in your argument. Perhaps it'd be better to start a new thread over, skipping the rather lousy justification used here, and simply asking "should we execute pedophiles".

You didn't actually respond to this part at all, the part where he explains that he was reading your OP as a logical argument and if it wasn't that then it should be rewritten.  This was a really important part, the part that explained why he was making any of these arguments to begin with, and it just didn't come up at the time.

Gotta go for a few hours, but I'll look over all this more when I get back.

 No.4540

File: 1561106324645.gif (10.12 KB, 168x225, 56:75, 5b05edea873b365f41766f131d….gif) ImgOps Google

>>4539
>>4534
Just to be clear, here, I'm not at all against accepting a simple case of something put up in an OP or any post not intended. Mistakes are an easy thing to happen, after all, and it's perfectly fine, provided you recognize them.
The problem is when you sit there and demand I prove something you claimed, suggest I'm being mallicious for exploring the statement made, or claim debating that argument is off topic, when it's an argument you made.

Which is a rather large part of why I found the whole pile of insinuations insulting. I mean, here I am, addressing the arguments you presented, and yet that makes me a bad person acting maliciously, antagonistically, and belligerently.

Of course, apparently all of that is totally legitimate to say, and so there's no real reason to respond to anyone's arguments, I guess.
Might as well just turn every /townhall/ debate into a pissing match where everyone just flings whatever insults and dismissive remarks they desire any time anyone says anything that contradicts them,.


 No.5248[Reply]

File: 1572117160255.jpg (70.57 KB, 1205x1459, 1205:1459, Tv3lfE4.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Just wondering but are things like political test threads welcome on townhall or does it always have to be just serious discussion?
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5350

File: 1572306988329.png (211.81 KB, 769x1039, 769:1039, 132620327186.png) ImgOps Google

I would say that is definitely welcome on /townhall/ as long as—as always—it doesn't become a spaghetti fest or a flame war.

 No.5351

File: 1572309401529.png (30.02 KB, 556x400, 139:100, Kanara06.png) ImgOps Google

>>5350
>spaghetti fest
Um I dunno about you, but I'd love to be a part of a spaghetti fest!

 No.5352

File: 1572320895051.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

...there is spaghetti on his spaghetti alreatti...


 No.5378[Reply]

File: 1574266916565.png (153.02 KB, 487x584, 487:584, A_confused.png) ImgOps Google

So the turn-around time on threads that are locked in /townhall/ is far too long. It is generally taking more than a week for the threads to be reviewed and either closed permanently or re-opened.

By then most of the people who were originally discussing the topic have moved on and the conversation dies. Not only that, this potentially makes it too easy for people to try and silence opinions and arguments they don't like. There's also the issue of trying the punish a person for an infringement that happened so long ago. It doesn't seem conducive to helping that person improve if they may not even remember what was said and why.

What can be done about this issue? Is there any way to speed up the process?
29 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5455

>>5454
She's actually the best person to ask for specifics.

 No.5456

File: 1574676496465.gif (105.46 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 9D638394-F481-4925-8D1A-FE….gif) ImgOps Google

>>5455
I had a weird feeling that it had something to do with her and her sisters.

Anyway, thank you for the advice.

 No.5460

>>5450
>>5452

I became eligible for "parole" after two months (which was back in September). But as far as I know they haven't actually discussed the possibility yet. I don't think it's an on-going thing they keep re-evaluating at set intervals. I think I just have the option to attempt to appeal. I wrote an appeal and am waiting to submit it. But I'd rather not talk about that situation publicly.


 No.5370[Reply]

File: 1573680157578.png (338.52 KB, 1280x930, 128:93, c6b4f80d1c8c5abba7696e760d….png) ImgOps Google

>>5369

>You didn't propose any kind of interesting argument or debate, or ask any thoughtful questions.

Okay, I would accept that but then I would ask where would I post something I would want to share of a serious topic. Especially one which comes with 5 minutes of commentary after the sound clip which I assumed would organically lead to discussion from that commentary.

>Frankly it comes across as asserting yourself under the assumption that everyone must already agree with you.

Okay, this just makes me doubt your judgement of this at all, especially you're priorities.

If this is your actual reason for locking both the townhall thread and the canterlot thread. Well, then I am going to contest the original thread locking.
4 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5375

>>5374
>This isn't about the first thing she said but the second thing she said. Which just fills me with doubts about the sincerity of the first thing she said
Why is that?  (To me, those two things go together quite well.  Rather than trying to neutrally pose a topic for debate, you vaguely assert an opinion as if there were no room for disagreement.)

 No.5376

>>5375

I barely proposed any opinion at all other than basically repeating the title card of the video I posted!

That's why Lunas statement fills me with doubts about her sincerity.

And yours as well.

 No.5377

>>5376
>I barely proposed any opinion at all other than basically repeating the title card of the video I posted!
Hmm, yeah, I guess maybe I was projecting more than you actually said...


 No.4813[Reply]

File: 1564775778932.png (172.38 KB, 1013x925, 1013:925, happyaccidents.png) ImgOps Google

I propose we get some of Thorax's data-purging cronjobs running around here to randomly blast threads and stuff.

It'd improve the stability of the moderation and increase morale as all posters are subjected to an equal source of anxiety.

Can you port those scripts to run here Thorax?

 No.4814

File: 1564791553595.jpeg (39.62 KB, 1194x716, 597:358, D53uO-CUIAAALzo.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I'll present the idea to the staff and in the unlikely event they agree, we'll put the random destruction of the site into the code.

 No.4815

File: 1564799233132.gif (273.83 KB, 570x692, 285:346, derpy-132751747445.gif) ImgOps Google

How about random image derps like in the days of yore?
:derp1:

 No.4816

File: 1564809896506.png (82.93 KB, 720x600, 6:5, yay2.png) ImgOps Google

>>4815
Random is the key aspect of the destruct crons, so other random things should be good as well.

>>4814
Probly best to ensure its a tedious slow deterioration; no one likes sudden nuclear glass.


 No.4787[Reply]

File: 1563330912014.jpg (372.95 KB, 714x1000, 357:500, 1377322261029.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4786
Users should be able to request mod-only responses to their threads on Canterlot.

You should add that to the discussion points.

 No.4793

File: 1563346508412.jpg (48.04 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 70677-500.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4787
This request seems like a good idea to keep canterlot less me vitriolic.


 No.4776[Reply]

File: 1563301287931.jpg (66.77 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 1561658528457.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I noticed that when I switch devices, such as going from my phone to the tablet, the anonymous name you are given in a specific town hall thread will change even though I am on the same wifi.

Do the different devices use different IPs?

Should I try to correct this, or just stay on the same device?

(Guys, guys, how do I computer?)
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4782

>>4776
>Do the different devices use different IPs?
They have different local IP addresses, but your router likely NATs them behind a single shared public IP.  You can find out your public IP address by googling "what is my IP address?" from each device.

 No.4785

Fun fact, not just the ip is tracked. Your password is also tracked in case your phone slips across multiple mobile ips. If you set the password field manually to be the same across devices, you will get the same name.

 No.4791

>>4785
Oh

Thank you!


 No.3564[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1551575683220.png (318.04 KB, 720x720, 1:1, Concerned Celestia.png) ImgOps Google

Please discuss, below. Thank you.
234 posts and 112 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3820

File: 1552934013296.png (162.73 KB, 685x886, 685:886, Capture _2019-03-18-11-19-….png) ImgOps Google

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

"rule breaking incivility"

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

 No.3821

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

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

In all honesty, I do NOT feel welcome on this site anymore and I'm not sure if I want to return. This situation puts me on thin ice for things that are not clearly defined. Not only that, putting me in this situation is going to attract who don't like me and want me gone. They know they only have to push me a little bit to get rid of me forever. They will have their sights on me, it's like blood in the water.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.3823

File: 1553045534899.png (242.52 KB, 1669x1050, 1669:1050, pinkyscrunchnose.png) ImgOps Google

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

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

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


 No.4164[Reply]

File: 1557270620698.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

This site is in desperate need of a filter system.
I know you guys have major aversions to it, but, it's seriously required.
When you have problems with specific users, and we can't seem to get you guys to do anything about them, the only option is to try to ignore them. But, that's impractical. It's hard to ignore posts as a general rule. When someone says something that you disagree with, it isn't easy to ignore them. When they say something mean or dickish or just treat you poorly, and reports do nothing, you respond in kind far too often.

This is leading to fights that don't need to be happening.
It's leading to stress for everyone involved, and it has no reason to be.

Truth be told, I'm  not sure why you guys dislike the idea anyway. There's not really anything wrong with blocking people who treat you poorly out. If it's a fear for what happens to a community that does this, then, I'd point to what's already happening here, because you don't add that.
Again, fights that don't need to be happening, are. It'd be very simple to prevent that.
57 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4295

>>4294
I don't really regard it as a "social networking" place, to begin with. It's just a place where I can hang out for a bit. It isn't exactly a complex or strange item, near as I can tell, to block out a particularly bothersome individual within that hangout space.

I'm really having a hard time understanding why you are here, trying to, it seems, convince me to just give up things.
Like, what's the benefit here?
What are you hoping to achieve? Should I just leave the site instead?

 No.4296

File: 1559773364331.png (155.13 KB, 899x888, 899:888, thinking1.png) ImgOps Google

>>4295
>not social networking
>but a place to hang out

That this is consternating makes me wonder if my brain is broken.

Nevermind, carry on as you were.  Im sure you're fine, don't leave.

 No.4297

>>4296
Social networking, at least to me, implies creating connections with others on a more substantial level. I would go as far as to claim that seems to be the point of a social networking item.
My perspective for this place is much more loose in that regard. I just want to talk to people with similar interests.

To that end, blocking out a particularly bothersome individual that for whatever reason the administration doesn't want to actually handle, it doesn't hurt that particular reason I use this site.


 No.2658[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1544877900249.png (252.6 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop_b.png) ImgOps Google

Unfortunately, as of late, it seems that there's a lot of trouble going around, and, I've always thought this was the type of thing rule 1 existed to fix.
But, it seems rule 1 either doesn't mean what I thought it does, or simply isn't enforced as a rule.

If it's the first, what constitutes a rule 1 violation?
Would calling someone a jerk, saying they're cruel, or insinuating they're being manipulative for the purpose of hurting another be a violation of rule 1?
Would constant hostile accusatory remarks, such as "you're trying to get me in trouble", or "you just want to make me look dumb", not be a violation of rule 1?

If it's the latter, though, I think that needs to change. I'd say Rule 1 is a large part of why this place has been so pleasant. Making people be polite to one another helps to bring about common understanding and build friendships.
Constant shitflinging such as examples above only give scars and disdain towards other users.
73 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4324

>>4321
Obviously this is what I meant.

 No.4325

>>4321
I can get more precise stuff when I am home, but, I do not believe he's somehow forgotten what is literally happened only a handful of hours ago.

he consistently berated the other guy claiming that he was afraid of black people because he disagreed with manly, along with numerous accusations of fear-mongering, political partisanship, outright lying, and so on.
Of course, he justified it as claiming it was only a "probably" thing, as though it wouldn't be insulting for me to say he was probably a pedophile.

 No.4326

>>4315
Like Noonim said, right after I got fed up with you and then Chain called you out on your bullshit and you come back with that incredulous snotty tone you always do after you've started some shit then turn around to play the victim to cover your ass by essentially saying "Me? IIIII didn't do anything wrong, if my behavior was out of line, then obviously the mods would have said something."

Then you go on to justify your behavior toward me and others you do this to by saying we deserved it because our skirts were too short.


[]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]