[ 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.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.


 No.3375[Reply]

File: 1551066496458.png (127.44 KB, 252x305, 252:305, 13.PNG) ImgOps Google

So, this probably ought to be a given, but, rules should be visible on the front page where you'd normally find the rules.
46 posts and 27 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3429

File: 1551234267399.jpg (36.89 KB, 216x180, 6:5, snail_heart.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3428
> Near as I can tell, it's never been about politics, the particular issues, but rather civility.
I gotta agree.  The latest incident involved, oddly enough, epistemology in regards to the nervous systems of gastropods.

 No.3432

File: 1551255413572.jpg (173.56 KB, 1600x1260, 80:63, galapoint1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3429
It was actually about empathy.  

In particular, whether it's being exhibited by those discussing which creatures might have it.

 No.4123

File: 1554310072823.png (422.17 KB, 512x512, 1:1, 3513122455fd2d14fd4b357eb9….png) ImgOps Google

>>3383
>...i agree 100%, we should have put the policy on the frontpage, or in /rules/. it's an ancient policy though, and it didn't cross my mind.
Bump.  We're still missing the link to the political-drama policy on the frontpage and on /rules/.


 No.4138[Reply]

File: 1556046660311.png (784.46 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, -_S6E1.png) ImgOps Google

>>>/pony/940584
>Sailboat, my friend, that's totally uncalled for.

I'd just as soon not see threads about politics on /pony/, but when you have an entire thread devoted to mocking our current President, over an issue which is nothing more than a distraction from actual issues, then yes, I'm going to put things back into perspective.
22 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.4161

File: 1556514171628.jpg (225.89 KB, 1000x800, 5:4, 1399335564664.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Politics on pony isn't really a problem IMHO.  The real problem is the lack of fluffy tails.  We need more fluff!

 No.4162

Regardless of whether or not it was a "dogwhistle" It's still basically bait, if the bitter reaction of people like RS in that thread to other people mocking mistakes authorities make is any indication.

 No.4163

>>4162
>Threads mocking President Trump are just bait.
Yeah, nobody would want to genuinely express criticism of Trump.  Any such criticism is merely intended to rile up other people. :dash3::dash3::dash3:


 No.2930[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1548786462877.gif (465.29 KB, 1006x1261, 1006:1261, 5cb03db7f499135264217cec1c….gif) ImgOps Google

For about 6 months I was under what was called a "political ban", where I was banned from discussing "political" topics. This ban has since expired, and I am currently operating under the assumption that I am no longer under it's restrictions. However, I have not received any official statement from any of the modstaff on the matter, and I have heard that they are considering reinstating the ban. I am making this thread to officially state my position that I feel it should NOT be reinstated. This thread can also serve as a place to discuss the issue publicly for the sake of transparency.

There were many issues this created for me and I feel that the ban did little good and much harm. For one thing, I was not allowed to defend my viewpoints on certain topics or discuss things as any other poster was allowed. This was alienating and stressful for me on many levels. Not only that, it allowed other posters to harass me by saying I was refusing to defend my position because I could not defend my position, rather than because I was not allowed to. This happened to me on a few occasions and was very hurtful and often felt like baiting. The parameters of the ban and what is and isn't considered “political" were never clearly defined, making it difficult to adhere to from the start. I often got no response or contradictory statements when seeking for this to be more clearly defined.  My second and probably most important point, is that despite all the stresses following it caused me, the political ban did not actually accomplish what it was created to achieve. My understanding is that it was created to lessen the heated arguments that were becoming a problem on the board. But preventing me from defending my position on political topics did not stop this from happening. People still reacted in the same ways and caused big arguments on other topics, such as video games and "SJWs". What is the point of extending a ban that did not achieve what it was created for? There are already rules in place to prevent harassment and derailing, the things this political ban attempted and failed to prevent, making it redundant. But beyond just the issues and stresses the ban caused me personally, banning specific people from discussing specific topic sets a bad precedent on the board. Almost anything can cause a heated debate. Someone's opinion on Star Wars characters could create a heated debate depending on how oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
79 posts and 25 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3076

File: 1549501111593.png (83.07 KB, 517x240, 517:240, rose_agreetodisagree.png) ImgOps Google

>>3074

I just finished reading that thread.  

>>3069
Rose most certainly NEVER told you that you were wrong.  He said he agrees to disagree, which means exactly what it says:  that he disagrees, and doesn't wish to argue.  No one in the history of language has ever misinterpreted this statement as "You are WRONG".

When someone agrees to disagree with you, you do not continue repeatedly telling them that they are wrong, and accusing them of knowing they are wrong by refusing to defend their position.  It means they don't want to argue, so leave them alone.  Yet, you badgered him until he wished to be anywhere else but here, pic related.

Thorax stepped in and explained it to you, and you told him that he is wrong.

I simply cannot understand it.

 No.3077

>>3076
>Rose most certainly NEVER told you that you were wrong.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?

 No.3078

>>3077
I edited to fix the links right after posting, must not have updated timely for you.


 No.2742[Reply]

File: 1545117782954.png (154.81 KB, 916x872, 229:218, muffin_cannon_by_maximilli….png) ImgOps Google

I suggest repealing the mandatory minimums and the "three strikes" style ban system. Giving someone a weeks-long or even months-long ban for a small violation isn't really fair and doesn't make sense, even if the offending user had accumulated a few bans for other small offenses. Mods should be free to give small bans (e.g., a few hours or a day or two) for small violations and to give warnings for cases that could be interpreted as a violation but are ambiguous.

(Thank you to Thorax for suggesting that I make this thread in >>2740.)
27 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3030

>>3029
>>3023
To clarify, Fox news has absolutely been posted before without issue.

Don't be a user with an enormous history of political drama, and then make a thread for designed, or with the appearance of design, to create more political drama.

The side you're on, liberal or conservative, is of no consequence.

 No.3058

Since this thread got bumped, the Ban escalation schedule really DOES need clarification and probably amending as well.

 No.3070


Maybe the ban escalation schedule has merit.

I withdraw my request to reconsider this area of the updated site rules.


 No.3031[Reply]

File: 1549239411899.gif (2.28 MB, 439x318, 439:318, 7db.gif) ImgOps Google

I'm guessing you guys have been pretty busy, but it looks like the spoiler text [?] isn't working.

No big rush or anything, just wasn't sure if anyone noticed it yet.

 No.3032

testing.. spoiler
spoiler


 No.2635[Reply]

File: 1544158838104.png (79.35 KB, 782x744, 391:372, 2lcuxox.png) ImgOps Google

Maybe a Christmas theme to help make the Yuletide gay?
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.2639

File: 1544389692266.png (348.56 KB, 382x469, 382:469, wat 2.PNG) ImgOps Google

What iff, there's a snow effect that you can toggle on a dark theme?

 No.2640


 No.2695

hm...


 No.3421[Reply]

File: 1551146587093.jpg (134.4 KB, 500x480, 25:24, badger snuggles.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hey, feel free to lock/delete this but I just want you staff to know that I think you're all doing great, and I appreciate what you do even though I may not always be the easiest poster do handle.

You've all taken a beating lately, but I'm proud of all of you.

Have a good day.
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3423

File: 1551148774733.png (2.19 MB, 3840x2160, 16:9, 1551146024868.png) ImgOps Google


ditto.

 No.3424

Hell yeah. Mods rule.

 No.3437

File: 1551412472862.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

...gosh, well, thank you, friends. we really do try! we really do.


 No.3505[Reply]

File: 1551460997200.png (296.6 KB, 1024x1188, 256:297, twilight_sparkle__2_by_vad….png) ImgOps Google

This morning I had a thought that I would like to share.  I'm not suggesting any particular mod actions; this is more just food for thought.

I think a major source of nastiness on this site is treating discussion of a disagreement as some sort of a verbal battle instead of as a shared search for truth and knowledge.  Political topics are especially prone to this, but it happens on other threads as well.  I think threads would go a lot smoother if all participants took responsibility for becoming informed on the topic under discussion and trying to understand others' positions and questioning their own positions, with the ultimate goal of either (1) reaching agreement on the disputed matter after carefully considering evidence and reasoning or (2) coming to the conclusion that both positions have some merit due to factual uncertainties or differently weighing competing values.

I know this can be difficult in practice, but I think even just making a good-faith effort to strive toward this goal would help make things a lot smoother.

Please do not bring any prior drama into this thread.  (If you want to use an example to illustrate a point, don't use something that happened on this site.  Perhaps use a hypothetical instead.)
53 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.3559

File: 1551503547543.png (38.24 KB, 189x230, 189:230, 1534190600347.png) ImgOps Google

>>3556
I asked some stupid question once and Tracer gave me a LMGTFY link and it was fucking hilarious.

What search terms to use can be legitimately important in finding right result, plus if i remember right, it did actually run the search for me too.  (Its the only time i've seen it so cud be rememberinh wrong)  so it's legitimate even if a tad sarcastic.

>>3550
>It is perfectly reasonable when presented a disagreeable assertion to request that the person putting forth that assertion provide more information.  
>It's also reasonable not to provide more information if you really don't want to!  Like legitimately maybe you don't want to talk about it, that's fine

Hmmm this seems particularly reasonable to a lost pony.

Especially when, for example you're at work and are able to engage on the topic of how sexy dragons are, but don't really have the focus required to explain or lookup basic physiology.  *cough hypothetically.

 No.3560

File: 1551506965096.png (101.43 KB, 296x292, 74:73, 8.png) ImgOps Google

>>3559
It's definitely sarcastic, but, I've always thought of it as a tad tongue in cheek, than 'rude'.
And like you said, it is fulfilling the rule of question-asking.

I dunno. I guess I'm a tad thicker skinned around it. It's something of an old-internet item, anyway.

 No.3561

File: 1551511396411.jpg (57.42 KB, 1024x749, 1024:749, 1551386928803.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3560
Perhaps a tad too thick, like dragon scale.

Wheat just started a thread about a very specific topic with no links at all and some are asking questions and others are pulling up links to foster sharing knowledge.  Seems an example of what OP is wishing for.


 No.2702[Reply]

File: 1544921316850.png (380.72 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, 21767 - artist-madmax bedm….png) ImgOps Google

So, Iara was just banned on /pony/ for one of her silly bandwagon threads.

Sorry if this seems like putting extra pressure on the mods, but could we modify that ban notification to cite and show what reason Iara was banned?

 No.2703

File: 1544923571979.png (657.88 KB, 892x720, 223:180, 1174251__safe_screencap_ra….png) ImgOps Google

Sorry about that, I should've posted alongside it.

This was their ban message if it helps any though:

"You were warned earlier about infractions to rules 7 and 8.  You then posted "I wasn't planning on deleting my thread tho. I wanted to keep it around because I love being provocative. In all senses." afterwards.  You then posted a thread to try and continue being mean to people, ironically or not that's against the rules.  You are now being banned for 4 hours due to breaking 5, 7, and 8.  We ask that you please stop breaking the rules and be nicer to others. Thank you. -!!Rainbow Dash"

 No.2704

>>2703
Gonna be bluntly honest: I think my ban was stupid.
I should have been warned/banned for the first thread I made. THe second thread was just a dumb meme bandwagon, that was all made in comedy.

The first one I got a warning on WAS pretty rude tho, and I would have accepted nothing less than a ban from that one.


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