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

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1441429367283.png (1017.73 KB, 4324x4324, 1:1, princess_celestia_ad_philo….png) ImgOps Google

Canterlot serves as both our moderator board and a site issues board here on Ponyville. You're more than welcome to interact with our staff, and watch how we discuss and handle certain issues on site.

Unlike /cartoon/, /pony/, or any other boards that may follow, Canterlot should remain a fairly serious board. The rules will be enforced much stricter here on Canterlot.

While some generally silliness is expected and encouraged, please also try to keep posting to the other boards.

I hope we'll get to see you around /Canterlot/ now and then! I know our staff ponies will just love spending time with you here in our little staff room.


File: 1512510396706.png (100.02 KB, 1000x799, 1000:799, commission__angel_celestia….png) ImgOps Google

Hello, my little ponies! Here is a list of staff on Ponyville.us. If you have any questions or comments concerning staff members, please use the report system or /canterlot/ to contact them for the time being.

Admins -
!!Celestia - Moony
!!Coco Pommel - Starshine
!!Luna - Dizzy, Abby, Pepp, Savvy, Braze, Chroma, Grace

Sysadmin -
!!Discord - Atticus

Tech admins -
!!Starswirl - Foreground
!!Thorax - Max

Moderators -
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1561428209385.png (1.44 MB, 2240x3900, 112:195, Celestia shines.png) ImgOps Google

Streamlining Canterlot

It is the opinion of the staff that Canterlot has exceeded its original purposes, and requires substantial streamlining in order to make it functional. Canterlot has become an unnecessary dramatic place, and the following policy seeks to reduce that drama first and foremost.

If a user has an issue concerning moderator action to bring to Canterlot, that user shall open a thread, and a moderator or admin will respond. That user may then post a rebuttal and then request a lock. No other users may post in that thread. After the lock is requested, a staff member shall lock the thread, and then provide an answer.

In so doing, each Canterlot thread shall have the user's posts, a moderators answers, and that's it. “Meta” matters will not be permitted on other boards, outside of /canterlot/, with the policy strictly enforced.

This policy need not apply to site discussion threads, which will remain open for all users to weigh in on, provided responses are kept civil and relevant, and the thread OP is tagged appropriately.

Thank you all for your time.


File: 1571378449852.png (199.97 KB, 733x489, 733:489, purple-on-dark.png) ImgOps Google

Purple text in the dark theme is hard to read.  I suggest adding the following to dark.css to get a more contrasting shade of purple:

 span.upquote {
         color: #C000C0;


File: 1570685334347.png (195.58 KB, 700x641, 700:641, 1559760384741.png) ImgOps Google

Since this board is, by its nature, heavily populated by complaints, I would like to make a simple thread just expressing appreciation for all that the site staff does for the site.  Thank you all for helping to keep this site a great place to post on!  You are all appreciated!
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1570815550755.png (1.86 MB, 1280x960, 4:3, aymeric4.png) ImgOps Google

Modding is hard work!

You're all doing great, thank you so much for keeping this place running.


File: 1571002202916.png (1.41 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Celestia flutters.png) ImgOps Google

...gee. thank you, friends. we are trying our best! i am really grateful. i know the staff really needs to see this too.


File: 1571108625121.png (351.99 KB, 746x1072, 373:536, Would you really hit this ….png) ImgOps Google

There is one particular staff member that I think deserves all of the praise.

She knows who she is. So thanks for being a good team member!


File: 1570591861573.png (364.11 KB, 680x854, 340:427, mlp-142870859021.png) ImgOps Google

How do I put text in a "hide" box?  I remember there being a stickied thread here on /canterlot/ with all the formatting codes but I can't find it now.  
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.




> I remember there being a stickied thread here on /canterlot/ with all the formatting codes but I can't find it now.  
Yeah, what happened to that thread, anyway? It was really useful. Tended to jump back now and again to check it for that reason.
Should definitely put it back.

[hide] works as well
Hello world


Oh, I found the thread: >>565.  Somehow it got unstickied and moved to /arch/.  Here is a summary of the tags:
- [b]: bold
- [i]: italic
- [u]: underline
- [s]: strikethrough
- [spoiler], [?]: spoiler
- [hide], [h]: collapse box
- [shy]: small
- [#d#]: die rolling
- >quote: greentext
- <quote: orange text
- ^quote: purple text
- [cs]: Comic Sans
- [tt]:
teletype (monospace)


File: 1570222839375.jpeg (119.06 KB, 401x600, 401:600, 679DFBC1-C50F-481C-9DB7-3….jpeg) ImgOps Google

I can’t make /SS/ threads now? wtf
5 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>What did /SS/ stand for
"Straight shotacon"?  Google tells me that's what it stands for on 7chan.

Either way, probably not an appropriate topic for /pony/.


File: 1570225295437.png (62.61 KB, 422x600, 211:300, A1056A83-80A8-48FE-BAB9-57….png) ImgOps Google

Fake News


File: 1570237925961.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

...lea, i love you, but this sort of content is just not very appropriate for our site. i hope you will understand. there are always other fun topics we can spend time enjoying, together. this one, it is not allowed.


File: 1570219460663.png (642.08 KB, 708x652, 177:163, 71AAB640-668A-40AC-8D1C-59….png) ImgOps Google

I’d like to file a complaint....
my Annuit cœptis novus ordo seclorum thread got deleted, but why? It didn’t break the rules either.
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Are you aware of the true nature of the Federal Reserve?


File: 1570222299035.jpeg (39.17 KB, 325x460, 65:92, 95C76FF3-CFE2-4F96-B1E1-C….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Art thou aware of how badly I wanted to make a post... only for it to get deleted?


File: 1570230810719.png (186.94 KB, 530x600, 53:60, C51D9E71-5FCD-4941-AEB7-C3….png) ImgOps Google

Nevermnd.... I now know why it was deleted. LOL


File: 1569010085733.png (443.28 KB, 1063x775, 1063:775, maverick_nice_b.png) ImgOps Google

As it currently stands, how rules are applied on /townhall/ is unfortunately a bit confusing.
Repeated behavior is demonstrated and posts are reported only for nothing to happen. It's not clear if this is because the offense was too minor, if it didn't apply to the rules, or if there was some other factor considered.
This leads to a lot of confusion of what exactly constitutes a rule violation on /townhall/. Or, perhaps, how specifically such items need to be reported.
I'm hoping this thread can be used to help clarify some things.

For example, what constitutes a violation of rule 1 "1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban."?
What line do we draw for inflammatory or hostile posts?
Would a post, for example, calling someone else's argument "incel rhetoric" constitute a hostile or inflammatory post?
What about accusing someone of "voting against representatives who value human life"? Or perhaps claiming that people in rural areas are "backwards idiots who blame foreigners and minorities for their problems"?
Calling people "racist", perhaps? You're not likely to get a productive conversation if you immediately jump to such accusatory remarks, after all.

How about 1B, "1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion."
Where exactly is the line drawn here?
Would, for example, refusing to address someone's points or arguments unless they've watched a comedian's video constitute a 1b violation?

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1569134051189.png (101.43 KB, 296x292, 74:73, 8.png) ImgOps Google

Exactly this. Which should be expressly against the rules, but, at least when I reported it, nothing seems to have happened. Nothing seems to happen in general when I report, though, which is why I've made this thread.

Would you consider saying that someone " thinks the point of argument is to destroy the other person." is a strawman, or just an ad hominem, incidentally?
I was told it wasn't a strawman, but, I'm not sure. As I understand it, a strawman's a misrepresentation of someone's argument or position, usually in an exaggerated way to make it look as though your own position is the more reasonable.
But, at the same time, I guess there's no real argument in that, it's an attack on motive, so, is that just an ad hominem?

This incidentally brings in the other problem of it being very difficult to tell if the problem why so many of my reports get ignored is due to them improperly citing the issue, when pointing out a violation of the rules.

It's honestly a big source of frustration at the moment. It looks so much like I'm being ignored whenever I report things that I would've thought are rule violations, but, of course, you never are told why they aren't, you aren't even told if they've been seen, you aren't told why nothing's been done, and you aren't told why the reaction that was ultimately given was chosen.
Threadlocks, as well, don't seem to help this. Just boost the confusion.


>Would you consider saying that someone " thinks the point of argument is to destroy the other person." is a strawman, or just an ad hominem, incidentally?
I'd say it's just a raw insult, not a strawman or an ad hominem.  He was just making a disparaging insinuation about you out of the blue, not as an attempt to refute any argument.

> It looks so much like I'm being ignored whenever I report things that I would've thought are rule violations, but, of course, you never are told why they aren't, you aren't even told if they've been seen, you aren't told why nothing's been done, and you aren't told why the reaction that was ultimately given was chosen.
There was a proposal a while back for a system for mods to notify users of the verdict on their reports.  It might be a rather large undertaking though, depending on the state of the codebase.


Seems reasonable enough. Maybe that's more my fault for not phrasing the report right, then?

>There was a proposal a while back for a system for mods to notify users of the verdict on their reports.  It might be a rather large undertaking though, depending on the state of the codebase.
That'd be really nice, I think, yeah. Though it's probably pretty complex, it'd be nice to know that reports're actually being looked at, alone, since often it feels like it's just a waste of a click.

Maybe they could just make reports 'public', in that there's a page where you can see them, with a little "in progress" type mark if someone's seen it and is looking in to it, or a "invalid" tag, if its' been decided it doesn't apply, with a small breakdown within.

 No.4888[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1569452689527.png (442.65 KB, 1063x775, 1063:775, maverick_angry.png) ImgOps Google

A guy comes into my thread, this represents me and refuses to engage with what I have actually said, repeatedly ignores my pointing him to what I have actually said, and yet I am the one who is banned.

What kind of backwards logic is this?

Why the f*** am I being punished for the actions of others?
85 posts and 52 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1569558709464.png (149.21 KB, 304x321, 304:321, where's page two.png) ImgOps Google

You speak long, and in circles, and your point is lost somewhere in the middle. it appears as though you think the rules aren't enforced fairly, and as you spend 90% of your time on a board I don't post on ever, or handle reports on for that matter, I can't really engage with that point. I'll leave !!Luna to handle this, since she seems to be here.


File: 1569558864748.png (38.82 KB, 436x299, 436:299, 17.PNG) ImgOps Google

Well, if you ever want to discuss it more personally, you can always hit me up on discord.
I am perfectly happy to explain my rationale and reasoning, as well as my values and my beliefs.

I think people forget that I used to routinely post on 8chan. Back when it was around anyway. Having or lacking rules isn't something I really care about, so long as the standard is applied evenly.


File: 1569559147589.jpg (51.6 KB, 1138x702, 569:351, RDJ - irisarco.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm going to lock this thread so no one else gets the idea to come in here and harass Noonim for his complaints about the site.

But Andrea and Setsuna, you both know coming into a thread specifically to mock another user is not acceptable.

Noonim, if you would like to discuss your reasoning with me on Discord at Peppermint Snap#4592, we can do that

From what I understand, it's just a matter of us needing to read Manley's responses to your posts more carefully and take time to parse the semantics of the situation


File: 1569179478961.png (121.54 KB, 316x290, 158:145, 6.PNG) ImgOps Google

It's not a matter of beliefs. The man literally says it.
I do not believe that clarifying your statement moments after you make it is "going back'.
And the fact is, like I pointed out >>4878 the language does not work to claim he's saying "white supremacists" as a whole as was suggested are 'very fine people'.
I am not attempting to shut down anyone's arguments, either.

But okay.
I understand.
Any time you say something and clarify what you mean because someone took it a bad way, I'll just ignore that clarification, deal?
It's only fair.(Please don't subvert locked threads. Let's finish our private discussion, first. Thanks.)
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>Any time you say something and clarify what you mean because someone took it a bad way, I'll just ignore that clarification, deal?
>But, and I really do mean this, I am going to misrepresent anything I can grab that any of you say as well, then.
Come on, Noonim.  You're letting your anger get the better of you here.  Please don't make things so personal.

I think you're also missing the timeline of Trump's remarks.  That one video wasn't the first of Trump's remarks.  And Trump is a bit infamous for refusing to acknowledge his own mistakes and instead doubling down on them.  I think it is not completely unreasonable to argue that Trump's initial remarks (which predate the ones he made in that video) were intended to convey that some people (who happened to be white nationalists, whether Trump knew it or not) were very fine people.


I'm just going to paste something here since I feel like it was a pretty strong argument on this particular subject. Historical events are typically much more disputed, just by information involved alone.

"If we were to apply this to something as vague as a historical event, meanwhile, especially given conflicting data and unreliable sources being the Nazi's texts and all, it would be far easier to justify, with a specific interpretation and examination of the text and evidence, the Holocaust didn't happen.
Would this be acceptable? Is this a case of "Your strong beliefs in a subject do not make it an absolute fact", for the people who say the Holocaust truly did happen?
If that's the case, by all means. But, I presumed the rule was specifically for things like the Holocaust."

Problem is that Trump explicitly said "Some", not all as was implied by Elephant. So even if we ignore the context that was provided seconds later, it's still not accurate to what had actually been said.

Beyond that, Trump refusing to back down'd be why he wouldn't dodge the 'white nationalist' angle, near as I can tell.
He would've said something along the lines of "Yes, some white nationalists are good people, who are unfortunately taken in with a bad group". Which I would've agreed with. Again, note the use of "Some" not "All" as was put forward.


Hi friends, please refer to https://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/4877.html

i'm issuing a temporary Canterlot ban for you, Noonim. it won't be reflected in further considerations, but let's continue our private talk to completion, before we make new threads.

In the meantime, i refer you to the first thread, which was locked.


It seems unfortunately at the moment, Rule 4 on Townhall doesn't apply to saying someone's said something they did not. In the case of that Townhall thread, the claim was made that Donald Trump says that white supremacists who are shooting up Walmarts are "very fine people", >>>/townhall/2252
This is naturally, as we can see objectively with the information within this video, not factually accurate. It strikes me as the exact thing that Rule 4 is meant to stop.
Dangerous misinformation leads to dangerous results. Spreading that misinformation as though they are facts leads to some believing these mischaracterizations are true.
Something, surely, as clear-cut as this ought to be pointed at and stated as such. If you want to claim Donald Trump is friendly with White Nationalists, that's one thing. But, claiming he says White Nationalists are 'very fine people' as was done in >>>/townhall/2252 is simply factually inaccurate.
We have evidence of this being factually inaccurate, taken from the very place the original claimed statement was made.

Despite this, Moony says in >>>/townhall/2293 that direct evidence with the man himself flat out saying, clearly and distinctly, that he is expressly not talking about white supremacists or neonazis, and not only that, actively says they should be condemned entirely, is "arguable".

I ask you then, if that's arguable, what isn't arguable?
I mean, I've certainly seen a lot better arguments for the Holocaust being fake than something along the lines of the assumption that ONLY white supremacists were present, which is of course not true anyway.
You can call the event a white supremacist rally, and that's perfectly understandable I would say. But others were there. This is who Trump was referring to. In the video I've linked here, he specifically speaks of this. Should we assume he's lying?
If that's the case, why can't I assume any of you are lying?
What's the reasoning for me not claiming, for instance, Moony's lying when he clarifies something immediately after saying it?

What's the point of the rule if it doesn't apply to objective facts?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1569140122015.png (160.82 KB, 394x311, 394:311, FEEEEEEEEEEELLS.PNG) ImgOps Google

"There were people in that rally, and I looked a night before; If you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough bad people. Neonazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest"

Honestly, if you actually listen to the entire thing, I do not understand how anyone could claim he is saying "white supremacists" are "very fine people".

Hell, even if we assume he is talking about white supremacists, lay out his entire lines explicitly condemning them and specifying he wasn't talking about them, he said only some of them were 'very fine people', and that this was true for both sides, with both sides having very bad people too.

It couldn't even be taken as a blanket claim that "white supremacists" are "very fine people" as was originally put forward by Elephant.
The language just doesn't work for it. Claiming he's saying "white supremacists" are "very fine people" is just factually false in any way you want to break it down.

But, apparently, it's "opinion" somehow?
Is it "opinion" if I made up something one of you guys said?
Would it be "opinion" if I blatantly misrepresented what you said in a way that doesn't even match the text?

If you were looking at this honestly, I do not believe you'd actually agree. I think you're only saying this is acceptable, here, because it is about Trump.


File: 1569173572117.jpg (46.18 KB, 500x372, 125:93, fluffy-bunnies-24.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I think it's not really the staff's job to do fact-checking.  Rule 4 probably was meant to be enforced (by official warnings and bans) only in extreme cases, at staff discretion, not in cases where people make honest mistakes.

>But, claiming he says White Nationalists are 'very fine people' as was done in >>>/townhall/2252 is simply factually inaccurate.
I think some disagreement is about the pragmatics [1] of Trump's utterance "you had very fine people, on both sides".  Semantically, this utterance means "on each side, there are at least 2 very fine people". But I don't think that is entirely what Trump intended to convey.  He probably intended to convey that there are significant numbers of "very fine people" on each side, enough to cover some white nationalists.  Then it would in some sense be accurate to claim "Trump called white nationalists 'very fine people'", in the sense that the he called SOME white nationalists "very fine people".  It would be false though to claim that Trump said that white nationalists qua white nationalists are generally very fine people.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics


File: 1569179305066.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Your strong beliefs in a subject do not make it absolute fact.

To sort of continue Chainwall's thought, it was a White Supremacist Rally, and Trump said there were good people on both sides. He then went back on his statement, and stated he wasn't referring to white supremacists or neo-nazi's, when that's basically who was there.

Now, is he sincere about this latter statement? Maybe. Was he sincere about his former statement? Maybe.

Can you take Trump on his word?

Maybe. And is there evidence to support both claims of yes and no? Yes.

Then is it a FACT? No. And just because you really, REALLY believe it's a fact, doesn't make it so, Noonim.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1568520151535.jpeg (38.33 KB, 305x293, 305:293, 9F9A3D5B-AB33-4D09-92A4-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

r u ‘avin a giggle m8?
5 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1568654081619.png (57.01 KB, 432x600, 18:25, 2C593013-54B0-4C03-ADE7-1D….png) ImgOps Google

Now you’re just being salty, mi amigo.


File: 1568683341757.png (28.53 KB, 209x171, 11:9, rk31.png) ImgOps Google



File: 1568687116676.png (129.84 KB, 894x894, 1:1, shrugpony_scootaloo__face_….png) ImgOps Google

it wasn't me this time


File: 1567375191390.png (9.98 KB, 370x320, 37:32, 4XTFNGL.png) ImgOps Google

Just in case the site staff didn't notice, there are objections to the mod post >>>/townhall/1518 (see the replies to that post).

Personally I think that thread is a clusterfuck that should have been locked at the earliest opportunity.  But given that it was allowed to continue, i think it's an unfair double standard to condemn people in that thread for trying to show Falcon how bad his arguments are by repackaging those arguments with race instead of gender.  If it's dehumanizing when done with race, then it's dehumanizing when done with gender too.
26 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Have you considered the reason this isn't going as you imagine is that you are actually, factually in the wrong? Don't blame the people who have good sense for not dying on this hill with you.


File: 1567387375631.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google



File: 1567387451163.png (798.14 KB, 1232x700, 44:25, day after day.png) ImgOps Google

i've talked with the staff, and done some self-reflection, and i think we need to lock this thread, too.

Noonim, i'm going to ask that you do not make another, but instead come talk to me in private, so we can discuss your points. Maybe we can even have a person to person phone conversation.

If, after that conversation, you and i are not more eye to eye, i won't stop you from continuing another thread or something.


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?


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.


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?


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

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

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


File: 1563333605224.jpg (69.79 KB, 550x490, 55:49, faces_adorableclock.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If the mod team is seriously considering banning all images that contain a Nazi swastika, I would like the Communist hammer-and-sickle to also be banned.

But my preference would be to keep the same rules as before: shitposting with swastikas is verboten, but legitimate uses (e.g., screenshots from  Wolf3D in an appropriate context) are allowed.

Previous related thread: http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/1099.html#1130

Thread tag: site discussion
18 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1563976389111.png (695.89 KB, 853x1024, 853:1024, 465104652.png) ImgOps Google

Its kind of hard to see the good in someone when they just burn down a center killing 45 people in it but hey he found and nursed a box kittens abandon under a bridge right after the attack.


File: 1564015779375.jpg (31.42 KB, 564x630, 94:105, happy28.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Yes, propogating pest species like kittens is pretty heinous.

How does burning down people mitigate the cat crimes?


We're not planning to ban usage of the Hammer & Sickle. Right now the only "No" is Nazi symbolism. You can often discuss the meaning of the symbols without images portraying them on site.

This is not an invitation to post other controversial images, just discuss heavy topics with careful consideration and things should be well.

Individuals that accidentally post these symbols or use them in well-intentioned contexts won't be met with immediately harsh discipline or any such thing.

Further conversation about this will be done with other moderators until we arrive at a final conclusion.

The thread is also being locked due to a rather obscene amount of shitposting.


Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]