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

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

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

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.1975[View All]

File: 1541036956022.png (354.89 KB, 827x969, 827:969, remy_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

Unfortunately I'm posting this from my phone, so I'll be a tad clumsy with this thread, undoubtedly, but, I'm afraid the post eliceted a rather sharp reaction, and, while I'm sure it'd be best to wait until I get home, that's in a lot of time, and I simply do not have the will to ignore something like this.
I am, of course, referring to !!Scootaloo's post here http://ponyville.us/pony/res/849668.html#857859 (pardon the lack of quality crosspost; I was never good at those).

Not only was it incredibly insulting, I had no chance to explain myself or give my own story. Instead, I was berated publicly, for all to see, on something that I simply do not believe to be true.

As I'm sure you can understand, it's thoroughly embarrassing, generally stressful, and, naturally, enraging.

If these sorts of judgements must be made, please, keep them at the very least private, and give a chance to reply. Instead, I have to make this thread, which undoubtedly only further sets us at odds, as I'm certain now all parties feel insulted.

This did not need to happen. I am, and always will be, completely open to discussion from anyone, on any issues between us. While I am certainly bullheaded, you can ask Mikie for confirmation on that, I am also always willing to communicate past differences or issues. Again, Mikie can confirm that.

All in all, I should hope no user needs be berated and publicly shamed like this, and certainly would hope it is not standard practice.
35 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.2027

>>2026
This is basically it. You can make a lot of negative assumptions of people, but, that doesn't mean they're true, and, when it isn't, it's usually insulting.

 No.2029

File: 1541112714698.png (98.73 KB, 797x1003, 797:1003, hoof_up_base__vector_base_….png) ImgOps Google

>>2014
>with this issue of extremely uncivil behavior in political discussions.

So, the discussion about feminists/antifeminists etc that was the subject of the argument, constitutes political discussion?

If so, why was Manley not cautioned about this as a violation of his prohibition, very early on?  In my view it is a disservice to Manley as well as everyone in the community to not be clear with him when he discuses something in violation of his prohibition.

Especially when the purpose of that prohibition was to avert this kind of result.

>>2024
>likes slow and formal

lewd, Moons...  :)

 No.2035

>>2009
>The only reason I am here, making this thread, is because I felt thoroughly insulted, and was given no chance to respond to what I felt was fundamentally untrue.
That would seem to indicate that you are here in the capacity of issuing a complaint, and expect only to be allowed to voice your complaints, and I see no attempts to receive any sort of response. What sort of response, if any, are you hoping to see from the moderation staff, toward this thread?

 No.2036

File: 1541125748052.png (429.73 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_c.png) ImgOps Google

>>2035
Well, mostly what Mooney said, and maybe the post removed.
An apology wouldn't hurt, but, those aren't common, so, I hardly expect it.

 No.2037

>>2036
I'm not sure what you mean by "what Mooney said". Otherwise, you are hoping for an apology for... what, exactly?

 No.2038

File: 1541126417690.png (357.17 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_disappoint_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2037
I'm referring to >>2024 where Mooney had said such things'd be avoided in the future.

As to what for, I'd think it'd be rather obvious given the thread, but, the rather insulting assumption that I'm just out to "prove the other is morally invalid" in an argument, and I'll just try to "discredit my opponent".
It's a rather sharp assumption of character that is simply not true, and it's thoroughly unpleasant when such an item is presented for all to see as though it's fact, with you having no way to tell your side of things.

 No.2039

File: 1541127502594.png (127.68 KB, 317x423, 317:423, 132649055077.png) ImgOps Google

>>2038
Well, I’m not going to apologize for something I don’t believe was wrong. I’ve talked to a number of people and it seems you’ve presented a history of not listening unless you have a distinct motivation to do so. If this is what it takes to get your attention, I’m not apologizing for that. Moony is the chief admin for this site, so I’ll follow whatever instruction he gives us for future action. If you displayed a genuine interest in clarifying what it was that led to such a stern rebuke, and possible actions that avoid it in the future, I might be sympathetic, but I can’t in any professional sense pander to what appears to amount to little more than discomfort toward being scolded.

 No.2040

>>2039
I simply don't believe it to be a true rebuke. But, I didn't expect an apology, like I said. It was a shit thing for you to do, and something that I feel very strongly was completely unprofessional, but, since Mooney's said it's not going to happen in the future, I've not got much more I can say.

You can make your mistaken character judgements as a poster all you like. That's fine. It's a shit move to abuse your position like you did, and then lock the thread to prevent a refutation.

 No.2041

File: 1541128024291.png (349.92 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_annoyed_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2039
And when have I ever presented a history of "not listening unless you have a distinct motivation to do so"?
Just because you're evidently talking to assholes who don't like me doesn't make something true, and it certainly isn't a good justification to go out and talk trash about a user for all to see, as a moderator of the site, without leaving a way for one to defend themselves from your bullying.

I've had plenty of arguments in the past that've gone perfectly fine, where either I or the other person ended up coming to a common understanding, agreeing to disagree and politely exploring the subject, or otherwise ending on friendly terms.

I'm not asking you to "pander to discomfort towards being scolded", I'm asking you not to abuse your position to go around telling lies about someone you evidently have your own personal reasons to dislike.
I'm betting this is from some friends of Thony's, right?
Seems like the same sort of shit I was getting from him and his group.

 No.2042

File: 1541128585664.png (419.25 KB, 888x900, 74:75, does not want.png) ImgOps Google

>>2040
>>2041
I'm not here to win a popularity contest. I'm here to enforce the rules as far as they are stipulated, and beyond as far as discretion allows. I take great steps to ensure my personal opinions are left out of any and all official action as a moderator. I'm not out to bully anyone, nor would I make assumptions about anyone without several indications that it was sound intuition. I made discussion and proper analysis, and made a judgement call. If you think I made a judgement error, you can ask for it to be reviewed, and we will look over it again, but the thread needed to be locked regardless. If you would like for me to explain why I shut the thread down, I am willing to briefly explain it to you. But if all you're here to do is whine, then this thread has most definitely reached its conclusion. I haven't locked it this time.

 No.2043

File: 1541128835393.png (61.42 KB, 279x215, 279:215, tch.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2042
I don't give a damn if you are out to win a popularity contest. That's entirely irrelevant to my point, as is the item of "enforcing the rules". For someone who's berating me for supposedly not listening to others, it's quite abundantly clear you don't care one single bit when you think you're right. You're perfectly happy, it seems, to make your own moral condemnations of others, and justify your attacks on them. Ironic, considering your complaints. It's becoming increasingly evident it's flat projection of your own total failings on to me.

And if you've got a complaint about that, you think it's too rude, well I'm afraid it's my observation, it's my judgement call. I made that assumption with several indications, and it was sound intuition. If you can do it, if you can make gross assumptions of intention like that about others, I damn well can do the exact same to you, and it's just as fair, just as right.

 No.2044

File: 1541129012629.png (381.37 KB, 733x649, 733:649, 133773970795.png) ImgOps Google

>>2043
I can see you're upset. If you're interested, we can discuss the legitimacy of what I said, after you've had time to calm down.

 No.2045

File: 1541129191327.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2044
Nah, go for it. I'm willing to hear, even if I think it's trash, given that I've had countless perfectly reasonable discussions with plenty of other folk all over the place.

That post was mostly me pointing out the hypocrisy, and of course applying the whole "don't actually give people the benefit of the doubt, assume the worst" on you.
That, and complaint that you didn't listen in the slightest to my complaint, since it had absolutely fuck-all to do with the whole "locked thread" thing.
I was always fine with that. Hell, it worked out better when you guys were more liberal with thread locking.

 No.2046

File: 1541129709600.png (86.94 KB, 245x333, 245:333, 11 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

I mean, I guess I do have a few complaints as far as the whole "warned" lot goes, as well as the actual end result for what specifically isn't allowed, but, that's for >>1978 , not really for here.

This thread, here, was quite specifically because of the insulting post you made.
Nothing else.
Because, honestly, while I would want clarification for exactly what is the problem and what is going to be done about it, I don't care so much as a quarter as much as I do about the issue of berating users and making gross mischaracterizations that the user cannot defend themselves on.
That's my problem at least as far as here is concerned.

Gotta deal with issues like this one step at a time. No sense solving a bad sparkplug before a shattered driveshaft.

 No.2047

File: 1541130441596.png (93.36 KB, 235x254, 235:254, 6 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

Mooney, if you want to hit me up over discord, my handle's The River Acis#1230
Discord's a tad odd about spaces, sometimes, though.

I'm not sure all what's left to say, honestly, but, if you're wanting to discuss things further, that's the best place to reach me.

 No.2048

File: 1541131289495.png (403.88 KB, 3000x3400, 15:17, 1236466__safe_solo_vector_….png) ImgOps Google

>>2045
Please forgive my indirectness. I've had my time wasted by whiners who only wanted a stage in the past, and had to be sure you were genuinely interested in a real discussion before opening the table to further debate.

Basically, the idea of the benefit of the doubt extends only so far as is possible while maintaining order. If a situation gets out of hand, as the thread in question did, action must be taken, regardless of who is at fault. This is why threads get locked initially.

After a day however, several members of the modstaff had expressed that they felt neither yourself or Manley was interested in the topic of the debate so much as disproving your opponent, and the fact that the words "your opponent" is so difficult to avoid speaks to the hostile nature the argument had taken on. At this point, had I immediately taken action, I would definitely be in the wrong, as this is indeed a groundless assumption based on nothing more than intuition. However, as I have been trained to know (for other purposes that happen to be applicable here) intuition is simply the subconscious mind noticing something that the conscious mind is not immediately aware of, so I looked further.

During the thread, you displayed numerous signs that you were more interested in winning a perceived battle with Manley than you were in disproving his arguments, or even proving your own. Let me not be vague about these:
When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.
Here I see four things:
Ignoring attempts for clarification
Debating against a point that was not made
Refusing to remain on fair playing grounds
Personal attacks over logical discussion.

Any of these on their own could be dismissed as human error, but collectively they paint a picture of intentional ignorance of the topic, and blatant attempts to unseat your opponent, rather than his arguments. This and the supporting opinions of several of the modstaff led to the conclusion that hostile debate would continue if we unlocked the thread, and it was decided that a public post should be made warning both of you against further action, and why.

I said I would be first to admit if I'd acted rashly, and I do admit that "morally invalid" was perhaps a poor choice of words. Furthermore, I do apologize if our analysis of your actions was ultimately incorrect, but given the evidence, there is little else we could conclude. In that light, opening the floor for discussion without solid reason to be certain you wouldn't simply whine and produce more senseless debate would have been folly. I won't apologize for locking the thread, nor will I remove the post, but I am sorry if I've caused you any undue stress by my failure to speak as clearly as may have been necessary at the time.

 No.2049

File: 1541131543580.png (164.03 KB, 1330x1556, 665:778, 133645553529.png) ImgOps Google

>>2048
part of my post went missing
>Let me not be vague about these:
>When Manley pointed out that feminists doing bad things is not the same as anti feminists doing good things, you ignored that, and continued to debate against a point he had not made.
>When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.

 No.2050

File: 1541131651909.png (104.17 KB, 1800x614, 900:307, bannana.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2048
I'm a tad confused how you could get that from this line. I had clarified that as [what I had thought would count as] a nonpolitical item, that being using it purely as an example of an innocent person wrongfully attacked. Unfortunately, Manley is very vague on what exactly is effected by his ban, and so I didn't, as said earlier, and ultimately said by Thorax too, give it much thought.
Either way, I clarified the use of the example in a manner that Ithought'd get by his political whatnot. But, following that I was met with;
>"You think Kavanaugh was innocent? Oh boy, yeah, no I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... man."

 No.2051

File: 1541131797164.png (155.06 KB, 1533x899, 1533:899, 1538667437024-kick-antiabo….png) ImgOps Google

>>2050
I'll admit I was annoyed with this response, so I said "Right, so you're in direct opposition to the presumption of innocence.", since he's using the whole thing as a big judgement of me, apparently.

At that point, he threatened me, and I told him to stop slandering me.

Either way, I didn't ignore an attempt at clarification, or refuse to remain on a fair playing ground. I didn't make personal attacks at that point, either. I did, sort of, argue against a point not made, but, I was a tad pissy at the whole "Man. Just... What the fuck".

 No.2052

>>2048
>his and the supporting opinions of several of the modstaff led to the conclusion that hostile debate would continue if we unlocked the thread, and it was decided that a public post should be made warning both of you against further action, and why.
Which would be fine if it didn't also include a fair bit of berating and hostile assumptions. As said, this is my issue, here, not the locking of the thread.
I hate to repeat myself, but once again, you aren't listening to me. Especially given that you say you "won't apologize for locking the thread". That wasn't the point.
That was never the point.
That's not what I ask you to apologize for, either.

What I take issue with is the personal attacks you made. The assumptions of character. That's it.
Please stop lumping in the whole locked thread lot on this.

 No.2053

>>2050
Please note, I am not saying that Manley hasn't also displayed numerous signs of disproving you over pursuing actual debate; we are not discussing Manley's actions right now.

He did, however, have reasonable concern that we as the Modstaff might not agree with your analysis of whether Kavanaugh counts as a political topic, so it seemed fair of him to ask for a different example of the same item, so that he could discuss it safely. That is why it looked badly on you when you ignored this request.

And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack, since you are attacking the person, and not their argument.

>>2052
Are you saying you weren't upset that you couldn't respond? That is the effect produced by locking a thread.

 No.2054

File: 1541132433471.png (371.66 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2049
>When Manley pointed out that feminists doing bad things is not the same as anti feminists doing good things, you ignored that, and continued to debate against a point he had not made.
I don't even remember that point ever being made.
I'd need a link to what you're referring to.
>When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.
He didn't ask that, he responded incredibly rudely. He said, as I posted here, >>2050
>"You think Kavanaugh was innocent? Oh boy, yeah, no. I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... Man. Just... what the fuck."

It's really starting to seem to me that you skimmed the thread, or otherwise just didn't read it at all. You followed what someone else said on the subject, but didn't actually make an effort to follow the conversation, and used this poor skimming of the thread to justify personal attacks on the users involved.

Maybe you have some hard time following along posts. I can understand that, given the repeated ignoring that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the locking of the thread, or even the threat of a ban. But, if you do, please, get someone else's position who does spend the time to properly look through things.
It's not cool to make a bunch of accusations about others based off what is becoming increasingly obvious is poor understanding of the situation at hand.

 No.2055

File: 1541132750661.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2053
Like I said, I tried to break it down as a simpler item, because Manley routinely discusses countless items I would consider political, including Feminism which is literally a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, at significant length.
I gotta be blunt with you, this seems to be an issue of the administration fucking up with that lot.
He should've never been given a political ban. It clearly didn't help, at least not in its current form, and it certainly makes his own posting a bit more stressful for him, given that he's explicitly asked several times for more clarity on the subject, while being largely left with only more vague items.

>And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack, since you are attacking the person, and not their argument
I don't think I did that.
If you've got a post to cite that, then, by all means. But, I'm fairly sure I didn't do that. Rather, I tried to clarify the context, so that it'd be fine, I figured, since he's discussed other similar items in the past without evident issue. Again, we were literally discussing a political ideology.
Like, I'm really not sure at all what the ban covers, and still am not.
Also, if claiming someone's "dodging an issue" is a personal attack, then surely you'd agree your post was also a personal attack, and therefor, ironically, violates the rules in that regard.

>Are you saying you weren't upset that you couldn't respond? That is the effect produced by locking a thread.
Being unable to defend myself is a compounding issue.
Being lied about sucks as is.
Being unable to defend yourself from that lie makes it a whole lot worse.

 No.2056

File: 1541133036560.png (252.6 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop_b.png) ImgOps Google

I want to make it really clear here since i've had this issue since Manley's ban was started:
I have absolutely fuck-all understanding of where it applies.
Hell, ask LP, it's a routine thing for us to mention whenever he gets antsy. Usually it's met with a "well, this doesn't have to do with actual policies in America, so it's fine", which is hardly what "politics" encompasses.

He genuinely always seemed to just discuss topics on a whim, and take issue with topics on a similar whim. With the annoying penchant for saying you're "trying to get me banned", whenever you try to argue with him. See the anon from the night prior to this whole thread's fiasco.
He might think some subjects are fine, and others are not, but, I've got no telescope into his head, and I can't read minds. I don't have a clue what he believes he's allowed to talk about.

I straight up, 100% here, have absolutely no clue what the ban is actually for.
It seems to be entirely unenforced, and thoroughly useless.
As such, as I said in the thread, and Thorax was nice enough to confirm:
>>>/pony/857172
>" noonim didn't specifically use an example just to trap you. That isn't the kind of guy he is. Like I said, he probably doesn't even think or care about your politics ban. He's just making the arguments that make sense to him."

 No.2058

File: 1541133749013.png (159.26 KB, 1020x1024, 255:256, hmm.png) ImgOps Google

>>2054
>>When Manley pointed out that feminists doing bad things is not the same as anti feminists doing good things, you ignored that, and continued to debate against a point he had not made.
>I don't even remember that point ever being made.
He said it here
>>>/pony/850852

>When Manley mentioned that discussing Kavanaugh would be in violation of his ban, and asked for you to stay within topics he could meet you fairly on, you ignored that, and pushed that he was trying to dodge something for which he had no argument.
>He didn't ask that, he responded incredibly rudely. He said, as I posted here, >>2050
He did, actually, here
>>>/pony/857093
>That's a political issue, you know I can't discuss those. Use another example.


The issue of feminism as a political topic has been discussed, and it has been determined that up to this point feminism has not been regarded as a political topic, and therefore is not among the topics Manley has been banned from talking about. We are discussing among the moderation staff whether or not it should be added for the future, but at present we have determined that Manley has not violated his ban, and has followed its restrictions admirably despite enormous pressure to break them.

>And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack, since you are attacking the person, and not their argument
I don't think I did that.
>>>/pony/857125
>it isn't fair that you get to use your van as a cudgel to bully others into agreeing with you or leaving off statements that you make that are incorrect.

>Being lied about sucks as is.
Saying something untrue without knowing its untrue is not a lie. lies are intentional misinformation. I have never lied about anyone.
>Being lied about sucks as is.
As has been explained, it was determined that opening the floor to further debate would have been folly. If this is not the crux of the issue, perhaps I have misunderstood something. But it has been my understanding that you are most upset about the thread being locked, disallowing you from responding to what you perceived to be false statements about your character.

>>2056
Thank you for your feedback on that. I'll bring it up for discussion to see if something can be done to make things less stressful on everyone.

 No.2059

>>2048
>During the thread, you displayed numerous signs that you were more interested in winning a perceived battle with Manley than you were in disproving his arguments...
Let me just say that on multiple occasions multiple people have had misunderstandings of what Noonim was trying to say.  Of course some (perhaps most) of the 'blame' for this goes on Noonim for not expressing himself clearly.  But I don't think it's fair in an official mod post to assert as fact (as opposed to indicating that it's only your perception which might be wrong) that Noonim was arguing in bad faith.

>>2054
>It's not cool to make a bunch of accusations about others based off what is becoming increasingly obvious is poor understanding of the situation at hand.
But now you too seem to be doing the same thing you complained of, Noonim.

 No.2060

File: 1541134477910.png (91.63 KB, 440x309, 440:309, 61b60ec0e5455529be3ec540f9….png) ImgOps Google

>>2058
>10/21/18
Besides that;
>he said it here
No he didn't.
The full text of that post is >>>/pony/850852
>"I didn't ask you for cherrypicked examples of feminists doing bad things. Of course you can do that. Anyone could do it with any group. You said that the burden of proof was on me to show that they were feminists who dont act the way you described. I'm asking you to do the same for anti-feminist. What anti-feminists are actually open to debate and not just dismissive of the movement as insane bitches?"
And, by the way, this post was a major contention, because the line there?
>"You said that the burden of proof was on me to show that they were feminists who dont act the way you described."
That's not what I said. That was never what I said.
Again; You should know this if you actually read the thread.

He did, actually, here
I was meaning after my clarification. But, yes, he mentioned it early on, and I expanded it to field it as something that should slip by. Since, so much else of his posts do.

>The issue of feminism as a political topic has been discussed, and it has been determined that up to this point feminism has not been regarded as a political topic, and therefore is not among the topics Manley has been banned from talking about. We are discussing among the moderation staff whether or not it should be added for the future, but at present we have determined that Manley has not violated his ban, and has followed its restrictions admirably despite enormous pressure to break them.
Okay. But, I hope you understand this adds MASSIVE confusion on what the ban applies to.
No reasonable poster should be expected to know, because nobody fucking knows, nobody fucking says, and nobody makes any of this shit clear.

>it isn't fair that you get to use your van as a cudgel to bully others into agreeing with you or leaving off statements that you make that are incorrect.
Fair enough, but, ironic, considering this is an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me.
So, if you're okay with agreeing your post was a personal attack, and that it was not an okay thing to do, then I can agree that I lost my cool there. I shouldn't've made accusations like that, that aren't necessarily true, even if I did believe them.

> If this is not the crux of the issue, perhaps I have misunderstood something.
The crux is what you said about me.
I am really not sure what I can say to make you understand this.

 No.2061

File: 1541134922926.png (131.25 KB, 377x311, 377:311, 1.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2059
That's part of the point, actually, but, yeah. I probably still shouldn't do it.
It's always a tad easier to assume the worst of someone who does the same to you. It's why I had a big trouble with Manley for a while now, thinking he was always willfully being dishonest.
Because it's super easy to do when the guy thinks you're some kind of evil racist, always trying to muddy any issue, trying to get him banned, and so on.
Well, that, and honestly some of the mixups, like the whole "feminists that don't act the way you described" and later "antifeminists don't deplatform people" seemed so blatant, I didn't think there were alternatives to willfully misinterpreting them. I mean, I really don't see how you misunderstand calls for evidence of antifeminists doing what was said to be done by feminists as the complete opposite, but, eh.

Though, funnily enough, that's also a decent example of my own miscommunication, as, I had mistakenly used "antifeminist" in the first place when I really meant something like "classical liberal", "liberalist", or "egalitarian". Too much time on youtube, I think.
We ended up sorting all that out, though, in a completely different thread, funnily enough.

 No.2062

File: 1541135655545.png (147.95 KB, 900x1115, 180:223, 133669232431.png) ImgOps Google

>>2060
>And, by the way, this post was a major contention, because the line there
A single line does not discredit an entire post. The fact that he stated
>I'm asking you to do the same for anti-feminist. What anti-feminists are actually open to debate and not just dismissive of the movement as insane bitches?
stands.

>You should know this if you actually read the thread.
based on what you've said, I can see why you think I didn't read the thread. I think it should be clear by this point that I did. Please do not continue to assume that I haven't read the thread. Making multiple official posts in a thread I had not actually read would definitely be a misuse of my authority as a moderator.

>I expanded it to field it as something that should slip by. Since, so much else of his posts do.
After which he reasserted that he can't talk about it. That should have been reason enough for you to continue discussion using a better example.

>confusion over the political ban
I understand that it is confusing. We had not considered feminism as a political issue before now.

>Fair enough, but, ironic, considering this is an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me.
You've lost me here. What do you mean by "an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me."?
>So, if you're okay with agreeing your post was a personal attack, and that it was not an okay thing to do,
I don't think you've been paying attention. I've explained why I will stand by the post I made. This was all simply to help you understand what it is that led to a stern public rebuke so that you can avoid it in the future. plenty of other users do it just fine. If having a patient discussion with you is what it takes to accomplish the same for you, I'm very willing to sit through it.

>The crux is what you said about me.
>more concerned with proving that the other is morally invalid than you are with discussing the topic at hand.
This?

 No.2063

File: 1541135697681.png (403.88 KB, 3000x3400, 15:17, 1236466__safe_solo_vector_….png) ImgOps Google


 No.2064

File: 1541136398943.jpg (90.62 KB, 437x416, 437:416, 18.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2062
>The fact that he stated
No it doesn't.
Because I never put the burden of proof on him to describe such an item, and I wouldn't, because that's not how proof works. You don't prove a negative.
It's not a productive argument, which is exactly why I didn't address it: It was built on a false premise.

>Please do not continue to assume that I haven't read the thread.
It's really hard not to, when you so thoroughly miss the point, but, fine.
I can just keep explaining items done.
It's easy enough.

>After which he reasserted that he can't talk about it. That should have been reason enough for you to continue discussion using a better example.
...Do you mean >>>/pony/857094 ?
I really hope you don't mean the post where Manley says "Oh boy, yeah, no I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... man. Just... What the fuck?"
Because that's a really, really, really bad example of much of anything.

>I understand that it is confusing. We had not considered feminism as a political issue before now.
It's... Literally a political ideology.
One that has made and is making major waves across the internet, and really the world in general.
I'm honestly not sure how you'd miss such a massive and important step.

>You've lost me here. What do you mean by "an observation made with the exact same criteria you applied to me."?
As you stated in >>2042
>" I'm not out to bully anyone, nor would I make assumptions about anyone without several indications that it was sound intuition. I made discussion and proper analysis, and made a judgement call. "
Essentially, I'm saying I made an assumption with several indications that it was sound intuition. As, y'know, you did.

>I don't think you've been paying attention. I've explained why I will stand by the post I made
At the same time as critiquing me for doing what you did, yes.
> This was all simply to help you understand what it is that led to a stern public rebuke so that you can avoid it in the future.
You can best avoid it in the future by not making negative assumptions of others, generally assuming the worst because you didn't actually bother to speak to the users involved.
> plenty of other users do it just fine
How many other users have been publicly berated with a false assumption made on their character, and then had the guy who made said false assumption, critique them for making false assumptions of others?

>This?
Along with the suggestion, as said multiple times in the thread, that I'm just out to discredit my opponent, yes.
Honestly, I don't get why you're only now understanding this is, and has always been, my issue.
Like, I've said it some dozen times in the thread.

>>2063
Dunno what that means bruv.

 No.2065

File: 1541136776579.png (104.56 KB, 458x217, 458:217, 1224214.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2059
Honest question, now, Anon: Am I really that bad at communicating?
I mostly ask because, on top of the whole issue of Scoots not really getting the main point, he also seemed to not follow the context of the argument me and Manley had, and, I keep having to repeat myself overall. And of course, I've never really had much luck getting Manley to understand me.

What exactly am I doing wrong? Are things too long-winded, maybe? Do I need to greentext more, or less?
I thought I had put out my words as clear as they can be.

 No.2066

>>2050
While I have tried to get clarification on what my ban intakes, I haven't be vague about what I think my ban constitutes. I've always stated that I believe it applies to the activities and people associated with the governance of the United States of America.

This is the definition I operate with, and I have not been told by the modstaff that this isn't the case. As such, feminism does not fall under this definition, but discussing a member of the supreme court would.

 No.2067

File: 1541137163746.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2066
Wait, so you can talk about foreign politics without any issue?
That's even weirder.

But, yeah, that's why I had originally clarified my use of Kavanaugh to be outside the activities, as it were. Though admittedly that leaves off the "people" part. I'm not really sure why it'd matter if you talk, say, about the car Bush drove, or the clothes Romney wore, and so on, for example.

I unno.
It's a weird thing, and thoroughly useless you ask me.
I really don't know why they bothered with it in the first place, truth be told.

 No.2068

File: 1541137382129.png (132.27 KB, 1016x787, 1016:787, huh.png) ImgOps Google

>>2064
asking for an example of an anti feminist who is open to debate is not a negative, and I'm not saying you put burden of proof on him for anything.

>...Do you mean >>>/pony/857094 ?
No, I meant >>>/pony/857121 after a brief debate over whether or not you were intentionally debating, he made it very clear that he still felt the topic was off limits to him.

>Essentially, I'm saying I made an assumption with several indications that it was sound intuition. As, y'know, you did.
Very well.

>How many other users have been publicly berated with a false assumption made on their character, and then had the guy who made said false assumption, critique them for making false assumptions of others?
I'm not seeing where I critiqued you for making a false assumption. that's an honest mistake. Is that what you think this is about?

 No.2069

File: 1541138053649.png (134.83 KB, 450x261, 50:29, 5.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2068
It's not a negative, it's asking me to prove a negative, and besides that, it was irrelevant to my argument.
It's also easy as fuck to do, and I could've literally referenced a guy that I have referenced countless times already in that thread: Sargon of Akkad. It'd be a worthless item to ignore maliciously, as again, so easy. The problem is, I didn't ignore it out of malice or dodging the argument: I was quite clear why I ignored it.
Because it was irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Ever hear the phrase "What's that got to do with the price of tea in China"?
That's what it boils down to.

>No, I meant in...
That was in reply to Boat, not me, and it was after he said I was intentionally trying to get him banned, which is why at that point the conversation moved away from the actual discussion of topics, and into me getting annoyed that he was doing, honestly, more or less the same thing you did.

>I'm not seeing where I critiqued you for making a false assumption. that's an honest mistake. Is that what you think this is about?
You said in >>2053
"And claiming that someone is dodging an issue when they aren't is a form of personal attack"
You were claiming that I was only out to prove myself right, and that I was just trying to discredit my opponent.
Is such a claim not also a personal attack?

>Is that what you think this is about?
Bro, I'm really, really trying here.
I've told you exactly what this is about so many times, here.
I just... If you can't follow along, maybe you can get someone else, perhaps?
This thread's got some seventy odd posts, already, and I really just can't keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
It's seriously depressing. And I really don't need more of that in my life right now.

 No.2070

>>2067
As far as I'm aware it only pertains to the US government. I don't know much about other places governments, so it's never come up.

And I'd say it's pretty clear that a court case a member of the supreme court had over his fitness to be on the supreme court is a different matter than the type of car a politician drives. Bush's car exists outside it's relation to Bush.

 No.2071

>>2069
>If you can't follow along, maybe you can get someone else, perhaps?

You really shouldn't be so condescending when people don't understand you. It's something you do a lot.

 No.2072

File: 1541138457948.png (310.51 KB, 583x433, 583:433, 10 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2070
True, but, I wasn't really talking about the case, as much as the response the allegation received.
Still, fair enough, I guess. I don't know how exactly the ban works, so, if you can't talk about political figures at all, that's that.
Should've brought up someone else, like that kid Mattress Girl went after, or that one football team. I dunno.
>>2071
I'm not being condescending.
I'm genuinely thoroughly exhausted.
It's 1 AM, I've had an absolutely awful week, and I'm having to keep repeating myself over and over again.
All the typing is causing some serious pain in my hand, too, where I had broke it a year ago, so that's not helping either.

Like I said, this whole thing is just starting to get more and more depressing, and, the way things are going, that's the last thing I need.

 No.2073

>>2072
Yeah, when I said "you know I can't discuss that. Use another example.", you should have done just that, not implied I was dodging something.

Well, if you are repeating yourself over and over and the other person is not getting it, why do you assume it's a problem with them and not the way you are trying to communicate it? Why not try communicating it a different way?

 No.2074

File: 1541138858888.png (395.97 KB, 945x969, 315:323, bryce_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2073
Meh. Maybe if you approached me more calmly like this, rather than running the whole "Oh boy, yeah, no I don't need another example. I'm done here. Not only because I can't discuss that, but just because... man. Just... What the fuck?" lot.
But, you're not entirely wrong.

I've tried that. I've rephrased it some dozen different ways.
I dunno how else to put it, man.
Like, there's only so many ways you can say "My issue specifically is with the accusation made here", at the end of the day.

 No.2075

>>2074
That came after I said, calmly "You know I can't discuss that. Pick another example." and you refused. Yeah, that was a bad response, but I tried calmly and got rebuked.

 No.2076

File: 1541139192355.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2075
Nah, what I had tried to do is rephrase it around the political aspect, since I figured the politics side is largely irrelevant to the treatment following an accusation.
Also... You did say "he got away with it", so, y'know. It seems you can say some things on the subject, for some reason.

 No.2079

I guess it's kinda amusingly fitting, given Manley T. McDragonpuncher's name and Noonim's avatars, that Manley and Noonim don't get along. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 No.2080

File: 1541141932910.png (445.5 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_giggle_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2079
People've pointed out that before, yeah.

 No.2081

File: 1541142625603.png (2.15 MB, 1488x2194, 744:1097, 1537091686245.png) ImgOps Google

>>2070
>As far as I'm aware it only pertains to the US government.
I'm sure it also applies to state and local governments.  And, you know, the purpose of your politics ban was to stop you from getting into the kinds of fights that you always get into when you try to argue in political threads.  So really, to comply with the spirit of your ban, you should ask yourself if you're about to argue in the same manner that you've done in political threads, and if so, then you shouldn't post like that in any thread that could reasonably be construed as relating to politics.

>>2065
>What exactly am I doing wrong?
One thing that might be helpful is to look at how people respond to your posts and see if they might be misinterpreting what you wrote.  Based on their response, look about over your post and see if what you wrote might be unclear, vague, or ambiguous in such a way that they are interpreting it differently than you intended.  If you think a miscommunication may have occurred, focus in on it and seek to clarify.

 No.2082

File: 1541142667701.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

this is a lot of text and back and forth for me.

i really, really do wish we could do this by e-mail, instead of like this.

What i will say of Manley's political subject ban is this...

Feminism, i think, is absolutely a political topic. As far as the political ban not having what you or lost pony perceive to be consequences, we don't exactly make that stuff public (for the reasons you see in this thread).

But, it has had an effect: a positive effect, even.

>>2076
He isn't, and you aren't allowed to lead him into trying to debate that, either.

i really cannot go and read all of this, noonim, or go back to read all of that huge thread. It's really giving the staff a headache too.

>>2070
Manley, as far as the topic of politics, we've absolutely discussed in private before that politics pertains to all matters political.

"the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power."

so... please? no more. We're starting with a clean slate, but i do want you to know we're still keeping count here.

 No.2083

File: 1541142961795.png (368.56 KB, 827x969, 827:969, remy_shy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2081
I've been trying that. Guess I'll keep at it. Maybe I'll try being more brief.
>>2082
Email is impersonal, slow, and too cold in general. While I understand some people's preference for it... Can you imagine going through some 70+ different emails trying to keep track of what is what?
I wouldn't want to deal with that.

>He isn't, and you aren't allowed to lead him into trying to debate that, either.
Was never my goal. Like I said, I can't tell what limitations there are around his ban, unfortunately, as feminism, for example, was fine until now.

>i really cannot go and read all of this, noonim, or go back to read all of that huge thread. It's really giving the staff a headache too.
I totally understand. Most of it's been a back and forth from me and Scootaloo, here, who doesn't quite seem to understand that my issue here, at least as far as this thread goes, is entirely to do with the accusations made.

Honestly, there's not that much left for you, as far as that sort of thing goes. I would prefer the post be deleted or otherwise modified, though.
Although, this is less important now that it isn't on the front page any more... Still, though.

 No.2084

File: 1541144303421.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>2083
i wouldn't say feminism is fine: it's just, we didn't catch it in time, and it's not really fair to go back so far now and retroactively act on something both parties got so confused over

scootaloo's post, you mean, deleted or modified?

 No.2085

File: 1541144471398.png (299.85 KB, 660x872, 165:218, zhong_serv_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2084
That's fine, I guess. It's a bit of a confusing ban in general.

>scootaloo's post
Yeah, basically.
It's not a huge deal now, though, since it isn't on the front page any more.


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