[ 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.1978

File: 1541037044752.png (43.41 KB, 242x179, 242:179, 1443133621434.png) ImgOps Google

>>857859
>If either of you allows yourself to engage in this sort of behavior again, both parties involved will receive bans
Well that seems awfully unfair.  If only one party is guilty, then shouldn't only that party be punished?  I don't think this is like a "it takes two to tango" situation.

 No.1979

File: 1541037202949.jpg (89.36 KB, 520x553, 520:553, 39051e54b5e5f7d032514ea99e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Both parties were at fault.

 No.1980

>>1979
Maybe this time.  But what about next time?

 No.1981

File: 1541038033229.png (15.72 KB, 400x400, 1:1, f767fdd11e2a6faf4d33c6478b….png) ImgOps Google

>>1980
They'll be banned.

 No.1982

>>1981
But what if only one party is at fault next time?

 No.1983

File: 1541038276764.png (15.72 KB, 400x400, 1:1, f767fdd11e2a6faf4d33c6478b….png) ImgOps Google

>>1982
I'll assume that the other party will acknowledge the danger of continuing such petty trite and discontinue the conversation.

 No.1984

File: 1541059691689.jpeg (170.53 KB, 750x600, 5:4, 103.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>1982
I'm quite happy you made this thread, because I think there was room for some negative interpretation in that situation.

So I am only a community liason, so I have no actual mod power, and no final say in the decision making process, but...

Here's how I see it. I brought in the idea that this had received enough warnings at this point that the users should be given a final warning so that any eventual bans wouldn't come as a big scary surprise.

I brought this up because these discussions have now seemed to incur multiple first and second degree violations, coming often from both sides.

I felt like the best way to act congruently with the new rules system was to inform them that further discussion of this sort would be met with some sort of mod action. Since we can't differentiate who caused these discussion from the complicated history between the two it seems only right that they should receive the same warning. Action taken will still be debated in the mod chat, and if it seems very clear that either one of them is trying to de-escalate, that person shouldn't be punished in that particular instance, so there will still be that consideration. But if they are caught in a discussion together and it has the same tone and format as we've seen earlier, then they will both receive their first ban. As long as this is being considered a first degree violation ban, this means that escalations to a second ban will only have a greater ban time, if it happens within a reasonable period of time from the first ban.

I hope that gives some insight into the process that can put some minds at ease.


If that's all that needed to be said, I think it's best if we try to round of the discussion, or at least move away from focusing on the negative, as it seems they have endured enough lately.

 No.1985

>>1978
Doesn't really involve you, why you trying to stir shit?

 No.1986

>>1978
It might have been phrased better but it does say "both parties involved" so it's not like theres going to be a lighting bolt that strikes the other person who isn't involved at that time.

>>1984
Rose,

Where you been?

As to the thread, i don't think there were nearly enough mod warnings, as i've stated before about other squabbles.  Early on, Moons popped in and told people to keep it civil, then at the end Scootaloo had something to say.  All through the middle there was a complete lack of mod warnings that might have driven both people back to their corners before things got so far out of hand.

I understand why:  mods have their own lives and don't get paid to do this.  Things happen fast, and its textwall after textwall and it made my head spin to try and catch up when it's happening.

Nonetheless, there absolutely needed to be a stern mod warning somewhere between Moons's and Scootaloo's.  Maybe, some extra half-mods need to be appointed like maybe you and Thorax, who already have access to mod chat, with a mod privilege (under a mod account label) to issue stern warnings.  Something like "you are both violating Rule 0, knock it off".

I personally feel there were not even close to enough stern warnings to that effect.


>>1985
Imo if this conversation continues, it should be moved to Canterlot.

 No.1987

File: 1541067236035.png (221.68 KB, 800x532, 200:133, 60.png) ImgOps Google

>>1986
Just around. I don't post so much any more because I don't feel the need to.

> All through the middle there was a complete lack of mod warnings that might have driven both people back to their corners before things got so far out of hand.
That is completely false, but thank you for the feedback, and for informing us of the change that you would like to see. Somewhere in that massive sea of posts, mods and admins were present several times and told both parties to stop what they were doing. It wasn't very official looking all the time, and it certainly wasn't stern, but it happened. The official warning has been given now, and no action has been taken yet.

I like the aspiration, but it's not really in the cards. Both me and Thorax are taxed to the absolute limit of what we are capable of handling in personal and work life, and aren't really the kind of stern authority figure type one would want for the job anyway. Adding us as mods would do very little to increase the frequency or sternness of warnings.

I'll put in a request to have this moved to Canterlot ASAP

 No.1992

Seems like a good solution to me. I literally do not understand the outrage.

 No.1995

>>1987
Well i don't want to challenge you, Rose, but i followed that thread pretty close and maybe i missed portions of it because i was busy working and doing homework but i will when i can look it over to see because i didn't see any significant warnings before the final stern one.

If my perception proves true i will report back to this thread and assert it because the only thing that makes the steep ban schedule acceptable are the assurances that warnings would preceed any bans.  While one very firm warning has been made and no bans have been given, my feeling is that once again parties were allowed to offend over and over without stern warnings and some of the contemporary other thread OPs show clearly that several posters were made uncomfortable by that ongoing squabble.

 No.1996

>>1995
There were no warnings. the mods only stepped in at the very last moment.

>>1992
Nobody actually involved has said anything yet.

 No.2000

>>1996
I stand corrected. Looks like the other guy does have a issue with it.  I'll have to look at all this later

 No.2028

I still have no idea what the warning is for, or even what prior warning are being referenced.

 No.2030

>>1984
What do you mean by "tone and format", exactly? I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what that means, or how best to avoid things, as it seems we still ended up with a fairly big threat after insults and such had largely stopped, unless you count the whole "your trying to get me banned" jazz, but that seemed insulting, rather than an insult.

 No.2031

>>1987
I only ever saw that occur once, unless you can count Thorax's post. So, I can hardly see how you can simply label it as "false". Seems a tad of a stretch.

And of course that formal warning was for a completely different item, I might add. It seemed to be largely solved.

 No.2077

>>2028
Then you really need to use your thinker a bit. It's not so hard.

>>2030
It's stuff that would fit under 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8. You say largely stopped. But you were still claiming that Manley was making up things, you were still arguing about feminism and nazis, making broad and generalizing statements about who Manley is and what he stands for. This is so easily identifiable as actions that will inevitably incite more discussion and more namecalling and threats, it's a fucking mystery to me how you can't see it. Both of you were way over the line, and it should have been clear. If you can't see that then I just can't help you.

I'm sorry I'm being so short with you, but honestly you've run my patience dry.  

>>2031
>>2000
There were actually three attempts that I can see now to get you to stop doing what you were doing, all coming from members of the staff, and I'm really tired of having to have this conversation over and over again to you guys. This is the last time I'm going to comment on this.

I will make an argument that the mod team should be more clear in the warnings, and always have their mod tags on when they do this kind of thing, but you guys have to be able to see them too. This is not so complicated, and you're both adults. Being told once should be sufficient, being told three times should never cause you to come back whining here that you don't think you've recieved proper warnings.

>>1995
I guess since you haven't reported back that means you're convinced now?

 No.2078

File: 1541140796708.png (252.6 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2077
>Then you really need to use your thinker a bit. It's not so hard.
Can you not make it clear?

>But you were still claiming that Manley was making up things , you were still arguing about feminism and nazis, making broad and generalizing statements about who Manley is and what he stands for.
What exactly do you refer to?
Like I said, it seemed to be mostly going pretty well ,up until when he accused me of trying to get him banned, anyway.
I'm not really sure what the "claiming Manley was making up things" has to do, but, that's because a massive part of the conversation at hand was to do with a complete misunderstanding. But, that's hardly an insult.
>Both of you were way over the line, and have been for months. If you can't see that, then you're seriously a lost cause.
Perhaps. My issue is that you didn't deal with it then, and seemed to deal with it now at a rather low point, without warning.

>I'm sorry I'm being so short with you, but honestly you've run my patience dry.  
Perfectly understandable.
It'd be preferable to have a warning that might end up the case, but...

>There were actually three attempts that I can see now to get you to stop doing what you were doing, all coming from members of the staff, and I'm really tired of having to have this conversation over and over again to you guys. This is the last time I'm going to comment on this.
I only saw one, unless you count Thorax's post.
And that one was pretty settled, you ask me.

>but you guys have to be able to see them too.
Wasn't able to see it here. Mod tags would massively help with this, as well as being generally more direct. There are four total cases of a mod tag, following a quick ctrl-F for !!. Three are at the point where the thread was locked. Only one came before, and, it was mostly kept within that, honestly. Or at least I thought it did. There was only case of insulting items, rather than actual insults.

>being told three times should never cause you to come back whining here that you don't think you've recieved proper warnings.
If we were told three times, I'd agree.
We were not, however.

 No.2086

File: 1541162769568.jpg (3.65 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 20181025_205854.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2077
I "have not reported back" because i am uncertain what is appropriate behavior for me in this situation.  Since you call me out in particular, i am 100% convinced that:
1.  There were inadequate mod warnings in that conversation, and
2.  Manley should have been warned that he was in clear violation of his political prohibition and this hasn't even been clarified for him now, and
3.  It's a bit outrageous to claim that this is all Noonim and Manley's fault considering the above points.

Rose you know how deeply this kind of thing can hurt feelings and in my opinion your tone towards Noonim is condescending and inflammatory.

Also i don't feel it's appropriate to directly address my silence as complicity considering Manley has already expressed his feeling that my words in this are because of my "vendetta" against him.  From the sidelines i am deeply disturbed by the failure to clarify for Manley that he's been so deeply in violation of his political prohibition without any correction from mod staff.

In my view, what we have here is a bad parenting behavior where setting boundaries for one person is ineffective because that person tests those boundaries repeatedly without any correction.

Yes the two parties were out of line.  But, one of them is a chronic offender who is under special restriction specifically because he tends to hurt people.  Then when the other party is hurt, those who set that special restriction are failing to take responsibility by 1) clarifying sternly that the one who violated his special restriction has done so even in a clear statement, let alone with any disincentive, and 2) blaming the other party publicly in this case with the assertion that they did not fail to take responsibility at the time.

So again Rose, i held my tongue because what i have to say is very harsh.  Not because i agree that it's fair to state that the blame is fairly and equally placed on Manley and Noonim and that mod staff gave adequate warnings before taking their final action.

Edit:  ah Moons has clarified the nature of the political prohibition here: >>2082

 No.2105

>>2086
I understand that my tone towards Noonim is not the best, and I can understand it being hard, and even scary, considering your history with staff, to speak about controversial subjects with me out of fear for how we might percieve your opinions. These are sensitive topics, and people are riled up.

The tone I take with Noonim is certainly not forgiving, I can accept that. I do try to be civil at the outset when I can, and maintaining that tone doesn't always work out so well for me. I find arguing with Noonim tedious and unpleasant, and I should try to do as little of it as possible, if I can't talk to him and also keep my tone in check. Fair.

But they're not kids and we're not parents, you can see that, right? Those aren't really the standards we should be judging the situation by. And if you're expecting us to treat every individual user of this site with the level of care that a parent would a child, you're misrepresenting the actual relationship, and you'll be sorely disappointed every time. There's a reason why we want kids to grow up, and not remain kids their entire lives. Because we need them to grow up in order to have functional social systems. If users are in need of "parenting", it is not our responsibility to provide it.

I mean you said you were going to report back if you found flaws. I wasn't sure, but I assumed since you hadn't reported back... I'm sorry if that bothers you.

So, you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is, because Manley has special restrictions placed on him, and has been in trouble with the mod team before, it cannot be anyone elses fault if he is caught in a scuffle with someone else, and the matter is political, is that correct? Noonim is also a cronic offender, and his actions in this thread were really pushing the boundaries of the rules, in a lot of the modstaffs opinion crossing them, regardless of whether we believe that Manley was out of line, which, if you'll notice, we also do take that stance in this instance. It's not just Manley, and it's not just Noonim. It definitely appears to me, that we were seeing a nearly equal amount of troubling behavior coming from both of them.

Even if we take this notion of Manley being in the wrong and run with it, it does not negate how others act against him.

I also believe the situation is more nuanced than that.

 No.2107

File: 1541200131773.jpeg (398.42 KB, 692x600, 173:150, 88.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>2086
>>2105
And actually, it might please you to hear that was not so harsh. I find your tone actually a nice reprieve from the discussions I've been involved in so far.

 No.2114

File: 1541210809206.png (98.17 KB, 292x216, 73:54, cereal.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2105
>Noonim is also a chronic offender
Huh, would've never known but for this word here, seeing as nobody's ever seen fit to tell me it.

But, I don't think LP's point was that it was Manley's fault. Rather, I think LP's point was that the mods keep dropping the ball in this regard. Very few warnings are ever given, Manley's political ban is incredibly vague and also rather unenforced, and overall, there seems to be a rather sharp lack of communication when it comes to the overarching issue here.
I personally think I'd agree, over all, as it seems Manley didn't know feminism was not an allowed topic. Manley seemed to believe he could talk about most anything unless it pertained to politicians or policy. Which certainly doesn't fit my standard of 'politics' which is why I had always seen it as that he seems to argue what he wants to.

 No.2122

File: 1541274826511.jpg (2.9 MB, 4160x3120, 4:3, 20181103_011708.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2105
Sigh.

I fear nothing, Rose, least of all what others may think of my words.  That is part of why i've gotten myself so easily in trouble and why it is best that i hesitate to criticize others.

You and I are both rage-a-holics, Rose.  We both have more to fear from our own self-judgment than what others may think of our words.  I felt, as i am certain others do, that the less i interfere with issues like this one, the better.  The temptation to get up in other people's business makes me frown at myself.  It often doesn't turn out well.

I too find arguing with Noonim to be tedious and arguing with Manley is worse.  Which is why he has a restriction in the first place.  That posters on this site are made uncomfortable by such knock-down drag-outs is why Manley should have been warned much sooner, not because he is wrong by definition.

It's been made clear that the political nature of the subject material was not fully understood by the staff.  As a result, i feel my accusations of their negligence are baseless and highlights why my own high-and-mighty judgment of others is rather better kept to myself in most cases.  With more information, my assumptions are often proven wrong.

Anyway i have more things to say but i am just going to drop this now.  I don't want to keep the fires burning.


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