[ 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.2658

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

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

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

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

 No.2660

Though, come to think of it, I suppose calling people jerks or calling them cruel would really be a rule 5 violation.
Hmm
Well, either way, we shouldn't have that sort of thing thrown around.

 No.2676

File: 1544882680075.png (127.68 KB, 317x423, 317:423, 132649055077.png) ImgOps Google

>>2658
This is a fair an legitimate concern, and I think it stems from the subjective nature of what I believe is an intentionally nebulous rule
>Rule 1. Please keep posts generally respectful towards others
I think originally we hoped that people would simply follow rule 1 naturally, and never stopped to truly consider "what if they don't?". I consider it a failing on our part as the staff that we do not have an immediate answer for this, and I appreciate you bringing it forward like this so that we can discuss what truly constitutes a rule 1 violation, and better define it for the future.

 No.2677

>>2676
Don't feel too rushed on it. I understand it's a fairly complicated item.
I really think rule 1 is why this place has the culture it does. The sort of friendly atmosphere, anyway. You can't really make 'enemies' if you have to be polite. And, of course, friends are much easier to make, in the same way.

 No.2680

>>2658
>Would calling saying they're cruel
Depends on if they are being cruel.


>insinuating they're being manipulative for the purpose of hurting another
In my mind, no. Because the chances of them actually doing that are not zero. To say that this is an automatic violation of rule 1 would be to open a lot of people up to possible manipulation.

>Would constant hostile accusatory remarks, such as "you're trying to get me in trouble", or "you just want to make me look dumb", not be a violation of rule 1?

Again, I would say no. Because the chances of those things being true are again, not zero. Sometimes people DO try to get others in trouble, they DO try to make others look dumb. Simply pointing out the possibility is not a violation of the rules.

>Would calling someone a jerk
This is the only one of your criteria that has some gray area issues. It COULD be considered an insult, without context. But Society doesn't really have a good word for someone who is cruel, manipulates or tries to belittle others that DOESN'T sound like an insult without context. If you have a word one could use for these people that doesn't sound like an insult without context, I'd like to hear your suggestion.

 No.2685

File: 1544899735688.png (238.54 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_normal.png) ImgOps Google

>>2680
Regardless of if they are cruel or not, it is still insulting. it's not a civil thing to say to one another. Regardless of if somebody is actually cruel or not, which might not be the case.

I would suggest that assuming the absolute worst in somebody because there is not a 0% chance is pretty generally rude, and certainly uncivil. I would not consider, as an example, me calling you a pedophile, because there is a chance greater than 0% that you are one, to be respectful.
Or do you think it would be acceptable for me to go around the site saying "Manley is a pedophile"?

See above. Same response.

I'd recommend critiquing actions taken, rather than the individual. That'd be the best solution if you're to remain civil and respectful.

 No.2687

File: 1544901613242.gif (261.63 KB, 400x225, 16:9, tumblr_n4xg9xksQ51rc4ikio1….gif) ImgOps Google

Sometimes the simplest solution is the right solution, even if it doesn't seem like it.

I'm thinking maybe we should try this, if it shouldn't have already been being enforced anyway.

The only time that I have ever personally had a problem with politics on this chan, is when fights broke out.

 No.2688

>>2685
How is it insulting to call someone cruel if they are being cruel?

"Manley is a pedophile" has no evidence behind it. You have no reason to be saying it EXCEPT to be insulting. However, if you actually had evidence that someone was a pedophile and you were trying to raise awareness of this fact, that would be a different situation.

 No.2690

>>2688
It's an attack on one's character. Of course it's insulting.

You don't have evidence for the accusations you tend to make, though. Just insinuations and assumptions. Why couldn't I do the same, let's say, over your CMC posts?
I'd say that'd be quite thoroughly unfair, and as said, disrespectful, a thing for me to do. Wouldn't you?

 No.2694

File: 1544903271339.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

The new policy we've implemented concerning politics is directly inspired by your comments on Rule 1, Noonim.

Disrespect is rampant on the site in the singular place of politics, from our observations.

We haven't had Rule 1 appear in any other context, in any significant way.

There are occasional violations, of course. And, as always, we prefer to handle these issues privately.

This political issue has become too much work for our staff to handle.

The staff we've put together is already working overtime to address the daily 300 post political threads and fights.

And they are volunteers.

i myself, i'm awake at 5 AM, i'm at home by 8 PM, i'm in bed by 10. i haven't the life to handle the fighting that occurs in a 300 post thread.

We're looking into alternatives such as higher numbers of staff, policies, or community participation to help us enforce more precisely the terms of Rule 1.

i hope you will understand then that this new policy is in direct response to that need, but pinpointed at what is the biggest source of trouble.

 No.2696

File: 1544903596100.png (1.91 MB, 1920x1382, 960:691, cgadine2.png) ImgOps Google

>>2694
I can somewhat understand that logic, but, it still seems to me simply applying rule 1 in absolutely any capacity, at all, as opposed to what currently appears to be literally never, would fix most of this issue without limiting people who want to talk politics and don't have that problem.

I'm certain people would understand rule violations not being dealt with immediately, because of how busy the staff is. I'm perfectly fine with that. My trouble is more how threads are just locked, and no violations are addressed in any capacity whatsoever.

 No.2697

>>2694
>community participation

I would hope that this could work the best

 No.2698

>>2697
It depends on what that means, I guess.
If it's documentation for later rule enforcement, then yeah, that'd be great.

But the primary violators of rule 1 that I've seen don't seem to care about simple social pressure.

 No.2699

File: 1544904540469.png (328.39 KB, 680x620, 34:31, yess.png) ImgOps Google

>>2696
What currently appears to be never is to some extent by design. We don't like to call out users, and as far as rele violations not being dealt with immediately...

the rule violations of that kind are always wrapped around political debates, always involve five to twelve reports from users on both sides, and always involve multiple references to past threads, or buried comments, in two hundred + post textwall filled threads.

This eases that, and makes the enforcement or Rule 1 for this particular issue, in which this arises, far easier, more public, more visible, and more effective.

>>2697
...i hope so too. i'm still working on some ideas for that, Ella. like a neigh-borhood watch sort of thing c:

 No.2700

File: 1544905370767.png (240.73 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop.png) ImgOps Google

>>2699
Dealing with things privately like that, while understandable, is liable to cause users like myself to feel like if their reports are just ignored, and nothing is ever actually done.
if you don't want to reveal things into the public space, perhaps the answer is to tell the reporter what has been done about the violation that they had reported.
Transparency to the people making reports would, in my opinion, go a long way towards dealing with at least my own feelings of being sidelined, or otherwise not considered.

As to the issues of large threads,I can understand that being a problem, however, from what I understand, reports go to the post reported, do they not?
I understand context is important, however,a violation should be a violation. Regardless of the context. Context might suggest that both parties are guilty of being disrespectful towards one another, but, as an example, if one user calls another a jerk, that's disrespectful in its own right. Perhaps I'm being a bit callous, or just too literal with the rules, but, my stance is, a violation is a violation, regardless of why it was done.

As far as the political ban item goes, I just don't really see the logic in enforcing a new, rather difficult to understand rule on the people who already have a rule that exists and is easily understood, but at the very least isn't enforced as strictly as the new rule would be.

 No.2781

I feel I need to bump this, given developments elsewhere.
Really want some clarification on rule 1, and how it is used.

 No.2784

>>2781

thorax and some other mods -myself included- are looking into reformatting the ban and warning systems to better favor preventing the harassment and insulting of users

trust me when i say it massively upsets me as someone who cares most about protecting others, but we don't have a concrete answer as to what Rule 1 is right now

 No.2789

>>2784
Fair enough. I'd certainly like to add my thinking in that, then.

I'd consider "respectfulness" to essentially mean not insulting one another, being uncharitable or otherwise assuming the worst of others, being accusatory, or engaging in significant hostility.

 No.2795

>>2789

>assuming the worst of others

i'm not sure how we'd punish something like that

acting hostile, yes, that's easily going to cause immense issues and needs examined, but most everyone makes bad observations and assumptions

same with being accusatory

i don't think accusing people of shit they didn't do is good, but i don't see how we'd enforce that without going full-on debate forum level moderation, which is something we aren't capable of

 No.2796

File: 1545245999777.png (313.92 KB, 945x827, 945:827, anna_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2795
When I say assuming the worst in others, what I am talking about is saying that they are trying to get you banned, just trying to make you angry, saying they're racists, saying they're just trying to be cruel, etc.
I'm not talking about simple attitudes, or anything like that.
I'm talking about Manley's "it's more than 0%" attitude of accusing others of things they haven't done or aren't doing for his sectioned reasons.

this type of thing is 90% of my issue with talking to manly, and, if you can't do anything about it, I would really appreciate you guys rethinking the filtering system. Because, if that type of behavior is allowed, I really don't want to be subjected to such Behavior. I'd rather just simply filter him out, so I don't have to see that sort of nonsense.
Being somebody who has an extremely strong sense of justice, if there is one thing I absolutely despise, it's false accusations.
It's why I get so upset at Manley, as well as the staff for doing nothing about that sort of thing.

I understand Mooney has objections to that sort of system, saying it runs contrary to his ideals for the site and its culture, but, this type of thing is the main source of stress when it comes to the site for me at the moment.

I wouldn't think that it's something that would require debate style for moderation, as what I'm referring to is a bit more specific than that. It's describing hostile intent, where I have issue, rather than somebody simply saying, let's say, "you believe the Earth is flat" or similar.

 No.2797

>>2795
>but i don't see how we'd enforce that without going full-on debate forum level moderation, which is something we aren't capable of

>>2796
What I suggested in >>>/rules/12 was: "Don't make negative accusations about other people's intentions".  Does that cover your concern, Noonim?  I think that would be an easily enforceable standard.  It would catch ad hominems like "I know you're just trolling me", "you're not arguing in good faith", "Ahh, you're still stuck in Angry Jack mode. Explains a lot.",  etc.

 No.2798

File: 1545250364300.jpg (81.39 KB, 497x353, 497:353, s4.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2795
To clarify, the stuff I'm talking is the examples given in OP. Those are things that have actually been said to me and others.
They aren't in any shape or form productive to any conversation, and only serve to attack others, make them out to be bad people.

Those are the type of things I don't want to keep getting thrown my way. It really sucks.

 No.2799

File: 1545250505487.png (384.88 KB, 945x969, 315:323, bryce_normal_b_flip.png) ImgOps Google

>>2797
Certainly would go a long way. I'm not sure it would capture everything, but it definitely would get the majority of things.

 No.2802

we really do not have the manpower or emotional power to go around explicitly preventing logical fallacies in threads

that simply requires a level of attention and stability the staff cannot manage right now

 No.2803

File: 1545272113972.png (121.54 KB, 316x290, 158:145, 6.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2802
We're not asking for logical fallacies.
We're asking for, as anon wonderfully put it actually, "Don't make negative accusations about other people's intentions"

As I've put in my OP with multiple examples, the issues I have are when people say you're just dong what you do to hurt them, or to try to get them banned, and so on.
These aren't some minor item, they're quite explicit in their meaning.

Nobody's asking for you to do debate-style moderation, as I had stated in >>2796
I just want a certain someone to stop constantly accusing me of extremely shitty things. That's it. Those accusations hurt a lot. I'm sure you'd feel the same way, if you got them every time you interacted with someone.

 No.2805

>>2802
Maybe it's time to get new staff.

 No.2806

>>2803

i think you may be asking a little much of the average person, here

if we start punishing people for making assumptions, i think most everyone would be in trouble/banned in short order

don't get me wrong, i was really hurt by people making negative assumptions, to the extent it gave me and some of my sisters PTSD, but i can't see how we'd realistically enforce it

>>2805

not likely

 No.2808

File: 1545272863892.png (91.63 KB, 440x309, 440:309, 61b60ec0e5455529be3ec540f9….png) ImgOps Google

>>2805
It's not just assumptions, though.
It's particularly hostile and mean-spirited assumptions. Assumptions built to discredit and attack someone's character.
Things like "You're just saying that to hurt me", or "You're just trying to get me banned", or "You're just being cruel", and so on.

If it's really not something possible to enforce, you guys really need to reconsider the filter system.
If we can't keep such attacks out, the least we can do is give users the option to not see said attacks day in and day out.

Even if it still leaves those attacks visible to others, hurting your reputation, at the very least, you don't have to constantly take the harm such statements dish out.

 No.2809

>>2806
>if we start punishing people for making assumptions, i think most everyone would be in trouble/banned in short order
It's not really about making assumptions.  It is about asserting negative intentions of other posters.  This is a clear, bright-line rule IMHO.  Maybe it needs to be a new rule.  And it would cut off some legitimate speech, but not very much, I think.  But I think it would be very easy to enforce (when a post is reported) and would do a great deal to stop the negativity in controversial topics.

 No.2810

>>2809
>>2808

i'll talk with staff about it

it's not that i disagree, just that it seems like it'd go downhill fast

 No.2811

File: 1545278934913.png (310.51 KB, 583x433, 583:433, 10 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2810
Maybe, but, do you think it'd be worse than the current state of constant fights and growing hatreds?
I'm willing to wager against it, since the staff for the most part seems to be careful when it comes to this sort of thing, anyway.

And, honestly, even if it does, something needs to be done.
I, at least, don't think I can keep dealing with this sort of thing. It really drains me, and, I can't really afford that any more. It's not healthy.

 No.2812

>>2811

i think most users are fighting significantly less lately, after the political ban

it really sucks to have shitty things assumed of you, i get that, it's a pain i'm very familiar with

but as for your question? i think trying to enforce the policy you're suggesting would make things a lot worse, because it would make people in pain less able to express when they feel someone's being an ass to them

 No.2817

>>2812
>it would make people in pain less able to express when they feel someone's being an ass to them
Maybe this "no accusations of negative intentions" standard should apply only to threads about politics  and other controversial topics.

 No.2818

>>2817

people feel deeply personally hurt by politics a lot

 No.2819

>>2818
Yeah, but discussing other posters' intentions is off-topic anyhow in a politics thread.  Better to create a new thread to discuss it, or just report the post.  If someone really wants to discuss it in the thread, they could note the objective behavior of the other poster and what effect their post has, without speculating about someone's intentions.

 No.2827

>>2819

again, i love you, but i think you are expecting way too much of the average person and also the staff, myself included

assuming negative things about each other is -to be blunt- built into the foundation of human communication

we quickly profile each other, and it blows, but i don't think we have the resources to fix that

negative assumptions are the biggest reason i hated discourse on this site, too, but i'm trying to be realistic

if we can work out a worst-case scenario example of how this would go, and work from there, i think the problems would be apparent

 No.2828

File: 1545311836050.png (58.2 KB, 223x195, 223:195, 7 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2812
I don't think that's accurate. I have seen the same stuff thrown around, it's just we haven't had a big argument which made a certain user do that again.
> because it would make people in pain less able to express when they feel someone's being an ass to them
I don't consider this a bad thing, really. At least, if you want to maintain a respectful or civil site, overall. Which, I thought, was the point of rule 1.
If someone's being an ass, report them. Otherwise, there's absolutely no reason to be a dick back.
That's how we get massive fights. Completely unproductive.

>>2827
There is literally only one poster I have an issue with when it comes to this problem, so I don't think I could agree that this is something everyone does.
If it was something everyone does, surely I'd have more than one poster who does it.

 No.2829

File: 1545312147770.png (160.44 KB, 1280x1004, 320:251, M3.png) ImgOps Google

>>2828

If this is specifically about a single poster, it may be more productive to discuss it with them than enact a rules change that we may be unable to deliver on.

If you tell me which poster, I can try to discuss it with them, which may be more immediately productive.

 No.2830

File: 1545312252041.png (75.59 KB, 301x290, 301:290, 5.png) ImgOps Google

>>2829
I have many times tried to talk to Manley about this.
It has done nothing.
I'm doubtful you can get him to change his behavior, if nobody else has after ages of this shit, but, hey, you're welcome to try.

 No.2831

File: 1545312558698.png (266.51 KB, 509x482, 509:482, M1.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2830

It's certainly worth a shot, don't you think?

 No.2833

File: 1545312720133.jpg (32.29 KB, 253x227, 253:227, 20.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2831
Like I said; If you want to, go for it.
I've tried for a very long time now.
No effect.
Usually, when I give him an argument to attempt to apply to empathy, ala >>2690 , it just gets ignored, and the behavior continues as normal with the exact same justification we see >>2680

Apparently, if there's a >0% chance someone is something, it's totally justified to call them that, according to him.

 No.2841

>>2833
You've never tried to talk to me about anything without getting pissed and telling me to "fuck off". You always escalate things and get angry.

Also, that was a completely different situation and context where I said that "not zero" stuff. I was saying that it's not an insult to say someone is intentionally being cruel to you unless you can prove that they aren't being cruel on purpose. Which you can't, because that's impossible. Quit trying to twist my words to make me out into a bad person. Isn't that exactly what you're accusing me of?

 No.2849

File: 1545363142493.jpg (82.83 KB, 313x294, 313:294, 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2841
Nah, dude. That's just flat out untrue. I can't tell you how many times I've been trying to get you to understand this shit. Hell, I did it in this thread, here.

>Also, that was a completely different situation and context where I said that "not zero" stuff.
You said it right >>2680
>"In my mind, no. Because the chances of them actually doing that are not zero."
The context doesn't change this.
And it's still insulting and hurtful, regardless.  Especially given that the thing we're talking about isn't even you saying they were being cruel, but rather that they, were cruel.

 No.2853

File: 1545364361663.png (61.42 KB, 279x215, 279:215, tch.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2841
> Isn't that exactly what you're accusing me of?
What I am accusing you of is doing what you've done in this post here.
Saying things like "Quit trying to twist my words to make me out into a bad person" , which are just a thoroughly insulting assumption of someone's intent, and something I thoroughly don't appreciate.

I do not believe I've made any assumptions of your intention. I've not said "Manley only posts things like that because he enjoys hurting me". I've not sat here, and said "He only disagrees with me because he wants to make me look bad". These are, however, things you have done.

My critiques are of the actions you've made, not some deeper intention I've no way of getting.
What I accuse you of is what you have done, and we can prove you've done. Mostly by pointing to this post here, actually.

 No.2870

>>2853
>My critiques are of the actions you've made, not some deeper intention I've no way of getting.
This is a very important point.  

 No.2871

>>2853
>>2870

We've read and heard your complaints about Manley's harassment, and have now taken the punitive action we deem appropriate. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

-Abby

 No.2893

File: 1546441038497.jpeg (67.75 KB, 1280x765, 256:153, goblin-slayer-high-elf-11….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Woah, one certainly misses quite a bit when they don't regularly visit the other boards.

>>2796

Instead of filtering a user in general I wonder if there would be a way to hide or filter specific posts like we can now for whole threads.


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