[ home ] [ pony / townhall / 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.2706

File: 1545025903598.png (76.82 KB, 326x274, 163:137, this is true tho.png) ImgOps Google

I cannot be the only one who thinks this is a bit too much, right? A friendly reminder would have been fine for Manley. But an official WARNING for a dumb Peter Griffin picture? Don't you think that's a bit excessive?

 No.2707

File: 1545026620179.jpg (21.96 KB, 130x180, 13:18, dancing boi.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Make no mistake tho. Manley should be permabanned. He's far too problematic.

But considering a screenshot from Family one (NSFW) is kind of silly.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2708

It's going to be hard to keep that one consistent.
I can think of a lot of shots from cartoons where the same kind of boundaries are broken.

Homer Simpson and Johny Bravo for example.
I even remember my Behold true Nakednes joke in Teen Titans Go.


If it is about Manley, you might as well purge Ponyville.

 No.2709

>>2708
Yeah. The mods handled this one properly. Remember what NSFW means? WORK. I'm sure no boss would be grossed out or fire you just because you saw a screenshot of Peter Griffin from Family guy.

 No.2710

>>2707
>Manley should be permabanned. He's far too problematic.

Didn't you just get banned a couple of days ago for breaking the rules by being mean? Have you learned anything?

 No.2711

we already said like, thrice that warning manley was a mistake

 No.2712

File: 1545055115232.jpg (20.02 KB, 474x472, 237:236, DcvVVLuU8AAJv8W.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2706
This lot was already covered, fortunately.
I'm more worried about the whole "i would have sex with her" being not allowed. Seems a tad extreme.

 No.2713

File: 1545061080841.png (315.67 KB, 650x870, 65:87, Do you have brain damage.png) ImgOps Google

>>2710
I know why I got banned tho. And I deserved it. I would have banned myself if I was a mod.  It's not like it was an accident. I knew darn well what I was doing.
What's your excuse?

>>2711
The mod seemed too confident of his warning abilities tho. You guys should have discussed that properly.

>>2712
That too. I was under the impression that anything written is OK. He only said "I would do her". Not something more explicit than that.
Had him started talking in such a way that mentions sexual organs or sex depictions, now THAT would have been taking it too far.


I honestly think mods are being a bit too strict.

 No.2714

File: 1545061381431.jpg (5.82 MB, 2500x1688, 625:422, annarom.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2713
My concern is mostly that I say that's or thing all the time. I mean, my whole stick is that I want to lewd the dragon ladies.

If just saying you do something is too far, I might be in some major trouble.

 No.2715

>>2714
Time to start a revolution.
MODS, SHOW YOURSELVES.

 No.2716

>>2713
I haven't done anything? and the last time I did I was banned? Seriously, youve hurt me enough, stop shit-talking me because you like bandwagons.

 No.2717

>>2707
Why was
Iara
banned (not warned, but banned) for this post?  Manley has committed infractions in the past few days and only been warned (and sometimes not even in public) for similar or worse (mis)behavior.  Seems like a double standard to me.

Plus Iara's post isn't even clearly a violation at all.  Manley's posting is very contentious, and Iara's thread could otherwise be interpreted as supporting Manley, so it makes complete sense for her to expressly deny that interpretation.  Perhaps she was a bit too emphatic in this denial, but I really don't think it crosses this line (although I admit am I biased in this matter due to a personal conflict of interest).

 No.2718

>>2717
I'd have to agree over all. I mean, I certainly agree with the sentiment, after all.

Especially considering Butt had made the suggestion that it's okay because of who it happened to, in the first place.

 No.2719

>>2717
I guess it is the nature of the escalating ban system we have. >>>/rules/3

Iara had a warning, then a ban earlier maybe yesterday, and then this is a second ban. There's no room for warnings right now for further infractions, unless maybe a lot of times passes between now and the next one. I don't really care for this system, (it's hard to manage and can lead to very inconsistent enforcement) coincidentally I am currently arguing against it in staff chat, because it causes "punishment doesn't fit the crime" scenarios if you ask me. It is what we have right now though, if anyone else doesn't like it, they should make that known, preferably in its own single purpose thread.

As for the difference with Manley and what he does, quite frequently he is part of a clusterfuck with many other users and it gets messy. Almost anyone who complains about Manley getting leniency is also getting the exact same leniency as he does, so be careful what you wish for when you ask for stronger enforcement of rules around him. In contrast, what Iara has done here was a direct, unprovoked attack on a user for no real reason other than to stir the pot. It wasn't like Manley and Iara got into a big argument and made a huge mess of the place. Iara just decided to go out and say someone needed to be thrown off the site, for funsies I guess. And that made it super easy to put a ban down.

Another thing to factor is that Manley centric shitstorms are usually 200+ post affairs and untangling that to enforce the rules properly is very difficult, we are just simple volunteers remember. Whereas this thread is really super easy to deal with by comparison, doesn't get much easier.

I guess, there's probably a lot more nuance going on here than I can describe in a simple post. If you said things are inconsistent, I would say that's somewhat true, unfortunately. If you said Manley gets special treatment, well basically everyone else is getting that same special treatment too. It is some of the staff's philosophy that bans are a very extreme measure and they aren't used often. It is really only that in Iara's case it is so flagrant and unprovoked that she is being nailed with them the past few days. If she was to join in the next clusterfuck that happens, she'll get it no worse than anyone else.

 No.2720

>>2719
>In contrast, what Iara has done here was a direct, unprovoked attack on a user for no real reason other than to stir the pot. It wasn't like Manley and Iara got into a big argument and made a huge mess of the place. Iara just decided to go out and say someone needed to be thrown off the site, for funsies I guess. And that made it super easy to put a ban down.

It is related to this thread tho. Like anon said: "Plus Iara's post isn't even clearly a violation at all.  Manley's posting is very contentious, and Iara's thread could otherwise be interpreted as supporting Manley, so it makes complete sense for her to expressly deny that interpretation."

It was important to understand the context and nuances of this thread, and to try to de-link it from any pre-existing baggage, such as 'who posted what' like Butt mentioned in another thread.

 No.2722

>>2719
Problem is, in this case what Iara said was relevant and not even that extreme.

Personally I'd rather you be a bit stricter when it comes to rule 1 violations, even if it means I might get in trouble.
It's part of why I'm now collecting evidence on him, though. Frankly I'm of the opinion at this point absolutely nothing will change without basically forcing the issue.
Being able to demonstrate continuous behavior should do that. No more excuses, no more weak defenses, no more saying you just weren't there to see it.

 No.2723

>>2720
I'm not here to argue this, I just wanted there to be an explanation because the users deserve transparency. This thread here came right after that other ban you had which was an uncalled for, direct provocation of another user. You really spent up your benefit of the doubt with that, so when this rolled along soon after it was the opinion of the majority of staff that the only purpose served by saying Manley deserved a permaban, in a thread about how he did nothing wrong, was to provoke Manley unnecessarily.

It's cool if you want to have fun here, but it can't come at the expense of other users who are minding their own business.

>>2722
I guess what I'd say is that extremeness is less important than a clear intent sometimes. Not ideal, but you know being a mod is pretty damn hard and sometimes when it feels like intent is clear it's much easier to take action. Also, I absolutely reject the idea that what iara said was relevant in this thread. In a thread about how Manley should not have been warned, there serves no use to double back and say "oh, but to contradict the point of my thread, he should also totes be banned". If she wanted to make an argument for why Manley should be banned, she could have actually done that as its own thread with actual evidence.

I'd love to get more rule 1 enforcement. I've been fighting for that for my entire time on staff. I guess the problem is that there is the perception that bans are very harsh and so we don't want to use them for low level rudeness kind of stuff. But we are talking through some things in staff chat right now,  finding ways to give less jarring warnings and small bans than our current system supports. So maybe there will be progress on that front soon. I guess that will be a paradigm shift around here so we need to plan and prepare for it so as to not shock the users that suddenly there's a lot more warnings and minor bans going out.

 No.2724

>>2723
>You really spent up your benefit of the doubt with that, so when this rolled along soon after it was the opinion of the majority of staff that the only purpose served by saying Manley deserved a permaban, in a thread about how he did nothing wrong, was to provoke Manley unnecessarily.

This isn't a meme thread in /pony/ tho. This was made in /canterlot/ precisely to be serious. The fact that at least two others see it the same way I do should be proof enough that I wasn't attacking Manley.

>Also, I absolutely reject the idea that what iara said was relevant in this thread. In a thread about how Manley should not have been warned, there serves no use to double back and say "oh, but to contradict the point of my thread, he should also totes be banned". If she wanted to make an argument for why Manley should be banned, she could have actually done that as its own thread with actual evidence.
This is not about Manley tho. It was about the precedent of the Peter Griffin pic being considered too raunchy for the site.
I already had Butts tell me to "fuck off" because they thought I was defending Manley. So I wanted to make my point clear here.

I have absolutely zero qualms in admitting when I do something wrong (the thread I did and that got me banned the other day WAS mean. And I did it with pretty mean intentions too). This should also prove as more "back-up" when I say I wasn't trying to stir any fire this time.

Emphasis on me being totally honest with my first ban, you know? That should speak for itself. But whatever you guys deem fit. You are the bosses.

 No.2725

File: 1545110946173.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2723
I think you are wrong. It seems 100% relevant to the thread given the context, and frankly, I do not understand how you could suggest otherwise, when Butt literally used Manley's character as a refutation for the issue, in the thread where he received the warning.
Either you're ignorant of the circumstances around the situation, or you just don't care. Which I do have to say is weird, given how quickly you guys are to do literally nothing with countless violations Manley makes, because apparently you can't read 200+ threads despite that near as I know reports go to the post reported, so you wouldn't have to.

Bans are harsh, but repeated behavior warrants banning. If you're going to ban users for stating relevant issues of personal character and relations in a thread, you damn well should ban a chronic and repeat offender who's time in and time out broken the most basic level of respect, as set standard in Rule 1.

I'm going to be flat here: You don't get to have it both ways.
You can't say with any kind of justiciation that "Well, Iara did X, and while I'd normally sweep it up under the rug, muh escalation rules" while literally fucking ignoring the escalation rules when it comes to Manley.

Multiple users have complained about the administration's standard when it comes to this shit. I know LP, myself, Boat, Ebon, at least one anon, and of course Butt, have stated this.
It looks really fucking shitty when you guys start actually enforcing the rules to a rather ridiculous degree sometimes, but straight up fucking ignoring the rules when it comes to one poster.

Honestly, as of late, this shit keeps seeming to get worse and worse. Especially with Mooney's new targetting of politics, instead of civility. I said this in a bit of anger earlier, but, honestly, I am genuinely wondering what Mooney's relation to Manley is at this point, because, it seems completely absurd you'd have a user who behaves, frankly, just as bad as someone like Steam Twist, but still for whatever reason remains, and seems to be actively ignored.

If you're going to ignore problem users, at least give us the tools to ignore them, too. Give us a filter method.

 No.2726

>>2724
>The fact that at least two others see it the same way I do should be proof enough that I wasn't attacking Manley.
That's not really how proving things works. At least four staff members agreed that it was mean spirited of you to say that here, and didn't serve much other purpose. Maybe we we're wrong as to your intention, but you still didn't present any formal argument for why he should be banned. So just dropping an opinion like that randomly in canterlot isn't really called for without a better context than what you had here.

Besides, I can't unban you right now anyway. Your ban is expired, there is nothing much to gain by discussing this further. You've made your case here about why it wasn't necessary. I do think admitting fault like you have here will help you with the benefit of the doubt issue in future cases, but I can't really change what happened in this thread already. Even if I give you that no malicious intend was there, it still wasn't what I'd consider appropriate for canterlot. Make an actual case next time instead of just leave your opinion for Manley to stumble upon and be upset over.

 No.2727

File: 1545111117787.png (58.2 KB, 223x195, 223:195, 7 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2724
Honestly, due to the baggage literally any conversation about Manley has, I'd say this shit always needs to be said. Otherwise, people'd undoubtedly end up questioning why you're suddenly defending the guy, but attacking him later.
The reason in this case is quite simple: You, as well as myself, LP, and I believe others, did not think the warning was just, despite our histories with Manley.

It was 100% relevant, and not even that hostile to begin with.

 No.2728

File: 1545111408930.png (66.57 KB, 324x289, 324:289, 16 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2726
At least four staff members are wrong. It clearly served a purpose, given that it directly countered what Butt had said.
The opinion is 100% relevant, because of who Manley is. Because of his infamy, and relation with countless users, including Iara. Otherwise, it looks wrong to observers that Iara is defending Manley, as again, was directly said by Butt.

You don't have to unban someone to say it was wrong or apologize.
Iara should not admit fault, and the fact that you're suggesting he should is frankly insulting.
If it wasn't appropriate for canterlot, why've countless other users not been banned or warned for similar conduct?
It's just worthless. He wasn't trying to make a case for Manley being banned, he was stating his position when it came to Manley, and how despite that he was standing by principle on this particular policy enforcement.

It's really a simple thing. It's like how I can say I hate someone like Richard Spencer, and usually have to, before I say "But, he has a right to free speech and should not be censored". It's standard when dealing with this shit.

 No.2729

>>2726
>Your ban is expired, there is nothing much to gain by discussing this further.
The ban should still be voided for purposes of the escalation schedule.

 No.2730

>>2725
Butt isn't in this thread and this thread is the only one I care about right now. I haven't read the other thread, nor is it relevant to what happen in this thread.

From that perspective, I guess I'm ignorant by your definition. I'm not an all seeing god, sorry if that was your expectation of the unpaid volunteer staff here.

>>2728
You can have that opinion, sure.

Butt, again, is not in this thread. Why do you bring him up as if something that happened somewhere else on this site, unlinked to this thread, matters in the case of whether iara broke the rules here. No mod responding to this post in this thread was thinking about butt, why you think we would when he isn't referenced in this thread at all is odd.

 No.2731

>>2729
That's fair, but I don't think it's gonna count towards it anyway. I mean, there's currently no centralized system for tracking bans, despite the escalation system being so central to the way we do bans. Like, I feel like ban reform is on the horizon, because this isn't working. In the meantime, I can try to promise that for minor issues iara isn't gonna see day long bans or anything. Just no more making threads just to make fun of specific users please.

 No.2732

>>2729
That, too.
>>2730
The thread is why it was brought up, and why that statement was made. Context is important, especially when multiple people've pointed it out to you. Are you incapable of, after having multiple people bring this issue up, searching for something easily found with a Ctrl+F function?

Here is the link. It took me seconds to get. I would've hoped especially given that the guy was warned for this post, it was read by someone. Even if not, though, a simple search after it was brought up would've been useful.
http://ponyville.us/pony/res/891136.html#891667

. Why do you bring him up as if something that happened somewhere else on this site, unlinked to this thread, matters in the

>unlinked to this thread,
Because it isn't unlinked. It's directly relevant to the thread. It was expressly brought up, and so, Iara had to counter that potential argument in the future.

If we can't bring up things outside of this thread, what the fuck's the point of the thread? Why's it pointing to Manley getting a warning somewhere else on the site? That's totally irrelevant to what we're talking about here in this thread expressly made for the purpose of talking about that issue. Obviously that doesn't matter.
This is silly.



Do you think it would be unreasonable, in a written defense for someone like Richard Spencer on free speech, to say "I don't like Richard Spencer, he's a terrible guy, but he deserves the right to free speech", especially after someone explicitly said "Who cares about his free speech? He's a bad guy".
Like, genuinely asking, here. I do not believe for a second you'd consider that unreasonable, which is a large part of why I'm rather annoyed at this whole process. Maybe it's something for me to make another thread about, though.

 No.2733

File: 1545112261458.jpg (32.29 KB, 253x227, 253:227, 20.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2731
Then can we at least get it stated for the record that this lot is voided and not going to be used against Iara in the future? Even if it's pointless, it'd be fair to do.

 No.2734

>>2730
>>2723
>Also, I absolutely reject the idea that what iara said was relevant in this thread. In a thread about how Manley should not have been warned, there serves no use to double back and say "oh, but to contradict the point of my thread, he should also totes be banned".
The relevance is this: Iara wanted to disavow the implication that she was defending Manley and believed that Manley shouldn't be banned (for his other conduct as well, not just the Peter Griffin pic).  She did that by expressly asserting the negation of that implication.  This thread wasn't supposed to be about Manley.  It was supposed to be about punishing a user for making a mistake about the NSFW checkbox.

 No.2735

File: 1545112559459.png (310.51 KB, 583x433, 583:433, 10 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2734
Pretty much. The point was to disconnect the user from the issue. For good reason. Same reason I have concern about both this, as well as the whole "I would have sex with" thing. Especially considering, like I said earlier, I say that sort of thing.

 No.2736

>>2732
How do I know that's the only context I need to know? Maybe there is even more that I should know elsewhere too. Nobody on staff is beholden to know all things said on all places on the site at any given moment. As a person who read that whole thread and cared a bunch about it, it's easy for you to say we should have that context in our back pocket. But that's actually completely unreasonable, we aren't magicians. And even if we were, what iara posted is still not appropriate for canterlot. This board has standards, period. You don't get to say "oh yeah, and ban that dude fo' sure" just because butt said something elsewhere on the site.

>>2733
I can't really do that. I mean, I can but it won't hold any more weight than my own personal hope. It wouldn't carry the weight of the moderation team. I don't get to make decisions like that on my own. I could vouch for iara the next time it comes up, if you want.

>>2734
Then even mentioning Manley was completely irrelevant in the first place. Shoulda stuck with just saying "we should not be giving bans or warnings for this type of behavior". Why bring Manley up at all? He didn't matter to the actual subject of thread, did he?

 No.2737

Btw, sorry I'm not really responding to everything you're putting in your posts. I'm not trying to be a jerk but, it's late on my Monday, and I'm giving you my time for free when I could just ignore it. So, you're getting a pretty good deal here from someone who is only supposed to write code technically.

 No.2738

>>2736
>Shoulda stuck with just saying "we should not be giving bans or warnings for this type of behavior". Why bring Manley up at all?
That is right, of course, and would have been a better way of making the thread.  But people make mistakes in how they word things.  Shouldn't be a ban worthy offense IMO.

 No.2739

File: 1545113584496.png (121.54 KB, 316x290, 158:145, 6.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2736
I can understand the initial misunderstanding, but, multiple users pointed it out afterwards. Further, I would've thought the thread where the issue stemmed would be considered, at least when it came to canterlot threads. I mean, if you don't know what happened in the threads the issue came about in, it's quite difficult to follow along.
Even so, in any case, it's still not inappropriate, given the context of the situation. It isn't even that hostile. Hell, far worse has been said elsewhere, anyway, without any bans at all.

Again, I go to the Richard Spencer example:
Would you consider it unreasonable and unwarranted to clarify that you'd defend his rights, despite his poor character?

> I could vouch for iara the next time it comes up, if you want.
I don't really want that. Iara's a trouble maker, and gets into trouble, usually for good cause.
But, I would like another conversation among the moderation team concerning this issue, overall.

>Then even mentioning Manley was completely irrelevant in the first place.
It's really hard to say, when everyone knows it's Richard Spencer you're standing up for, "People's rights should not be violated" alone.
>>2737
I have to sleep soon anyway. Would like a response to the Richard Spencer example, though, because, I've run in to this exact foreward countless times when dealing with people like him from liberal minded individuals, and I would certainly say for good reason, as many will take a defense of terrible people at face value, not looking in to the details.

 No.2740

>>2738
I mean, I personally agree it wasn't worth a ban. But that's how the rules are written. If it's any consolation, I'm trying to change the rules to better handle these situations. But change takes time and it also takes people asking for it (in the correct manner, which is not piggybacking it in this thread). I still haven't seen any user challenge the ban escalation policy, in an appropriately made canterlot thread, therefore users must love it. If you don't like mandatory minimums and this whole "three strikes" style ban system, I suggest you make a formal complaint and suggest a better way (in a thread dedicated to that purpose).

>>2739
Frankly, this whole thread is nonsense anyway, because it was clarified hours before in the original thread that Manley's warning was in error. Sooooo why was this thread made again?

I don't care to interpret hostilities, it got a rise out of Manley so it kinda doesn't matter how hostile it was. It was hostile enough. And yeah, far worse had been said, but are you suddenly arguing for less rules enforcement just because some rules weren't enforced adequately elsewhere?

>But, I would like another conversation among the moderation team concerning this issue, overall.
What I can do for you then, is bring just that up in mod chat and see where it goes. There ya go.

>>2739
>Would like a response to the Richard Spencer example

I agree with your example given Richard Spencer. Sure. But he isn't a regular poster here. There are rules specifically designed to protect the posters here from attacks from other posters. And I know there's a million issues with me saying that, granted Manley having said what he has said before with little to no mod intervention. I'm not gonna defend the consistency of enforcement here. Only point I want to make is that if you want rules enforcement, you got it in this thread. Period. Whether you like the decision we made or not, the problem isn't in this thread, it's in the rest of the site, with Manley, yourself, and Andrea, whoever else saying crappy things and not being disciplined. Why fight this thing? You're dragging us back to more leniency here, not better rule 1 enforcement.

 No.2741

I informed the mods you want that conversation, can't promise more than that.

I'm checking out, probably won't respond personally to anything til at least tomorrow night.

 No.2743

>>2706
Peter Griffon is a bit excessive.

Not everyone can appreciate his svelt figure and demure nudity for their artistic and highly refined qualities.

 No.2745

File: 1545142448475.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2740
True, and I said as much. I don't think Iara knew it was solved, though. But, at that point after it had been raised, he suggested >>2713 that instead
>"The mod seemed too confident of his warning abilities tho. You guys should have discussed that properly."
Which i would agree on.

> it got a rise out of Manley so it kinda doesn't matter how hostile it was. It was hostile enough
So just for the record, here, the standard is if it gets a rise out of you?
Because I've reported a lot of shit that definitely got a rise out of me which Manley has done, and nothing ever ended up coming of it.
>And yeah, far worse had been said, but are you suddenly arguing for less rules enforcement just because some rules weren't enforced adequately elsewhere?
No, I'm arguing that this case wasn't something that warranted a rule violation given the current standard.
It's like if the police completely ignore someone literally parking in the middle of the street, but decide to give a ticket because someone was parked 13 inches from the curb.

> But he isn't a regular poster here.
So if he was, then it'd be not allowed to say such things about him, in order to clarify your position on his defense?
Really?
I don't buy that.

>Whether you like the decision we made or not, the problem isn't in this thread, it's in the rest of the site, with Manley, yourself, and Andrea, whoever else saying crappy things and not being disciplined
The issue I'm complaining about seems to be in this thread. Which is to say, overzealousness when it comes to banning users for a statement that is required due to the infamy of the user the thread pertains to.

>You're dragging us back to more leniency here, not better rule 1 enforcement.
This isn't the type of thing I wanted when I said I want you to enforce rule 1. I wanted people who're calling others cruel, saying they're jerks, accusing them of being manipulative or, as anon put rather well, "ascribing negative intentions to others".

This I believe is a necessary statement given who Manley is, and his relations with other users on the site. We've seen a clear example with this with Butt.
Again, it seems to me like giving a ticket to someone for parking 13 inches from the curb, while ignoring the guy who literally parks in the middle of the street every day. Only, now you're telling me, when I complain about you ticketing the 13 inches guy, "Why're you fighting this thing? I Thought you wanted tougher enforcement! You're arguing for more leniency when it comes to parking in the road, not less!"

Honestly, it gives the vibe of a rather gross mischaracterization.

 No.2746

File: 1545142795720.png (127.44 KB, 252x305, 252:305, 13.PNG) ImgOps Google

To be clear here, I don't want needlessly extreme enforcement over percieved hostility. That's stupid.
I want enforcement over the rules as stated on the main page.

>"Please keep posts generally respectful towards others;"
>"Do not post in a thread for the purpose of being rude or inciting trouble"
>"Third Degree offenses are the least serious, and shall be met with multiple warnings, only to be escalated if the behavior immediately continues, or if the behavior occurs multiple times from the same user over a reasonable period of time, or if the behavior causes enough disturbance on site to warrant substantial staff attention"
Incidentally, Manley's also broken the "second degree" standard as well.
>"Please do not act with extreme hostility towards any user, this includes all manner of insults, threats, and name-calling;
Really should get rid of the "please", but,
>"Second Degree offenses are lesser offenses than shall be met with a warning, and followed with a ban if (1) the behavior immediately continues within a reasonable time after warning, or (2) if the behavior stops, but has a second occurrence within the span of a week."
Typo, I believe, here with "than", but, you get the idea. Funnily enough, even though 2nd degree is worse, it seems there's lesser structures in place for repeat offenders outside of the 'week' scope.

 No.2748

I just wanna point out that this isn't just "Iara stating her opinion". After stating this exact same thing unprovoked again in another thread, She very clearly asserts in http://ponyville.us/pony/res/891136+50.html#891783 that she is claiming it's the consensus of the majority of the board, not just herself, directly to me. For no reason other than to try and upset me.

Iara is a troll. She intentionally says things to try and upset others. The mods decided that saying that unprovoked about another uses is mean-spirited and served no purpose other than to try and hurt that user's feelings, which is against the rules.

 No.2749

>>2748
>For no reason other than to try and upset me.
And what's your rationale behind that assertion? Just the "it's not 0%" thing, again?

 No.2750

>>2748
>For no reason other than to try and upset me.
Iara also disclosed (in this very thread) the reason why she said that you should be banned.  Spoiler: it wasnt to upset you.

 No.2751

Temp locking this, will deal with the report and respond to the rest tonight.

 No.2769

Alright, the half time show is over, game on... or something.

Because I like pain and hurting myself, I'd like to go back over this point.
>>2728
>At least four staff members are wrong. It clearly served a purpose, given that it directly countered what Butt had said.
>>2732
>Here is the link. It took me seconds to get. I would've hoped especially given that the guy was warned for this post, it was read by someone.

Check your timestamps dude, that post happened after Iara posted this thread. So, unless I'm missing something, Iara couldn't exactly have been considering it when making this thread.

>>2745
>True, and I said as much. I don't think Iara knew it was solved, though
Timestamps can confirm this point, yes fair enough.

>>2745
>>>"The mod seemed too confident of his warning abilities tho. You guys should have discussed that properly."
>Which i would agree on.
There's a story behind that. The mod who handled the issue is one of the less active mods and I don't think were fully aware of the way we previously agreed to handle NSFW image miss-tags. Hence why it (inappropriately) got a warning, hence why it (inappropriately) got spoilered. We did actually discuss it properly, but they didn't realize the new protocol. Like it's been said for the maybe seventh time, it was a moderation error, a quintessential case of 'shit happens'. Kinda pointless to keep harping on it.

>So just for the record, here, the standard is if it gets a rise out of you?
>Because I've reported a lot of shit that definitely got a rise out of me which Manley has done, and nothing ever ended up coming of it.
I'm not here to debate how consistent and effective our moderation has been in other cases. Unless you want us to not enforce any rules because we haven't enforced some of them sometimes.

>It's like if the police completely ignore someone literally parking in the middle of the street, but decide to give a ticket because someone was parked 13 inches from the curb.
You are really arguing my case for me now. Yeah, maybe someone parking in middle of the street should be towed, but that doesn't change what should have happened in this thread.

>So if he was, then it'd be not allowed to say such things about him, in order to clarify your position on his defense?
That you think he is terrible personally? As you said here:>>2732
>"I don't like Richard Spencer, he's a terrible guy, but he deserves the right to free speech"
Yeah that is never supposed to be allowed, nor should it. If you want to hate a guy's arguments fine, but insults directed at a person is never supposed to be acceptable here.

>>2745
> for a statement that is required due to the infamy of the user the thread pertains to.
It is not required. Period. Manley did not need to ever even be mentioned in this thread to get the point across, that he was was part of the problem. That he didn't need to be brought up at all but was anyway makes it seem like a clear provocation. That's not even up for debate. You can argue all you want that it wasn't a provocation, but the fact is that given her previous provocations this week, as admitted by Iara herself, it'd be kinda silly of us not to look on any posts she makes suspiciously for a while.

>>2746
>To be clear here, I don't want needlessly extreme enforcement over percieved hostility.
Literally everything is about perception. You perceive it as not hostility while we did. You are in fact not more right than any of us, as I'd hope you would accept.

>I want enforcement over the rules as stated on the main page.
And that's what you got. This is really isn't up for debate.
>Rule 8. Do not post threads or posts that are deliberate provocations to certain users *snip*
Obviously we can't know her intent (nor can we trust her to tell us the truth of her intent) but it seems to myself given the kinds of posts she has made the last week, at least one of which she admits to being quite rules breaking, we were pretty confident in saying that this was a deliberate provocation of Manley. Manley did not need to be part of the subject of this thread, period. Even if he was, it was not actually necessary to point out that he should be permabanned. That's an actual, real fact that isn't debatable.

>>2748
>Iara is a troll
If Iara is a troll, then you are being baited and our rules state that the baited are just as responsible as the baiter. Do not call Iara a troll, if you think she is trolling, report and move on as is demanded of you by the rules.

I guess this is a warning, as demanded by first degree violations.

 No.2770

Btw, I'm not gonna bother responding to any further arguments of the nature "but it wasn't enforced so well elsewhere". Yeah, I know that, still has no impact on what was the correct action to take in this thread.

 No.2771

>>2769
>I guess this is a warning, as demanded by first degree violations.
Do we have a system to notify users of warnings?  Like the ban screen, but for warnings, in case the user doesn't read the warning in the thread.

 No.2772

>>2769
>Obviously we can't know her intent (nor can we trust her to tell us the truth of her intent) but it seems to myself given the kinds of posts she has made the last week, at least one of which she admits to being quite rules breaking, we were pretty confident in saying that this was a deliberate provocation of Manley.
Thorax, are you explaining the rationale of why Iara was banned (in light of the information known to the mods at the time), or are you arguing that Iara did in fact deliberately violate the rules?

If the former, I understand and agree with you.  If the latter, I must respectfully disagree.  I guess the word of an anon doesn't count for much, but I can fairly confidently say that Iara didn't write that post just to provoke Manley.  I.e., even if Iara knew that Manley wouldn't be provoked or even read the post, she would still have made it.

 No.2774

File: 1545227625700.png (102.48 KB, 360x323, 360:323, 10.png) ImgOps Google

>>2769
Yeah, I should've double-checked that. That was more the end of the running conversation between Iara and Butt.
http://ponyville.us/pony/res/891136.html#891577

>I'm not here to debate how consistent and effective our moderation has been in other cases. Unless you want us to not enforce any rules because we haven't enforced some of them sometimes.
Just know that the more you ignore some issues, while enforcing others, the more users become upset due to a perceived lack of fairness.
Personally, I am the type of guy, though, who would say rules should apply to everyone or not at all.

>You are really arguing my case for me now. Yeah, maybe someone parking in middle of the street should be towed, but that doesn't change what should have happened in this thread.
In the sense that in this thread, someone was, at worst, barely wrong, and at best, merely stating something necessary to the discussion?
Either way, it's still something that looks really bad and causes quite a huge load of user discomfort, as mentioned.

>Yeah that is never supposed to be allowed, nor should it. If you want to hate a guy's arguments fine, but insults directed at a person is never supposed to be acceptable here.
Well, if that's the standard, not much I can do beyond say it's quite extreme, and strange that this wouldn't be allowed, yet so much else seems to be.

>Manley did not need to ever even be mentioned in this thread to get the point across, that he was was part of the problem.
You missed the point. That wasn't it. This might be why you're so heavily not understanding my perspective on this.
The point is that despite how much I might dislike Manley, despite that I think he should be banned, in this case, I believe it to be unjust. And I'd want to vocalize that, lest we get people like Butt accusing us of being "Manley apologists".
And, hell, I did this same thing, if I'm not mistaken, in relation to Iara. Saying Iara is a running provocateur, a troll, and deserved to be banned in other areas, yet that I do not believe this one is so clear as the others as to warrant such a course of action.

Saying "It's not up for debate" is really unproductive, by the way. Just makes you come across as though you've no interest in listening, which given the way you seem to still be completely ignoring the reason to say this, is becoming something gnawwing more and more at the back of my head. Especially given >>2770
Honestly, mod refusal to actually discuss a lot of these issues as soon as discussion gets a bit more direct is starting to really drag on at me, these days. My rule 1 thread's been completely ignored at this point, same for my complaints of the new political standard in the /rules/ thread, and of course plenty of other areas.
It damn well makes things seem bleak.

>You are in fact not more right than any of us, as I'd hope you would accept.
I guess if you're running a "guilty until proven innocent" system, that's acceptable. Personally, I find such systems massively abhorrent, and would oppose them anywhere I see them, which is a large part of why I am here, now, defending Iara, whom isn't even someone I care for at all.

>And that's what you got. This is really isn't up for debate.
What I got at best is the equivalent of police citing people for parking 13 inches from the curb, while actively ignoring incidents where they have people straight up in the street.

>. Even if he was, it was not actually necessary to point out that he should be permabanned. That's an actual, real fact that isn't debatable.
As stated, I disagree, as Butt directly suggested those defending Manley from this incident are "manley apologists". My experience with free speech crowds also helps influence this, a fair ways. Unless you want accusations of being an 'ebil nazi', you're going to have to clarify your position against people like Richard Spencer prior to defending them.
In that respect, it's completely necessary.

Still not appreciating the whole "it's not debatable", when we've clearly had a debate on this thing. Comes across as belittling, and actively ignoring an issue.

>I guess this is a warning, as demanded by first degree violations.
This'd be a 3rd degree violation, not a 1st degree one, I think. First degree bans are met with a ban for the first offense. Third degrees are met with multiple warnings only to be escalated if the behavior occurs by the same user over a reasonable time, or if the behavior causes enough disturbance on site to warrant substantial staff attention.

Guess I should make careful note of this, anyway, so you guys stop with the 'only warnings', usually not even that, jazz when it comes to Manley, though.

 No.2775

>>2772
I'd naturally second this. And of course, Thorax's "IT'S NOT DEBATABLE" shit just comes across as wanting to shut down conversation that's starting to get too difficult. Like a parent saying "BECAUSE I SAY SO", when a kid asks questions requiring a good answer.

Maybe I'm getting a tad too testy about it, but, honestly, this nonsense just pisses me off as a general rule.

 No.2778

>>2775

there is only so much debate to be had

regardless of intention, which can be argued, the post she made was inappropriate and unacceptable

it violated the rules, and she was banned for it, because it was a violation

we don't actively ignore issues, we have countless discussions about this, but at some point we just end up disagreeing with your assertions, and that's ultimately where it stops, you know?

we listen, but that doesn't mean we agree

 No.2780

File: 1545239047738.png (238.54 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_normal.png) ImgOps Google

>>2778
Well, at least you seem to agree there's some debate to be had. That's still a step from saying there is none.

When I say you're ignoring issues, I'm specifically referring to Manley and his repeated violations that I know I've reported before, which do not appear to even receive a warning, or for that matter even a simple clarification that calling someone a jerk or calling them cruel isn't allowed.
Honestly that one's what bothers me the most.
Like, if Iara gets banned for this, why the hell hasn't he been banned when he's directly attacked multiple users, and they've all expressed similar complaints of site rule enforcement on this issue?

It's really starting to appear as though Manley gets special treatment. And I'd hate to make that accusation, especially given the conversation I had with I believe it was Scootaloo about this, but, when you ignore someone calling people cruel and jerks, not to mention constant shitty accusations and attacks, saying they're just trying to do X or Y, it starts to look really, really bad.

 No.2786

>>2780

as shitty as it sounds, the system we have is really bad for protecting users from harassment and insults, and i agree that's bad

i do still absolutely think the ban given to lara is justified, and we're trying to better prevent attacking other users

 No.2788

>>2786
>i do still absolutely think the ban given to lara is justified
Well given that rule is strict-liability as said in >>2778, so that the post is a violation even though Iara's intentions were innocent, I guess I agree.

 No.2790

>>2788
I still think it's a bit of a minor violation, at best, but, provided this is going to be the standard going forward, I guess it's better than nothing.

 No.2791

>>2772
>Thorax, are you explaining the rationale of why Iara was banned (in light of the information known to the mods at the time)
This, yes.

I trust and believe you personally. I also believe iara. But I don't think I can really exonerate her based on that. If Manley gets a friend to vouch for him would you or noonim say "oh well if he said it wasn't supposed to be mean, I guess that settles that"?

>>2774
I'll respond to you tonight ^_^

 No.2792

File: 1545242934893.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2791
I would say that the issue needs to be clearly explained it to manly, so that it doesn't happen in the future. near as I can tell, he does believe that he's not saying anything mean, or wrong, when he calls people jerks, or cruel.
It's part of the problem.

The main issue I have in this particular cases that I think the information was necessary.
it helps that it's also a far cry less than calling somebody a jerk, or labeling them as cruel. At least, in my book.

either way, I do agree with a non that the standard for punishments really needs to be changed if this is how it is going to be practiced. I was under the impression that it was only for repeated violations of single rules, not all rules. That is to say, I had thought it meant that if I break the rule on, let's say, mocking somebody, and the next day I break rule one, I was under the impression that a warning still would be issued. Especially considering the standards for third-degree offenses.

Though, then again, maybe I just don't understand the rule being violated here.

 No.2793

>>2774
> >>2770
>Honestly, mod refusal to actually discuss a lot of these issues as soon as discussion gets a bit more direct is starting to really drag on at me
I think what Thorax was saying in that post (>>2770) is just that the past is the past and that the mods have already admitted that enforcement has been deficient in those threads and that there's no purpose in continuing to beat a dead horse.

 No.2794

>>2793
If the past is the past, that is fine. but, when you are telling me the past is the past, but also not appearing to be saying you were going to be doing anything about the future at all, then I have issue.

That's why I said to Braze, fair enough. Because Braze was telling me that they were actively searching or solutions to the issues I had.

Maybe it wasn't thorax's intention, but, the impression I got from him was that those past issues didn't matter at all, and he was only concerned with rule violations when he has seen it in front of him.

 No.2800

File: 1545254478636.gif (39.43 KB, 400x400, 1:1, cringe left.gif) ImgOps Google

>>2769
>obviously we can't know her intent (nor can we trust her to tell us the truth of her intent)
I already did but you choose to not listen to it.
I admit when I did wrong (e.g.: My bandwagon thread copying an user. It WAS done to make them feel bad, but I deleted my thread when the other user deleted theirs).

If that isn't enough proof of me being aware of the kind of posts I make, I do not know what can I do to prove you anything. All I say will fall in blind ears.

 No.2801

>>2800

no, it doesn't fall in blind ears, but you exhausted your good will with some of us almost immediately with your behavior

you also do not have some objective marker as to what you do is actually good or bad, in spite of the fact that you seem to think you do, and you are unwilling to listen to other's judgments, based on past statements

 No.2804

>>2801
That's just your opinion. Why would I lie about this? If I did, I would have also made an excuse about the last ban, which I did not at all.

 No.2807

>>2804

there is literally no reason for us to give you the benefit of the doubt, that i can see

personally, i do believe you, and i don't think you meant to insult him, but i do think what you did was a violation and deserved punishment

 No.2825

>>2791
Sorry, didn't get to this today. I'll do it tomorrow morning if I don't sleep in.

 No.2834

>>2807
That's a much better way to put it. I am okay with that statement.

 No.2858

>>2774
Probably the last post I'm gonna make here, really just to clarify certain things.

I never said that there is nothing that can be debated here. Just that certain things I will either not be debating (because its beating a dead horse and there's nothing that hasn't already been said and I already agree so why would I argue it further) or are not actually debatable (because there is a factual answer that can be shown. nobody is gonna sit and debate the answer to 1+1). So, I'd rather you did not mischaracterize me as not listening to you.

>You missed the point. That wasn't it. This might be why you're so heavily not understanding my perspective on this.
No, I am absolutely not missing anything. I hear all your words, they are crystal clear. What you aren't understanding from me is that I don't care what butt thinks of you and we are not going to allow people to make any statements they want just because they find it important to protect their own personal ego and reputation. You have a reason for wanting to make that statement, you consider it a good reason, but that does not actually mean you can say whatever you want and stay within the bounds of the rules.

I said that it wasn't necessary, and that it wasn't debatable whether it was necessary. What you didn't question was what the 'necessary' part was. And what that is, is communicating the subject of the thread. Bringing Manley into it was not necessary to communicate the subject of the thread, which was over enforcement of the rules. It may be necessary if you want to not be accused of being a Manley apologist, but that is not what I was talking about. Nor is it something that you can use to defend yourself with when you are struck with a warning or ban. Like I said, that is a fact and it is not debatable.

>I guess if you're running a "guilty until proven innocent" system, that's acceptable.
There's really no way to get from my statement to this one. I only said "you are not any more correct than us" because you seem to think that your way is the only way to interpret something that is subjective. That's the thing, everything here is subjective. You can voice your complaint, and I have heard it, you are not being ignored, but we do not agree with your interpretation. We even clearly explained why we don't. What's left to even say at this point?

>What I got at best is the equivalent of police citing people for parking 13 inches from the curb
Yes, exactly. you got rules enforcement.

>while actively ignoring incidents where they have people straight up in the street.
Think of it like this dude. Let's say there is a town with inadequate laws and enforcement of laws. People run around smashing windows and shit. Then one day, the police decide to start enforcing laws more thoroughly. The first infraction they see is someone parking over the line, so they ticket him. Then the citizens get angry that the police are actually doing their job! They cry that if lawlessness was the norm, that it was egregious to issue a parking ticket. But the police were intending to try to keep the law better across all types of violations from then on, what were they to do? Not enforce the law some more just because it would upset that first person who got hit with a parking ticket? Not a perfect analogy, but it hopefully gets my point across. Maybe you should consider this as a turning point where rules are more strictly enforced, I know you think this is excessive, and I can understand completely how you might feel this is quite jarring, but at least I am hoping this becomes the new norm (well, I think maybe a warning would have been better here, not a ban. the rules, by the letter of the law required a ban unfortunately, so let's say it's something we are working on).

>Still not appreciating the whole "it's not debatable", when we've clearly had a debate on this thing. Comes across as belittling, and actively ignoring an issue.
Like I said, some things are not actually debatable. I sure hope you wouldn't try to debate me on the answer to 1+1.

>This'd be a 3rd degree violation, not a 1st degree one, I think.
You're right, I mix them up because I think of them like the severity of burns. 1st degree burns are the least damaging, third degree the most.

>>2794
I can't even imagine how you got to any of those conclusions about what I was saying. But whatever, this has been stressing me out for days now, I really need to put this down for my own mental health now. Another mod will pick it up if you have anything pressing you need answers to that have not already been explained here.

 No.2866

>>2858
>There's really no way to get from my statement to this one. I only said "you are not any more correct than us" because you seem to think that your way is the only way to interpret something that is subjective.
I got it from the assumption of intent, mostly. Braze clears that issue up, largely, though. Saying, regardless of ultimate intent, it was still viewed as a violation.

>Yes, exactly. you got rules enforcement.
While the other car's still in the road, yes.

>Not a perfect analogy, but it hopefully gets my point across.
I can understand the point you're getting at, here. I guess my issue is, I still feel that crime is continuing without action being taken.

>(well, I think maybe a warning would have been better here, not a ban. the rules, by the letter of the law required a ban unfortunately, so let's say it's something we are working on
I'm still a tad confused by that whole lot, as, I was under the impression due to what was stated on the home page when it came to rules meant 3rd degree infractions were only met with a ban as a result of extreme behavior, not requiring the standard escalation schedule.
>"Third Degree offenses are the least serious, and shall be met with multiple warnings, only to be escalated if the behavior immediately continues, or if the behavior occurs multiple times from the same user over a reasonable period of time, or if the behavior causes enough disturbance on site to warrant substantial staff attention"

Anyway; I am glad we at least got to the point where you agree it was necessary, even if you still want to act as though it isn't, thinking posts must be separate from the user who makes them. It's a minor detail. Frankly, you didn't really need to respond, as Braze already did remarkably well.
Only thing I could reasonably add is to shill my "Rule 1" thread for that a large part of why I am annoyed is that what I have always considered to be a violation, direct hostile assumptions which are both deeply hurtful and insulting given the insinuation is straight up you're a bad person, might not actually be against the rules.
In which case, my "car in the road" analogy is a bit funky, as, apparently, you're allowed to park in the middle of the road. So, people're getting tickets for parking 13 inches from the curb, when the policy's for 12, while those people originally complained about with people saying "something must be done" are actually completely allowed to continue in spite of tougher rulings.

Makes that whole thing a lot worse, actually. I'm going to try to keep that thread alive long enough to get clear answers on the subject, because, frankly, I don't really know if I can stay in a place where I'm going to constantly get these sorts of shitty attacks, when it comes right down to it. As much as I dislike the system on Ponychan, at least I'm able to filter that type of thing out.

 No.2868

>>2866
> I still feel that crime is continuing without action being taken.
Give us like, just a little tiny bit longer please? Like, 15 minutes or so maybe?

>>2866
>Frankly, you didn't really need to respond, as Braze already did remarkably well.
Yes, well sometimes a guy has to do what he has to do. You don't like being misrepresented, nor do I.

 No.2872

I think this thread has mostly run its course.  I just have a couple more thoughts.

>>2774
>Unless you want accusations of being an 'ebil nazi', you're going to have to clarify your position against people like Richard Spencer prior to defending them.
The way to do that here is to criticize his actions and ideology, not him as a person.  It is a fine distinction but an important one.

>>2774
>And I'd want to vocalize that, lest we get people like Butt accusing us of being "Manley apologists".
A rule-abiding way to do that is to exactly disclaim such implications.  E.g., saying something like "I think the warning on post P is unjust because [reasons].  (For clarification, this thread is concerned *only* with post P.  I express no opinion in this thread about whenever any other of M's posts are ban-worthy.  Discussion of M's other posts is off-topic except insofar as they are relevant to whether post P deserved a warning.)"  This is unfortunately longer, but that sometimes is the price to pay.

 No.2873

>>2868
That's fair. Sorry I did that, then.


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