[ 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.2742

File: 1545117782954.png (154.81 KB, 916x872, 229:218, muffin_cannon_by_maximilli….png) ImgOps Google

I suggest repealing the mandatory minimums and the "three strikes" style ban system. Giving someone a weeks-long or even months-long ban for a small violation isn't really fair and doesn't make sense, even if the offending user had accumulated a few bans for other small offenses. Mods should be free to give small bans (e.g., a few hours or a day or two) for small violations and to give warnings for cases that could be interpreted as a violation but are ambiguous.

(Thank you to Thorax for suggesting that I make this thread in >>2740.)

 No.2744

seconded

 No.2747

>>2742
I think it mostly needs to be reworked. It should only apply to similar bans, for one, and the severity should also be considered.

 No.2752

File: 1545168759007.jpeg (264.4 KB, 500x707, 500:707, how many apples you have ….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Yup, this place needs a massive rework, but the mods are also to blame.
Mods are all like "we do this on our SPARE TIME so cut us some slack" are not good enough.

 No.2753

File: 1545169079315.png (2.18 MB, 1920x1382, 960:691, cgseb.png) ImgOps Google

>>2752
The lack of standardization is also a major problem
Issues do not need to be dealt with right away. I understand if the administration lacks manpower to effectively enforce policies and rules all the time. But, it'd be nice if, when there is a clear violation, rather than just ignore it because it'd take too long to deal with, things were looked at as possible.

 No.2754

Just a heads up but keep the other thread's drama out of this thread please. I'd like this thread to stay on the declared topic, you should too if it's an important issue to you.

The other thread will be unlocked tonight so you'll have your platform to get those complaints in.

 No.2755

>>2754
Why was it locked, exactly, anyway
By that I mean what does "the report" mean. Like, is it an investigation into a rule violation? Does that normally require quarantine?

 No.2756

>>2755
Anon reported Manley, so I want to have a well thought out response to that since it's kinda important right now to communicate effectively to the users.

It's locked because I don't want to let anymore back and forth happen between yourself, Manley, iara, and anon before I can make the next statement I want to make. I trust you can be patient for me here, since you want everything examined thoroughly. I plan to look through all this stuff that happened between both threads and break it down for everyone from the mod teams perspective. So look forward to that I guess.

 No.2757

>>2756
Sounds good to me, I guess. Mostly just curious.

 No.2758

File: 1545188299476.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

i don't see why we cannot do both.

there's a grace period on nearly every single one of our escalating bans and warnings

if you're the sort of person to commit several, similar, just over the line offenses, it shouldn't be a steady flow of bans: it should be longer, escalating bans

we avoid arbitrariness this way

>>2752
when have we claimed this? we try to be on top of things, as much as is realistically possible. sometimes this means locking a thread and debating the merits of what measure of enforcement we're looking at

>>2753
pardon me noonim, but i think that's a bit ridiculous. The OP asks for -less- standardization.

We do not ignore problems, ever. If anything, we overthink them, and debate them to the extreme, to make sure enforcement is fair.

Otherwise, we'd just ban a lot of the worst troublemakers, over and over, and wipe our hands of the debate

Which to me sounds like a lot less work, but the absolute wrong approach

 No.2759

>>2758
>when have we claimed this?
Maybe you haven't, but, I've heard this at least three times in the last week.

Anyway; When I say you 'ignore problems', I'm mostly referring to the number of times where threads are just locked, and no warnings or bans seem to be given.

 No.2760

File: 1545189165943.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>2759
They are given though. We've given several already, since the political ban began, even.

And i even posted in one particular thread that we took several actions, many of which were private.

 No.2761

>>2758
>when have we claimed this?
Well here is one.
>>2737

 No.2762

>>2761
I'm not a mod silly.

 No.2763

>>2762
Shouldn't the mods be the ones who lock the threads and talk to us about these subjects tho? I haven't hard an official statement from any mod in that thread.

 No.2766

>>2763
If they want to. Sometimes that happens, sometimes I do it instead.

 No.2767

>>2758
>if you're the sort of person to commit several, similar, just over the line offenses
My understanding is that the ban schedule is per user, not per (user, offense_type) pair.  Is this not the case?

 No.2768

>>2758
>if you're the sort of person to commit several, similar, just over the line offenses, it shouldn't be a steady flow of bans: it should be longer, escalating bans
If a user can't learn to comply with the rules, then a long or permanent ban may be justified. But if a new user racks up a couple of short bans in getting accustomed to Ponyville culture, I don't think it's fair to smack him/her with a weeks-long ban for a small mistake that another user would just have been warned for.

Right now the ban schedule is really vicious as written for 3+ bans, but as applied is really lenient, with no real punishment for most posters.  I suggest that mods should be more liberal in handing out punishment, but that these punishments should be lighter than the escalation schedule requires.

When was the last time somebody got banned for more than a week?  I don't think this is such a common occurrence that it needs to be standardized.  If bans longer than a week aren't truly needed to maintain order except bun exceptional cases, I think we'd be better off without them being a norm.  

If you're going to ban a user for a month or more, there should really be a staff consensus that this is an appropriate or necessary punishment. It shouldnt just be automatic.

 No.2776

File: 1545228606020.png (87.14 KB, 352x298, 176:149, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>2760
Was Manley ever warned for http://ponyville.us/pony/res/889148.html#889740 or http://ponyville.us/pony/res/889148.html#889766 where he directly calls a user a jerk, and labels them as cruel?

Private actions, as I had said elsewhere, http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/2658.html#2700 , cause significant feelings of being ignored and rules not being enforced.
I've personally started to get that feeling more and more as I've posted here, because it feels like whenever I report anything, nothing ever actually happens with the report. The reports I make are just pushed aside.
If you're dealing with things privately, I'd advise against doing that, as it's causing myself, and I know at least three other users, significant distress.

You don't have to publicly berate users. Just give a simple, flat warning line on their posts. I'd actually say you shouldn't publicly berate users, as already run about ages ago with an issue I had along that line before.

If you genuinely aren't ignoring issues, I'm sorry I thought you were. It genuinely appears that way to me. And, my conversations with Thorax, at least, seem to strengthen that feeling, unfortunately.
>>2762
No, but, for the most part, you're the one actually engaging and conversing with the userbase. You're the source for most information on the standards of the administration, unfortunately. Until such a time as the regular mods feel they can come by and talk, it's probably going to remain where you're the de-facto voicepiece of the administration.

 No.2777

>>2776

i regularly try to talk with our users, but given we've already seen your concerns and Thorax has virtually said things identical to what i might, i'd say he's actually doing my job for me in this particular thread

it's not that i feel your concerns are invalid, but sometimes users (yourself included) report things that don't warrant a warning, or sometimes do warrant a warning or ban, but the current manner we handle such things is quite messy

if you have any questions, i can answer them or relay them to the staff, but you may not like the answers, is all

we do always read and discuss your concerns in-depth, it's just the results are generally not in your favor

 No.2779

File: 1545238687591.png (371.66 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>2777
Well, that's what my thread on Rule 1 is largely for. I would normally consider calling people cruel or jerks to be a violation of rule one, but it's entirely possible I've got a mistaken understanding of it.

I will also have to support the suggestion I've heard a few times of letting people who've reported things know what is going on with their reports.
Either directly, or by site function means. Either way, it'd help users feel like their concerns are being addressed, and what actually constitutes a violation.

In any case, I don't want to make it sound like if you don't agree with me, I don't think you're listening. I've understood with past issues at least where the trouble splits.
My big thing is mostly when it comes to a specific issue, mostly pertaining to civility and respect at laid out by rule one. When I report what I would consider to be a violation of rule 1, I've yet to see any actual response to that report, and my thread on that lot honestly seems to have been mostly skipped over.

I guess I'm mostly trying to vocalize the frustration I've been feeling as of late on this problem, and explain why I've been a bit more upset by it lately.

 No.2782

>>2778
>regardless of intention, ...
>it violated the rules
If the rules are strict-liability offenses and don't require any *mens rea*, I think that makes my argument against the harsh "3 strikes" escalation schedule much stronger.

If someone isn't a net negative to the site, he/she really shouldn't be banned for months for occasionally and accidentally breaking the rules in small ways.

 No.2783

>>2779

i want you to understand that threads where users insult and attack each other is a massive priority for myself right now, and we're trying to create a situation where we can stop that from escalating

i do agree we should've done more about reports of Rule 1 violations, and i think looking into how we handle bans will help

>>2782

i also think the escalating bans need serious re-working, i literally couldn't agree more with you

 No.2785

>>2783
Well, that's fair, then, I guess.
In such a case of tightening restrictions, it'd probably be best to postpone the whole escalation thing until such a time as the uses are used to the new standard.

 No.2787

>>2785

we have to actually work on how the new system will function, but i am 100% behind the idea we should be doing more to stop users from hurting each other

 No.3023

File: 1549216747389.png (663.91 KB, 888x1000, 111:125, 2cd320ecc1a2147206dc76c3c3….png) ImgOps Google

So if you post Fox News you get banned.

Good to know.

 No.3026

>>3023
I think you missed the thread you were aiming for, mate.

 No.3029


 No.3030

>>3029
>>3023
To clarify, Fox news has absolutely been posted before without issue.

Don't be a user with an enormous history of political drama, and then make a thread for designed, or with the appearance of design, to create more political drama.

The side you're on, liberal or conservative, is of no consequence.

 No.3058

Since this thread got bumped, the Ban escalation schedule really DOES need clarification and probably amending as well.

 No.3070


Maybe the ban escalation schedule has merit.

I withdraw my request to reconsider this area of the updated site rules.


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