No.3375
File: 1551066496458.png (127.44 KB, 252x305, 252:305, 13.PNG) ImgOps Google
So, this probably ought to be a given, but, rules should be visible on the front page where you'd normally find the rules.
No.3376
File: 1551066657025.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
okay, we will change that.
No.3377
File: 1551067027343.png (48.55 KB, 227x194, 227:194, 5 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3376Hey, at least you can finally respond.
It was seriously getting annoying, the way you seemed intent on ignoring me. And Manley, I guess, given that he chimed in.
Didn't you guys used to actually discuss major changes like this, before hand?
Rather than tossing them on the users out of nowhere, without any warning? Unless you count a failed, pointless, and near as I could tell pretty well disliked 'test' during Christmas on the lot.
No.3378
File: 1551067342448.png (890.78 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Twilight_and_Cadance_look_….png) ImgOps Google
>>3377I get your annoyance Noomin, but I think Moony just wanted to stop a percieved argument.
You know Moony, he has a hard time with confrontation. You bring up a good point, but do you want to take a break for a minute then come back and do this thread?
No.3379
File: 1551067668712.png (134.39 KB, 387x276, 129:92, 4.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3378I took a fairly long break, waiting for a response of some kind.
I expected some sort of reply in the thread.
I wouldn't've made this thread if I got a response there.
This thread was made a good, solid hour after that initial post. And nothing came of any comments there.
Even here, I get a single line. Just a "Okay, we will change that".
Maybe Moony's having a bad day, but, this is the first time I've ever seen this sort of thing on the site.
Normally, the staff are massively keen on discussing things. On talking to users. Explaining what's going on.
Here, I feel like I'm getting the silent treatment, or something.
It's set me on edge.
One of my main reasons for posting here is that dialogue. It was the standard. I like it when users are listened to, discussion happens, things are explained.
It'd be a real shame to throw that out.
No.3380
File: 1551068035378.jpg (64.07 KB, 700x630, 10:9, dk5wc6-82bb179a-2b94-4734-….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3379Ah sorry I didn't look at the time.
Yeah, I don't think that will stop any time soon. Maybe he is just having a bad. I'm sure someone will be in when they can.
No.3381
File: 1551068259197.png (91.63 KB, 440x309, 440:309, 61b60ec0e5455529be3ec540f9….png) ImgOps Google
>>3380I guess. I know he gets stressed out from time to time, after all. Everyone does, after all.
I just don't want it to effect the way things are, so to speak. I like how this site is run. I don't want that to change, which unfortunately might mean making a bit of a fuss about a bad day's actions.
I dunno. Maybe I am making a bigger deal of this than it deserves. I get bothered easily, when it comes to being ignored. Worst feeling for me.
Hopefully we'll hear a bit more tomorrow.
No.3382
>>3381Yeah.
And, I mean we have to keep in mind too the history behind political stuff on this site specifically. It's going to be viewed differently than other stuff just because of what has happened.
I'm not saying it's a reason not to explain warnings, but something to definitely keep in mind.
No.3383
File: 1551069912513.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3377>>3376i didn't mean to, i just didn't see it. and i did respond in thread.
and can i say, that policy has been there since 2017, that we've had at least ten threads on it, and that it was drafted, proposed, and put through a community vetting process of weeks?
i apologize for not putting it more front and center. but i'd like to think we already go ridiculously beyond what any site like ours does to try and make things pleasant and involved.
this isn't at all a major change; it's how we've always done things. And i can even remember a few times i've cited that exact thing before, in conversations and threads you were a part of.
i don't think there's a standard i can push for the staff that we can realistically achieve here, unless we start paying people.
...you want me to be honest, noonim? the staff morale is pitifully low. users report threads, we respond to the reports in ways we feel are equitable, and some other users are not happy with that, and they come here.
...i agree 100%, we should have put the policy on the frontpage, or in /rules/. it's an ancient policy though, and it didn't cross my mind.
No.3384
File: 1551070216674.png (253.04 KB, 600x700, 6:7, oh no shy.png) ImgOps Google
seriously, we put the 3P1 politics act through like two weeks of straight vetting, and then there were several modifications to it, all put through community consideration.
you may not have been present, noonim, but it doesn't mean it wasn't done, and it just feels super unfair.
the fact of the matter is, with my staff, my time, my resources, i cannot make the site in a way that makes you satisfied, and it is depressing. i mean, 4chan would just ban everyone and laugh about it. i think, our community is not that, and a more nuanced approach is necessary whenever possible.
3P1 was a week of drafting work and research, a couple of several hundred post comment threads and discussions, et al.
our mods HATE the humongous discussions, but i beg them to put up with it and try to listen and persevere out of love for the community.
we have hours of debates in the mod staff chat about these topics. we draft huge initiatives, passed by overwhelming user majority, that suddenly become controversial two years down the road because someone didn't notice the likely hundreds of times we've cited to it.
what can i do for you, noonim? i love you, but i am pretty exasperated, you must understand.
No.3385
File: 1551070434762.png (72.53 KB, 315x267, 105:89, Sad Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google
And like, you call me out for an hour of not seeing a thread that was not, to my knowledge, linked to /canterlot/. Noonim, i'm just trying to have a nice Sunday evening. i'm trying to finish my weekend work in time for an early Monday. i'm trying to relax in a thread with you, please, have some mercy!!
i'm not the U.S. government. i'm literally your friend, in front of a computer, who wants to help. i beg, do not treat our staff like a corporate team, or a government. we have not the life or resources to be either of those things, or to respond or act like we are even some big site like the 4chan or something that can mobilize people to do things.
if i get enough discord messages, it -wakes me up- in the middle of the night, so i know there is an emergency i have to help with that the staff is surely panicking about.
gosh, i cannot tell you how many times it's been like 5 AM and mondo's been like "whelp, canterlot blew up again."
i beg only for some sympathy. i did not see the thread, it has been an hour, i don't mean to ignore you. i just didn't realize.
No.3386
File: 1551070487133.jpg (82.83 KB, 313x294, 313:294, 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Not a single one of my posts was responded to by you. Nor did you respond to Manley's post.
>>>/pony/920837
>>>/pony/920838
>>>/pony/920840
>>>/pony/920841
>>>/pony/920880
>>>/pony/920881
The only reference we have of any replies you made at all were to Ella, >>>/pony/920877 , with >>>/pony/920878
>"It was meant to be a stern warning to de-escalate, as the thread had received reports, and it's best to put a stop to it before it explodes, then to let it explode"
I'm going to be blunt, here: I don't think I believe you when you said that you "didn't see it".
I'm sorry for doubting you, but, it isn't like you replied ages later, deep into the thread.
>>>/pony/920859
There were only three posts prior to that point. Depends on your monitor, somewhat, but, it feels incredibly unlikely, given I can see my post, with those three.
>and can i say, that policy has been there since 2017, that we've had at least ten threads on it, and that it was drafted, proposed, and put through a community vetting process of weeks?
If it's really been that long, it's rather horrifying to me that it is not present in the rules.
You really should fix this.
Standard and clearcut rules are a staple of a proper website.
Though, once again, I have to doubt you, rather profusely. Because we've had countless political threads prior without this coming into play, many of which had escalated far beyond this type of level, without a single shutdown of conversations.
If this is an old policy, given that you've failed to properly use it for an extensive amount of time, you should not suddenly start enforcing it heavily, out of nowhere.
This is most absolutely 100% know for a fact to be most certainly NOT "how we've always done things".
You know this.
I know this.
I've had some damn hard fights with Manley to prove it.
Let's not pretend it's something that's been a staple of this site.
No.3387
File: 1551070590443.png (81.3 KB, 648x1002, 108:167, sheepish shy.png) ImgOps Google
>>3386>>3386>without a single shutdown...no reports, and the staff is not paying attention to every single thread, just wandering the beat like cops.
once the thread is reported, the staff hops on it. today, the report was early.
And today, policy gets enacted early. instead of late. because report is timely. that's all there is to it.
No.3388
>>3385If you didn't reply to the thread, I wouldn't've, honestly.
But, you made several replies to the thread.
I've gone ahead and saved the thread for reference here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190225045519/http://ponyville.us/pony/res/920595.html>>>/pony/920862>>>/pony/920859>>>/pony/920865>>>/pony/920868>>>/pony/920875>>>/pony/920876>>>/pony/920878I wouldn't've "called you out" if it weren't for this.
And honestly, I wouldn't even call it "calling you out". Mostly it's me not being very happy because I feel ignored, and confiding that with another person. I don't attribute malice to you.
I am perfectly fine to take it at Ella's suggestion of a simple bad day. The whole staff morale, I understand. I can respect that.
But, I feel like my chain's being jerked around here. I don't believe you didn't see my comments in that thread. I mean, I made a good three of them, just above your first post. Still visible, at the time.
>>3387>no reportsI am sorry, but, you and I both know for certain there were a lot of reports there.
Especially since
I made a lot of them
Don't be denying things I know for reality. I've lived through.
No.3389
File: 1551071186004.png (209.31 KB, 613x555, 613:555, serious time.png) ImgOps Google
>>3388the reports hit only AFTER the escalation happens though, as we discussed. Not at the start, like today.
what you have implied is absolutely not what i said.
we should've taken the conversation to canterlot, from second one. in the future, i'll try to enforce that with warnings more strictly.
i don't like to take action, unless we feel its needed. Political antics have arisen to the level where increasingly immediate response is necessary.
It's such a huge problem, a carpet ban of the worst offenders has been discussed several times, albeit always shot down.
Believe me, if you think you feel like your chain is being jerked around, i cannot begin to tell you how i feel right now.
between the putting words in my mouth, and other accusations, i'm starting to feel pretty, pretty unhappy here.
No.3390
File: 1551071373044.png (102.48 KB, 360x323, 360:323, 10.png) ImgOps Google
>>3384Whether or not it was something vetted, it should still be listed on the rules page. There should still be mention of it,
somewhere. As is? There's nothing.
Forgive me if I take offense at a rule that, near as I can tell,
doesn't exist, is suddenly enforced, after ages of being ignored from my personal experience in countless loud political threads that reached far worse points.
>the fact of the matter is, with my staff, my time, my resources, i cannot make the site in a way that makes you satisfied, and it is depressing.You guys actually have me largely satisfied, outside of a few particular issues. Usually, you're great at communication, and your rules are typically very clear.
This is one of the best sites I've seen run.
It's an incredibly well-set ship, so to speak.
But, and I hope you'll understand, it's part of that which is why I call leaks out as I see them.
>what can i do for you, noonim? i love you, but i am pretty exasperated, you must understand. Communicate.
Explain.
Make these things clear.
Typically, you're great at this. Your staff writes well, communicates well, generally.
There's a few cases of contention. Sure. But, those rarely leave me feeling doubtful of the staff. Because discussion is had. Things are made clearer. Things are improved on.
In this particular case?
Like I said, sudden enforcement should not be before notification. The rules page exists for a reason, and otherwise, a stickied thread saying "We will be enforcing more heavily an old rule that, for whatever reason, we hadn't thought about" would've been perfectly fine.
Believe it or not, I don't really like making these threads either.
Fact is, I've got a fair bit of social phobia, when it comes to creating things. Threads are something I've never really felt comfortable making.
It's only when I am deeply passionate about something, I make one.
Hell, as an example, I've been sitting on a particular suggestion to make in relation to reaching staff members for particular issues or questions where impractical to use a report function. Despite being nearly universially liked by those it was mentioned to in the thread, I couldn't bring myself to actually create it. Constantly pushing it back.
I don't make threads lightly.
No.3391
File: 1551071716953.png (236.38 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Fluttershy_sad_S01E22.png) ImgOps Google
>>3390There must be some more civil way to have these discussions then, as i get the sense often that your at your wits end, and then we have to go full alert mode on staff as if this is an end of the world scenario
Again, i stress that you are 100% right about the policy not being on the frontpage, but also do point out that it is what we've been using to enforce, and that the big political threads in the past were sometimes lax enforcement, sometimes stuck in huge debates in staff about course of action, and sometimes we just didn't see them until reports started flying hundreds of posts into a discussion.
We've also been opting to post more in thread explanations versus trying to be more private.
No.3392
>>3389>the reports hit only AFTER the escalation happens though, as we discussed. Not at the start, like today.Funny, considering often nothing'd ever become of those reports, anyway, not even a thread lock or a basic "calm down".
I'm sorry, but, I have to doubt this. It seems incredibly unlikely. Especially when staff
had been in those threads a few times.
>we should've taken the conversation to canterlot, from second one. in the future, i'll try to enforce that with warnings more strictlI have a hard time making threads. Primarily because of the sort of conversation we're ending up having here. It's a lot harsher. In-thread, things're easier. It's nice when you can get a single post explaining what's what.
But, if you genuinely prefer these conversations, I can oblige.
I'd like to force myself to confront these particular issues in my character anyway.
>i don't like to take action, unless we feel its needed. Political antics have arisen to the level where increasingly immediate response is necessary.Even though, ever since the proper enforcement of civility rules, we haven't near as I can tell had a big fight in regards to politics yet? Not unless you count the random stray that got caught a bit ago. I certainly wouldn't.
Near as I can tell, since the new year, things've been going fine. The closest you get to anything near that lot was mostly discussing site items. Which are, of course, not politics.
>between the putting words in my mouth, and other accusations, i'm starting to feel pretty, pretty unhappy here.I don't mean to make uncharitable accusations. I am frustrated because I am now being told something I do not feel is true based on my experiences on this site. My eyes tell me a different story than you seem to be saying, here.
If what you say is truly accurate, I am sorry. I don't know if I can immediately take you at your word like that, given what I have seen, myself. But, I can work from there.
No.3393
File: 1551072188935.png (121.54 KB, 316x290, 158:145, 6.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3391>There must be some more civil way to have these discussions then, as i get the sense often that your at your wits end, and then we have to go full alert mode on staff as if this is an end of the world scenarioIt's mostly about enforcing the rules already prevalent on this website.
This being the civility rules.
I actually have a relatively easy time with Manley as of late as a result.
Sometimes, he does annoy me, like with his characterizations of the people on the chans, but, it's nothing like before.
The enforcement of the rules as is means that me and him can, more or less ,get along. Which is perfectly fine by me.
> but also do point out that it is what we've been using to enforce, and that the big political threads in the past were sometimes lax enforcement, That's my point, actually.
I'm fine with a more strict enforcement of policy.
Just tell us that's happening.
Don't drop it on us out of nowhere, where users suddenly feel unduly cracked down upon, given past behaviors.
I understand the trouble of reports. Personally, I think you should start regulating regardless of age, on these things. Outside of violations where rules were not present at the time, anyway. I am perfectly happy to accept a "We are working on it" line, which may take upwards of a week before a solution is worked out.
I believe I even suggested to Thorax, or maybe it was someone else, that posts which have pending action or investigation or deliberation be marked, with the understanding that it does not necessarily indicate guilt, but rather states to those involved that "Yes, this is being looked at".
Another item I didn't really push, unfortunately, due to some social phobias, that I really ought to.
>We've also been opting to post more in thread explanations versus trying to be more private.Partly related to above, but, I am certainly in favour of this.
I'd say it was a usual item, here. Normally you guys explain pretty clearly what's going on and what violation was made.
This seems to be a particular exception.
No.3394
File: 1551072609471.jpg (8.27 KB, 263x192, 263:192, images (1).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3392In thread discussions destroy the well-being of the site. A big reason canterlot exists is to quarantine the extremely otherwise toxic site related content to one accessible place
If you have to make these threads out of spite, then i think we will have problems in the future. It would be nice if, in pursuit of greater civility, we approached these conversations with more civility too.
It would get a lot more done for you if every conversation we had didn't immediately shift into the defensive.
Things are fine because enforcement has been stricter. Enforcement will loosen if things can continue to be fine, as the goal is always less enforcement is better.
I thought today was very fair. Nobody wa even given a warning. You were given a warning, asking for deescalation, or warning or bans would follow.
That is, i think, very fair. Not even unusually strict, and not even a little bit out of the ordinary. What more do you expect? There is surely a degree of coddling here that we cannot be expected to uphold.
with all due respect Noonim, i am beginning to trust your eyes less and less, with each adversarial conversation we have.
You tend to see things as being far worse and far more malicious than they are, even substituting words or ideas that i have not said, so as to put up some argument to some theoretical thing that no sane person would vouch for, and nobody has.
Let us de-escalate this conversation too, or i fear i shall no longer have the patience to continue before i must rest,as i am frustrated
No.3395
File: 1551073510641.png (181.12 KB, 350x294, 25:21, 8.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3394"Spite" might not have been the best way to phrase it. Though, I do consider spite in rather high regard, personally, I count it quite differently than most.
I see it more in the sense of doing something uncomfortable to you, to either prove a point or otherwise draw a line in the sand, than the usual "annoy someone else" or whatever.
That is to say, I tend to use 'spite' in relation to, say, somebody says I can't do something, and I prove them wrong, as it were.
I ended up editing that, because I know 'spite' is something people don't really see as I do.
>It would get a lot more done for you if every conversation we had didn't immediately shift into the defensive.In this particular regard, at least as far as this thread is concerned, I feel it could be rotated just as easily.
A critique of one aspect is not to say the whole is bad.
> What more do you expect? There is surely a degree of coddling here that we cannot be expected to uphold.Like I said: I expect rules to be stated.
I expect the policies which the administartion enforces based off of to be readily available for users to read and understand.
I expect sudden dramatic shifts in the way staff handle incidents on the site to be explained prior to them occurring.
That is literally all I want.
For all I care, you could've banned me. It wouldn't change my complaint.
Perhaps you don't really understand where I am coming from, with this. For me, it's far more to do with the principle of the thing, than the punishment.
I don't care about the punishment. At least, not in so far as 'strict' or 'lenient'.
I believe I had explained this to you before, but, I care about what's fair.
Whether you've got a place that slaps you on the wrist, or lops off a hand for stealing, so long as people know that's the policy and can leave if they want, that's fair. I am okay with either one, in so far as a site is concerned. So long as it is fair.
You can be as strict or as lenient as you desire. So long as it is fair.
>with all due respect Noonim, i am beginning to trust your eyes less and less, with each adversarial conversation we have. Another good reason for me to stop the social phobias problem, and actually start getting more properly involved, honestly.
This has been a bit of a fear of mine for a while.
I don't want to become a source of standard drama, but, I also don't want to abandon my principles or ignore things I believe are important.
Doing nothing out of social fear for the things I don't care about so heavily, I believe, is making it appear as though I'm always against you guys.
I don't like that.
It's inconvenient to praise random behavior, of course, but, I can at least start making more neutral suggestions. Dealing in more nuanced subjects. Put my weight in where normally I wouldn't.
>You tend to see things as being far worse and far more malicious than they are, even substituting words or ideas that i have not said, so as to put up some argument to some theoretical thing that no sane person would vouch for, and nobody has.Examples, please.
I try to quote things because it is a great way to help build understanding.
It also is a good way to set up a standard for what has occurred.
Tell me what I said that is not true, is interpretative as malicious, or is the result of substituting words and ideas.
Let me hear why you think the way you do.
Let me understand where you are coming from.
>Let us de-escalate this conversation too, or i fear i shall no longer have the patience to continue before i must rest,as i am frustratedRest away.
So long as you do not forget me, and you let me know you're doing it, I do not care. You could reply to me in a week's time, and, so long as I know that's what's going on, that I've not been abandoned, I'd be fine with it.
No.3396
File: 1551075079824.jpg (150.35 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, chest-bounciness.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3394>Nobody wa even given a warning. You were given a warning, asking for deescalation, or warning or bans would follow.I know what you meant, but I still got a little chuckle from interpreting this wrong (implying that Noonim is a nobody).
>>3385>if i get enough discord messages, it -wakes me up- in the middle of the nightDoushite? I admire you dedication, Moony, but isn't this a bit far? I don't think anything in chan-world is so important that it can't wait 24 hours. Sleep is very important.
>>3395Noonim, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The site staff here are all volunteers. They do their best to handle situations and to be fair to everyone. But they have limited time and, like all of us, are imperfect human beings. They don't read all the posts in the thread. Saying something like
>>3386>I'm going to be blunt, here: I don't think I believe you when you said that you "didn't see it".is just uncalled for. Give the staff the benefit of the doubt.
No.3397
>>3396Like I said, I'm the kind of guy who doesn't really care about the technical effect, as much as the principle.
I get fussy, when it comes to that, just out of principle.
It might be a bad habbit.
I haven't decided yet.
>is just uncalled for. Give the staff the benefit of the doubt. Like I pointed out
>>3388 , it just seems really unlikely.
Especially given later statements by moony, along the lines of
>we should've taken the conversation to canterlot, from second one. in the future, i'll try to enforce that with warnings more strictly.But, okay. If Moony really didn't see it, somehow, despite being right above what he posted, I guess that's that.
I find it unlikely, but, you're right. I should give the benefit of the doubt.
No.3398
>>3397> didn't see it, somehow, despite being right above what he posted, It can happen easily if Moony saw the thread on the front page (where only the last 3 posts of the thread are visible) and responded just to one of those posts without looking at any of the other posts. I do that sometimes.
>Like I said, I'm the kind of guy who doesn't really care about the technical effect, as much as the principle.I'm not so sure that you and Moony have much in the way of differences of principle (as relevant here). It seems to me that you're complaining mainly about imperfect execution.
No.3399
File: 1551075848290.png (268.43 KB, 437x494, 23:26, 5.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3398He didn't respond to any specific post, but, I guess.
> It seems to me that you're complaining mainly about imperfect execution.In a way, I guess? I mean, I wouldn't really call it "imperfect execution", as much as "insufficient headsup".
Like I said, I am more concerned about fairness.
I understand if Moony's not someone that puts that necessarily at the top, like I do. I might be a bit off with that.
When I say "principle", what I really mean, though, is that, I might make a fuss over something silly because of the principle of the thing.
No.3400
File: 1551076924214.png (11.57 KB, 417x500, 417:500, 1457753349592.png) ImgOps Google
>>3399>I understand if Moony's not someone that puts [fairness] necessarily at the topI gotta disagree with you on that one. My perception is that Moony cares a lot about being fair. It's part of why he is such a good admin. Of course, nobody is perfect, and there are sometimes mistakes, misunderstandings, and miscommunication.
>>3399>but, I guess.I know that you hate it (and rightfully so) when people like Manley make negative accusations of your intentions and character. There's no reason for you to make those sorts of accusations about Moony. There is literally nothing good that can come of it. Moony wouldn't lie about something like that. IMHO, you really owe him an apology.
I think your real complaint is that nobody on the site staff was looking out for (or notified of) replies to Moony's posting so that they could respond to questions about the warning. And that's a legit complaint. But you should frame it that way, rather than making accusations like you made. (Also, the site staff don't have an infinite time to spend modding.)
No.3401
>>3400>There's no reason for you to make those sorts of accusations about Moony. There is literally nothing good that can come of it. Moony wouldn't lie about something like that. IMHO, you really owe him an apology.Oh my gosh, this, so much this.
Frankly, all this seems like a severe overreaction on Noonim's part. And from my perspective here from the sidelines, Noonim is not being particularly fair.
No.3402
File: 1551077572208.png (394.38 KB, 1666x939, 1666:939, bannana.PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3400I mean more in the direction of, fairness like me. Because, I can be a bit of an extremist when it comes to that sort of thing.
>I know that you hate it (and rightfully so) when people like Manley make negative accusations of your intentions and character. There's no reason for you to make those sorts of accusations about MoonyThere's a bit of a difference between the two. Here being that, there's an actual case to be had. There's something of an argument to be made.
But, alright.
If he really didn't see it, I am sorry.
Given that, I'll instead transfer my complaint to "It's not really ideal to put out a staff-statement on a thread with relatively little content, and immediately disappear" instead.
That is to say, I don't really like the idea of staff throwing a fast moderation item, in this particular case two extremely short and vague posts, and then disappear.
Especially when you're also saying there's a "five minute grace period".
How do you know if someone is still stirring trouble? What if there's something else that needs comment on?
Mind you that Moony's post was at 20:31:51, whereas mine was at 20:34:576. Five minutes had not yet gone by.
If you genuinely didn't see my posts, I am quite sorry for making such an accusation to you, Moony.
I hope you can understand how it'd appear that way, from my perspective, when a staff action was given and responded to quite quickly within what one would expect is a monitoring period, it'd look very off, especially with later posts made.
It was not my intention to accuse you of something you did not do.
No.3403
File: 1551077792834.png (278.75 KB, 477x342, 53:38, Capture (2).PNG) ImgOps Google
>>3401If I'm not being fair, I'm sorry.
I guess I just didn't really see how a post made not much more than two minutes after they had made theirs is missed. Especially when he came back in to the thread, while there were few replies made.
Call it bad luck on Moony's part, I guess. I don't normally have posts made within 2 minutes of the one I am replying to, that are missed. And, like I said, I'd've expected a bit of staff observation, especially given the '5 minute grace period' lot.
No.3405
>>3404I guess. Bad luck, I suppose. Though, like I had said, at that point, the complaint shifts to a sort of "probably shouldn't immediately disappear after you do something moderatory".
Hanging around for at least a couplea minutes just in case, especially when trying to de-escalate a situation, seems sensible enough to me.
No.3406
>>3402moony is a very, very busy and stressed person, and likely made the posts quickly before going to do something of more importance
arguing about slurs and social politics again on /pony/ was more than enough reason to step in, as far as i'm concerned
most people do not want to read you arguing semantics about slurs on the main board of the site, and i think that's a perfectly fair thing to desire
No.3407
File: 1551105310347.png (99.26 KB, 259x259, 1:1, Squid-girl-Season-2-Episod….png) ImgOps Google
>>3406>most people do not want to read you arguing semantics about slurs on the main board of the siteFor that thread (>>>/pony/920595), I'd say that the trouble started with Manley proposing and arguing for a racially discriminatory double-standard of judging a person's use of a word by the color of the speaker's skin rather than by the content and context of their speech. If Manley is allowed to do that, it's only fair that Noonim be allowed to respond with his viewpoint.
No.3408
>>3407i mean, manley is just as guilty
like, seriously, arguing about slurs on the main board of the site is not okay
i'm not sure why anyone thinks it is
No.3409
...i am surprised, coming back here to see the thread, and i am grateful for how the conversation has progressed, but do also wish to give a defense of noonim.
i did not see the noonin post right away after mod response, but i did check back minutes later, to post. And after around fiveish minutes, i wrote up a post which i thought i had hit reply on: i think i mentioned this as well, in this thread.
Thank you Chain, anon, savvy, for adding your perspectives.
And thank you, noonim, for bringijg into view what absolutely is a real problem : rules we enforce need to go where we put rules otherwise users cannot be expected to know
No.3410
>>3406It's a bit more then semantics. Like Chain was saying, for me it's a lot more to do with the double-standard, as it relates to what someone can say, based around their race.
But, yeah. If you guys don't want to allow that sort of discussion, that's fine. So long as there's a heads-up, is all.
No.3411
>>3410okay yeah, i want to be clear that we really don't want people arguing about slurs on the main board of ponyville
i'm not saying you were the only one at fault, by any means
whether anyone agrees with you or manley's views really doesn't factor into the situation
No.3412
>>3411I'm mostly meaning to comment on the characterization of the argument.
Ultimately, that's not why I made this thread, though.
Like I said, the problem here was just the lack of a heads up on rules evidently enforced.
No.3414
>>3413social politics are not ideal to discuss on /pony/ either,
especially with manley
No.3415
>>3414Honestly, I haven't had much trouble with him after rules on civility started getting enforced.
This thread was mostly fine. Only place I ended up getting a tad annoyed was the whole characterization of people on the chans, which of course isn't really 'social politics'.
No.3416
File: 1551127511102.gif (195.73 KB, 220x220, 1:1, tenor (3).gif) ImgOps Google
>>3375I'd like to weigh in here real quick without fully reading any of this, just because.
a lost pony is the designated Moony-heckler on this site, and i don't appreciate another poster stealing my thunder. : (
Haha.
Srsly tho im not sure if anyone mentioned but hey Noomy, Moons was and i think still is in the middle of a big stretch of at least 12 hour days and i see today he's in Denmark, fighting the good fight for the little guys in the real world. I don't know when he's actually had a day off or if he's ever going to see another one.
I know things could always be better here and i think Moony simply popped in real quick to simply say "Hey, everypony please play nice" because some observers thought that things were looking like they could get darker.
Theres no call to be stressing out over anything, and believe me i understand completely, being the designated hyper-overreactor nutjob on this board (tbc not implying anyone else is anything in case it seems i might have).
Please just relax, calm your tits, chillax and leave the sperging out to a lost pony. Ok?
*pets and hugs everypony
No.3418
File: 1551130192802.jpg (35.33 KB, 390x359, 390:359, 1551068837659.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3417Oh really?
That's my reading comprehension skills for ya.
No.3420
File: 1551146059893.jpg (18.95 KB, 268x345, 268:345, 65958m.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3401Absolutely this.
It is just mindboggling to see this thread, honestly.
Moony, you do plenty for this site. Do remember to take care of yourself too.
No.3428
File: 1551162767894.png (474.39 KB, 1280x1825, 256:365, tumblr_ovp4b67LAx1tdv657o4….png) ImgOps Google
>>3426The christmas truce was a test, from what I understood, and one that had a fair bit of user backlash to it. It also didn't actually help the problem.
What ultimately helped the problem was enforcing civility rules.
And, it wasn't on the rules page, there wasn't a thread about it on /rules/ outside of the "christmas truce" thing which, again, was a test for a specific duration.
I'm fine with a crackdown on drama, in general, not just of the political sort. Near as I can tell, it's never been about politics, the particular issues, but rather civility. That's why I had still the same problems as before, even during the christmas truce, and that's why a user ended up getting banned during that time, despite not discussing politics.
But, whether or not it's needed isn't really the point, anyway. The point is more, people ought to be informed when things change. That's all.
No.3429
File: 1551234267399.jpg (36.89 KB, 216x180, 6:5, snail_heart.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3428> Near as I can tell, it's never been about politics, the particular issues, but rather civility. I gotta agree. The latest incident involved, oddly enough, epistemology in regards to the nervous systems of gastropods.
No.3432
File: 1551255413572.jpg (173.56 KB, 1600x1260, 80:63, galapoint1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>3429It was actually about empathy.
In particular, whether it's being exhibited by those discussing which creatures might have it.
No.4123
File: 1554310072823.png (422.17 KB, 512x512, 1:1, 3513122455fd2d14fd4b357eb9….png) ImgOps Google
>>3383>...i agree 100%, we should have put the policy on the frontpage, or in /rules/. it's an ancient policy though, and it didn't cross my mind.Bump. We're still missing the link to the political-drama policy on the frontpage and on /rules/.
