/canterlot/ - Canterlot

It's not a harassment campaign. If this is just flat-out dishonest smear mongering.
It is explicitly a desire to gather others with the interest in Fair and even-handed moderation. That is all. As it currently stands, the moderation on this website is not fair and even-handed. Rules do not apply to some.

I have never harassed you, and I don't think you could make the argument that I have. You mean while have repeatedly directed posts to me when I had explicitly said I had did not want to speak with you.
The claim that you do not engage with me, intentionally trying to speak behind my back about me to others, or even directly replying to my posts, is a flat out lie. You know this is a lie, and I can say for a fact that it is a lie, because there is plenty of evidence to indicate that this is a lie.

It is not harassment to desire fair and even moderation on a website. It is not harassment to expect the moderation to not play favorites, and ignore rule-breakers. it is not harassment to be upset when a particular individual who consistently attacks, insults, defames you, talks behind your back, and makes repeated unwanted contact, is left completely alone with staff actively refusing to do anything about it.

>>4314
Hmm, I interpreted Noonim's post not as setting off on a personal vendetta against you, but as trying to convince the mods to enforce the rules in a manner that he sees as equal-handed to everyone, with it just being incidental that you would be the only person adversely affected.  E.g., if you have an epiphany and stop posting in a manner that Noonim finds to be rule-breaking, then he would no longer be interested in the pursuit in question.

>>4318
Precisely this. That, or if the staff actually enforced the rules when it came to him.

>>4317
>It is explicitly a desire to gather others with the interest in Fair and even-handed moderation.

In regards to one poster, whom you have a clear bias against.

>>4318
>if you have an epiphany and stop posting in a manner that Noonim finds to be rule-breaking.

You mean if I started watching Fox News. Disagreeing with him politically is not and never has been against the rules

>>4320
Because the staff ignores the rule breaking of the user, sure. That's still not harassment

By the way; Friendly reminder that only one of us has been banned for harassment.
>>2871

Problem is this was done by someone who had not been around in a while and evidently was unfamiliar with the particular deal you have going on

>>4320
It's never been about political disagreements. You know that. We've had plenty of non political disagreements for you to know so.
Again, just strikes me as dishonest smearing tactics.

>>4322
>only one of us has been banned for harassment.

Why bring that up? It has no bearing on whether or not you're engaging in harassment now. That's jsut you trying to discredit me.

If you don't have anything constructive today, then please leave my thread.

>>4327
well, I am trying to discredit you. Not only are you being incredibly dishonest, here in this thread, misrepresenting events, you are the one who has been engaging in harassment for ages now. Not me.
which is a huge part of my current misgivings towards the staff. They do not seem to actually bother enforcing the rules at this point, at least when it comes to you. Otherwise prior incident should have set a precedent, and so your repeated actions of the exact same sort that got you band that time should have gotten you banned now.

unless the staff explicitly tell me not to post in this thread, given that it directly targets me and actively tries to lie about me, I am going to continue posting in it.
I dare say that people should not be allowed to make up lies about others, and then be permitted to forbid the user they are lying about from defending themselves.

>>4328
You can't bring up something unrelated in an attempt to discredit me. That's completely dishonest and underhanded.

"Get rid of Manley" isn't part of the rules. That's what you want. Claiming it's about being "fair" is a farce. You want revenge. You've said it yourself. You think you are justified in seeking it. >>4234
>An eye for an eye is unpleasant ,and doesn't fix anything, but there is at least some form of justice there.
>Something happens. One feels better having at least scratched back.

Don't pretend this is about fairness. It's about you wanting to "feel better" by hurting me over a perceived slight. And I'm going to defend myself as best I can from that. What you are doing is harassment and against the rules.

>>4329
It isn't unrelated. It's direct evidence that you have been the one harassing me for a while now.
it's direct evidence to suggest that your claim that I am the one harassing you, while you constantly speak about me behind my back, or literally make unwanted contact as was the case not too long ago, suggest that your claim is actually the other way around.

I don't necessarily want to get rid of you. I just want the rules enforced. Frankly, if you contented yourself not to constantly insult and berate others, I wouldn't have a particular issue with you.
problem is, of course, that's not the case.
moreover, the staff seems to actively cover for you. Banning users who respond in kind to you, but never you.

You can pull s*** from out of context all you like, you can keep trying to discredit me in the lowest way possible, it's not really going to change how I feel on this, it's not going to get me to stop saying as much. It sure as hell not going to get me to stop trying to get the administration to actually enforce the rules when it comes to you, as opposed to give you the repeated special treatment that nobody else ever receives.

Can I say something?

>>4331
I suppose.

>>4331
You already have, silly

I feel like...so many of these arguments come up from, what looks like to me, bad communication skills and our own unwillingness to to try and clarify what the other person means. And some history of bad communications with people too...

I just can't help but see these arguments, and see like...How me and Star never seem to have a problem discussing things (for the most part, I'm well aware that I have lost my temper too and been unwilling to listen or go forward with the conversation),and I feel so much like that is a communication thing.

Manley, when we have deeply, deeply disagreed on something, haven't we always been able to come back later and apologize, and then put ourselves in each others shoes and see where the other person is coming from?

You know I have fears and biases of people because of how they have treated me sometime, and sometimes I can see those fears and biases of yours come out in your debates and arguments. I don't think it's possible to let go of those completely, but I feel like...I don't know, if we work on trying to recognize when they are happening, maybe it could help our communication?

I'm having a hard time articulating myself well. It's been a...really rough week, and I came here because this is honestly the only place I have to go to talk to friends anymore and seeing all this is just...well, I'll be selfish and say it upsets me on a really personal level because I came here to have fun and see my friends and wanted to see everyone happy.

I mean, maybe I can help? Maybe, do you guys like want a mediator? Could I be that for you guys if it would help you guys just stop fighting for a while?

>>4335
I'm not against it, but, I don't really believe it will do anything.
Mostly because I've had a lot of these discussions with him with plenty of others trying to help him understand, and, frankly, I don't believe he can.
As in physically cannot empathize in this manner to understand the hurt caused by his statements.
But, I'll try again if you like. At least at this point there's plenty of backlog arguments and explanations to follow.

You guys have no idea sometimes how hard it is to watch people you care about fighting all the time with each other, other people you care about.

I tried for a really long time not to care because I've never been able to hold more than a few people close without feeling scared, but I let myself care about this place and everyone here more than is probably healthy for me.

It hurts a lot. Like watching your parents fight, or maybe your siblings.

I want to do something. I want you guys to see the more human parts of each other, past the beliefs in what society is or isn't, or what we could or couldn't be doing to improve it, and see the person standing right in front of you who is real and breathing and might not always be there for you to debate with

>>4337
I don't think personally that the politics is the issue. As I believe Chain had said prior, we've ended up fighting over snails before. Not literally over snails, I guess, just in a thread and following a conversation about snails.

But, I do get what you mean. I had a similar trouble before, with getting too attached and all, on Ponychan before I came here. It honestly affected me far more than I ever thought it could. But I guess that was my internet home for a very long time before I ended up having to leave it behind.
Was not a pleasant run of things, to say the least.

>>4335
I don't think mediation would help. He's not interested in hearing any side that doesn't agree with what he already thinks. The things we disagree on run deeper than the things you and I have disagreed on. My very life and family are sometimes put in jepordy because of the things he agrees with or condones. But it's not even about his political views. I've long given up on trying to reach him. He will always just get pissed and start flinging insults. I just want him to leave me alone.

>>4338
>>4340
Would you guys be willing to hold off on talking to each other until I can get back to this thread?

I want to try. Maybe it won't work like you guys say, but I want to try

>>4343
Here’s my solution...

Let them go at it until one of them is BTFO.
Problem solved.

>>4340
It's funny you say that when you seem to also want to engage with me continually. Prime example'd be >>>/pony/951956 where you had decided to reply directly to me. You could've chosen not to. You knew I didn't want to talk to you. Yet, apparently, I'm the one who needs to leave you alone. Even though you've kept replying to me or speaking about me behind my back.
if you want me to leave you alone, why do you talk about me or reply to me unsolicited?

Chain's filter is available to you, as well. You could always use it too. Just replace "manley" with "noonim".

>>4343
When would be best for you?
Would you prefer to do it over another platform, like Discord perhaps?
It's rather late here, at the moment. 1AM. I can probably stay up another two hours, though. Otherwise, I'm off tomorrow and the day after.

>>4346
Probably tomorrow or the next day if that's ok with you guys. Would rather just keep it in this thread as well if we could.

It's late for me too kinda hard to plan this out straight at the moment and I'm very tired.

Manly let me know if you want to try this too and if you want it here or on something like discord iif you guys prefer that

>>4347
I'm personally a bit more inclined towards discord, simply because it's a bit faster and easier to use. A tad more private as well. But, I don't really care that much either way.

>>4345
Yeah, I told you the truth, that you didn't need to defend the right and argue. Once. And you... constantly come to threads to bitch about me when no one is talking about you.

>>4343
I'd need to talk to you in private about this before you tried that. I honestly think it's a bad idea. He's not going to listen.

>>4349
Done that once. Arguably twice, with the recent lot, though I was in that thread already seeing the fight with the other guy, with you doing your usual thing insulting him the whole run.

And of course, you do that same shit anyway. So that doesn't really work, now, does it?

>>4337

God, that's relatable.

>>4360
Did you ever consider maybe it would go a lot better if you didn't let people insult others?
Like, maybe if you enforced the rules, as they are written to specifically stop that kind of thing?

Maybe there wouldn't be massive fights if you didn't let a certain someone constantly treat people like shit.
Maybe if you actually enforced the rules, such as "2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated." you wouldn't have this type of problem.

>>4337
Aye. Welcome to Trollchan.

>>4367
You nearly always take genuine misunderstandings of your intentions and arguments as intentional accusations, then refuse to clarify what you actually meant. You either keep insisting you were clear and that you will not explain what you actually mean, or you insist that if they do not understand they are mentally stunted.

This happens almost every time we talk, even when I try to get you to explain what your actual stance is and assure you that I genuinely do not understand and am not trying to accuse you of or fabricate anything. You simply will not take that as a possibility, and assume malice on my part every time. The vast majority of "insults" you think I've lobbed at you have been this exact type of exchange.

You still haven't even given any specific examples of "insults" from the last thread that promoted this whole affair. Even when I asked you to. Even though doing so would help your case. The mods could examine those examples, and determine whether they were indeed insults or not. Whatever they decide, it would help both of us know where the line is drawn on what is and isn't an "insult" in the eyes of the staff.

>>4367
>>4474

I am here preemptively to moderate a discussion if it occurs, just so everyone is aware.  Manley has explained his position in a civil manner about how he thinks things have gone in an effort to prevent them from happening again.  It was not an attack, Noonim, and you should not respond defensively.

>>4474
I try to clarify at every single step.
In the last case, for example, every single reply I made contained a clarification of my position.
You just seem to always ignore it. You also always seem to ignore my making those clarifications, as you always insist I'm not making them

Every time we talk, I explain my position over and over again. For absolute ages. I give you post after post after post, with you constantly insulting me the whole way through, and generally treating me like shit.
If you don't see them as insults, I guess that's that. But they damn well hurt me. And I know for sure you wouldn't like them done to you.

>You still haven't even given any specific examples of "insults" from the last thread that promoted this whole affair. Even when I asked you to. Even though doing so would help your case.
Which one?
This one?

The vast majority of insults you've lobbed have been things like this, assumptions of mallice and shitiness, or, as was the case in http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/4165.html , a flat out insult that you refuse to see as such.
>"I honestly think he might have some kind of mood disorder, but I'm not a doctor."

I've given a lot of those examples to the staff.
They've even talked to you about them a few times.
>>4231
>"Manley, don't suggest people have disorders, regardless of how totally super okay it is to have disorders.  People don't like it.  You should realize that people don't like it, and you really shouldn't do things people don't like."
And of course there's been a lot of other threads besides that.

Since you've said your piece I'll say mine:

Nearly every single time I talk to you, you just ignore what I say.
Maybe you don't do it intentionally, but, a lot of the time I will literally say the thing you're arguing, and you'll skip on by it, making a whole trail further.
And whenever I say "I didn't say that, stop saying I said that", you always get defensive.
Far too often, you end up accusing me of things. Throwing insulting and demeaning accusations at me, whether it be "trying to get me banned", or "being malicious".

I've tried very, very hard to reach out to you. To get you to understand my particular troubles with that kind of thing. I've done everything I could to explain why your statements hurt, why what you said is damaging. When simple empathy couldn't cut it, I tried using logic with you. I tried explaining how you would feel, using you to prove that you'd be hurt by it.
But for whatever reason, you never accept it.
And, then the staff don't bother correcting it.

If I'm entirely honest with you, I blame them for a large part of it. I feel like if they properly enforced the rules around you, you'd eventually learn. If not out of empathy or understanding, out of cold survivability.

Honestly, I'm really desperate for any kind of solutions.
I've been searching for a very long time now. And, today I find out the one guy who ever did anything in that regard, the one guy who's ever actually bothered to really reach out to me, to talk to me personally, listen to my problems, left.
It's left me in a rather dark place as far as the site's concerned.

It's pretty easy to feel alone when you're rather regularly treated like trash, and nobody seems to do anything about it.

>>4485
I don't intentionally ignore what you say. I genuinely do not understand what your stance or argument is most of the time. You claim you give me lots of posts explaining it, but that has not been my experience with you. My experience with you is that when you feel like you've been misinterpreted, you most often assume it's always intentional and malicious. Or you assume that it's intended as some kind of insult. And you refuse to clarify. You often say "I've already explained it!" INSTEAD of clarifying, which is not the same as clarifying.

If your attempts to explain something are falling short, instead of assuming the other person is intentionally trying to misrepresent you despite them repeatedly telling you they are not, you should try explaining it another way. You can even try doing it in a simpler way, so long as you don't immediately jump to "you must be retarded if you don't get it." like you have in the past. It's your job to make sure you are clearly understood, and not accuse and assume things about other people's intentions when others doing that to you upsets you so much. You should treat people the way you want to be treated, not the way you think you have been treated. Like it or not, being insulted does not give you the right to insult others. It doesn't give you leeway to make assumptions about their intentions or accuse them of being malicious. I'm done with this thread. I'm going to go back to not engaging you directly anymore, unless it's on /townhall/ and I do not know it is you. The rules of /townhall/ put the impetus to make ourselves understood on us alone.

>>4534
>You claim you give me lots of posts explaining it, but that has not been my experience with you.
to that, I would point to our last interaction on Town Hall. every post I made in reply to you further expanded on my position, and explain it in different ways. this is what I do every time. It's why I feel like you don't actually listen to what I say, and end up getting frustrated, because you literally sit there and claim that I wasn't expanding on what I meant at all, even though rather large percentages of my posts are explicitly dedicated to that purpose specifically.

whether or not you feel like it was a case, every single time you have asked me to explain something I have done so. You never seem to listen to that exclamation, you never seem to give it the time of day, but, it is always there. I always expand on exactly what I have said. That's why I am so quickly frustrated wish you a lot of these times, because you refuse to even accept that much.

how am I supposed to communicate with a guy who refuses to even accept that I'm trying to communicate with him in the first place?
how can I give somebody like that the benefit of the doubt, when literally every single time I reply to his post further explaining my position, he keeps on insisting that I've never explain my position once?

I don't know if there's some kind of particular issue with you reading my posts, whether it's some kind of problem you have or if it's something you just can't grasp do to your own way of thinking, but, never had this problem with anybody else.
nobody else insists that after literal dozens of posts, with paragraphs upon paragraphs of text explain my position in excruciating detail, that I never elaborate.
this is something that I have genuinely only experienced with you, and for the life of me I cannot understand why you do it. It seems strange to sit here even now claiming that I never expand on what I mean, given that literally every single time we end up in an argument, you can see hundreds of posts made, with hundreds of words, every single time, further explaining exactly what I meant and exactly what I had said and exactly how I meant it. Even when I'm trying to defend myself against things that I had viewed as insults, I further explain exactly why I had said what I said. I tried to expand on my position specifically in an effort to help you understand, because it has always been my position that most fights between individuals is a lack of understanding.
But for some reason every single time I do that it's thrown back in my face, with something that I can only really view as a lie to accompany it.
As in this is the only practical way I can view it. I genuinely don't know of any possible way you can take thousands of words written as a refusal to explain. to me, when you actively ignore reality in this way, when you actively ignore dozens of posts explicitly built a for the purpose of explaining my positions, I can't really see any other reason outside of a willful desire to ignore what I say.

>If your attempts to explain something are falling short, instead of assuming the other person is intentionally trying to misrepresent you despite them repeatedly telling you they are not, you should try explaining it another way.
What if every time you do that, they say that you aren't even trying to explain your position?
What if every time you do that, they accuse you of a wide range of negative character traits, intentions, and actions?
what if every time you do that, the active leaf pretend that it never happened?

because I actually do this every single time. I explain my meaning in a thousand. Different ways every single time I talk to you. But you always say the exact same thing.

>>4534

Just using the /townhall/ thread from the other day as an example, you do seem to miss the parts of his posts where he's clarifying his position.  Take this post from "Charitable Llama":

>I don't have to know. It's a flat rule, near as I can tell. If it applies in any circumstances where a kid is attacked, then it'd apply to these situations as well. You seem to misunderstand my point, here.

>If you said "Anyone who hits someone should be imprisoned", that applies to every single situation where someone is hit, regardless of the context involved. It'd apply in a situation where a thug punches a grandmother and steals her purse, as well as a situation where a woman punches a would-be rapist before running away. It's not "assuming malice on the part of the punched" to point this out. The situation is directly covered within the perimeters set.

You responded to this part, quoting "It's a flat rule, near as I can tell" and arguing "Except it's not, and unless you can prove that, hthen you can't keep saying that it is."  Which kinda goes back to how you had me change your OP a bit later to show that it's an example and not necessarily a logical conclusion.  But the real issue here is this:

>Also, stop trying to turn this thread into a debate on animal euthanasia. If you want to discuss whether it's ethical to put down animals, start another thread.
>You're the one who put it in your OP. You used it as a justification to execute pedophiles. If that particular justification is trash, and built on a bad premise, then it'd put a major flaw in your argument. Perhaps it'd be better to start a new thread over, skipping the rather lousy justification used here, and simply asking "should we execute pedophiles".

You didn't actually respond to this part at all, the part where he explains that he was reading your OP as a logical argument and if it wasn't that then it should be rewritten.  This was a really important part, the part that explained why he was making any of these arguments to begin with, and it just didn't come up at the time.

Gotta go for a few hours, but I'll look over all this more when I get back.

>>4539
>>4534
Just to be clear, here, I'm not at all against accepting a simple case of something put up in an OP or any post not intended. Mistakes are an easy thing to happen, after all, and it's perfectly fine, provided you recognize them.
The problem is when you sit there and demand I prove something you claimed, suggest I'm being mallicious for exploring the statement made, or claim debating that argument is off topic, when it's an argument you made.

Which is a rather large part of why I found the whole pile of insinuations insulting. I mean, here I am, addressing the arguments you presented, and yet that makes me a bad person acting maliciously, antagonistically, and belligerently.

Of course, apparently all of that is totally legitimate to say, and so there's no real reason to respond to anyone's arguments, I guess.
Might as well just turn every /townhall/ debate into a pissing match where everyone just flings whatever insults and dismissive remarks they desire any time anyone says anything that contradicts them,.