Major Moderator Biases

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Ponymotes
File
Flags	Spoiler Image NSFW Image
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 00:24:24 No.4368

File: 1560817464560.png (82 KB, 958x364, 479:182, Moony.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4361
Isn't like I even realized it was him until fairly long into the thread, anyway. About the strawman point, honestly.

But, yeah. It's trash that you're able to be actively insulted and berated, which supposedly will "not be tollerated", according to the rules of that board, because you happened to be possibly according to some people's interpretation "snarky".
Which, by the way, seems to damn well be quite a bit lesser on the list there.
>>>/townhall/3
>"2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans."
Key phrase there being "strongly discouraged", vs "not tolerated".
I guess "will not be tolerated" means something very different to them. Instead of "if you do it, you will be punished accordingly", it means "if you do it, it's okay so long as the other guy said some something mildly sarcastic first".
>>4362
I don't really much care for Ponychan. I've had my fair share of experiences over there that leave a bitter taste in my mouth.
But, I guess they at least don't pretend to be fairhanded about things. One of the mods there phrased it as more 'giving kids a time out', I believe. Can't remember exactly. It was over discord, at the time, when I had gotten rather upset at a particularly unjust banning.
>>4365
It seems the other guy left, over this stuff, so, I'm under the impression that, at least as it concerns this, it isn't the case.

>>4366
So to be clear here, you're saying it's okay to insult people? I'm perfectly allowed to say that sort of shit to them, without problem?

Good to know. I guess from now on if I'm confronting anyone who disagrees with me, I can skip the usual politeness, and just start insulting them. I'll just say they're being belligerent, needlessly antagonistic, and assuming malice. That's totally okay, apparently. That's totally a healthy conversation right there.

I don't have a grudge against you. Just an extreme level of disappointment in the staff. It seems like you ignore any time when Manley does anything wrong. Hell, warnings've literally been deleted. it seems like it's more about who is making the posts, rather than what rules are broken.

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:14:41 No.4369

File: 1560820481446.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

well, it's a bit of a mix. naturally, some situations warrant lots of autonomy, such as spammers.

Other situations, because we know they create threads like this one, require a lot of discussion.

The staff is purposefully picked out of a very large variety of users, so the debates on the team tend to be pretty intensive, so as to maximize the perspectives

Some enforcement decisions, like the one taken here, are made by the portions of staff that are online at the time.

Sometimes, these decisions are made quicker than others, so as to minimize damage further down the road (see, the 200+ textwall post threads with ten reports).

i'm willing to review the executive decision making of the staff here... but i see a lot of anger and resentment from staff and users that worries me.

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:27:07 No.4370

File: 1560821227257.png (209.13 KB, 842x949, 842:949, guard shy.png) ImgOps Google

i will be reviewing the thread, and this thread, de novo. i have no idea who anyone is. i will not be looking at IP's in the course of my analysis.

My first thought is, the thread is bait, and a troll. If this was in my sole discretion, i'd shut that thread down from the outset.

It runs directly into calls to violence and dehumanizing rhetoric with regards to /townhall/ rule 3. i would say it implicates general rule 6, particularly in light of the heightened scrutiny of /townhall/.

Whoever Stunning Hummingbird is, i would've locked the thread and warned them. The staff elected to let it stand, and as this is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, i won't comment further.

@84; Charitable Llama states: "So, we should shoot people who end up disabled. Makes sense to me."

@85; Stunning Hummingbird replies: "You're being needlessly antagonistic."

i agree with Stunning Hummingbird. That is absolutely needlessly antagonistic. The call out is warranted, and fair.

Charitable Llama needs to tone down the rhetoric, and play by the rules of the board.

i would warn Charitable Llama.

@87; Stunning Hummingbird makes the unfortunate decision to engage into the antagonism, instead of pulling back

@89; Charitable Llama escalates

@93; Stunning Hummingbird has now risen to the escalation, and has ratcheted up the rhetoric.

@94 - 97; Charitable Llama states "you've repeatedly attacked me, rather than my arguments" which is untrue. Stunning Hummingbird is correct @85; Charitable Llama absolutely was needlessly antagonistic @84, and the behavior should have been called out.

By this point though, both parties have now escalated. A warning is warranted now for Stunning Hummingbird.

Conversation continues back and forth, with ad hominems. Debate is entirely derailed. Mod post @ 104; accurate and to the point: sarcasm of that kind isn't welcome. Harsher rules reminded to thread.

@105 "That was not sarcasm."; It is exactly sarcasm: the use of irony to convey contempt. "So, we should shoot people who end up disabled. Makes sense to me." Ironic statement, conveys contempt.

@106: Mod post is accurate

@110: Angry outburst

---

i don't know who anyone is yet. i will review this thread now.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:27:48 No.4371

>>4369
It's easy to feel that way when I am being told it's apparently okay to insult others like this, but the most microscopic bit of sarcasm isn't.
I think it'd be a safe bet that Mondo would not, as it happens, be okay with me saying others on /townhall/ are "antagonistic", "malicious", or "belligerent". These seem rather obvious personal attacks to me.

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:32:15 No.4372

File: 1560821535432.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4371
i'm going to assume then you are the llama, noonim

Here's the thing though: your post was the flashpoint. We can talk all we want about the behavior that followed, and absolutely, a lot of it was reprehensible. i note that the other party's behavior was warn worthy after a few back and forths.

But you started it, as the saying goes. You introduced the pathogen into the discourse. And the results must be your responsibility.

i wouldn't call the sarcasm microscopic. The introduction of bad faith discussion into a topic poisons the well.

You can trust that i didn't' go into that thread trying to figure out who anyone was. i didn't know it was you, or whoever. but it is very clear to me that the sarcasm was the definitive root of the issue, and was most deserving of the administrative action.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:32:59 No.4373

File: 1560821579927.png (62.58 KB, 1726x397, 1726:397, escalation apparently.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4370
How exactly was 89 an escalation?
It was mostly about explaining exactly why I had made the argument I had, and essentially arguing against the attempted dismissal and shutdown of the argument because he viewed it as 'off topic'.

>Charitable Llama states "you've repeatedly attacked me, rather than my arguments" which is untrue. S
So to be clear, you believe it is acceptable to say to people that they are being "belligerant", "mallicious", and "antagonistic"?
This isn't insulting, and so I can use it to anyone who disagrees with me?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:36:14 No.4374

>>4372
Obviously, you can read the OP.

That was next to nothing.But fine. From now on, because apparently you've declared it acceptable, any time anyone disagrees with me, I will claim that they're antagonistic, malicious, or belligerant.
If that's your standard I'm damn well going to use it to dismiss people's arguments in a thoroughly unproductive manner, because if it's okay for him, it ought to be okay for me.

>You can trust that i didn't' go into that thread trying to figure out who anyone was. i didn't know it was you, or whoever
That's just obvious bullshit. I know you're capable of reading, and the OP was literally started out with my name. Not to mention I'm damn well sure you've heard from the others about this.
Claiming you've approached from a neutral grounds is nonsense.

In any case; What I'm getting here is if anyone makes the most microscopically sarcastic post, I can report them, insult them, and get away with it.
I guess I see why Luna was so upset.

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:42:06 No.4375

File: 1560822126283.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4373
i felt the post was needlessly antagonistic, too. It's not wrong: it's true. The responsible next move would be to deescalate.

>>4374
Or, you know, instead of trying to turn this around, you shouldn't start a fight by being sarcastic against the rules.

Call someone else out if they're breaking the rules, and report.

i'm not saying the other user was right. They would've gotten a warning too, by my framework.

But you are the original sin. i like you, Noonim. But you behaved wrongly here, and it wouldn't hurt to own up to it, and just correct for next time instead of making this a fiasco.

You know i listen to you, Noonim. i always take the time to consider your points. But you weren't microscopically sarcastic.

You were out and out sarcastic. You instigated a fight. You started, and then escalated, the conflict.

It's your responsibility.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:43:11 No.4376

>>4370
To give my own breakdown as I had come in the thread:

Stunning Hummingbird, or as it was later rather evidently Manley, stated that [71] the reason Helpful Porpoise's [70] claim was invalid was because it was not an apt comparison. Essentially, because when a horse breaks its leg, it cannot be healed.
I had replied with [84] in a merely light hearted manner, not "smarmy", frankly, and with only the smallest bit of "sarcasm" as far as I can see that, essentially, if we cannot shoot someone who breaks their leg because it heals, we can shoot someone who has an injury that cannot, by that rational.
I was immediately met with [85] "You're being needlessly antagonistic".
I do not agree that the minor bit of sarcasm there warrants "antagonism".
However, I didn't escalate it there, as I figured it was misunderstood. Instead, I clarified what I meant, with [86]
"It's an apt comparison", echoing what he had said prior to the other guy. "That's not an apt comparison.". I had explained the rational of the argument, saying that by that logic, you can justify putting down a disabled person.
I was met with a dismissial at [87] of my arguments, since apparently that wasn't the point of the OP, even though this subject was being used to justify the execution of pedophiles.
So, I further explained my position. [89], pointing out exactly why I had made my argument, and why I did not care for the immediate dismissal.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:44:20 No.4377

>>4375
If that's how you feel, then fine. I will start reporting any light hearted or slightly sarcastic replies I see before saying that they are malicious, antagonistic, and belligerent.
Deal?

>Or, you know, instead of trying to turn this around, you shouldn't start a fight by being sarcastic against the rules.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:46:28 No.4378

File: 1560822388216.png (82 KB, 958x364, 479:182, Moony.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4377
Dunno how that entered in like that, but, whatever.
>>4375
>Or, you know, instead of trying to turn this around, you shouldn't start a fight by being sarcastic against the rules.
I wasn't trying to start a fight.
You shouldn't immediately assume such a thing, frankly. It's rather annoying, and it's a huge part of my problem

> They would've gotten a warning too, by my framework.
Somehow I doubt that, given the last time you did issue a warning to him, you deleted it immediately after.

>But you weren't microscopically sarcastic.
I wouldn't ever take such a reply personally. At least until now.
Now if anyone ever gives me that kind of reply, I guess I'll report them and start insulting them

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:47:10 No.4379

Not a mod but, After reading through the thread myself. I think Noonim is conflating criticisms of his behavior with criticisms of his character.

Stunning Hummingbird is criticizing Llamas tone and behavior, which, while not exactly productive or even relevant to the discussion is not "ad hominem" nor does it really justify the hostile sarcasm in response.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:48:16 No.4380

File: 1560822496264.png (6.4 KB, 535x124, 535:124, apparantly a major sin.PNG) ImgOps Google

To clarify to everyone reading here, the post that apparently Moony views as so horrifically sarcastic and cruel, is this:
>>>/townhall/84
A super short reply.
>"So, we should shoot people who end up disabled.
Makes sense to me."
The part that makes this "sarcastic" is the "makes sense to me".
Apparently that was a gross violation

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:49:20 No.4381

>>4380
You got a gentle warning for that post. And you made a canterlot thread about it. Are you sure this is really as reasonable as you think it is?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:49:36 No.4382

>>4379
You're just being needlessly antagonistic, belligerent, and malicious.

Ad hominem is defined as attacking a person's character or motivations
This action is objectively attacking motivations

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:50:31 No.4383

File: 1560822630998.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4376
>>4376
is that Manley? i mean, i didn't get that sense, but then, i was trying not to think about who each user might be.

Are you not sure there might be some bias there, noonim?

It's okay to call a comparison not apt, and have someone defend it.

Your post was 100% snark, contributing nothing but hostility. Needlessly antagonistic. If you didn't know, now it is evident, yes? Don't bring sarcasm into the debates.

Maybe i can see your point, that the post at 71 could be interpreted as being in bad faith, as it was dismissive. Invalid is strong language. But within the framework of the debate, it wasn't judged to be as severe as the sarcasm, which i agree with.

It is certainly up for debate, i guess. But i, independently of my staff, came to the same conclusion.

i do not think then that it is outside the realm of possibility that you are proposing.

>>4377
Your post wasn't at all light-hearted, or "slightly" sarcastic. It was outright sarcastic.

By all means, do that. i encourage more reporting. But don't be surprised if your reports of sarcasm don't meet the standard of sarcasm you're expecting, because you're approaching the reports with a sense of vendetta, instead of with good faith.

We aren't blind, and we will make that determination against your reports.

>>4379
i would agree. We aren't trying to slight Noonim's character. Just that his behavior was off, and that it was the thread's flashpoint.

>>4382
No, you are. He is making a fair point. He's even defending you. Noonim, you don't think this is a little unreasonable, my friend?

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:50:50 No.4384

File: 1560822650415.png (112.39 KB, 2200x1519, 2200:1519, argument-hierarchy.png) ImgOps Google

>>4371
Noonim, you would do well to admit that your post >>>/townhall/84 was snarky (whether or not you realized it at the same you made the post) in violation of the rules. You have a point that Manley was not even warned in that thread, but your behavior wasn't perfect either.

>>4370
>@94 - 97; Charitable Llama states "you've repeatedly attacked me, rather than my arguments" which is untrue. Stunning Hummingbird is correct @85; Charitable Llama absolutely was needlessly antagonistic @84, and the behavior should have been called out.
Hummingbird was just one step up from an ad hominem. He was attacking Llama's tone rather than responding to the substance of his argument.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:51:30 No.4385

>>4381
Because once again, Manley got not a single warning.
Because, as Luna said, when it pertains to this user, you guys just ignore him. Which is why they ended up leaving, from what I understand. Couldn't take the constant pain you guys let run rampant.

>Are you sure this is really as reasonable as you think it is?
When it comes to the blatant double standard you guys have for Manley? Yes. Yes I do believe it is reasonable to point this out.

Maybe that's the difference between you and I,
The punishment doesn't really matter to me.
You could ban me for a second, or a week, or a month, but the feeling'd be the same.
I'd be unhappy that he got off scot free when he broke the rules.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:52:21 No.4386

File: 1560822741370.png (15.71 KB, 674x159, 674:159, ad hominem.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4384
If you believe it to be the case, I guess I can accept that.
It was not intended to be such.
It was intended to be lighthearted.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:53:39 No.4387

>>4382

It's not attacking motivations at all, it's criticizing behavior and tone. Certainly not a really valid argument in and of itself, but hardly an attack on motive or character.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:54:14 No.4388

File: 1560822854479.png (82 KB, 958x364, 479:182, Moony.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4383
>is that Manley? i mean, i didn't get that sense, but then, i was trying not to think about who each user might be.
Yeah, I really don't buy that. Especially not after the last time.
Again, you deleted your warning.,
He made a clear violation, and you deleted it. So frankly, I am not about to put it past you to cover for him.

>Your post was 100% snark, contributing nothing but hostility. Needlessly antagonistic. If you didn't know, now it is evident, yes? Don't bring sarcasm into the debates.
Sure. Fine. It's evident. I'll refrain from at all being light hearted in these conversations, and instead call people "belligerant", "mallicious", or "antagonistic" if they ever crack a joke.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:56:05 No.4389

File: 1560822965392.png (49.37 KB, 543x404, 543:404, I didn't realize you were ….png) ImgOps Google

>>4384
>You have a point that Manley was not even warned in that thread,

I did actually also give Manley a warning in regards to his behavior after the original post in question was made. It was part of the same post, in fact. I first called out the "inciting post" as I think Moony called it, but then also called out the continued behavior of the two users as inappropriate. After which, Stunning Hummingbird dropped the subject entirely, so no further action was necessary.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:56:28 No.4390

>>4387
So to be clear, you do not believe the statement that "You're being needlessly antagonistic", "you are assuming malice", or "you're just being needlessly antagonistic for no reason" has absolutely no connection whatsoever to motivations or character?

Good to know. I guess I am free to tell everyone who I dsiagree with that they;re being needlessly antagonistic, belligerant, and so on.
I guess that's super productive to healthy dialogue.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 01:58:22 No.4391

File: 1560823102719.png (93.36 KB, 235x254, 235:254, 6 (2).PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4389
Yeah because >>>/townhall/104
>"And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point. Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry. Ask questions rather than making accusations."
Is any kind of real warning...

Maybe I should just leave. I don't really think I'm going to change you guys's minds. Especially not when even Luna couldn't.
It's too hard to get constantly shat on like I am here. It's putting a lot of negativity in my life that I really can't deal with.
If it's okay, to you guys, to treat people like such shit, then, this is hardly the place for me

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:01:03 No.4392

This was the thread, by the way, where Manley had insulted me behind my back, and then got completely away with it.
https://archive.fo/Dydua

He never actually gets banned.
I do, of course. But, not him.
Doesn't matter how long a history he's had. Doesn't matter how often he does this, or how many people he does it to.
I don't really know what to do any more. I've tried so much. I've tried talking to you guys, I've tried explaining my problems to both you, and him. I've tried using a filter, and he just does this kind of shit. Of course a filter doesn't work on the anonymous area, anyway.
I don't know what to do any more. Especially when the only person who seemed to ever give me any kind of consideration, who ever actually spared the time to try to talk to me directly about my troubles, who was the only person who ever did anything about it, is gone.
I just get the feeling there's no real hope, and I ought to burn the bridge before it hurts me further.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:03:13 No.4393

>>4390

Saying "you are being needlessly antagonistic" is not saying, nor implying "you hust want to be an asshole". But it certainly seems like that's what you read between the lines.

Certainly it's not actually good argumentation and it is rather dickish, but no, it's not the same as what you are claiming it is. Equating it to an implied attack on your motives is hyperbole.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:04:20 No.4394

>>4388
>>4383

Moony, why did that post get deleted?...

If you felt like you had been too harsh or made an error, wouldn't it have been better to say something rather then just delete the post?

I don't like all this fighting, but putting myself outside the history of it, if that were me, I would feel really confused and hurt.

It isn't like Manley hasn't been banned for stuff before. It isn't like he can't handle a ban or a warning, he's a grown man. And I personally like Manley, but he has insulted people before, meaning to or not.

Shouldn't assuming someone's intentions or a motive be considered rude, just like anything else that would be rude?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:04:34 No.4395

>>4393
I'd be inclined to disagree. But, fine. I'll start saying this type of thing to everyone else, then.

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:05:02 No.4396

File: 1560823501978.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4392
You weren't banned... you were warned. Manley gets banned all the time. And was that poster even Manley, in the anon thread?

>>4391
i don't much appreciate the threat to leave. And i wish you wouldn't bring Luna into it.

Are you constantly put down here, Noonim?

>>4394
i didn't delete anything...

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:05:50 No.4397

File: 1560823550432.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4395
i don't understand. instead of going "i'll start acting in the way i don't like towards others", why not just do the "i won't act in the way i was wrong?"

why the spitefulness, instead of the effort to improve?

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:07:01 No.4398

>>4392
Dude, your obsession with fairness, and parity, and equal treatment is completely toxic. To you and the site. We are not perfect, we are volunteers and we barely have enough time to even read everything posted let along weigh things perfectly. And, sometimes you are incorrect btw! Your post that we outlined has really bad tone, it does sound needlessly antagonistic. I like you, I love seeing you post, I dont'have biases against you. I'm telling you the blunt, honest truth. You have tone issues in your posts. And you have a toxic obsession with fairness. Like, dude, is any of this necessary? This canterlot thread? This obsession with fairness?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:10:02 No.4399

File: 1560823802026.png (82 KB, 958x364, 479:182, Moony.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4394
I actually had an entire thread about this, specifically.
http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/2658.html
It was there that, finally, after ages, someone actually did something.
But, apparently, that person's gone.

>>4396
I got banned after I got upset by the thing.
>And was that poster even Manley, in the anon thread?
Given the speed he went to assuming the worst in others, ignoring arguments made, and demanding proof of something that doesn't require it, yeah. I am pretty confident it was. There's something like a 90% chance, with a 10% chance it was an anon trolling like him.

>i don't much appreciate the threat to leave. And i wish you wouldn't bring Luna into it.
It isn't a threat. It's just how I genuinely feel. Like I said I think in an email to you before, this feels like a repeat of what happened on Ponychan. And ultimately that's what I had to do.
As for Luna, they were just the first person I had available to try to contact about this issue. Like I said, the only person who ever reached out on this issue, tried to talk to me, even helped me calm down some when I had gotten far too heated once. And, of course, actually took action at one point.
>Are you constantly put down here, Noonim?
By Manley?
Abso-fucking-lutely.

>i didn't delete anything...
Your post isn't there.
http://ponyville.us/pony/res/948588.html
Did you forget about making it?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:11:58 No.4400

>>4397
>i don't understand. instead of going "i'll start acting in the way i don't like towards others",
Because you won't fix this problem otherwise.
If Manley does it, you will continue to ignore it.
If I do it, maybe you have to actually face the problem, and actually adress it. After all, I don't have his protection.

>why the spitefulness, instead of the effort to improve?
It's both.
I've tried very hard to find any kind of solution I could.
I have yet to find one.
Instead, I get treated like shit by the guy constantly.
Hell, look at his recent /canterlot/ thread for that matter. Consists of primarily dishonest accusations, of which I know you know aren't true given that you know for sure he's the one who kept trying to talk to me when I had him filtered.

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:12:06 No.4401

File: 1560823926104.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4399
Ohhhh, was it in the post in your picture?

i deleted it because the report was already responded to, and i ended up double enforcing. So, i deleted my post because it was second in time, and i wanted to preserve the original decision.

No double jeopardy, so to speak. But yeah, i would stand by that, if it was independent.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:13:38 No.4402

>>4396
>i didn't delete anything...

You didn't?
>>4395
Noomin, he said he didn't delete anything.

Something else is going on here. Are you SURE he deleted that warning? Because if you were mistaken then you might have just been getting yourself very worked up over one point that was unnecessarily causing you stress.
>>4392
I will admit, that statement by Manley was pretty rude and he should have been warned or at least told to clarify what exactly his intentions behind saying that was.

He should have been asked why Noomins age mattered. Though I also think Noomin should have reported after he tried to reconsile and was met with hostility, and then just stopped

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:14:13 No.4403

>>4398
It's more justice, to be honest. But, yeah. I do think we should strive for a fair world, instead of make excuses to leave it off on the sidelines.
I don't think that people should be allowed to insult others, throw around the kind of ad hominem attacks that are supposed to be explicitly against the rules, without anything being done about it.

I know I have issues. Mostly in terms of anger. I get testy, especially when I think something's not just or fair. Though I really didn't think that minor bit of levity in /townhall/ was so bad, but, if Chain says so, I'm okay with not doing that sort of thing. I'll watch what I say some. But, I really don't see how that can at all be used to justify calling people names like he was doing.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:14:36 No.4404

>>4365
>>4366
I wanted more to draw attention to the fact that it is very rare for mods to make difficult decisions by themselves and to lampoon the notion that Mondo is some kind of rogue operative striking out on his own. It's actually a bit bizarre to me. He acts almost exclusively as a mouthpiece for collective team actions. Without fail both sides accuse him of being biased for the other side when he isn't even acting on his own. I'm sure he has plenty of his own opinions on things, and I have publicly taken issue with how certain things are done, but Mondo's opinions are not a valid avenue of attack in 90% of these situations.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:16:07 No.4405

>>4391
>>4392
>>4395
>>4397

Noonim. Are you familiar with the addage "Second punch starts a fight?"

From your behavior in the cery thread you archived, it seems the problem mostly started with your response to !!Rarity here, after they had pointed out that you didn't need to escalate from Manley's snide remark there. You're basically acting rather immature in your response to them here.

In fact, this spitefulness is just generally immature. If you're willing to scew what was a warning over a response that broke the rules of /townhall/ to a behavior that skirted the line this much and act this spiteful about it, then maybe this isn't the place for you.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:16:12 No.4406

File: 1560824172321.png (82 KB, 958x364, 479:182, Moony.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4402
He says he didn't, but it isn't there, and I had capped it when I saw it, as I had hoped to use it when Manley inevitably did the nonsense again.

>Something else is going on here. Are you SURE he deleted that warning? Because if you were mistaken then you might have just been getting yourself very worked up over one point that was unnecessarily causing you stress.
Like I said: It isn't in the thread. We can look at that thread now.
http://ponyville.us/pony/res/948588.html

>He should have been asked why Noomins age mattered. Though I also think Noomin should have reported after he tried to reconsile and was met with hostility, and then just stopped
I did.
I think that was the first thing I did, actually. Possibly not. I might've engaged first, but, I did most certainly report it.
Just like I had reported the "beligerant", "mallicious", "antagonistic" items.

Moony!ALoveyoutM 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:17:20 No.4407

File: 1560824240504.png (113.06 KB, 300x300, 1:1, Discord Dizzy.png) ImgOps Google

>>4401
>>4402
>>4406
No no, you're both right. i did delete it. i just didn't know what we were talking about :c

but please see my explanation: i think it's very fair and reasonable.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:18:58 No.4408

>>4389
>I did actually also give Manley a warning
Oh, sorry, I meant a formal warning, as in "(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)".

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:19:01 No.4409

>>4405
I could see that argument. I might need to watch my temper in those cases. Though, honestly, it isn't as though I pushed things that hard in that thread.
My response to Rarity was rather flat: I am perfectly happy to continue to ignore him, if at least you'll make sure he doesn't do the same thing again.
I do not believe that was unreasonable.
Especially not given the history I've had.

>>4407
There was never an official warning by Rarity.
Which was my major problem.
In fact I said as much in >>>/pony/949286
"That's what I've been trying to do for a while now. It was really just a coincidence I've caught this one, as it happens.
Letting it "wither" is why I've been trying to do, but evidently, he's not able to let these things go.

I'd be perfectly happy to continue ignoring him if you were to at least ensure he's not allowed to start talking behind my back like that.
I'd hope that's not too much to ask in exchange."

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:20:39 No.4411

>>4405
Had missed the last part.
>In fact, this spitefulness is just generally immature. If you're willing to scew what was a warning over a response that broke the rules of /townhall/ to a behavior that skirted the line this much and act this spiteful about it, then maybe this isn't the place for you.
My problem is they are always so light when it comes to Manley.
They never officailly warn.
They only ever give this half hearted stuff.
And, honestly, part of the problem is that if I let things go, they say it's sorted itself out.
If I ignore things, they say it's fine.
Or at least, that's what Mondo said a while back. I don't have the archive, but, I think I had made a site post about it. I'd have to check

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:20:46 No.4412

>>4403
This is an MLP imageboard dude. I literally had to excuse myself to the restroom to spare just a few minutes to weigh in on what was happening. And, I don't think I made the wrong call, even after reviewing it.

Was he really calling you names? Or was he calling out your perceived bad behavior?

How I am seeing this, the disconnect is that you don't understand that you did something wrong here. Because you never intended to do a wrong. You tried to be a good honest poster. But, communication isn't just about what you feel you are communicating, it's as much about how they communicated it. So when they say "you are needlessly antagonistic" you feel that slight, because you had no hostility in mind. But, he isn't wrong to say that. Because you are responsible for how other people interpret your posts. Especially in an anonymous environment where there shouldn't be biases for or against you. Like, am I being unreasonable right now with this? This is how things are suppose to work aren't they? If manley said that he never intended to insult you, would you just except that because in his heart he meant no insult?

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:20:59 No.4413

>>4410
I know you're just trying to be funny, but now isn't the time.
>>4408
>>4409
I have to agree.

Manley should have been given an official warning at least.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:21:56 No.4414

>>4408

Ah. In that sense I guess I didn't give either charater a warning. Usually if I put on the mod tag and give out suggestions or commands I figure that counts as warning enough, but maybe that doesn't look sufficiently official.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:22:32 No.4415

>>4408
>>4389
If you did this, I think I'd be able to continue by.
It's at least something I can point to down the line.
The problem I am having at the moment is, you just say a bunch of things, wave your finger, and then leave without any kind of official "Do it again and you'll be punished" type of deal.
Which is why Manley was able to keep going behind my back and shittalking me, frankly, as I noticed a few times, after that point. Though to be fair it was never as blatant. It was usually mild things.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:23:58 No.4416

File: 1560824638398.png (48.74 KB, 479x433, 479:433, Hehe.png) ImgOps Google

>>4415
>The problem I am having at the moment is, you just say a bunch of things, wave your finger, and then leave without any kind of official "Do it again and you'll be punished" type of deal.

I could accept that as a criticism, yes. Perhaps I will alter my language.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:26:14 No.4417

>>4414
Well, no offense to you guys, but considering a while back we had quite a few more people than just Noomin demanding that Manley be banned and owned up to his actions on the board, it would help.

I think that was back when all the politic stuff was trying to get figured out, and when you guys were trying to figure out how much to allow on the site.
>>4412

>Because you never intended to do a wrong. You tried to be a good honest poster. But, communication isn't just about what you feel you are communicating, it's as much about how they communicated it. So when they say "you are needlessly antagonistic" you feel that slight, because you had no hostility in mind. But, he isn't wrong to say that. Because you are responsible for how other people interpret your posts. Especially in an anonymous environment where there shouldn't be biases for or against you. Like, am I being unreasonable right now with this?

I don't think you are personally, especially considering that goes beyond just communication but into life as well. The road to hell was paved with good intentions.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:27:00 No.4418

>>4412
So, if I percieve "Bad behavior" I can say what I like?
I can call him an unempathetic, heartless asshole, who takes pride in causing pain to others?
It's certainly how I feel about the guy at this point. So, if it's just "calling him out over perceived bad behavior", I can do that, right?

>How I am seeing this, the disconnect is that you don't understand that you did something wrong here.
Actually, since Chain adressed it, I can accept it.
I had intended to be light hearted, but, if it's viewed as too far, fine.
My problem is more the insults that came after.

>. Like, am I being unreasonable right now with this?
I'd make the case that the larger difference here is you're being much more careful with the breakdown rather than leaving it as vague items.

> If manley said that he never intended to insult you, would you just except that because in his heart he meant no insult?
I'd explain why I had been insulted, as I have done numerous times. He doesn't tend to understand. I do genuinely think he has issues with empathy, as last time, his arguments were rather hilariously poor, since his argument was ultimately used against him since he had taken offense at an insult I had made to him at the time.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:28:32 No.4419

>>4414
Would you mind doing it more officially?
It'd go a long way towards making me feel like your usual actions aren't just a flat wagging your finger at people.
Though I still do have issues with your lack of adressing the particular problem in the insulting bit.
But, Thorax seems to believe that it's just "calling out percieved bad behavior", which puts insults in a rather odd place, since it means I am justified in saying he's a heartless jerk, for example.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:31:16 No.4420

>>4411

You're assuming that the warning about Manley's behavior had anything to do with them actually paying attention to IPs in Townhall when enforcing the rules. That's not really a justified assumption. Manley was called out in the same post you were called out in in that thread. But you overracted here and framed Manley's behavior as an "ad hominem" when it's actually tone-policing.

This behavior of inflating another person's behavior to be something worse than it actually was in order to play the unjust victim when those in charge of discipline give you what is basically just a warning is precisely the kind of behavior children engage in when disciplined by parents.

Frankly, it makes it hard to take you seriously when you claim that this is about "justice" when it seems like it's more about an immature conception of "fairness".

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:31:43 No.4421

>>4418
Here's the thread I was thinking of.
http://ponyville.us/canterlot/res/4165.html
It was mostly over him saying to me
>I honestly think he might have some kind of mood disorder, but I'm not a doctor
Which is pretty insulting, quite obviously.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:36:29 No.4422

File: 1560825388001.jpg (44.07 KB, 601x812, 601:812, DQvucmmVoAAzuRt.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4420
So, to be clear, according to you it's okay to call people mallicious, claim they're being belligerant, and so on, right?
Anyone who says I'm being rude doing that is tone policing, right?

Also, why isn't shooting down a small bit of levity "tone policing"?

>This behavior of inflating another person's behavior to be something worse than it actually was in order to play the unjust victim when those in charge of discipline give you what is basically just a warning is precisely the kind of behavior children engage in when disciplined by parents.
Alternatively, it's the kind of behavior that adults display when treated like trash by a system.
When, for example, and this was actually in my local news recently funnily enough, a guy pulls out a gun at some road rage fellow who literally jumped up and down on his windshield breaking the thing, and the fellow who pulled the gun is arrested due to not having a concealed carry permit, while the other man gets off scot free, the guy is completely right to be upset, as are others viewing the event.

>Frankly, it makes it hard to take you seriously when you claim that this is about "justice" when it seems like it's more about an immature conception of "fairness".
Would you be willing to elaborate, then?
Because, I really just want rules enforced. And, not just enforced on some, but rather, everyone.
When a guy repeatedly breaks the rules, treating another fellow like trash constantly, they ought to be banned. Or at the very least officially warned.
I do not agree that is unreasonable.

Moony on Phone!o0wd6knF3I 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:36:45 No.4423

Apologies for relative silence. The team is debating internally, and considering whether an internal policy change is necessary to better align our policies towards the site Constitution

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:38:31 No.4424

>>4423
If you guys want to ever discuss things in an easier or otherwise looser environment, or even over voice chat, feel free to hit me up over Discord. I also have a room as it happens, though I guess the intention fo it might be rough.

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:39:48 No.4425

>>4418
>So, if I percieve "Bad behavior" I can say what I like?
No, you can point out that someone is being antagonistic though. If someone is posting in a hostile manner you absolutely can point that out and ask them to tone it back. Why is that unreasonable to you?

>Actually, since Chain adressed it, I can accept it.
Can you clarify if the point of this statement is to explain that you don't trust the moderators judgement? How can we issue any judgements against you if you don't trust them inherently? You don't believe you are blameless here, right?

>My problem is more the insults that came after.
You set the tone dude, you are as responsible for what came after as anyone else. You moderate your tone, you can have friendly happy responses in return. That doesn't excuse anyone else's response to you but he wasn't actually insulting you and I can't understand why you perceive that he was.

Look, we are getting nowhere, because you can't get over this idea that the staff is out to get you and protect someone else. I can't really effectively communicate with you like this. I have so little free time, why should I be trying to work with you right now if you are treating the mods in the way you are in this thread?

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:41:17 No.4426

>>4421
But you're saying you honestly think he has problems with empathy, though you are not a doctor.

I mean...back to the communication thing, even though it's insulting to say he thinks you have a mood dissorder, if he honestly believed that to be true, wouldn't a better course of action have been to show some kind of proof that you don't have a disorder? I mean, a lot of bigotry, rascism, and fear is wrapped up in false information, and it often does more good to inform.

And like, if you think he honestly has a problem with empathy, and you want him to be empathetic to you, wouldn't it be better to give him some kind of example or concept that he could grasp onto and understand, so that he could put himself in the other shoes?

I remember a while back he was debating over the beauty and the beast movie, and how he didn't like the friend relationship between Gaston and Lefou because he thought Lefou was only "being his friend" because he has a romantic interest, and Ella was able to get him to see another side by bringing the reality to him.

I think she said something along the lines of, "I know you like me in that way, but I also know you aren't just acting like a friend"

He got the point after that and was able to see another side because he was able to grasp it and understand it.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:59:05 No.4427

>>4425
>Why is that unreasonable to you?
Because being told I'm being "beligerant", "antagonistic", or "mallicious", is an attack directed to the attitude you're engaging with. It's not a reasoned item based off of the content of your post, but, rather, the perceived tone.
Perception varies from person to person.
I certainly percieve that Manley's posts are often unempathetic, dickish, and mean spirited. So, if it's pointing out someone's bad behavior, is that fine?
I wouldn't've thought so. I would've been under the impression such conduct'd be thoroughly against the rules. Not only the rules for /townhall/, but, the site in general.

>Can you clarify if the point of this statement is to explain that you don't trust the moderators judgement?
Not really, but, I guess that I don't trust your judgement is a part of it.
Frankly, given the history I've had, I believe you'll look for any excuse to point the finger away from Manley regardless of the circumstance.
But, Chain's a nice enough guy, so, if he says it was 'snarky', I guess that's that.
I would trust him more than I'd trust you guys at this point, as frankly, he's done a whole lot more to try to help me out.
> How can we issue any judgements against you if you don't trust them inherently?
Mostly by explaining them thoroughly.
>You don't believe you are blameless here, right?
I had believed in this case you took a microscopic problem in a very light hearted post as a much more extreme event than it actually was.
I did not believe the post I had made was significantly rude, in any capacity. It was something I would've personally viewed as tongue-in-cheek. Not at all comparable, especially given the rules on /townhall/, to the following ad hominem attacks.

>You set the tone dude, you are as responsible for what came after as anyone else.
Right. Which is why if anyone's a tiny bit light-hearted, I can start to insult them, apparently.
>That doesn't excuse anyone else's response to you but he wasn't actually insulting you and I can't understand why you perceive that he was.
Well, that's just you being assholish.
That's not me insulting you. I'm just "calling out your perceived bad behavior", right?
You couldn't possibly take that as an insult. That'd be unreasonable.

> because you can't get over this idea that the staff is out to get you and protect someone else.
You're not out to get me.
You just don't care about me, and actively ignore the conduct by a particular user. That's all.

>I have so little free time, why should I be trying to work with you right now if you are treating the mods in the way you are in this thread?
Probably because these threads effect public perception of you and your staff.
Because as it happens, there's more than a few users who've seen the kind of standard Manley is held to, and the kind of standard other users're held to.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y 06/18/19 (Tue) 02:59:51 No.4428

>>4426
>wouldn't a better course of action have been to show some kind of proof that you don't have a disorder?
How would one go about doing that? Proving a negative like that is difficult or impossible. Really I think it would be best for users to avoid giving unsolicited diagnoses of psychological disorders if there is any indication that the recipient would not take kindly to it.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:05:42 No.4429

>>4426
Sure. But I expect such remarks to be a tad insulting.
It's why I'd expect to be banned or such if I had said them out of nowhere or following an argument, as that particular example was done.

> wouldn't a better course of action have been to show some kind of proof that you don't have a disorder?
...What?
Like, what, my medical records?
Seriously?
That's rather unsafe. Especially given my particular past run ins with a would-be doxxer.

>And like, if you think he honestly has a problem with empathy, and you want him to be empathetic to you, wouldn't it be better to give him some kind of example or concept that he could grasp onto and understand, so that he could put himself in the other shoes?
Don't mean to be too flat, here, but, I genuinely have.
I've tried for absolute ages to get him to understand.
There's threads upon threads of posts upon posts of me trying to do exactly that.
I've not had much luck. I'm not against trying further, but, I've not had much luck in the past.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:06:49 No.4430

>>4428
Pretty much how I feel.
I think there's room to argue for a thoroughly explained and carefully worded analysis. Something less insulting, but more clearly from the heart.
But, quick statements like that, yeah. They aren't really for the best.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:07:50 No.4431

>>4422
>So, to be clear, according to you it's okay to call people mallicious, claim they're being belligerant, and so on, right?

Well, that's not what was happening. He was saying you were acting needlessly hostile. The not the same as saying you are hostile. It's not an attack on your character or motives. If he was attacking you're motives he would be saying something like "you just want to be mean to me!" which is not what he said, nor implied.

So even if it, to you, felt like that's what it was he was doing, that doesn't mean that's what he was actually doing, so your response was not "fair" nor does this argument that he's getting favorable treatment in this case really hold water.

>>4422
>Alternatively, it's the kind of behavior that adults display when treated like trash by a system.
When, for example, and this was actually in my local news recently funnily enough, a guy pulls out a gun at some road rage fellow who literally jumped up and down on his windshield breaking the thing, and the fellow who pulled the gun is arrested due to not having a concealed carry permit, while the other man gets off scot free, the guy is completely right to be upset, as are others viewing the event.

Which is not comparable to the situation here, like at all. In fact the very act of comparing this situation to that is a perfect example of what I was talking about in the first place. Someone attacks your tone, you conflate it and inflate it to be an attack on your character and continue to assert that that is what it was, like a child who asserts to their parents who discipline their kids for bad behaviors that they witnessed the kid doing when fighting with their siblings that what they saw happen between themselves and the sibling weren't actually what was happening, and then cry "no fair!".

>Would you be willing to elaborate, then? Because, I really just want rules enforced. And, not just enforced on some, but rather, everyone. When a guy repeatedly breaks the rules, treating another fellow like trash constantly, they ought to be banned. Or at the very least officially warned. I do not agree that is unreasonable.

When you are willing to assert that what is actually going on in a publicly visible space is not what's actually going on and is apparent to all on lookers, and do so in a way that is consistent with how a child behaves with parents in the way that I outlined above, it's hard to take seriously the notion that you actually want "justice" and not a childish, egocentric, conception of "fairness".

Basically, it comes off as if, to you, Manley's dickish tone policing feels like something worse, like a direct insult, and it's unfair that that neither the mods or non-mod onlookers don't treat your subjective experience of it as more correct than their detached judgements of the situation

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:12:43 No.4432

>>4427
>>4427
>> How can we issue any judgements against you if you don't trust them inherently?
>Mostly by explaining them thoroughly.
As I have, to no effect.

Look, it's clear you have no intention to accept your half of the blame here. I've already sacrificed my plans for the night and that has earned me nothing with you. So, this is where I end this conversation. Later dude.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:15:43 No.4433

File: 1560827743874.png (452.35 KB, 1056x1486, 528:743, 1484529212101.png) ImgOps Google

>>4427
>But, Chain's a nice enough guy, so, if he says it was 'snarky', I guess that's that.
>I would trust him more than I'd trust you guys at this point, as frankly, he's done a whole lot more to try to help me out.
Thorax, Mondo, Moony, and the other mods are also nice people and they deserve your respect. I must admit that I am also a bit puzzled in regards to how the moderation team seems to alternate between taking no visible action against Manley's frequent borderline rule-breaking behavior and giving him weeks-long bans. But the mod team consists of volunteers who are human just like all of us. Please try to cut them some slack. Arguing in favor of more consistent enforcement is fine, but I feel that you're letting it get a bit too personal.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:17:10 No.4434

>>4431
>If he was attacking you're motives he would be saying something like "you just want to be mean to me!" which is not what he said, nor implied.
No, but funnily enough something he does rather often.

But, fair enough. Does that mean I can say he's just "being a jerk", or "being an asshole", and so on?
Is that something likely to result in productive conversation and dialogue?

>So even if it, to you, felt like that's what it was he was doing, that doesn't mean that's what he was actually doing, so your response was not "fair" nor does this argument that he's getting favorable treatment in this case really hold water.
Problem is more I don't think you would agree that conduct's actually acceptable, if this was said back to you.
If instead of arguing against what you've said here, I just said "You're just being needlessly mean", I imagine you'd take issue with the sudden dismissial of all arguments based around an assumption of what you're doing.

>Someone attacks your tone, you conflate it and inflate it to be an attack on your character and continue to assert that that is what it was, like a child who asserts to their parents who discipline their kids for bad behaviors that they witnessed the kid doing when fighting with their siblings that what they saw happen between themselves and the sibling weren't actually what was happening, and then cry "no fair!".
So again: To be clear, you're saying it's okay to say this shit to anyone who tries to disagree with me?
Seriously?
I'm allowed to say that they're just being shitty, just being a jerk, being heartless, being unempathetic, hell, being racist, sexist, pedophilic, whatever, until I get my way?
That's the kind of discussion you want to breed on this site?

>Basically, it comes off as if, to you, Manley's dickish tone policing feels like something worse, like a direct insult, and it's unfair that that neither the mods or non-mod onlookers don't treat your subjective experience of it as more correct than their detached judgements of the situation
Quite a few non-mod onlookers have agreed that it's not acceptable behavior, though.
At least two have, I believe.
Maybe three if you count that one anon who was more neutral but thought that an official warning to Manley was definitely warranted.
>>4432
>Look, it's clear you have no intention to accept your half of the blame here.
Could've sworn I've already done that. Just that I've been saying it's pretty dickish to say someone's "being needlessly antagonistic" or "getting belligerent".
Though, I could forgive you for not paying attention. Text's flowing very quickly, after all.

Like I said, feel free to hit me up over discord. Things are usually easier to make clear over there.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:22:27 No.4435

File: 1560828147699.png (1.91 MB, 1920x1382, 960:691, cgadine2.png) ImgOps Google

>>4433
It's easy to agree in theory.
In practice, I've not been feeling it.
I've been trying for a damn long time to find a solution here. And for far too long, they've dismissed or ignored me, or just plain did nothing whenever I voiced my problems.

I understand they're volunteers. I don't really consider that a necessary excuse, though, personally. I understand they're human, but, so are we. At the end of the day, I'd be fine volunteering and solving the particular problem, so, the fact that they volunteer isn't really much save for me.

But, you're probably right. I'm probably getting too personal with it. At the very least, i'm not going to get anywhere trying to confront the strange double standard they hold Manley to, head on.
It's just, I don't feel like there's any other way to solve it. What else is there? It's not like we vote for who's on the staff. It's not like we can hold a referendum to replace Moony, or insist we have fair and equal enforcement of rules.
So, what, do I have to make my own board? I don't know the first thing about doing that.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:26:12 No.4437

File: 1560828372028.png (357.17 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_disappoint_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4432
Also, I don't really want to throw this in your face, but, you've not really had much of anything to say since you got here. You've only had a few posts, and most of them have been short, with little information or real argument other than finger wagging.

You're not a parent.
Finger wagging isn't going to convince me of anything. I've already been quite clear here that I've not a respect for the current authority you guys bring to the table, so, why do you thing moralizing to me is going to change anything?

I do not consider you or the staff to be any kind of a moral authority at this point, as I directly feel your conduct has been both unjust, and unfair. Naturally, I'm not about to take any kind of consideration to finger wagging without real substance.

It also helps that you've displayed a significant lack of consideration towards me or how I feel for a while now. I can take the council of people who've treated me decently at least, but, naturally, when it comes to people who've mostly just been ignoring my troubles and pains, I'm not left with a lot of reasons to care about how you feel, you know?

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:29:06 No.4438

>>4433
> I must admit that I am also a bit puzzled in regards to how the moderation team seems to alternate between taking no visible action against Manley's frequent borderline rule-breaking behavior and giving him weeks-long bans.
Like, I think people believe we are a unified collective and that we have all sorts of time to make really nice and clear decisions.

The reality is, we are all really worn out and tired people. We are constantly pulled in all directions because there are deep seated grudges and frankly nobody is entirely innocent. So, more often than not, we shoot from the hip. Maybe we realize we've been to soft and we made a mistake, and we course correct way to hard, and then it gets even worse, and, it's basically to the point that there is no fixing the situation. Because the posters with the issues don't have faith in our decision making ability. There can be no solution to this problem, unless we do as the posters actually think we do, and just pick one side and just cut ties with the other. Which, as principled people, we refuse to do.

>>4437
>I do not consider you or the staff to be any kind of a moral authority at this point, as I directly feel your conduct has been both unjust, and unfair. Naturally, I'm not about to take any kind of consideration to finger wagging without real substance.
If that's what you think of what I've been trying to communicate, then all is lost. Look I don't think you are a bad person, but this thread is a problem and you shouldn't have made it.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:29:53 No.4439

>>4428
>>4429
Ok, that is a very valid point and honestly just didn't even think of how stupidly dangerous that would be.

>Don't mean to be too flat, here, but, I genuinely have.

Have you told him outright that what he has said has hurt you? And if he says something along the lines of "well it shouldn't have" or " I didn't mean it that way", have you tried responding with,

"It doesn't matter what your intention was/should have or not, you still hurt me. " And then just stopped talking to him?

Have you tried just reporting and then walking away from the thread, and then if it seems as if no mod action was given, then take it to canterlot?

Please don't read my tone wrong with this, I am genuinely asking, because if you have, and still nothing was done on either his part or the mods, then yes I think a deeper problem runs here with both.

I know the mods volunteer and work very hard and are only human, and I truly think that Manley isn't a bad person, but if you have tried those tactics and been ignored in either case (or both), then one, or both, really need to realize the damage being done to another community member.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:33:26 No.4440

File: 1560828806493.png (371.66 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4438
>The reality is, we are all really worn out and tired people. We are constantly pulled in all directions because there are deep seated grudges and frankly nobody is entirely innocent. So, more often than not, we shoot from the hip. Maybe we realize we've been to soft and we made a mistake, and we course correct way to hard, and then it gets even worse, and, it's basically to the point that there is no fixing the situation. Because the posters with the issues don't have faith in our decision making ability. There can be no solution to this problem, unless we do as the posters actually think we do, and just pick one side and just cut ties with the other. Which, as principled people, we refuse to do.
Well, for myself, one big way to improve my personal faith in you guys'd be actually issuing warnings whenever Manley breaks the rules, and probably getting Luna back somehow if that's at all possible.

>If that's what you think of what I've been trying to communicate, then all is lost.
How else was I supposed to take posts like >>4358 ?
It doesn't say anything other than "stop complaining about the other guy getting away with things, you did some minor offense so you should be punished".
Well, why should I stop complaining, because the guys who don't seem to have any desire to act in a fair or just manner don't like me complaining?

And, frankly, if you guys are that tired, why not ask for help?
I'm sure there's plenty here who'd volunteer.
> Look I don't think you are a bad person, but this thread is a problem and you shouldn't have made it.
And that attitude is case and point for why I have made it.

Fairy Blue Ella!.fNJV2Jlhw 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:39:28 No.4441

>>4440
I personally wouldn't mind volunteering to help the community, but I wouldn't want to be in a mod position. And I also probably shouldn't be volunteering for anything until I'm over this tress hump and got my medical issues more under control, but yeah. I wouldn't mind volunteering.

I don't know exactly how I could help though. Looking back on my attempts to help de-escalate stuff, hasn't exactly been a good track record.

Or,at least it doesn't feel like it.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:40:28 No.4442

>>4439
>Have you told him outright that what he has said has hurt you?
Yes. Multiple times. Seems to be what happens the majority of the time we have a big fight. I've tried in a wide range of ways, as well. Whether it be flatly telling him how I feel, why I feel the way I do, or my particular weaknesses and struggles with the lot, or whether it be trying to explain to him with examples of items he'd be hurt by running off of the same rationale.
The "rule 1" thread'd probably have some of the best breakdowns, honestly.

>And if he says something along the lines of "well it shouldn't have" or " I didn't mean it that way", have you tried responding with, "It doesn't matter what your intention was/should have or not, you still hurt me. " And then just stopped talking to him?
Sort of?
I mean, I've certainly said that to him.
Usually it's met with a "but [argument]", and the behavior persists.

>Have you tried just reporting and then walking away from the thread, and then if it seems as if no mod action was given, then take it to canterlot?
Yes, and yes.
Multiple times for the latter bit.
Unfortunately the most obvious example of just leaving alone I didn't end up saving. But, I believe it was Mondo who had said "well, things look fine now", and just ignored it.
As though that helped in any way.

>Please don't read my tone wrong with this, I am genuinely asking, because if you have, and still nothing was done on either his part or the mods, then yes I think a deeper problem runs here with both.
I try not to worry about any 'tone'. Mostly because typing makes tone hard. Might be a part of why apparently my tone is often misunderstood, as was pointed out here, or that one other time I used the LMGTFY link.
But, yeah, I'm not going to bite heads off for tones. I'm more sensitive to accusations and such. If, for example, you said "You didn't try just reporting him and leaving, you didn't try talking to him", and so on./

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:45:11 No.4443

File: 1560829511048.png (256.77 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_smile_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4441
I'm sure there's a lot of small stuff you could do. For example, I've been thinking it might be nice to have an easy way to quickly get small questions and concerns answered. Wouldn't require any actual enforcement policies, but, rather, would let people clarify particular troubles before they accidentally occur, or maybe fix minor issues, or bring to attention mixups and glitches.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:49:33 No.4444

>>4442
>Sort of?
>I mean, I've certainly said that to him.
>Usually it's met with a "but [argument]", and the behavior persists.

Well obviously you have a good level of resentment towards the guy now, but if you were to try it again, I would say just keep at the same but.

If he says "but", stop him and ask him if he understood that what he said hurt, and if he thinks you are just making it up that you were hurt.

If he says you're overreacting, or accuses you of some false intentions, ask him if he thinks you are lying or playing it up.

If he says anything along the lines of yes, ask him why.

Just keep asking him to explain his motivations behind what he is saying, and why he is just ignoring that you are not comfortable, or that you are hurt, and ask him why he doesn't seem to care.

Hopefully, eventually, this will lead to some kind of dialogue. Even if it just comes down to him thinking you threw the first punch, or he doesn't take something as seriously as you do, at least some type of dialogue will hopefully open up.

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:53:38 No.4445

I wonder, why do you think I'm still responding to you right now after saying I was bugging out?

>>4440
>Well, for myself, one big way to improve my personal faith in you guys'd be actually issuing warnings whenever Manley breaks the rules, and probably getting Luna back somehow if that's at all possible.
Manley has gotten tons of bans and warnings. Has he not? And like I said, perfect moderation is not a reasonable thing to ask of us as things are. And, as I have been saying before, you are not always right, sometimes you are in the wrong and he isn't. And frankly, we don't have the time to give you satisfactory answers. If you can't accept our decisions, at least most of the time, then basically the system collapses. I'm not saying you can't appeal, but we shouldn't have to collectively as a team spend dozens of hours talking to you every time we rule against you.

>And, frankly, if you guys are that tired, why not ask for help?
Ask who? Like practically half our userbase is on staff. (I did notice what you said Ella, I brought it up in mod chat).

>And that attitude is case and point for why I have made it.
I guess, if you believe so firmly about fairness, why should I have to sit here and suffer the slander that you perpetrate in this thread by calling us unfair and biased? Because, that is merely your (incorrect) opinion. Do you have a /canterlot/ equivalent I can post on to air my complaints about what you are doing to me right now? Like I said, this thread is bad and you shouldn't have made it. That doesn't mean another thread couldn't have been made, but this one shouldn't have.

>It doesn't say anything other than "stop complaining about the other guy getting away with things, you did some minor offense so you should be punished".
Who knows, if you are going to treat me this way, you are going to get low effort Thorax out of it.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:53:43 No.4446

File: 1560830023561.png (87.16 KB, 439x367, 439:367, three-logicians-walk-into-….png) ImgOps Google

>>4444
Nice quads!

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:54:21 No.4447

>>4444
Might be worth trying, I suppose. Though, most the time, I have to explain stuff a dozen times, and then he had taken something like "some dogs go to heaven" as "you're saying all dogs will burn in hell", frankly.

Still, like I always try to say, I'm not against trying.
I'll try 'till my eyes fall out, since at least having something to try makes there be a bit more hope of things actually changing.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 03:57:48 No.4448

>>4447
But in this case I am suggesting that you not spend time explaining yourself, but let him explain himself.

And unless it seems like he is genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say, with a promise to be fair about it, then don't bother trying to explain your point.

Communication HAS to go both ways. He is a good dude, but I have seen him be pretty unfair at times, and I guess I would call it, bullheaded.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:02:45 No.4449

>>4434
>But, fair enough. Does that mean I can say he's just "being a jerk", or "being an asshole", and so on?
>Is that something likely to result in productive conversation and dialogue?

Not exactly, and he'snot exactly blameless in that Townhall thread either, but that's not what you were accusing him of here, you were accusing him of insulting your character, and asserting that because he was insulting your character that mondo's actions were unfair, when it seems like he didn't even give either of you an official warning in that thread.

>If instead of arguing against what you've said here, I just said "You're just being needlessly mean", I imagine you'd take issue with the sudden dismissial of all arguments based around an assumption of what you're doing.

Sure, but I wouldn't inflate it to an attack on my character or motives, since it's an attack on how I am behaving. It's not even an assumption of my motives, it's a rude deflection.

>So again: To be clear, you're saying it's okay to say this shit to anyone who tries to disagree with me?
>Seriously?
>I'm allowed to say that they're just being shitty, just being a jerk, being heartless, being unempathetic, hell, being racist, sexist, pedophilic, whatever, until I get my way?
>That's the kind of discussion you want to breed on this site?

Shitting on someone's behavior is shitting on someone's behavior, not their character.

And of course I bever said I want that kind of discussion on this website. The fact that I am pointing out that you are conflating an attack on your tone or behavior with an attack on your character or motives does not mean I am arguing that attacks on behavior are what I would want to have on this site. What I am arguing is that your claim of of "massive mod bias" against you in this case holds no water, because an attack on your behavior is not ad hominem as it is not an attack on either your character nor your motives.

>Quite a few non-mod onlookers have agreed that it's not acceptable behavior, though.
At least two have, I believe.
Maybe three if you count that one anon who was more neutral but thought that an official warning to Manley was definitely warranted.

And I am one of them, I don't believe dickish tone policing should have any place on /townhall/.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:05:43 No.4450

File: 1560830743742.png (64.43 KB, 580x551, 20:19, 26002__suggestive_blushing….png) ImgOps Google

>>4449
>when it seems like he didn't even give either of you an official warning in that thread.

Which, again, it was supposed to be an official warning to both of you/them, I'm just habitually bad at conveying that, and it's something I'm going to work on. Things will be more clearly stated in the future. I allege.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:06:26 No.4451

File: 1560830786784.png (82 KB, 958x364, 479:182, Moony.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4445
As in official warnings, IE "USER HAS BEEN WARNED FOR THIS POST", or just a simple, as in Moony's example, stern "I'm issuing you a formal warning.

Essentially, not what !!rarity did in the thread where Moony had initially deleted this particular warning.
>>>/pony/949285
Or, really, what happened in the /townhall/ thread, for that matter.
Essentially, actual warnings I can go and point to and say "He was warned previously for this specific reason, and he's done it again".
>And, as I have been saying before, you are not always right, sometimes you are in the wrong and he isn't.
Eh, maybe. But, at least in this example, Moony seems to be of the position the conduct there warranted a warning.
I still don't really agree with you that it's okay to make such sweeping and rather insulting remarks to others, especially on a board which the point of was to discuss things in a productive manner.
Me saying "You're just being dickish" isn't going to make arguments go anywhere. That's just going to devolve into name calling, as I could just reply with "You're just being obstructive and stubborn", or such. And then it'd go back and forth with namecalling.
Strikes me as a silly thing to declare acceptable.

>And frankly, we don't have the time to give you satisfactory answers.
I'm fine with waiting.
> If you can't accept our decisions, at least most of the time, then basically the system collapses.
I agree.
The foundation requirement of any system of any kind of governance, which I'd consider this to be, is trust of its citizens or subjects or users.
If you lose that, the system falls apart.
> I'm not saying you can't appeal, but we shouldn't have to collectively as a team spend dozens of hours talking to you every time we rule against you.
I don't expect you to.
What I really expect is just a standard level of fairness in the threatment of the users on the site.
Ultimately that's what I care about. I want a just system. A system that engages with all users with the same level of consideration, and punishments when any user breaks its rules.

>Ask who? Like practically half our userbase is on staff. (I did notice what you said Ella, I brought it up in mod chat).
I'd make a thread on /pony/. Put it up on the sticky, or something. There's some other users, I'm sure they could help out.
Hell, I'd consider doing a rotation, honestly.
Keeps people from becoming burnt out and jaded.
>I guess, if you believe so firmly about fairness, why should I have to sit here and suffer the slander that you perpetrate in this thread by calling us unfair and biased?
Because while you regard it as slander, I believe it to be true, and naturally, would be inclined to inform others.
Again, it's about public relations at that point.
> Because, that is merely your opinion.
Yes. it is. And I have my rationalization for it, that I am willing to share with others.
>Do you have a /canterlot/ equivalent I can post on to air my complaints about what you are doing to me right now?
Yeah, actually. It's also /canterlot/.
Advocate for a rule change about assuming negative items of others.
I'd be okay with it, funnily enough, as I want that sort of thing from Manley to stop.
Either way, you make a case on /canterlot/ for a new rule specifically to adress your particular problem.
The requirement, of course, is that proposed rule has to apply to everyone. Not just me, not just you, every user.
>Like I said, this thread is bad and you shouldn't have made it. That doesn't mean another thread couldn't have been made, but this one shouldn't have
Well, that's how you, someone on the staff which I am complaining about, feels.
But, I, someone not on the staff and who has been personally effected by the particular believed lack of fair ruling, disagrees.
>Who knows, if you are going to treat me this way, you are going to get low effort Thorax out of it.
Sure. But, then, you're not really going to get your desired respect as a result, as it happens.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:07:24 No.4452

File: 1560830844599.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4448
Ah. I see what you mean.
In that case, it's a very interesting idea, and I'm much more interested in giving it a shot.
I don't know how to exactly go about it, though.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:11:38 No.4453

>>4449
>when it seems like he didn't even give either of you an official warning in that thread
Well, that was a big part of my complaint. Finger wagging doesn't get him to stop the particular behavior.
But, okay. I guess I misunderstood exactly what the actions were?
For me, it seems like someone saying "You're being an asshole" would be insulting. And, so, I'd expect if I said to someone else "You're being a shitter", they'd be insulted.

>What I am arguing is that your claim of of "massive mod bias" against you in this case holds no water, because an attack on your behavior is not ad hominem as it is not an attack on either your character nor your motives.
Interesting premise.
In that case, I guess I'd just make the case that such an item should be against the rules.
I would've personally thought it was covered in the ad hominem bit, but, eh. I can't really fault your argument, honestly. Not in my usual manner I much prefer, anyway. That being mostly using your own logic and feelings.

>>4450
Just either throw in the "USER HAS BEEN WARNED FOR THIS POST" item, or a "this is an official warning".
But, if anon is right, I do think this particular item should be added to the rules.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:13:37 No.4454

File: 1560831217790.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>4451
>And then it'd go back and forth with namecalling.

Not only would it, but it did! Which was the second part of the warning post, which should've been more clearly labeled as a warning.

Though I'll put this out there, if I say something with my mod tag on it's because it's official. If you want something to point out, then the tag makes it official, you can point at it. I do sometimes give more subtle unofficial nudges before things are especially bad, so there's a clear separation there still.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:16:06 No.4455

>>4452
Well, considering that you two are more than likely going to fight over something or other eventually, you could, when you ha e settled down and feel up to it, ask Manley to join you in a thread to genuinely put your heart's on the table and maybe see where it all started, get all the negative feelings out, and see if you can both go somewhere from it.

Or

You could wait until the next time he makes an assumption on you and just start in on asking him to explain, and asking him why he feels the way he does, and ask him if he would be willing to listen to why you feel the way you do, WITHOUT getting hostile, and asking that you both try and recognize when things are getting heated and take a step back.

I have seen him talk it out, calmly, with Fleur and lost pony-two people I never thought he would ever be willing to compromise with.
>>4451
>Hell, I'd consider doing a rotation, honestly.
Keeps people from becoming burnt out and jaded.

I really like that idea, though obviously it would have to be something that the founders of the site feel comfortable doing.

Obviously it would take a bit of trust in the part of the people they chose as well.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:18:10 No.4456

>>4454
if you say so, I guess. Though I think it'd still be best to tag an official warning within, and cite the particular rules violated.
Otherwise, I get more the feeling it's intended as a de-ecsalator, rather than any kind of actual warning. Basically "You're getting close" rather than "you've broken the rules. Especially in that case, since, in this case, it seems really weak. The first part, actually, directed to me, was solid enough. It's the second half, which was a little more vague, and less, as it were, suggesting constructive behavior, more warning against behavior.
>>>/townhall/104
>That kind of sarcasm isn't really appropriate for the board. I remind you, and everyone present, that this board has harsher rules and anything falling outside of those rules will be more firmly dealt with than normal.
VS
>And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point. Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry. Ask questions rather than making accusations.
I think you can kind of see what I mean. The language in the 2nd part is far more considerate, towards the first. The first works as something of a citable warning, really, whereas the 2nd I'd not really think anything of.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:21:37 No.4457

File: 1560831697227.png (256.15 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_normal_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4455
>I really like that idea, though obviously it would have to be something that the founders of the site feel comfortable doing.
I should clarify that I'd assume Moony and probably Thorax still be in their positions. Though, Thorax'd probably be less attached to the administrative side, more the actual coding and whatever development items, as is what his job is technically supposed to be.

>Well, considering that you two are more than likely going to fight over something or other eventually, you could, when you ha e settled down and feel up to it, ask Manley to join you in a thread to genuinely put your heart's on the table and maybe see where it all started, get all the negative feelings out, and see if you can both go somewhere from it.
It'd probably be better not to have a fight at all, and just try from a neutral point.
We were actually supposed to have a chat mediated by Fairy, as it happens, though that unfortunately never came of anything.
Personally I'd want to do it over something like Discord, but, that's just me. I find it easier due to the speed of posting, and the more informal environment.

Ella!.fNJV2Jlhw 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:31:07 No.4458

File: 1560832267812.jpg (631.5 KB, 2048x1152, 16:9, 1545652815061.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4457
I don't want to get into it too much, but me and Manley talked on discord and he suggested I not do that, or at least hold off, until I'm feeling better.

I was very tired and upset when I made those posts, may have bit off more than I could chew, right now, and he also didn't seem comfortable with the idea so I don't want to force it.

He's right though, I really should get feeling better before I try to help anyone out. I don't mind doing it Noomin, but, well here's me explaining why I probably shouldn't do it right now. Apologies.

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:32:01 No.4459

You didn't answer my question:
I wonder, why do you think I'm still responding to you right now after saying I was bugging out?

>>4451
>I still don't really agree with you that it's okay to make such sweeping and rather insulting remarks to others, especially on a board which the point of was to discuss things in a productive manner.
>And then it'd go back and forth with namecalling.
>Strikes me as a silly thing to declare acceptable.
Strawmanning me. Like, I don't understand why you do this kind of thing and think it's acceptable. Whatever, do as you please I guess.

>I'm fine with waiting.
Nope, the point is, I have a life outside of serving you and you only can get a finite amount of my life, say, 15 minutes per incident. Today, you have taken hours of time from me. And that's for a gentle warning. That's pretty unjust of you if you ask me. What are you giving back to me for this thing I give you, anyway?

>What I really expect is just a standard level of fairness in the threatment of the users on the site.
The problem is, you are frequently wrong about what fairness is. And you demand we conform to your version of fairness or spend that dozens of hours I was talking about trying to convince you otherwise.

>Ultimately that's what I care about. I want a just system. A system that engages with all users with the same level of consideration, and punishments when any user breaks its rules.
Yeah, except that rule breaking is not an objective thing. So, what to do, if I say that a just system is precisely what you are getting right now? You say that is false because your subjective opinion is that we aren't being just. How can I give you what you are asking for? By being a slave to your subjective experience of life. Like, can't you see the problem?

>There's some other users, I'm sure they could help out.
>Hell, I'd consider doing a rotation, honestly.
While I appreciate the offer, we can't just give out moderator privilege to anyone. Even if you think we suck, we have a really high standard for who can be allowed on staff to prevent abuse of power.

>Because while you regard it as slander, I believe it to be true, and naturally, would be inclined to inform others.
Okay, well you are supremely biased and incredibly abusive to the staff and I want everyone here to know about that. I'd also like everyone to know that my day is really seriously honestly ruined, I had so many good happy things planned tonight and you took them from me. So thanks, I'm glad we aired our grievances against each other.

>Sure. But, then, you're not really going to get your desired respect as a result, as it happens.
Then I hope you don't mind, that I am going to give you as much respect as you are giving me right now. I usually like operating on the ground of mutual respect, but I'm not willing to hold the high ground if you are going to make such a thread and expect me to have anything but disdain for it. Like I said, you could have made a different thread, one that could have come from a place of respect and understanding. Instead, you made this.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:32:23 No.4460

>>4453
>But, okay. I guess I misunderstood exactly what the actions were? For me, it seems like someone saying "You're being an asshole" would be insulting. And, so, I'd expect if I said to someone else "You're being a shitter", they'd be insulted.

Again, never said it wasn't dickish. But "You're being an asshole" doesn't mean the same thing as "You are an asshole". One is attacking you're behavior and tone in the moment one is attacking your character.

>In that case, I guess I'd just make the case that such an item should be against the rules.

Well, Mondo did address both of you in this case cause attacks on your tone were pretty much contrary to the spirit of the rules on the board.

>I would've personally thought it was covered in the ad hominem bit, but, eh. I can't really fault your argument, honestly.

And well, my point was that because you don't recognize that they aren't the same, that you're perception of mod bias is unfounded. Ad hominem would be worse than merely attacking or criticizing your behavior as a response, but of course that's not what Manley was initially doing, he hadn't gone that far.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:49:10 No.4461

File: 1560833350439.png (1.17 MB, 1512x2512, 189:314, applejack-military-2.png) ImgOps Google

>>4440
>Well, why should I stop complaining, because the guys who don't seem to have any desire to act in a fair or just manner don't like me complaining?
Noonim, I know that you're really annoyed at how Manley seems to be getting away with bad behavior, but please think about what you're writing before you post it. What good do you think can come of accusing the mods of not having "any desire to act in a fair or just manner"? If you're right in your accusation, they would have banned you a long time ago for pestering them. And if you're wrong, how do you expect them to react to false accusations? What you're doing is simply counterproductive. You can express your displeasure without making it so personal. I am fairly certain that the mods do desire to act in a fair and just manner. Are they perfect? No. Just like anyone else, they make mistakes. I make mistakes. You make mistakes. And I think you're making a big one right one. Please try to be more respectful and less hostile to the mods. IMHO, you do have a legitimate grievance about enforcement of the rules w.r.t. Manley, but you're just digging yourself into a hole with your combative arguing. I suggest trying to find some common ground instead.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:51:54 No.4462

File: 1560833514831.png (256.15 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_normal_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4459
>I wonder, why do you think I'm still responding to you right now after saying I was bugging out?
Same reason I would?
Low impulse control?
Desire to defend yourself?
Hope to have the last word?
Not sure otherwise.
>Strawmanning me. Like, I don't understand why you do this kind of thing and think it's acceptable. Whatever, do as you please I guess.
Must've misunderstood you, then.
Your statement in >>4425 threw me off.
>"No, you can point out that someone is being antagonistic though. If someone is posting in a hostile manner you absolutely can point that out and ask them to tone it back. Why is that unreasonable to you?"
>Nope, the point is, I have a life outside of serving you and you only can get a finite amount of my life, say, 15 minutes per incident. Today, you have taken hours of time from me. And that's for a gentle warning. That's pretty unjust of you if you ask me. What are you giving back to me for this thing I give you, anyway?
I've not got an obligation to refund your time, if that's what you're asking.
But, hey, if you want the time, well, I was banned for a good 2 hours.
But, yeah, you aren't "giving" me your time.
You're ultimately responding to a particularly voiced grievance, because you feel you should.
Not like I've got you at gunpoint and am demanding you do it, after all.

>The problem is, you are frequently wrong about what fairness is.
That's certainly plausable. I'd have to get a solid argument for that. Especially as it pertains to Manley. As I've already stated, I am not the only one who has noticed this pattern.
This is not the first time it has been brought up, in fact.
Frankly, there's only been one single person in the time I've posted here that I have seen who has done anything about Manley's fragrant disregard for the rules.
And they're not here any more.
Apparently, you guys ended up chasing them off, with your refusal to address the problem.
Unfortunate. I really did like them. They had the decency to actually reach out to me directly, seemed to genuinely care about how I am feeling, and didn't spend all their time berating or moralizing to me.
>And you demand we conform to your version of fairness or spend that dozens of hours I was talking about trying to convince you otherwise.
More like I'll make threads in an effort to convince you and others of the given problem.
>Yeah, except that rule breaking is not an objective thing.
It should be as close to objective as is reasonably possible.
> So, what to do, if I say that a just system is precisely what you are getting right now?
I'd disagree given how a particular user seems to get away with far more than anyone else.
> You say that is false because your subjective opinion is that we aren't being just.
Yeah. And I've provided my rationale accordingly.
It's seemed to convince some. Others've noticed the problem from well before.
>How can I give you what you are asking for? By being a slave to your subjective experience of life.
Alternatively, by listening to what I say, making an actual effort to understand the given grievance, and actually address the problem.

I'd point out: It seems that at least Mondo is making an effort towards a productive resolution. And, dare I say, I think there might actually be some fruits from that effort.
That, and the other anon talking to me. He seemed reasonable enough, at the end of it. Pointed out a particular misunderstanding on my part, and how it wasn't actually against the rules, only should be. Which I can accept.

>While I appreciate the offer, we can't just give out moderator privilege to anyone. Even if you think we suck, we have a really high standard for who can be allowed on staff to prevent abuse of power.
I'm sure. But, then, I'm not going to give much consideration to you when you say you're tired. After all, a solution has been presented. Ask for volunteers. Better than continuing the steady rusting and decaying structure, I say.

>I'd also like everyone to know that my day is really seriously honestly ruined, I had so many good happy things planned tonight
Welcome to the club.
I was planning to go out today. Get some icecream, maybe check out the library.
Didn't happen.

>Then I hope you don't mind, that I am going to give you as much respect as you are giving me right now. I usually like operating on the ground of mutual respect, but I'm not willing to hold the high ground if you are going to make such a thread and expect me to have anything but disdain for it.
The idea of mutual respect is that you respect eachother in the same capacity as one another.
So, in this regard, what you propose would be exactly that.
If it helps, I don't think you had the high ground from the start.
The way you approached things was in a resolutely unproductive manner. I say that mostly because, frankly, I've had enough productive conversation with others at this point.
I feel I've actually made some kind of progress. Not much, mind you. And I'm not sure if it's forward, or just sideways, but, I've at least felt some movement of sorts.

>. Like I said, you could have made a different thread, one that could have come from a place of respect and understanding. Instead, you made this.
I've made a lot of threads.
They've not had any progress.
Only one ever did. And that was because of a particular person who actually seemed to care enough about me to reach out, listen, and try to find a solution.
When the solution didn't turn out as hoped, they weren't affraid to take action, either.
But, now they're gone. Apparently over this particular issue. So, I've really not got much of any kind of hope left.
A lot of threads've been made.
Hardly anything has happened.

>>4458
Understandable.
Hit me up whenever you get the desire to, then. I've left my discord around, after all.
I'd like to try to sort things out if it can be done. But, if it can't, well, I can only continue to try to get things to be done in some capacity.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 04:55:12 No.4463

File: 1560833712394.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4460
I guess I can work off of that.
>Well, Mondo did address both of you in this case cause attacks on your tone were pretty much contrary to the spirit of the rules on the board.
True, but, the statement made there wasn't really clear on that being the reason. Though that's probably more due to the vagueness within.
>"And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point. Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry. Ask questions rather than making accusations."
Doesn't really address the, I guess we'll just call it dickishness.
>. Ad hominem would be worse than merely attacking or criticizing your behavior as a response, but of course that's not what Manley was initially doing, he hadn't gone that far.
I suppose I can agree there. Though, I still think it's a fair ways worse than a mild bit of "smarm".
Though that might be because I still see that as a bit of lightheartedness taken very poorly.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:01:00 No.4464

File: 1560834060710.png (313.92 KB, 945x827, 945:827, anna_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4461
My running assumption at this point is the reason they haven't is more to attempt to maintain the illusion of a fair and structured system.
In this particular case, frankly, I'm really uninclined to give Thorax any charity due to the way he approached things.
It's also, frankly, not the first time.

I don't really have your optimism for their motivaitons, sadly, at this point. It's been going on for far too long, and been far too blatant.
I guess I can phrase it less as a complete lack of desire to be fair, and more as a desire to protect a particular user, in spite of the desire to be fair.
But, I think that's really the best I can do given the histories at play here.

I've not really got any other way to rationalzie their actions, at this point. Especially when so many threads've been made, so many times this problem's been presented, and so many times people've pointed this out.
Not just me, mind you.

Whatever "common ground" can be found in that is still going to be split over the desire for action, as far as I can tell.

!!Thorax ##Developer 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:08:51 No.4465

>>4462
>Same reason I would?
>Low impulse control?
>Desire to defend yourself?
>Hope to have the last word?
>Not sure otherwise.
Because I love and care for everyone in this fucking community and I literally can't let go while you feel upset still. I looooooove you noonim. That's why I'm here, suffering abuse from you.

>Apparently, you guys ended up chasing them off, with your refusal to address the problem.
That's seriously such a dick thing to say.

>In this particular case, frankly, I'm really uninclined to give Thorax any charity due to the way he approached things.
>It's also, frankly, not the first time.
I'm at least glad to know where I stand with you. Can't win them all I guess.

I'm past my limit here, in respect for my mental health, I guess you'll just have to be upset cuz their are no true words that can satisfy you.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:10:12 No.4466

File: 1560834612711.png (56.52 KB, 671x549, 11:9, 27382__safe_rule-63_artist….png) ImgOps Google

>>4463
>Though that might be because I still see that as a bit of lightheartedness taken very poorly.

A lot of this, and almost every interaction like this, comes down to differing perceptions of an interprable statement. And I don't know if there's really an easy answer to that. Was your comment in the /townhall/ thread light hearted and jovial? Maybe, but not everyone did/will see it that way. Was the response to your comment dickish? Maybe, but not everyone did/will see it that way.

I've stated before how I feel about "justice", so I can't say that's something I'm seeking. But I do seek to be fair, and I didn't look at those two posts with a user in mind. I saw one anonymous user say one thing, and another anonymous user say another, and acted to correct the thread in a way that seemed according to the rules (which are also up for interpretation, obviously).

My goal is to create a safe and comfortable environment where people can discuss topics (which goes for /pony/ as much as /townhall/, really). In my eyes (at the time), two (three, actually, counting the shitposting) things were preventing that within the thread. The first is a comment that reads to a lot of people (maybe not everyone, and maybe it's a misreading) as a roll of the eyes dripped in sarcasm. The second was an ongoing discussion of pedantry and who was at fault for being a bigger asshole, which was off topic for the thread and not really a productive topic in general. Those two things (and the shitposting, which I just deleted) are the things I responded to. I responded with a warning, because on that board neither of you had a history, and it was a new board with specific rules aiming for a specific environment that not everyone is going to grok at first glance (though in general everyone's been getting it pretty well, I'd call the board successful thus far).

It's clear that we don't agree about what I did being the right move, and I don't know that either of us will be able to convince the other, so I'm not going to try. The only thing I could possibly try to convince you of at this moment is that I did not know who the two of you were when I first read through that thread to figure out what was going on and why things were getting reported. There was unquestionably no favoritism at work in that moment.

>>4465
>I'm past my limit here, in respect for my mental health, I guess you'll just have to be upset cuz their are no true words that can satisfy you.

Go to bed!

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:13:30 No.4467

File: 1560834810627.png (313.92 KB, 945x827, 945:827, anna_sad_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4465
>I looooooove you noonim. That's why I'm here, suffering abuse from you.
Well, that's sweet of you. But, it's not exactly healthy for either of us.
At least not with the way things are going right now.
I've been hung out to dry for far too long here, and I do not feel like it's going to get much better, so it's leaving me desperate for any solution I can find, but ultimately still distrustful of the people who've let the trouble prolong.

I'm sorry to hear you're hurting over this shit. But, like I said, so am I.
While I've never been one to believe that misery really loves company, it's certainly harder to empathize when you're miserable too.

>I'm at least glad to know where I stand with you. Can't win them all I guess.
You're not the worst, and I'll always giving you credit for at least saying something.
But, yeah. Not really felt our conversations for a while now really felt like they were going anywhere. Not just here, I mean, but, elsewhere as well.
It feels like far too often, you've got critiques and defenses, but no solutions or support to offer.

RS 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:17:05 No.4468

File: 1560835024957.jpeg (94.7 KB, 686x1024, 343:512, Silverstream 78.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4461
>IMHO, you do have a legitimate grievance about enforcement of the rules w.r.t. Manley, but you're just digging yourself into a hole with your combative arguing. I suggest trying to find some common ground instead.

I agree. While I think Manley gets away with a lot, I wouldn't consider it due to any intentional maliciousness or bias from the mods.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:21:21 No.4469

File: 1560835280968.png (357.17 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_disappoint_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4466
Honestly, the way the warning was presented was my biggest problem. Especially since you never really warned for the insulting and, as that anon earlier put it, dickish attitude given.
Again, it was the difference between a stern, direct, blatant warning, and this wishywashy vague "guys stop calm down be nice" seemingly completely ignoring the insulting shit beforehand.
The warning you gave mentioned not a bit of it, as it happens.
>And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point. Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry. Ask questions rather than making accusations.

Well, let's start with something simpler, as far as a workaround:
Would you be cool with adding the particular item to the rules of /townhall/?
As in including such conduct under the "uncivil behavior"?
If I actually know the staff'd do something when I'm repeatedly treated rather dickishly like that, I'd be uninclined to respond, especially in kind. And of course, if the sarcasm is a major problem, rather than engaging in that particular dickish behavior, it should be reported and ignored likewise.

But, as is, I do not really feel confident that this type of thing won't happen again, given that both in your warning and the statements made by Thorax at least here in this thread, it doesn't seem like it's actually accepted as something not allowed.
As though the kind of "You're just being a dick" is somehow something that should be left alone and present on the site.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:26:57 No.4470

>>4466
I guess for a more practical point towards this, if I were to rewrite the warning, it'd be something along the lines of
>Address the arguments, not your perceived tone. Saying someone's "needlessly antagonistic" isn't going to end up productive. "
And probably just end it with a
>"Don't do it again"

As is, I got a very stern warning for something that, according to the town hall rules anyway, appears to be a rather minor infraction, but, the item that was supposed to "not be tolerated" seemed to be ignored outright, if not heavily softened and treated with gloves.

>"2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans."
Strongly discouraged, with a mere "may result", VS
>"Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. "
Now while it, at least going by that anon's arguments, isnt' necessarily ad hominem, it's definitely uncivil. He'd even agree there.
Unless it was your impression that such items weren't actually against the rules I guess.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:31:37 No.4471

File: 1560835897740.png (425.82 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think_b.png) ImgOps Google

>>4470
>>4469
Though I guess this probably'd deserve another thread, anyway. I guess I can do that tomorrow. I'd have to figure out the particular phrasing involved anyway.
I'm thinking "attacking tone", or "accusatory claims of behavior" maybe?

I'll have to think about it, but, I definitely think it should be attached to 2, in any case. With, obviously, a much heavier item than "strongly discouraged", given it's quite a bit more detrimental to a given conversation.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:34:57 No.4472

File: 1560836096851.png (112.39 KB, 2200x1519, 2200:1519, 1560822650415.png) ImgOps Google

>>4471
Oh, or we could end up using an item like Chain had posted earlier.
Just basically forbid the bottom three as clear poor quality and unproductive arguments.

Though, I still gotta be honest: I'm not really understanding the major difference between "You're an asshat" and "You're being an asshat".
Like, they both feel the same to me.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 05:49:46 No.4476

>>4468

It can admittedly be a tough situation to judge, because people have hated Manley for longer than he'd want me to inform people. And that isn't even entirely unwarranted, but the result is there's a lot of built up grudge that you have to trudge through when answering reports. I've said it before, but there's situations where Manley and I have said the same thing in almost exactly the same way and everyone laughed at my joke and Manley got reported.

The short of it, though, is we all have biases, and that isn't intentional, but it's also not avoidable. We have to do our best to maintain a reasonable environment where nobody is upset while acknowledging that sometimes people get upset over things that would unfairly affect other users if we acted on that.

>>4469

You've been saying similar things most of the night and I haven't responded because the language you're using seems...off. Like I saw what happened, and then there's this grey area where I'm missing something, and then you're really upset. I really just didn't have a response, but I'm gonna try because I've been avoiding it for hours and other people need to go to bed.

So to iterate, it's a lot about perception. What I, other members of the staff, and probably some number of users see as insulting is not the same as what you see as insulting. The things you called insults in that thread are things that the rest of us kinda nodded our heads to, like "Yeah, that's a legit reaction."

Is it a good reaction? No. No, it's far from ideal, it's not constructive to a discussion environment, and in general it isn't okay. But it also didn't come out of nowhere and it's the kind of response we would expect a person to have to what you said. If the comment you made was removed, the other stuff wouldn't have happened. When reviewing rules and taking action you have to go beyond what's written and into what's actually going to make the board better. If the rules didn't require interpretation we could have an AI do all the modding. The onus is on you to not trigger other people into reacting, not on other people to have perfect stoic emotions.

We've hit Manley for that before, because his language can also unintentionally hit the wrong nerve and set people off, in which case we try not to blame the people reacting to it too harshly. Every time he says something that sets people off and other people respond to it and there's this whole big mess we have to clean up, Manley is in the spot you're in right now, claiming "Well everything they said was also bad." Which is correct, but not the biggest problem. The people responding to his actions do get told to relax and back off and some of them also do still get bans because they're too interested in posting angry messages on the board that no one needed to see.

And with that said, again, the warning was given to each of you. The way you interpreted the text made it seem like you were getting hooked super hard and he was getting off easy, but it was actually still a very flat warning. If either of you continued in that behavior then I would've jumped to bans. Again, without caring who either of you were. I should've banned you for everything you said in the thread after my post, but I hesitated too much because the extra rants you were going on that were still very much derailing the thread were critical of me and deleting that and banning you would've been bad optics. I didn't need you even angrier than you already were.

The other person in question, when I posted what I did, dropped the subject. Like you can say how poorly written it was, and I might even agree a bit, I could probably do that differently in the future, but the other person in question got the message and did what I wanted him to do. Maybe that's because he's more used to interpreting my messages? But the thread was no longer being derailed by that argument and could in theory go back to being on topic, which is the point of moderation to begin with.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:06:57 No.4479

>>4476
>What I, other members of the staff, and probably some number of users see as insulting is not the same as what you see as insulting. The things you called insults in that thread are things that the rest of us kinda nodded our heads to, like "Yeah, that's a legit reaction."
So again I must ask, as I keep doing:
Does this mean you think it would be acceptable or productive for me to go to anyone who disagrees with me or I have any kind of argument with and say "You're just being an ass"?
Do you believe that will end well?
>The onus is on you to not trigger other people into reacting, not on other people to have perfect stoic emotions.
Okay. Again, like I've said prior: Are you seriously saying it's okay for me to fly off the handle and start insulting someone in that way, saying "you're just being an asshole, you're just acting shitty, you're just being a dick", because I thought they were a bit sarcastic?
Like, seriously?

>Manley is in the spot you're in right now, claiming "Well everything they said was also bad."
You know what the difference is?
If Manley pissed me off and I said "You're acting like a shithead", I'd damn well expect to be punished for that.
Especially when the initial issue is so much more minor as far as I can tell.
Again, the difference between 'WILL NOT BE TOLLERATED' and "strongly discouraged".

>. The people responding to his actions do get told to relax and back off and some of them also do still get bans because they're too interested in posting angry messages on the board that no one needed to see.
Yeah. I've noticed. It seems usually he gets a finger-wagging, and others get banned, unless it's them who initiated.
'Least that's definitely been my experience.
Funny, though, it's not the case this time.

>And with that said, again, the warning was given to each of you. The way you interpreted the text made it seem like you were getting hooked super hard and he was getting off easy, but it was actually still a very flat warning.
Is that why you didn't even adress the part of the problem of the insulting and rude conduct, and instead went the route of very softly trying to tell us both, which in case you forgot was the case, to chill?

Again:
>"And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point. Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry. Ask questions rather than making accusations."
It's damn light. It doesn't say one thing about the dickish comments made. And over the "may be warned", "strongly discouraged" bit, you gave a much, much, much heavier handed reply.
Meanwhile, again, you completely ignored the dickish bits.

I see why you didn't want to bring it up. It's a really hard thing for me to at all understand, at least from where you're coming from.
It seems like you're all okay with this with this shit.

I don't get that.
But if that's really the case. Fine.
I'll start responding in kind, then
I'll engage in the same kind of behavior I'm calling out here, over the slightest problems, percieved slight, or minor rulebreak.
After all, that's damn well what happened here, and jack shit came of it.

It's really, really hard for me to see this kind of thing and assume the best in you guys.
Especially when I KNOW you wouldn't like it if I started just replying to you saying you're being an asshole, or you're just being callious and cold, or you're just being a heartless jerk.
I know damn well that'd hurt you.
And I know you know damn well, it's something that has clearly hurt me.
But, if you're not going to care: Fine.
Why the fuck should I?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:09:22 No.4480

File: 1560838162801.jpg (20.85 KB, 175x145, 35:29, 19.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Man, I was feeling like there was real progress being made here with you. I was thinking I could finally go to bed.

How the hell do people keep justifying this kind of abbrasive attitude?
Like, do you seriously fucking think it's going to be any kind of productive if people're able to just constantly shit on eachother like that?
Do you really believe that people constantly going "YOU'RE BEING AN ASSHOLE", "NO YOU'RE BEING A DICK" is going to result in actual fucking dialogue, and not animosity and fighting?
What's the point, here.
If you guys aren't willing to at least accept that, why the hell should I bother. I should just get myself permabanned already and leave this place. Keep this kind of major darkness out of my life.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:18:55 No.4481

File: 1560838735481.jpg (82.83 KB, 313x294, 313:294, 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

To clarify, again, the official "warning" was >>>/townhall/104
>"That kind of sarcasm isn't really appropriate for the board. I remind you, and everyone present, that this board has harsher rules and anything falling outside of those rules will be more firmly dealt with than normal."
Followed by
>"And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point. Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry. Ask questions rather than making accusations."
I think anyone with half an eye can see the first was far more strict, direct, and placed in a warning tone to the 2nd. And meanwhile, the 2nd never even bothered to mention the whole dickish "UR JUST BEING A JERK" garbage.
The closest you get is the "assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith", but that's pretty well cut out by the "trying to catch them on pedantry".
It literally makes no mention of the insults whatsoever.
So yeah, damn well I had issue with this. You never addressed in that post the things I had reported and had a problem with.
They were ignored.
As fucking usual.
Every time I seem to use the report function, either you guys do jack shit about it, or I'm the one warned off.

Good example being the last time, where Moony had deleted the only proper warning I've ever seen the guy get. Unless you count actions by Luna, anyway, which, I wouldn't, since they left over this shit.
Instead of a warning to Manley, specifically citing his actions, we got Rarity saying

>Manley, yeah, you're talking behind Noonim's back here. His age has little to do with his behavior.
>Noonim, I get it, you see Manley say something about you and you feel the need to go against it. You can just not engage, let it wither on the vine.
>Can I get you both to just walk away from this and not escalate further? I don't think that's too big an ask.
As though somehow in that case I was somehow equally to blame for his dickish response.,

Funny how it only works one way, isn't it?
I do the most minute thing, something that's supposedly "strongly discouraged", and I get the strong warning.
He does a clear and flat insulting behind my back, and for whatever reason, we're both the problem.
We both need to walk away. Whoever started it suddenly didn't matter there.

After a while this type of stuff ends up making a pattern, you know.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:24:39 No.4482

Ok just

Mondo, assuming your speaking for most of the staff,

Is it against the rules or not, for a poster to assume someone has a bad intention behind their actions or statements, with little to no solid evidence?

Or is just discouraged?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:31:37 No.4486

>>4482
As it happens I literally had an entire thread around this idea.
It was never addressed or clarified, as it happens.
Scootaloo did seem interested in the idea, though. But, near as I can tell, nothing official came of it. Mostly because the same problem persisted later.
>>2658

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:32:01 No.4487

>>4486
Also, damn, I just realized we've gone through nearly 2000 posts since then.
Oof.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:32:17 No.4488

File: 1560839537142.png (16.62 KB, 288x320, 9:10, Forever Alone.png) ImgOps Google

>>4479
>>4480

>Does this mean you think it would be acceptable or productive for me to go to anyone who disagrees with me or I have any kind of argument with and say "You're just being an ass"?

Do I think it would be acceptable? Somewhat, yeah, I think that kind of response is natural and expected. Do I think it's productive? No, which is why I still give out warnings for it and tell people to cut it out.

>If Manley pissed me off and I said "You're acting like a shithead", I'd damn well expect to be punished for that.

In most cases we wouldn't punish that, unless it went on for post after post, which would be taking it too far and result in us stepping in to try to defuse the situation, which is what I did and it worked.

>I don't get that.

I said you wouldn't. We're on such different wavelengths that it's impossible to communicate or understand each other. But I've responded now, as you've requested, that's the best I can do.

>>4480
>How the hell do people keep justifying this kind of abbrasive attitude?

Because this website has shown me what a human is and what a human does. I said this the last time the topic of justice came up. I don't have the privilege of ignoring human behavior and trying to force people to adhere to an ideal. Sometimes people get upset and say things that aren't ideal. You've been that way for the past eight or nine hours. But things don't get better by shutting down abrasive attitudes with force.

>>4481

Not unlike the thread from before, you're getting really hung up on pedantry. The exact wording of both the rules and the mod post do not matter to the extent you seem to think they do. I am not a police officer, or a judge, or a jury. I am a moderator. I am here to moderate. "make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent." Things had become intense, it was my job to step in and make them less so. We do not want an intense website. That is the goal of moderation. The goal of moderation is not doling out justice and punishment.

Again, yes, wording could've been better, because apparently you at least did not interpret things in the way I intended. That is a failure of communication on my part and I seek to improve that in the future. But there just isn't the issue here you're seeing.

>>4482
>Mondo, assuming your speaking for most of the staff,

That's a big assumption and even I am not willing to say that is the case. By all means if people come along tomorrow and say "No Mondo, that's wrong, you should do it this way." I will not even argue the point.

>Is it against the rules or not, for a poster to assume someone has a bad intention behind their actions or statements, with little to no solid evidence? Or is just discouraged?

In a sense, those are the same thing to me. The rules are things we discourage. That's why the first response to every offense is a warning. Which regardless of officiality is just meant to ask that they don't do something again. The assumption is always that they just didn't know it was discouraged. If you are continously doing things we discourage, then we have to take further action and go to bans.

Like I said in an upwards paragraph, the goal of moderators is to moderate. We want to avoid the website becoming extreme or intense. That is largely the reason we made this site to begin with. We think the rules are good guidelines for achieving that goal, but they're not perfect. I don't think any of us believe them to be perfect. Even now after we've been through a few drafts and iterations they don't solve every problem or interaction. That's on us to interpret.

The only time we act as police rather than moderators is when someone with no post history shows up and advertises their random websites or starts spamming porn. Which is a lot easier than moderating because I can just hit "Ban and Delete All Posts" and I don't have to worry about the person's feelings.

Val 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:47:19 No.4490

File: 1560840439533.gif (935.32 KB, 480x268, 120:67, HotEdibleHydra-max-1mb.gif) ImgOps Google

What's the point of forced anonymity when people can tell who people are?

I would have to assume that Zecora wasn't pinpointing you because they wouldn't have known it was you... but they're a mod, they will know it's you based on IP or whatever

Seems like an oversight. Is there a way to make it so mods don't see IPs on that board? Or something similar to that?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:56:29 No.4492

File: 1560840988881.png (385.58 KB, 945x969, 315:323, bryce_stern_b_flip.png) ImgOps Google

>>4488
>No, which is why I still give out warnings for it and tell people to cut it out.
Have you considered that actually addressing it directly would be better than issuing warnings that never even mention it?

>In most cases we wouldn't punish that, unless it went on for post after post, which would be taking it too far and result in us stepping in to try to defuse the situation, which is what I did and it worked.
Well, I think that should change.
You should punish for that.
Things should not be allowed to escalate to the point of direct insults like that. And, yeah, I still think "You're acting like a shithead" to be a pretty direct insult. Maybe it's to the "behavior" rather than the individual, but, still, its' a dick thing to do.

if you guys started to enforce that type of thing, it'd go a long, long way for making me feel better about the way things are here.

>I said you wouldn't. We're on such different wavelengths that it's impossible to communicate or understand each other. But I've responded now, as you've requested, that's the best I can do.
I guess.
But, man. I just don't understand how anyone'd find "You're acting like a shithead" to be something acceptable or allowable on a given website. Especially on a board where we're supposed to encourage productive dialogue.
And, don't give me the "I warned him for that".
You didn't.
The text is there to see.

>You've been that way for the past eight or nine hours.
For what it's worth, I think you ought to've.
Hell, someone ended up doing it, a while back.
>>4357
A good two hours were lost there.
Didn't really help, of course.
But, I've always been someone who advocates enforcement of the letter of the law, over how you "feel" at a given time.
Less likely to result in this, where people feel like there's no fairness, no consideration, they're just left to their own devices while things play a nasty game.
I said before, trust is vital with any given system of governance, which, like I said, I'd count this place as.
If you lose the trust of the userbase of your given system, it falls apart.
Whether that be because nobody cares about your rules and will ignore them, evade bans, or just do the same thing when they get back, or whether it be because everyone ends up leaving.
Having a system where some are held to one standard, while others another, will not last.

>Not unlike the thread from before, you're getting really hung up on pedantry. The exact wording of both the rules and the mod post do not matter to the extent you seem to think they do.
Maybe not to you, who they do not effect.
They matter a helluva lot to me, who's been directly put under them.

This is a big part of why I think a rotation might be a great way to go, actually.
I think you've lost a lot of perspective. That, or, maybe you just never cared about these things like I do.
Like I said, I don't really care less when it comes to the punishment, as much as the justification behind it.
You could ban me for a day, ban me for a week, ban me for a year. You could just give me a warning, as is the case here. I'd still be upset, likely equally so, because it's just not fair.
Some are treated to one standard. Some are treated to another.
You can say it's not so, but, I sure don't see it that way. And, given you just call it "pedantry" when I give you evidence in that regard, I'm not inclined to accept your arguments to the contrary. Because I don't see it that way.

> I am a moderator. I am here to moderate. "make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent." Things had become intense, it was my job to step in and make them less so. We do not want an intense website. That is the goal of moderation. The goal of moderation is not doling out justice and punishment.
Maybe that should be changed then.
Maybe the title should be shifted.
Because, I don't give a damn about your moderation. Especially when it's worked out so horrifically poorly for you.
Like I pointed out here >>4487 we've had two thousand new posts on /canterlot/ since I made one of my earlier complaints about Manley.
Two thousand.
Pretty sure you're not going to pretend we've reached any kind of "moderation" at present. If anything, things've escalated and ecsalated as a result of your inaction in this regard.

Maybe this is more about me, than you.
Maybe this is my personality.
I am a person who puts extreme, intensely strong priority to principles.
My greatest personal fear is that I will one day end up betraying those principles, either due to personal weakness, fatigue, or jadedness.
Some people fear fire, disappointment, failure, and so on. I guess for me failure could be a part of it, but, I never want to lose sight of what I believe in.
As a result, I'm not inclined towards mediation where it is not fair or just. When someone is allowed to continue bad behavior despite the standards others are held to, I get upset. Very upset, as it happens.

Your moderation has failed to moderate. So, maybe it wasn't the best idea?

>Again, yes, wording could've been better, because apparently you at least did not interpret things in the way I intended. That is a failure of communication on my part and I seek to improve that in the future. But there just isn't the issue here you're seeing.
When stuff is flat out ignored like it was, when I'm left holding the entirety of the strict hand, when I've been treated repeatedly like this, it's really hard to accept it as just a bit of bad communication.
I don't want to say "I don't believe you", but, I don't.
But, I will at least pretend to, for what that's worth.
if what you are saying is that the incredibly lightly worded post that doesn't address the particular problem I've had at all is actually warning against that behavior, I can accept that.
Provided it acts as an actual warning. As in, if it happens again, you'll actually take action.

If you can at least promise me that, I can step back. Maybe not happily, maybe not fully content, but, I'll have an excuse I can go back to that at least says something. At least leaves a possibility.

If there really isn't any kind of possibility of change or potential fixings, I'd at least like to know.
If nothing else, at least knowing there's no hope of fixing anything here lets me understand that any attempt is pointless.
This has really fucked up my entire day. Possibly the week, if I'm unlucky.
This was supposed to be my birthday week, where for the few days I get off, I end up going out with family, getting something to eat, hanging out, maybe seeing a movie or something. Instead, I pretty much got stuck here, just spinning further and further into a seriously miserable pit.
I don't want to do some "woe is me" shit, here. It's not the goal to drum up sympathy, or whatever, I just want to try to get you to understand that, when I beg you here to tell me if there's a chance, I'm not asking for a chance.
I'm specifically trying to find out if there is a chance.
Because if there's not, I can cut this place out.
I can cut the thing that, frankly, has been doing a whole lot of damage to me for far too long here.

I'm far too tired to handle this type of thing. Especially after what had happened on Ponychan. I really cannot afford another spiral like that, as, frankly, stupid as it sounds, that left me in the 2nd darkest place I've ever been. I do not want to end up going through that again. I don't think it really will have that effect, given that Ponychan was a home online for me for ages, through a rather significant portion of my life. But, still. The jagged and cracked bit I managed to scrape out of there isn't going to handle another fall well, I figure. So, if it's really the way it has to be, I can cut this place out too if I have to.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 06:58:15 No.4493

>>4490
It's not like forced anonymity makes much a difference anyway.
You can pretty much always tell someone's typing style.
Though I admit you guys have made me fall some out of practice.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 07:02:46 No.4495

File: 1560841366403.png (70.91 KB, 500x475, 20:19, tumblr_n0ggnqu7LF1toamcjo1….png) ImgOps Google

>>4490
>What's the point of forced anonymity when people can tell who people are?

Unfortunately it all requires good faith on the part of the users and staff. When you go to a masquerade and people have flimsy masks on, you're not supposed to try to guess who everyone else is and announce it. "Charitable Llama" seemed to have at the least a pretty strong inkling of who "Stunning Hummingbird" was even though ostensibly they were unknown characters. I'm not sure if the reverse was also true.

In general, as a mod, I don't actually browse the site while logged in, because I don't want to see people's IP addresses. It seems like a breach of privacy. A tool that can be important at times, but not something I casually want to have active. When I first examined the thread, it was with no knowledge of who anyone was.

After reviewing the thread and getting confused as to what exactly was going on and why things were reported, it became more relevant. First I went to the reports screen and checked who reported things, because a lot of the time that reveals why something was reported. That's when I discovered who Charitable Llama was, and on my own inkling I decided to also check who Stunning Mockingbird was and sure enough, it was exactly who I would've expected to come into conflict with a Llama.

>Seems like an oversight. Is there a way to make it so mods don't see IPs on that board? Or something similar to that?

Probably technically, but I'm not really the person to ask about whether it's possible or even whether it's a good idea.

Val 06/18/19 (Tue) 07:04:18 No.4496

>>4493
Yeah that's not actually accurate, though. It's not really easy to tell people's typing styles. People have confused me with other people dozens of times, and other people with me, and other people with other people, et cetera.

>>4495
Well I'm just saying there's no point in making it anonymous if everyone knows each other anyways. It's a dumb gimmick that doesn't even work as intended.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 07:07:00 No.4497

>>4495
I didn't really know until it started going to the complete disregard for what I was saying, honestly.
After that, it became a pretty sure thing.
I've yet to meet anyone who can misunderstand and misrepresent me the way he can.
Especially with the way he constantly insists I'm not trying to clarify my given argument, despite me literally making every single post have a large chunk devoted to clarifying my argument.
Seriously, not a single person I have encountered does that last part.

But, yeah, I didn't go in the thread with any kind of realization. That came around about... I think maybe 94?
That's when I was suspicious at least. I guess it was sure afterwards, but, the insistence I prove something I never said is pretty clear.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 07:24:19 No.4499

File: 1560842659057.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>4492
>But, I've always been someone who advocates enforcement of the letter of the law, over how you "feel" at a given time.

And that is one of the key points here, really. To borrow D&D terms, our very alignments are in opposition. You are lawful, you believe in the law, that is your being. I am chaotic and I do not believe in the law. Really, the only lawyer I know seemingly repeatedly displays how flawed the law can be, it's his job to fix it so people aren't harmed by the law. If this were 1st edition D&D we would literally be speaking different languages (maybe that was second edition, don't quote me there).

But nerdy references aside, that's why we don't understand each other. That's why we both assuredly say what we believe and then look at the other person like "What the fuck is that guy even on about?" It's both simple and complex. The simple part is that we disagree on almost everything we've said to each other and it's unlikely that will ever change. The complex part would probably take a few high level philosophy books.

>When stuff is flat out ignored like it was, when I'm left holding the entirety of the strict hand

Like, it wasn't strict. That was my point. You weren't dealt with strictly. You weren't fined or imprisoned or something, I just literally asked you to monitor if things you say might be interpreted in a snarky manner, because that's what just happened and it caused problems. I deeply apologize that you felt I was too strict on you, but the only way I could've done less is if I had done nothing. Like I can't even politely request things without my mod tag on there because I'd just show up as Flatulent Weasel or something and you'd wonder why you should listen to me at all. The whole point of a warning is that it isn't very strict.

If it does keep happening, for either you or Stunning Hummingbird then yeah, we'll have to escalate the situation. So far it hasn't, though! So far I said "Hey don't do that." and then people stopped doing that, and I might go talk to him more just to communicate even better exactly what happened and what could go down better.

>If there really isn't any kind of possibility of change or potential fixings, I'd at least like to know.

There is a possibility of change. I expect we'll be discussing change whenever people have time to do so, which may not be immediate. Everyone but me tends to be busy, that's why I'm usually on here acting as the face.

Will that be enough change? Will it be the change you want? I don't know. I can't guarantee we'll do something that'll make you want to stick around. If you wanted to leave I'm not gonna be like "Yeah, wow, fuck that guy, glad he's gone." but it's not in me to try to to everything I can to get you to stay, either, especially when I know it'll make you, other users, or the staff stressed and unhappy, which is largely what today has been for everyone involved.

No one likes this, we all have different ideas for what went wrong, and it sucks.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 07:36:04 No.4501

File: 1560843364583.png (91.63 KB, 440x309, 440:309, 61b60ec0e5455529be3ec540f9….png) ImgOps Google

>>4499
It's not really the "law" I believe in, as much as it is the concept of a just and fair system.
If you let rules sway and wave, it causes people to lose trust, breeds a chaotic attitude, and generally spreads animosity, in my experience.

>ike, it wasn't strict. That was my point. You weren't dealt with strictly. You weren't fined or imprisoned or something, I just literally asked you to monitor if things you say might be interpreted in a snarky manner, because that's what just happened and it caused problems.
"Strict" in the sense, I mean, that I was treated with far more strength and set ruling, than he was.
I know I wasn't punished or anything, but, like I said, that hardly matters.
The problem was, I got an actual warning. He got half of one of mine, that was incredibly light-handed and not at all phrased strictly, and of course, like I said, ended up missing the entire problem I had raised.
>I deeply apologize that you felt I was too strict on you, but the only way I could've done less is if I had done nothing.
You know that's not my point.
My point is that you weren't strict enough on the other half.
If you warned me formerly for something that was "heavily discouraged" on its own, I'd completely understand.
Problem is when it's combined with this kind of dickish shitflinging being completely ignored, and the guy who did it getting the other half of an incredibly softly and politely worded reply that doesn't sound anything like a warning, but more as a request.

>If it does keep happening, for either you or Stunning Hummingbird then yeah, we'll have to escalate the situation. So far it hasn't, though! So far I said "Hey don't do that." and then people stopped doing that, and I might go talk to him more just to communicate even better exactly what happened and what could go down better.
So, you mean that it will be considered a proper warning against the conduct of attacking tone in that kind of rude and hostile manner, then? You kind of skipped that part, of me asking you about it, and, I really do need to know.

>There is a possibility of change. I expect we'll be discussing change whenever people have time to do so, which may not be immediate. Everyone but me tends to be busy, that's why I'm usually on here acting as the face.
Do you think maybe this time around for once you guys can actually reach out, maybe reply in this thread or somewhere else, or hell even directly to me over discord or something , when you do?
Because, I hear that a lot.
A lot of the time, that's what's said, before nothing actually ends up happening.

>I can't guarantee we'll do something that'll make you want to stick around.
It's not really a matter of "want". It's more of what's healthy for me.
Like I said, this literally burned the entire day here for me. A supposed-to-be rather special day, frankly, and one of my very few off days.
So, instead of having a good time with family, relaxing and getting out the stress of life, I've been here, getting more and more stressed out, and with some nasty sulk cropping up a time or two as a bout of depression hits.

I'm not asking you for some kind of "oh, you poor thing let me help you" response, here. I just need it cold and flat, frankly. If you can get me that much, at least, it'd go a long way. But, continuing this charade, it's not really feeling like anything's actually happening.
Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth keeping up. Or if maybe what I need to do is something extreme enough to force the issue.
In a way I guess I'm trying that. I don't know the specific rules on adding site-related items to threads or posts, but, I do intend to put that discord link in any major OP I make with pretty much the same message.
Who knows? maybe something will come of it.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 07:38:42 No.4502

>>4501
>>4499
I do want to throw in, though, since I feel like you kind of skipped it:
Your system that you're talking about, the "moderation" thing.
It's not working. The problem here has persisted as a result, and it's pretty well effecting others.
It might be high time you examine what you really want out of the ideal of "moderation". Whehter or not it's worth trying to moderate between two entities, if that moderation merely keeps them in constant aggressive conflict.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:04:05 No.4503

>>4501
>So, you mean that it will be considered a proper warning against the conduct of attacking tone in that kind of rude and hostile manner, then? You kind of skipped that part, of me asking you about it, and, I really do need to know.

What I was warning him (and half you) for was mostly derailing the thread. The warning there was not for something you deemed as insulting or "dickish". The conversation itself had shifted far away from the thread's topic and into a sort of meta discussion about the discussion, which isn't useful to a discussion board.

To be completely straight, I don't view "you are assuming malice" as some kind of insult against your character. It's someone trying to tell you that they aren't malicious and didn't mean to start a conflict. You can't take "I didn't mean to insult you" as an insult. That's like...that's really bad. Those were not ad hominem attacks meant to discredit your arguments, those were announcements that the other user was uncomfortable and didn't like where the conversation was going.

Which he also could've avoided by just not talking to you, which is my usual suggestion when that happens, but no one listens to that suggestion. Though I think he was really trying to reach out and come to an accord there, too, not just dismiss you as someone not worth his time. So my request, my hope, is that if that happens you don't start explaining why actually it wasn't snarky at all and they're wrong for suggesting you were wrong. Which maybe is too heavy a request, I don't know.

>So, instead of having a good time with family, relaxing and getting out the stress of life, I've been here, getting more and more stressed out, and with some nasty sulk cropping up a time or two as a bout of depression hits.

If that was your day then I suggest you leave. Again, not as whether I want you here or you want to be here, but because that's really unhealthy, like you said. I absolutely cannot say that what happened won't happen again, that the situation won't come up and you wont' be compelled to post in a huge angry thread on /canterlot/. I can say we're always trying to avoid it and it was a big enough deal today that we talked a lot about what we might change, but again I can't actually say it won't keep happening. I can't say our changes will work. And your cynicism isn't misplaced, I can't even say for sure that we'll make changes.

>>4502

Well it certainly failed today because I wasn't even there to moderate until things got out of hand, which is part of the problem of my idea of moderation, it usually requires an active presence. The alternative to that, unfortunately, is banning half or more of our users for their repeated rules violations. And then there's no website because everyone is gone. We get to keep our serials with like four people in them because they don't interact with the rest of the site to have arguments.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:21:11 No.4506

goddamn, if this whole thing is unhealthy for you then just leave instead of being vindictive about any alleged "error" in the mod staff's judgement and try to drag them down with guilt trips and threats

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:23:03 No.4507

>>4503
Misunderstanding, it seems. Should've checked this, before hand, but I guess I assumed you'd've actually read the thread.
>To be completely straight, I don't view "you are assuming malice" as some kind of insult against your character. It's someone trying to tell you that they aren't malicious and didn't mean to start a conflict. You can't take "I didn't mean to insult you" as an insult. That's like...that's really bad. Those were not ad hominem attacks meant to discredit your arguments, those were announcements that the other user was uncomfortable and didn't like where the conversation was going.
Not what happened.
Read the thread.
Context is vital to these things. You should know that most of all, given your position.

>>>/townhall/87
>"Again, you are assuming malice on the part of the child, which you cannot know. This thread is not for debating the ethics of putting down dogs."
It was not about him.
Claiming it was saying "I didn't mean to insult you" is simply wrong, given the context.
You should've read this.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:24:02 No.4508

>>4506
It's not one error.
IT's been a damn long time coming. Nearly if not a full year now.
I've been trying to get them to do this shit for a damn long while, and the only time anything was ever done was when Luna came back.
But that was pretty brief, as evidently the refusal to do anything about Manley didn't sit well with them.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:33:10 No.4509

File: 1560846790353.png (17.61 KB, 334x317, 334:317, 268722__UNOPT__safe_rule-6….png) ImgOps Google

>>4507
>Misunderstanding, it seems. Should've checked this, before hand, but I guess I assumed you'd've actually read the thread.

Sorry, I was pulling quotes from the image you posted in the other thread displaying the things you considered insults. Could you point out again which things were insults? Was it just the other stuff in the picture?

>You're being needlessly antagonistic.
>You're just being needlessly antagonistic for no reason.

By more than one account your first two posts were immediately hostile sounding. Which I sort of get the first one, I'm big on dogs, too. I can see why you'd be upset by dog euthanasia. But no one was actually putting down dogs in the thread, you didn't need to call people out for their dog murder.

>You simply say "I never said that!" and then get beligerent.

This is close, this is closer. Still a bit of a stretch to call it an insult, that's more just airing grievances, but like almost I could see it.

For comparison, yesterday I issued a ban to RS, wherein the quote was:

>Like the actual fact that you're a fucking moron.

Which is not only clearly insulting, like it's an aggressive offensive move with no way to misinterpret the intent, but it happened in a thread where I had already warned them.

But so we're clear on this, 'cause again there's a really huge gap in our communication, do you consider "Like the actual fact that you're a fucking moron." equivalent to "You're being needlessly antagonistic."?

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:33:55 No.4510

File: 1560846835177.png (10.07 KB, 669x165, 223:55, Insults.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4503
>which isn't useful to a discussion board.
Neither is hostile attacks like this.
It's not productive to say someone's being "needlessly antagonistic". It's not productive to say they're "assuming malice". It's not productive to say they're "getting belligerent".

If instead of responding to anything you said, I just claimed that you were being a cold hearted jerk, we wouldn't get anywhere.
And I don't think you'd appreciate it either.

>Which he also could've avoided by just not talking to you, which is my usual suggestion when that happens, but no one listens to that suggestion.
For what it's worth, I tried that.
Didn't pan out.
Instead I got shittalked behind my back, and when I pointed it out to staff, I ended up getting as much the trouble.
Not to mention it still persisted.

Funny, in this case, the person who started shit got in trouble, but in that case, the person who started shit got off scott free...
Weird how things like that work, isn't it?

> So my request, my hope, is that if that happens you don't start explaining why actually it wasn't snarky at all and they're wrong for suggesting you were wrong. Which maybe is too heavy a request, I don't know.
That's how you address problems and misunderstandings. You explain why you said what you did.
What, do you think I should just accept whatever's said to me, instead?
So, if instead of responding to your arguments, I just said you're being unempathetic and cruel, you'd just accept that statement, and bend over?
You wouldn't bother clarifying?

>I can say we're always trying to avoid it and it was a big enough deal today that we talked a lot about what we might change, but again I can't actually say it won't keep happening.
I don't need a guarantee, I just need a chance to build something.
It doesn't need to never happen, as much as I need some kind of solution sought for.
Because I've got the stability to last for a bit with it, at least. Maybe less stability more stubbornness, anyway. I can take gradual steps, but, I need actual movement.
I can't keep with this wishywashy crap where you guys don't even bother to try to reach out and help me, and seem to ignore everything the moment I stop screaming on /canterlot/ about it.

I'm going to try to at least leave off for tomorrow, if nothing else. Dunno if it's really worth doing given it's 3AM here, but, fuck it. It's the last day I had and I wanted to go to the naval aviation museum.
If you can at least give me an idea if anything's actually being done then, I'd be grateful.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:45:28 No.4511

File: 1560847528264.png (6.4 KB, 535x124, 535:124, apparantly a major sin.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>4509
>Sorry, I was pulling quotes from the image you posted in the other thread displaying the things you considered insults. Could you point out again which things were insults? Was it just the other stuff in the picture?
>>4507
>>>/townhall/87
>"Again, you are assuming malice on the part of the child, which you cannot know. This thread is not for debating the ethics of putting down dogs."

At least for that one. Otherwise, I'd point to >>>/townhall/100, where I had linked every one.
First one was >>>/townhall/85
>"You're being needlessly antagonistic."
2nd was >>>/townhall/87
>"Again, you are assuming malice on the part of the child, which you cannot know. "
3rd was >>>/townhall/93
>"You are saying that all dog attacks are the fault of the victim. Unless you can prove that, you can't keep saying that.
>Again, you're not actually debating the OP topic. You're just being needlessly antagonistic for no reason."
Last was >>>/townhall/97
>"In both instances, you claim it was the victim's (the "dick kid") fault for antagonizing the dog. You ignored other situations where the dog might be at fault, or neither party is at fault. Both of those things are possibilities. You are right, you never directly argue those things NEVER happen. But when you argue only for one situation and ignore the other possible explanations, then you make it appear as if you are saying only the situation you are arguing ever happens. Espeically when the statement is made in declarative fashion. In >>83 (You) you create a hypothetical scenario where "the kid was prodding the thing" and "behaving like a dick". A hypothetical situation with very specific circumstances. When you do not indicate that your hypothetical ONLY applies to itself and not all dog attacks, then it makes it seem like your arguing that your hypothetical is typical for all dog attacks. Your argument is not clear, and instead of clarifying, you simple say "I never said that!" and get belligerent. That is bad debate form. You should never, in a debate, say someone has misinterpreted your stance and then not clarify your stance. You should always do both. "

You were the guy who ended up warning us in that thread, right?
I had expected you must've read the context involved.

>By more than one account your first two posts were immediately hostile sounding. Which I sort of get the first one, I'm big on dogs, too. I can see why you'd be upset by dog euthanasia. But no one was actually putting down dogs in the thread, you didn't need to call people out for their dog murder.
It wasn't even about dog murder. It was a lighthearted comment in relation to >>>/townhall/71
>"That's because the horse won't be able to heal from that injury the same way a human can. That's not an apt comparison."
Saying that, since that's the rationale against >>>/townhall/70 's
>"If a horse breaks a leg, it gets shot. Why don't we turn the emergency room into an execution chamber?"
Statement. Which, by the way, is also pretty light-hearted and what I'd call "sarcastic" or "smarmy", if my reply was.
'Course, you didn't give him flak, because it didn't make a huge thing.
Unfortunately it's hard to predict what'll set people off.
Anyway; I had made the reply >>>/townhall/84
>"So, we should shoot people who end up disabled. Makes sense to me."
in a light hearted sort of way in the same vien as Helpful Porpoise [70] using the argument used a moment ago.
It was not intended in a hostile manner, it wasn't even something I really care about. I mean, if the horse can't walk, being that it's a horse, it pretty well fucks up the horse, so I think it's rather reasonable to kill horses, honestly.

Again, though, I have to ask: Did you actually read the thread before you made a judgement?
Because you're really giving me the feeling you didn't.

>This is close, this is closer. Still a bit of a stretch to call it an insult, that's more just airing grievances, but like almost I could see it.
In a seriously unproductive way.
Again, should I just start saying you're being unempathetic and dismissive?
Would you be inclined to just bend over backwards to such a statement?
Would you not at all take issue with such a statement? Isn't it thoroughly uncharitable, and unproductive?

>But so we're clear on this, 'cause again there's a really huge gap in our communication, do you consider "Like the actual fact that you're a fucking moron." equivalent to "You're being needlessly antagonistic."?
No. It's a fair step down, but both are insulting.
The difference'd be the level step.
Though funny enough there's a lot of circumstance around RS. It's not like his statement was out of nowhere. Manley was insulting him throughout that thread, and it's a great example of why I think this is a double standard. Because you didn't ban him, despite his constant hostile assertions about RS.

Again, another straw that piled up. This stuff's not out of nowhere. I don't accuse you guys of some kind of bias from one single thread. This has been going on for a long time.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 08:54:34 No.4512

File: 1560848074318.png (571.53 KB, 1280x966, 640:483, 41b4e76730f5b4428f39897875….png) ImgOps Google

>>4509
Since you brought it up, though, let's talk about that.
Do you genuinely consider the conduct that Manley engaged in, within that thread, not to be hostile, insulting, and disruptive?
Do you think a statement like >>>/pony/954936
>"Guys, he literally said "anything that doesn't agree with what I already think is fake." I don't think he's going to be swayed by facts.:"
is not something that would cause some aggression?
Do you think, incidentally, that it was productive for a member of staff to entertain such a clearly insulting statement?
>>>/pony/954937
>"People are rarely, if ever, swayed by facts. It's just not a good strategy for convincing people of something."
Do you think that Manley's continual lies, and yes when it comes to saying "he literally said" when it literally wasn't something he said is, in fact, a lie, contributed to the situation?
Do you think that his insistence that RS was "afraid of black people", again another thoroughly insulting item, had anything to do with it?

I have to ask, why do you give such consideration to one set of circumstances, because one person made a mild slipup, yet you see fit to stretch such a thread on and on without a single warning?

You wonder why I see a major bias at play. This is why.
I do not believe you when you say you "seek to be fair", as you put it.
The standard does not persist. Sometimes it applies, sometimes it doesn't. Yet always, seemingly in one particular direction.

Or am I to presume it's okay to say the kind of shit he did, make up the kinds of things he did?
Shall I say "Manley literally said he wants kill the disabled", for example? Or would that not obviously be unacceptable.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 09:37:36 No.4513

>>4511
>Did you actually read the thread before you made a judgement?

I did. And I still have it open on my second monitor, so I keep reading portions of it occasionally to try to confirm what you're talking about.

>It wasn't even about dog murder. It was a lighthearted comment in relation to

Your first two posts. Your first post included:

>And, honestly, to be quite frank, it's bullshit that you kill a dog who happens to bite an idiot kid. That kid was prodding the thing, behaving like a dick. It's not the dog's fault your kid's a retard.

That is some incredibly hostile language. It was right above your second post and definitely set the tone for your interactions throughout the thread. Remember, you were anonymous, so we didn't see Noonim in that post. We saw someone we've never met before and had no assumptions about. These statements were the very first thing we saw of "you".

I don't think that kind of hostility is inhrenetly rule break, it wasn't quite over the line. It didn't seem like it belonged there, but it wasn't too crazy, and again, I also have a soft spot for dogs. But the follow up post had now had its tone set by this post, which while not rule breaking was not really nice which might be why people interpreted your next post differently than you intended.

And even comparing your second post to Helpful Porpoise's from the beginning of the thread, and they are comparable, there's some key differences. Helpful Porpoise does lightheartedly attempt to turn the logic of the OP around, but he ends his post with a question, which is about as non-hostile as you can get and absolutely perfect for a debate environment. Your post still called out the same logic for the same reasons, but it didn't present it as a question, it essentially just called the logic stupid.

So there's the full grammatical breakdown from what I saw, since we seem to be very interested in grammar.

>The difference'd be the level step.

The difference is very relevant to me, because in my eyes it's a huge difference. One is flatly against the rules, and one is mostly okay with the acknowledgement that at least one person is unhappy about it.

>>4512
>Do you genuinely consider the conduct that Manley engaged in, within that thread, not to be hostile, insulting, and disruptive?

In reverse order: Disruptive? No. There was nothing to disrupt, that activity was the whole thread. Insulting? I could see how someone could be insulted, but I don't think any of it could actually be considered an insult. Hostile? Sure. Just to take the most immediate quote:

>Guys, he literally said "anything that doesn't agree with what I already think is fake." I don't think he's going to be swayed by facts.

Yeah, that's a pretty hostile post. But then, that wasn't unprompted, either. Most of the thread had been pretty hostile. Posters who weren't hostile were an exception. I had considered locking the thread several times, but always ultimately decided against it because that also tends to really upset people. It's really a no-win scenario.

Also, this wasn't on the /townhall/ board, where we're specifically trying to be more heavy handed in our moderating. The knife thread probably should've just been moved to /townhall/ where such moderation could be applied to a guaranteed heated debate, but it wasn't even in the navigation bar yet and I wasn't sure how it worked. Either way, anything in the knife thread isn't really subject to the same scrutiny.

Finally, if we're talking the inciting post...

>If all the police are horrible racist (even the ones from minority communities) murderers that go around in Abrams tanks and jets trying to meet an unwritten quota of killing people then obviously the solution isn't to ban guns and only rely on them to solve problems.

Nothing Manley said was hostile up until this post happened, which actually had an eye roll image attached to it to clear up any confusion, unlike your post in /townhall/ which could be argued to be in good faith. Even in the face of another person who was so hostile he was wishing death on half the thread and I had to delete his posts and repeatedly ban him because he was evading, Manley and others shrugged it off. The hostility of this post I would consider unprompted and open to scrutiny, it was the poison in the well, so to speak. Hostile responses to this post I would consider human, if still frowned upon.

>and yes when it comes to saying "he literally said" when it literally wasn't something

Unfortunately they changed the definition of literally to mean "mostly kinda", which isn't ideal but it makes his statement correct. RS really did just respond to essentialy if not literally say that views he hears from sources that do not agree with his own are "DNC shills". Manley paraphrased, but he didn't pull that out of nowhere. So that's more grammar out of the way

>Do you think that Manley's continual lies, and yes when it comes to saying "he literally said" when it literally wasn't something he said is, in fact, a lie, contributed to the situation?
>Do you think that his insistence that RS was "afraid of black people", again another thoroughly insulting item, had anything to do with it?

For starters, neither of those happened before RS came into the thread, clearly already upset in a targeted fashion. And second, no, I don't think suggesting someone is "afraid of black people" is an insult. It doesn't pass my threshold for insult. Which isn't to say that my threshold is calling people retarded and nothing else hits that level. But if one's actions could imply that you're afraid of something and the response is "I think you're just afraid of something" then it's unequestionably below my threshold for an insult.

>yet you see fit to stretch such a thread on and on without a single warning?

I gave softer warnings to two people I didn't expect to do anything too extreme. And then they didn't do anything too extreme for hours. Finally it hit a point past what I thought was acceptable, one guy got a short ban, the thread died, and then the guy who was banned was back and posting again later that evening.

For as messy as that thread was, I don't necessarily consider it a failure. Was there some mod bias? Yeah. I tried to give RS the benefit of the doubt for the whole thread, because I like RS. Eventually he pushed it too far. And honestly, if it weren't for that one last post I probably would've let them keep going. Hostility or no, it's not like I don't think RS had a fair opinion on the situation, he was ultimately just trying to get his point accross. But no matter how inappropriately set you think my lines are, I do have them, and the line was crossed.

Mondo!peSTIcIDes 06/18/19 (Tue) 09:41:52 No.4514

>>4512

Also, I'm going to bed. And you should also go to bed, if you haven't already. It's like 5am here. Not that I have anything to do tomorrow, I'm unemployed and can barely walk anyway. But you have stuff you wanted to do and none of this is actually important.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 09:48:43 No.4515

>>4513
>Your first two posts.
The item in which had received the accusation of antagonism was 84. It was literally directly in response to 84.
Also... This kind of throws a wrench in the whole "this is over the smarm in 84" narrative you guys were using a bit ago, doesn't it?

I could see what you're getting at, though, and I think as a result, if you had warned me for that post, I could understand where you're coming from.
And, ultimately, as a result, I can see your rationalization as a result. Though it wasn't really connected, outside of perception. I've got a strange thing were I can rather disconnect posts made from one another. It's somewhat weird, but, yeah, they're a tad fire and forget.

>And even comparing your second post to Helpful Porpoise's from the beginning of the thread, and they are comparable, there's some key differences. Helpful Porpoise does lightheartedly attempt to turn the logic of the OP around, but he ends his post with a question, which is about as non-hostile as you can get and absolutely perfect for a debate environment.
Even such a sarcastic and hyperbolic suggestion?
I don't know if I buy that.
Throwing a "makes sense to me", I do not think, is "calling the logic stupid" as you put it, and, I really don't see it as any more smarmy, sarcastic, or otherwise hostile, than Porpoise's post.
But, I guess this is why it's massively subjective. And probably why the rule is a "might result in warning", "strongly discouraged" thing, instead of a flat "do not do this".

>One is flatly against the rules, and one is mostly okay with the acknowledgement that at least one person is unhappy about it.
Is that really so?
Then I guess I better start doing that to everyone I see.
Might as well start with you:
You're just being generally heartless and cold about things.
Real productive, right? Not at all something insulting or harmful, and it's totally something we should allow on the site.

I do genuinely mean this when I say I will take what you have said here, and I will try to cause as much trouble as I physically can with this.
If you're going to say it's okay, I'm damn well going to abuse it to the point where you have to stop it. Because I sure as fuck don't think it's acceptable. That's some major dickishness that I know you wouldn't appreciate to you.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 09:58:04 No.4516

>>4513
>Nothing Manley said was hostile up until this post happened, which actually had an eye roll image attached to it to clear up any confusion, unlike your post in /townhall/ which could be argued to be in good faith.
I don't know about that.
I kept him filtered for exactly this type of shit, but, he starts straight off the back with some major strawmanning and rather hostile assumptions of people.
>>>/pony/954479
>When the number of mass knifings a year matches the number of mass shootings, then we'll talk about knife control. Otherwise this is just a diversion by people who don't want to address that the ease of access to guns is a problem in this country while children are getting shot.
>>>/pony/954509
>Yeah because guns are harder to get in the UK. That doesn't prove your point. Also prove it. What problem will it create? Less kids getting shot?
>>>/pony/954509
>That's only if there is a complete ban on all guns. That's not what the majority of people asking for gun control want. It's just become a strawman argument to avoid discussing the topic.
>Also, keep in mind, I'm not white. My right to a carry a fire-arm is already infringed because of the corrupt police system. Doing so poses a real threat on my life

And these are literally his first posts.
I guess since you seem to be rather anti-gun yourself, you're inclined to agree with them. But I sure don't. They represent someone who, since I'm apparently allowed to say this now, is being an asshole, actively strawmanning the conversation the whole way through.
Again, I don't talk to him on these kinds of things, for exactly this reason.
He will never honestly represent his opposition. I'm convinced he's incapable of it.

>
Unfortunately they changed the definition of literally to mean "mostly kinda", which isn't ideal but it makes his statement correct. RS really did just respond to essentialy if not literally say that views he hears from sources that do not agree with his own are "DNC shills". Manley paraphrased, but he didn't pull that out of nowhere. So that's more grammar out of the way
I really think that's a nasty strawman of his arguments.
Again, I think your sharp political bias on the particular subject influences heavily your opinion here.

But, fine. If that's okay, I'm going to be spreading around that Manley literally said "we should kill the disabled", deal?

>And second, no, I don't think suggesting someone is "afraid of black people" is an insult. It doesn't pass my threshold for insult.
Really?
Weird.
I find being callled a racist one of the biggest insults around.
But, okay. Great. We found another item I am going to spread around.

>ostility or no, it's not like I don't think RS had a fair opinion on the situation, he was ultimately just trying to get his point accross. But no matter how inappropriately set you think my lines are, I do have them, and the line was crossed.
Yeah, problem is you never seem to give a damn about the line for anyone else

>>4514
Probably for the best, but, honestly, given your statemnets here, there's such a massive line at hand, that I do not believe we agree on the standards we should hold people to.

I will say, I will genuinely tomorrow or possibly the day after be engaging in the behavior that you've okayed here in this thread, and I do vow that I will stir as much trouble as I physically can with it, until such a time as you actually take a stand against this.
i will do the exact kind of dishonest argumentation, I will strawman, I will lie, I will misrepresent, I will assume the worst, until you have to do something .Because this shit should not be allowed.
And so help me, either I will get myself permanently kicked from this place or I will get this shit stopped.
Because god knows I'm sick of dealing with it

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 10:03:39 No.4517

File: 1560852219203.png (498.7 KB, 1077x1133, 1077:1133, 9a99a43632ab5523a646d2f19c….png) ImgOps Google

>>4515
>>4516
Well, actually, I'll rephrase:

I'll wait until someone else responds, clarifying that what you say is accurate, and is okay, and then I'll do the shit you're talking about.

If it's okay by the rules, then it's okay by the rules, and the massive pile of disruption I will cause is fine.
Hell, I'll start bothering Manley with it.
I know he hates the shit as much as I do, he just never rationalizes how it effects others.
But I can be pretty certain if I start strawmanning his arguments like that, misquoting him, misrepresenting him, lying about him, accusing him of all kinds of mallice, he'll get pissy. And, God as my witness, I will stretch every one of those fights as far as I can possibly do.
Because, fuck that noise.
This shit should not stand, and so, if because it's him doing it, nothing gets fixed, then I am damn well going to force a fix by my own hands or get booted trying. Because at least that's something I can do.

I will say this: Thanks.
You gave me a functionality that results in either my effective removal from this place, or an absolute change that solves this particular problem.
That's seriously something I can use.
And, hell, it's more in my personality. I've always been a spiteful sort, I kind of pride the concept honestly.
So, if scraping the edge that keeps him around is what I have to do, in order to get rid of that edge, then great. That's perfect. Either the edge disappears or I do. Either way, my crisis is solved.
It's also something I can actually sleep on without the whole antsy flip-flopping, since I've got to wait for someone else anyway.
Seriously, it's thoroughly perfect. Genuinely, thanks for being flat and honest here, this is a lifesaver.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 10:17:25 No.4518

File: 1560853045810.png (240.73 KB, 867x724, 867:724, sebastian_drop.png) ImgOps Google

...Or maybe we've both gone too long in a thoroughly emotionally draining thread, far too late at night, and are behaving irrationally...
Possibly.
I'll just leave it for tomorrow. See if I've completely snapped then, or whatever.

Anonymous 06/18/19 (Tue) 14:29:20 No.4519

File: 1560868160427.png (81.33 KB, 540x540, 1:1, ld15.png) ImgOps Google

>>4517
Okay. My input.

If I were the admin I would ban this person immediately for this post alone.

You don't get to pick which mods need to babysit you, you don't get to decide which rules apply to you, and you don't get to use the entire community as your personal toilet because you feel entitled to.

Noonim 06/18/19 (Tue) 19:32:08 No.4520

File: 1560886328838.png (91.63 KB, 440x309, 440:309, 61b60ec0e5455529be3ec540f9….png) ImgOps Google

>>4519
Going off of that one, probably warranted, honestly. I was very tired. As I think was Mondo, given that he had actually adressed the particular items he was then saying are perfectly acceptable and okay by the rules.

Though I do stand by the idea that if the stuff's going to be allowed, I'll end up using it.
I know it'll cause fights and conflicts, and, if it's not with Manley, they might just actually do something.

RS 06/19/19 (Wed) 00:24:19 No.4521

File: 1560903858994.png (322.42 KB, 740x768, 185:192, Silverstream 90.png) ImgOps Google

>>4513
>which actually had an eye roll image attached to it to clear up any confusion,

It's not an eyeroll picture though, it's a look of concern. Literally if you go to derpibooru and search for Silverstream and eyeroll that picture doesn't come up. I had been keeping an eye on the thread because I knew it would be turned into the typical Manley centered anti/pro gun shit show but then Manley turned it into a cop bashing circlejerk, and I'm pretty sure I've explained to you in the past why something like that irks me. But I was merely annoyed, because it's Manley, and I've stopped taking anything he has to say about anything seriously. So I had no hostile intent when I made my first post, as he was not who I intended to engage with when I made my post, as I have taken a vow to try and ignore him because of his behavior unless he really gets on my nerves.

When I made my first post it was a genuine question regarding the concept of the conflict of ideas in regards to those wanting to ban guns, yet hate the police even though they would be needed more to fill the gap left behind by taking away peoples' right to self defense.

>Eventually he pushed it too far. And honestly, if it weren't for that one last post I probably would've let them keep going.

That's because even my patience has limits and when I saw that Manley was falling back to his usual debate tactics of plugging his ears and going "lalalala" to any counter points to his own, and coupled with his increasingly uncivil behavior, I had had enough. I knew I would get banned but I didn't care because 1.If he ws allowed to get away with uncivil behavior why should I care about being civil myself, and 2. I figured well maybe if this is what it takes, that if the mod that got the report on my post did an investigation and saw why I said what I said, to get someone to take a look at his behavior and tell him to cut it out, I was willing to take that bullet. Because like Noonim has said in this thread and others he's made, this is a pattern of behavior that he engages in with more than one person, Noonim is just the one willing to constantly complain about it.