/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Those rules only involve responses to moderation decisions.  More open topics about the site are still allowed, though should be properly tagged.

[Site]: General site issues and discussions.
[Tech]: Errors with site functionality or suggestions for improvements.
[Appeal]: Not exclusively to appeal a ban, but to point out that there's a disagreement with something we've done to moderate the site.  In these matters prolonged discussion is just a drain on everyone involved, which is why we're limiting it to a single post and rebutal from a user and then a single response and answer from the staff.

>>4549
Oh, they didn't update the sticky on this board.  In the sticky in /pony/, they changed it so that only discussion of moderator actions is banned.  

>>4551

Ah, maybe I should do that, then.

>>4550
>>4551
>>4552

Okay, I see. Makes sense.
Because it seemed a bit excessive and counterproductive in some cases if it was actually banned.

>>4550
I think you're sniping at the symptom, rather than the problem. Which is a large part of why I've been having significant reservations from the new rules from the start.
They seem effectively to be the old rules, with a new coat of paint, with a promise that "this time will be different".
Except that it's also combined with a clause that keeps major critique to a minimum.
Needless to say, this looks really bad from my view.

If we don't like the response given, or feel it was not sufficient, are we expected to just make a new thread and start over? Or do we have to ignore it, and accept that 'final word'?
The latter option, frankly, would look rather extremely totalitarian from my perspective. Again, it's a massive part of why I see this particular rule change as explicitly made in order to stop the complaints you've been getting because, frankly, your refusal to enforce the rules up to this point in an even-handed and fair manner.

>>4554
>They seem effectively to be the old rules, with a new coat of paint, with a promise that "this time will be different".
The other difference seems to be that mods will act much more promptly, without needing to wait to get consensus among the site staff.

>>4554
>explicitly made in order to stop the complaints you've been getting
I guess part of it is that the site staff don't have time to have long back-and-forth discussions.  But I would have liked there to still be a way for users to discuss among themselves, even if site staff don't have time to participate.

>>4555
Truth be told, I've never really felt like they did before, anyway. I mean, most the time a report was made, a response was promt enough, so it seems at the very least they didn't get a reply from absolutely everyone.
But, I guess I've not seen the behind-the-scenes aspects. Though, if they are getting consensus before doing things, they've managed to get it to be pretty decently efficient and speedy.

> But I would have liked there to still be a way for users to discuss among themselves, even if site staff don't have time to participate.
I'd definitely second that. There's been plenty of times talking to others has helped me out, after all.

>>4554
>They seem effectively to be the old rules

In a lot of senses, yeah, what we had in place was what we wanted.  Moony just wanted to smooth everything over and keep it simple because he felt like not being sure whether or not something was "rule breaking" was hampering mod activity and the resulting hands off attitude was causing more harm than good.  So the new rules are meant to encourage mods to do something when they otherwise might not have been sure, because doing nothing was a mistake more often than taking action.

>Or do we have to ignore it, and accept that 'final word'?

Yeah, basically.  If we get that far in, there's just nothing anyone's going to do to change anyone's mind.  The arguments could last hours, or even days, and the end result is people are tired and eventually give up and walk away.  The new rules are meant to support both staff and users in not burning themselves out in long unproductive drama threads.

>>4555
>But I would have liked there to still be a way for users to discuss among themselves, even if site staff don't have time to participate.

Well what sort of things would you want to discuss?  We've already modified the intial proposal a bit to cover cases we hadn't thought of or clarify statements.  I'm curious what you'd miss out on under the new standard.

>>4556
>Truth be told, I've never really felt like they did before, anyway. I mean, most the time a report was made, a response was promt enough, so it seems at the very least they didn't get a reply from absolutely everyone.

It was a mixed bag.  Sometimes reports happen when three or four people are online and we can all look at it before doing anything.  Other times there's only one person, or even no people for a while until one person gets home and sees the report, and in those cases is where a lot of the not doing anything usually fell.

>>4557
>Yeah, basically.  If we get that far in, there's just nothing anyone's going to do to change anyone's mind.  The arguments could last hours, or even days, and the end result is people are tired and eventually give up and walk away.  The new rules are meant to support both staff and users in not burning themselves out in long unproductive drama threads.
Well, it'll probably help staff avoid the drama, I'll grant you. But, on the user side, I'm pretty certain it's just going to result in people feeling like there's no point in discussing things, you guys are just going to do what you want, so why bother.
It's certainly the vibe I'm getting from the ruling. From my perspective, like I said, it's basically a way to cut off the critique and complaints you guys've been getting for a long while.

I can get why you'd want to limit the massive drawn out threads we've had in the past, but you're targeting a symptom of a greater issue, and a symptom that ignoring isn't going to fix.
You're just going to make users feel hopeless, ignored, and abandonned.
And, frankly, you've already had that particular trouble for a long while now.

This, to me, seems to basically be you guys saying "We're tired of the users complaining about our actions, so we're going to forbid you guys from doing that, without fixing a single thing everyone's complained about".
Good way to make everyone unhappy, and probably bleed a lot of users out in the process.

>>4558

Well, you can still complain, you just can't keep complaining after complaining, which is the part that isn't helpful.  If we actually wanted no feedback we'd have just deleted /canterlot/.

And truth be told, the users we're most worried about not being comfortable around the site who might leave are the ones who wouldn't bother coming to /canterlot/ to complain.  There's plenty of people who don't have it in them and just leave.  The ones who complain always seem to stick around anyway.

And as per the clock, at this point I don't think either of us actually have anything new to say to each other, so I'm breaking contact here.  I won't lock the thread 'cause this was actually a pretty open one and I want to hear if anon has anything to say, yet.

>>4559
Ah. of course. Users who express issues and repeated ignoring of major problems are not at all people we should be listening to. Anyone who  would dare be unhappy at the state of things, where some people are able to insult and generally treat others like shit, are obviously not worth giving a damn about.
Those guys who care enough to actually say and voice their greviances are obviously not about to leave, if they're going to be ignored, right?

Well, at least you cleared up the particular 'no hope' issue I mentioned before.
You want a shithole full of issues where nobody is actually able to bring that up without being immediately shut down, fine. Go for it. At least now I know it's not going to be changed.
Frankly, fuck you, and fuck this site. No point in leaving such a major determent on my particular person any longer, if this is seriously the standard you're putting up.

>>4557
>Well what sort of things would you want to discuss?
I think some users might wish to discuss whether mods are enforcing the rules fairly and even-handedly. Honestly I think little good would directly come from any such discussion.  But shutting down such discussion has really bad optics, because people can take it as you guys trying to suppress dissent.

>>4560
Um, Noonim, I think you're really misinterpreting things.  Please wait and see how it works in practice before you render such a harsh judgement.

>>4561
>I think some users might wish to discuss whether mods are enforcing the rules fairly and even-handedly. Honestly I think little good would directly come from any such discussion.  But shutting down such discussion has really bad optics, because people can take it as you guys trying to suppress dissent.

Well that's definitely true.  It's already looking like that to at least a few people, unfortunately.  It's weird trying to balance actual productivity and looking productive, but I guess we'll see how the rest of the staff feels about it as people keep responding.

>>4561
I'm having a very hard time of seeing how. But, I'll grant you, people keep reporting different things. Scootaloo, for example, seemed to make it sound like it was exclusively for appeal requests. Which isn't the same thing as complaining about, for instance, double-standards in enforcement, or ignoring particularly rude and dickish behavior.

If this is the case, though, I really wish you guys'd start actually clearing these things up between you, before you make official, mod-tag backed statements, ala >>4550
>"[Appeal]: Not exclusively to appeal a ban, but to point out that there's a disagreement with something we've done to moderate the site.  In these matters prolonged discussion is just a drain on everyone involved, which is why we're limiting it to a single post and rebutal from a user and then a single response and answer from the staff."

>>4561
According to Thorax
>>>/pony/958229
I am not mistaken on what this means.

>>4563
>I really wish you guys'd start actually clearing these things up between you, before you make official, mod-tag backed statements
Well, the site staff change their mind (in response to users like you and me), so some amount of outdatedness in older posts is inevitable.  

>>4564
>I am not mistaken on what this means
Oh, I was focusing more on this:
>>4560
>Anyone who  would dare be unhappy at the state of things, where some people are able to insult and generally treat others like shit, are obviously not worth giving a damn about.
You might be pleasantly surprised about how the new moderating system works.  You might even find that it addresses some of the issues that you brought up in the past.  That's why I suggest that you wait and see rather than just dismissing it.

>>4566
I'm rather skeptical. Like I said, it seems to be the same, only with a much more loose individual action, which wasn't a major problem anyway since that was usually the case as it was.

Most of them are either combined or condensed, and there's not much added in, except for the clause of back-punishing users.
Which, obviously, I don't like.
The escalation policy was also one that was supposed to be already in place. It's jsut it was never really used.

So, the only practical change made was that now, people can act completely by their own desire. But, like I said to Val, >>>/pony/957929
>". If the argument is that biases won't matter because it balances out, then allowing any mod to act in an individual capacity by their own judgement alone is going to mean a biased individual can act based on that bias without any mediating force."
Add to that, it ensures a much less consistent enforcement of the rules, ala old Ponychan under Orange way back in the day, where nobody really knows what to expect until someone gets banned for something.

It's certainly possible that this'll mean some of the issues I've had'll be adressed, but, if it is, that'll be because a very small bit of the staff're free to engage those particular issues as they believe necessary. The problem is, other staff who felt these issues were completely without merit or value'll also be able to completely dismiss them. Meaning that, theoretically 20% of the time something to address my issue'd actually happen.
Otherwise, the problem of inconsistency comes to play.

And, to be quite honest, inconsistency is not something I'm okay with, even if it would be to my benefit. It's why I, for example, rather strongly opposed Manley's political ban.
No user should be subjugated to a rule or standard not enforced on the others.

>>4549
>no talking among posters

Shhhh the staff might hear us talking.  Lets share secrets about them.

(I heard Moons doesn't actually look like Fluttershy !)