No.5378
File: 1574266916565.png (153.02 KB, 487x584, 487:584, A_confused.png) ImgOps Google
So the turn-around time on threads that are locked in /townhall/ is far too long. It is generally taking more than a week for the threads to be reviewed and either closed permanently or re-opened.
By then most of the people who were originally discussing the topic have moved on and the conversation dies. Not only that, this potentially makes it too easy for people to try and silence opinions and arguments they don't like. There's also the issue of trying the punish a person for an infringement that happened so long ago. It doesn't seem conducive to helping that person improve if they may not even remember what was said and why.
What can be done about this issue? Is there any way to speed up the process?
No.5382
>>5379The why doesn't affect whether or not it breaks the rules, but it's important for a user who does not wish to break the rules to to understand.
>>5380I don't think that was ever said by anyone in the thread. But this thread isn't for debating the trans-community right now.
No.5385
>>5381>There are people in this world who would kill me for being non-white. Yet, I don't hide that fact, nor would I if I could. Furthermore, I would not want to date someone who was not comfortable dating a non-white person, so why keep it from them?This was the response to the idea that the reality of transphobia explains the fearful behavior of trans people when cis people show interest in them.
And the reminder that telepathy doesn't exist.
the jab here
>Yet, I don't hide that fact, nor would I if I could. in the context of dismissing all of what was said as
irrelevant is posturing against all transgender people as being
actually fundamentally inferior to him.
This is really fucking backhanded and communicates an unwillingness to discuss transphobia with good faith. The subtext here is him puffing out his chest and abuse tge good faith of others in the thread to give his casual transphobia and bigotry a moral license.
No.5387
>>5385You're reading things into that that were never said. But this isn't the place to discuss that.
This thread really is to discuss the long turnaround time on locked threads.
No.5389
>>5388You don't know the subtext or context behind
why Manley would have responded to the points made as "irrelevant" orhis own personal investment in that fact.
He's heard that statement about the reality of transphobia before and vehemently and deliberately rejected any of it before because of the unfortunate implications about what it has concerning his past actions.
His posturing reaction to my attempt to remind everyone in the thread to not forget that reality is actually all about that and his attempts to just assert transphobic stereotypes as just "facts" unchallenged is what he's posturing against, just asserting that none of it is relevant so long as it's not convenient to his narrative.
All he was doing was puffing out his chest at those facts even if that meant making lots of backhanded implications in context of what point I made.
No.5392
>>/townhall/4224
>While Proud Parrot and Fancy Dog disagree, and on a topic that Fancy Dog may hold very personally, we've decided that doesn't mean any rules were broken.
Thats a disengenuous way of framing it. I explained it to Luna, about why in context it's implication in context of what was said was pretty transphobic and represented a refusal to engage with actual ideas presented.
>> /townhall/ is a forum at least partially for discussing morality, which inevitably means that people with different ideas of right and wrong are going to show up and share their thoughts on the matter.
Again, that's fine and all and my contribution to the thread was to remind everyone of the reality of transphobia and what implications that has on the topic at hand. It was an attempt to humanize transgender people who are stuck in a difficult situation with, well, all social interactions.
Basically everyone in the thread accepted it as a fair point, except Manley who dismissed it all as "irrelevant" after pointing out the fact that no one has telepathy.
Basically refusing to accept any reality that doesn't justify his attitude and refusing to understand and thus refusing to humanize.
>In this case, the discussion is about when to reveal yourself as trans to a potential romantic partner, and no answer you could give to that question is without pros and cons. The discussion seems very legitimate.
But is outright refusal to consider an inconvenient fact just to portray a bigoted portrait of other even legitimate?
No.5395
>>5393>>5393I was using this tgread because it's about what happened in the townhall thread and I specifically wanted to address that topic, snd since this canterlot thread is, well, on canterlot, it seemed like the most appropriate place to discuss what happened.
>>5394Look, it's not about superficial, strictly literal surface level communication, but communication on other levels of connotation and implication that makes sense in terms of context.
I made this argument before to Manley offsite to appeal to him to understand another perspective but he refused to accept it in principle that he believed understanding meant approval (which it doesn't, understanding means humanizing).
So I am pretty certain he is already familiar with who I am. And by reiterating and showing stubborn refusalas a form of posturing and his backhanded implications, it becomes apparent to me that what he was
actually doing there was out of spite.
No.5397
>>5394What is this, shit on Manley day? I didn't do what this person is accusing me of, and they are attributing intentions and motivations they could not possibly know are true without reading my mind.
>>5395I'm not sure who you are. I've talked to a few people about my past negative interactions with trans people (which I'm not allowed to talk about on this board). So I'm not sure where you are getting these motivations and intentions you are applying to me.
No.5398
>>5397Interesting that you didn't deny this
>>5395 :
>he refused to accept it in principle that he believed understanding meant approval (which it doesn't, understanding means humanizing). No.5399
File: 1574319425569.png (43.75 KB, 300x200, 3:2, 329394000.png) ImgOps Google
>>5398I don't agree with anything you're saying. I shouldn't have to deny each piece individually.
No.5400
File: 1574376015629.jpg (19.03 KB, 214x344, 107:172, you_are_the_father__by_bak….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5378So...honestly, I personally think Ponyville.us, in general, is kind of slow. I don't know if this is something that really needs improving, so much as just wait a few days and give the thread a bump.
I mean even after a week it's probably not even going to have hit the third page, and with the staff being pretty damn busy as is, I personally think we could just solve this one on our own. Just do our part as a community.
And hey, if that doesn't work and it actually does become a major problem, well we can cross that bridge when it comes. But right now I think this is a kind of minor problem that would just be adding more to a probably already long list.
No.5403
File: 1574606107687.png (139.21 KB, 443x602, 443:602, 1AE1B179-DC05-479F-8489-7A….png) ImgOps Google
I’m amazed that Manley is still banned from/pony/. I can even remember what he was banned for.
This place is too slow for us to be banning people.
No.5450
>>5403He was banned for harassment towards one of the mods. Refusal to stop bringing up events from the past and using them to cause emotional distress towards said mod, despite multiple warnings to stop.
He is more or less "permabanned with possibility for parole". "Parole hearings" are every... 2 months? iirc.
No.5451
File: 1574673311447.jpeg (150.74 KB, 859x900, 859:900, 74C01AB7-E812-4214-B291-E….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>5450What specifically did he do?
>Parole hearings" are every... 2 months? iirc.First of all, this isn’t a nation state, it’s a small imageboard of ~15 people. There’s no need for such informality when everyone knows everyone else.
Also, hasn’t he been banned for about 4 months?
No.5452
>>5451>He was banned for harassment towards one of the mods. Refusal to stop bringing up events from the past and using them to cause emotional distress towards said mod, despite multiple warnings to stop.Thats the specifics. I'm not going to reiterate exactly what he did because that would literally be doing the same thing he did to get banned.
the "Parole hearings" thing is a joke, my dude. he gets to appeal his ban every few months. Iirc his last appeal was in September. It obviously didn't get accepted.
No.5454
File: 1574675902603.jpeg (38.03 KB, 733x600, 733:600, 531321C3-5214-4D97-95CE-9….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>5452>I'm not going to reiterate exactly what he did because that would literally be doing the same thing he did to get banned.Fair enough, I’ll ask Savvy.
>the "Parole hearings" thing is a joke, my dude.Oh right, ha ha, sorry.
No.5456
File: 1574676496465.gif (105.46 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 9D638394-F481-4925-8D1A-FE….gif) ImgOps Google
>>5455I had a weird feeling that it had something to do with her and her sisters.
Anyway, thank you for the advice.
