[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6963[Last 50 Posts]

File: 1605320216235.png (1.44 MB, 2240x3900, 112:195, Celestia shines.png) ImgOps Google

...My dear little ponies. It has been a long time since we last discussed, in earnest, the topic of politics on /pony/, and on Ponyville as a whole.

Last time we talked, the mandate of the users was that we were too lenient with politics as it created conflict which broke rules on the site.

This caused our enforcement policy to learn towards moving all politics to townhall, and being quite strict about politics on /pony/.

It seems though that many users are feeling unhappy with this policy.

As the times change, so too do opinions, and we should not hold today's policy if it's based on yesterday's opinions.

So, i think, let us discuss, and ultimately let us vote, on what direction we think the site should go in, with regards to how politics are handled.

Open discussion/total free speech? Even stricter? Censorship?

It should be, ultimately, your decision, as a community.

Please let us discuss, and decide. I will consider the leading positions, and make a poll for us to vote on, to decide our policy direction on this topic.

Thank you for your time.

 No.6964

File: 1605321180415.jpg (103.28 KB, 640x896, 5:7, 1507048075893.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6963
I think the current arrangement is fine.  

>Open discussion/total free speech?
I think that some enforcement of basic civility produces higher-quality discussion, and I trust the mods in doing this enforcement.  So I would prefer to keep at least one board that has such standards to discuss contentious matters.

 No.6965

File: 1605321525792.jpg (5.75 KB, 224x225, 224:225, images.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I am indifferent as to the level of censorship.
In the end, that's up to the site as far as I am concerned.

What I am annoyed by, is the manner of posts attempting to skirt the current rules.

>Here is my political assertion.  Please blow smoke up my ass in agreement.
and then when the inevitable disagreement arises
>I could not have possibly foreseen this!
>

Townhall is an odd solution.  It is designated as a place for "debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature."  Yet the sorts of posts that are a "problem" are not generally discussions and definitely not debates or dialectics.  Shunting these threads to townhall doesn't really make sense.

 No.6966

File: 1605321904590.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6965
that is a fair assessment - it seems we have been using townhall unfairly as a shunting board, when it shouldn't be that way

>>6964
do you think things are working okay, so far?

 No.6967

File: 1605322023763.jpg (31.32 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I see no issue with the current structure.
/townhall/ in principle presents a place where individuals can voice their opinions on more serious/political matters and /pony/ is for more casual conversations and silliness.

That said it does not stop /pony/ from having meaningful conversations or even the drama that the creation of /townhall/ was meant to curtail.

I would also like to be honest in that due to current events in my personal life I am rarely a contributing member to either forum. Threads that I would like to make and share with other users have in the past been shown to have little to no interest as a whole or peter out quickly.  That is no fault to the community or the site just my interest as a whole.

I think that the overwhelming majority of the community are very kind people that hold very strong convictions due to an abundance of our community being members of marginalized groups. I know that the staff does what they can to make a safe place for us all, but I also recognize it is impossible to have all conversations remail civil at all times. This is just the nature of us as human.
These are tumultuous times and it brings out a lot of deeply rooted pain in people. It would be best that we as individuals remember that we are all hurting right now and try to be constructive in how we manage it when in discourse with others.

>>6965
If I may, I believe that the reason for the moving of select threads with vague hints of politics or those that could be read as such is done based on case studies.
In that many similar threads have started out in such a manner but devolved rapidly into cesspits and because of that, the staff quickly relocated.
Not that it makes it right but given how volatile some been in the past with issues it seems like a learned defensive response.

 No.6968

File: 1605323047547.png (56.69 KB, 195x266, 195:266, sad shy 3.png) ImgOps Google

>>6967
that is so valuable input, lamb friend...

i always love your threads, too!! i hope you will make more... i miss you

the responses are definitely, at least a little bit, learned response

 No.6969

File: 1605323201177.jpg (62.58 KB, 320x448, 5:7, 1506933974037.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6966
>do you think things are working okay, so far?
For the most part, yes.  As ⛵ alluded to in >>6965, we don't really have a board suited for the types of threads that were removed from /pony/ in the past several days.  Perhaps we could create such a board for those threads aren't really suitable for either /pony/ or /townhall/.  Or add a [Politics] tag to /pony/, like /ef/ has, so that such threads can be allowed on /pony/ but filtered by users who'd rather not see passionate political arguments on /pony/.

 No.6970

File: 1605323383611.jpg (54.4 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'll just wait for the poll.

 No.6971

File: 1605323569172.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>6970
your opinion is very important too, rs!

 No.6972

File: 1605323906315.png (563.26 KB, 1600x1555, 320:311, 4.png) ImgOps Google

>>6968
Again I feel that my lack of contribution may be coloring my understanding of the situation, and I am lacking in forming an alternative that is, not a false dichotomy

My threads are mostly cooking, decorating, and mom core interest. I will try to post more in the future.

As I feel anyone would assume. Having been around since the beginning and having been in some of the worse threads, again I am deeply sorry to the staff and to all involved in the "fuck you" moment, it would be silly not to have learned the signs of threads that pose a greater risk of devolving into just spite contest.

>>6969
Tags are not a bad solution for this.
If I am correct the original idea of /townhall/ was to create a space so the select individuals that were constantly at one another's throats would not have 100% proof that they were each other and could possibly refrain from ripping open still fresh wounds. Thus /townhall/ has the potential to be repurposed into an /anon/ board.

Again a tagging system might be positive for all situations.

 No.6974

File: 1605324589012.jpg (87.22 KB, 650x1000, 13:20, DjHsf33U0AEWDCf.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I see no issue with keeping things exactly the same as they've been.

I quite enjoy not seeing any strong political discourse on /pony/ and would like to see that continue. Keeping it all on townhall sounds like the best course of action.

 No.6975

>>6963
Oh great lost pony drama.  This is not my objective.

It is just one person, Me who wants to say im relieved the high court didnt strike down the ACA last week because new justices im afraid of want me not to suffer as i and everyone important to me mostly did before the ACA.

I just wanted to hold up a huge silver lining in gratitude to share hope with my friends.

Im sorry i got carried away there and forgot a lost pony doesnt have any friends.  So the issue of whether my being squelched matters is entirely an internal delusion and you didnt have to be brought along.

Now eceryone conclude that i do want to stir up trouble.  It looks like it.  I dunno why i thought i could actually accomplish a social goal no matter how small.

I dont want pol.  That i get to keep seeing doctors and dentists i guess is a joy that no one cares to hear, im just rubbing in everyones pain.  Yes give lost pony your hate.

I deserve it yet again.  Stupid pony.  What a dumbass.

 No.6976

File: 1605326258992.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google

>>6972
...mom core interest is like my favorite thing <3 i wish we could do cooking more

>>6974
...hm, i am glad it is to your benefit, jade <3 i am glad

>>6975
...this idea has been a long time coming, lp. do not be upset, it is good for us to learn from everyone.

 No.6978

bump.  I forgot to sage other thread post.

 No.6982

I support the rules on /pony/ as they are. I don't actually have any experience with how /townhall/ is handled though.

 No.6985

File: 1605342289535.png (155.98 KB, 507x454, 507:454, splishysplash.png) ImgOps Google

Now it's causing issues with some
jackasses people.

But I can tell you, opening up politics in /pony/ will mean you will have to sift through endless reports over people feeling attacked and great wars of people insulting / attacking eachother through their political stance.

I will say this:
If you open /pony/ to politics and expect people to be lighthearted and nice to eachother, know that this won't happen. You will have to ban people over discussions and see a fair share of threads on /canterlot/ about how that ban was made unfairly.

You can always implement politics tags or a feature to hide politics threads, but I don't think that is that much different than the current implementation.


I think opening up /pony/ to all sorts of political topics will make /pony/ more lively (at least initially) for actual discussion content, but will also bring a lot more fighting and topics on the board people don't want to see. And this will be a little nightmare to moderate.
People will need to be banned and others will be scared off by the atmosphere.

 No.6986

File: 1605342556143.png (109.09 KB, 347x336, 347:336, hmm.png) ImgOps Google

On the side, it may be of course useful to mark /townhall/ as a place that can also support sillier threads of a political nature or contentious nature even if that thread is not made for discussion purpose.

 No.6987

File: 1605360775016.jpg (31.89 KB, 400x387, 400:387, 7dae8d6.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm going to get behind LP here.

Some of us might want to just express ourselves without it being forced or framed into being a debate.

Some of us want to express perspectives and experiences merely for the sake of sharing them, not defending them. Something that would, I would hope, foster better understanding. Unfortunately, it seems like we've decided that some others can't be expected to react to that with civility or be held accountable for their hostile thin skinned responses to others merely expressing some sentiment. It makes /townhall/ feel like it's being used primarily to protects other's egos.

It comes off as ludicrously unfair that someone who is directly effected by political events has to be shuffled off into a space where such expressions of anxiety or relief have to be pitted against others who would rather debate those events from a detached, theoretical position. It's certainly made me feel increasingly alienated from this community and especially people here I consider friends.

 No.6988

File: 1605363803644.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>6987
i agree that there is a big gap in content between no politics and political debate (/townhall/) that is missing, and doesn't appear to have a safe place for posting on the site

the general consensus though seems to be that we are willing to sacrifice the former for the latter; the right to speak on political subjects, for the safety

If you want to express yourself politically without it being forced or framed into being a debate, you need to be prepared for: (1) people to debate it anyway,
(2) people to take offense that they cannot debate it, causing outrage, and
(3) people whose opinions you are offended by to have a platform to express their political stance on as well (within reason).

i too am directly and immediately affected by all that is going on. i would argue, on Ponyville at least, hardly anyone isn't.

Is it "ludicrously unfair?" i am not sure i agree - if we allow for political venting, chaos will follow, and unless i raise the number of staff on the team to be 1-1 with the users to constantly monitor users at all times to move threads or ban, i cannot see it functioning well, given how i've seen our users treat politics in the past.

If you can think of a way to proceed with your vision, Andrea, i'd be glad to add it to the referendum, and see how the community feels about it.

but please don't overburden yourself, in this time, dear friend, either. only if you can, only if it helps take your mind off of things.

 No.6989

>>6988

I din't say "venting" here,  and I resent that. I'm not talking about being angry at anyone here specifically, but just expressing one's feelings about current events. I feel like this moratorium on that is alienating, and patronizing to those who can't not take simply expressing feelings on current events way to personally.

And yeah, given how our users have treated politics in the past is something very much alienating to me. And it's especially alienating when after we had a thread on /pony/ which was exactly what I described, people sharing anxieties about current events, RS used that as an excuse to say "the seal was broken" and made a post suggesting that anyone who had anxieties was mentally deficient or mentally ill, indirectly attacking everyone in that thread.

And the fact that the admins basically reprimanded Thorax for disciplining against that attack against people in that thread for political bias or whatever just leaves me with a lot less faith in this staff. Hence what I was referring to in my other thread here on canterlot. Like your prioritizing the feelings of people who are very thin skinned about these sorts of things, treating them like children.

 No.6990

>>6988

also

>If you want to express yourself politically without it being forced or framed into being a debate, you need to be prepared for: (1) people to debate it anyway,
>(2) people to take offense that they cannot debate it, causing outrage, and
>(3) people whose opinions you are offended by to have a platform to express their political stance on as well (within reason).

Why not make those parts of the rules on /townhall/ for non-debate threads?

Why be so fatalistic about it? By what logic do you conclude that it's going to turn into a debate regardless when the opposite is not often true on townhall as it is? Are you as disillusioned with the user base here as I am?

Why not let this place be an answer to the problems of echo chambers on the rest of the internet instead of having a space where expressions of personal circumstances are literally framed as oppositional?

 No.6992

File: 1605374877325.jpg (48.31 KB, 589x589, 1:1, shirayuki_11998.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6971
Yeah but the poll is (kinda) anonymous, and you still get my opinion.

Unless you would like something more in depth, in which I could talk to you in PM later when I'm off of work.

 No.6993

Andrea is saying things much better than i could.  

Seconded wholeheartedly.

 No.6994

>>6988

I mean, look at what's going on in this thread right now: https://www.ponyville.us/pony/res/1064074.html#1064074

PseudoFox is talking about getting upset by a quote used in a movie. Why they are getting upset about it is for reasons others typically interpret as indicating a political identity, and in response sailboat is being a dismissive asshole to a lot of people here. Thorax is clarifying it. Does this thread need to be moved to /townhall/ now?

Would Luna or you or some other mod do that now?

And if, hypothetically, they did, could you see how that is essentially like sailboat effectively removing the thread by being uncivil?

 No.6995

>>6994
But Thorax's reply wasn't exactly civil itself, and neither is you sitting here calling sailboat an asshole either.

 No.6996

And what is actually the proposed solution on it.

the line is blurred between political and non-political, so /pony/ should be a free-for-all and people will have to deal with it?

Is it that it's not the topics, but the people that's the problem and mods should stop "mitigating" with a /townhall/ board and get rid of problematic posters first?

 No.6997

>>6996
Nothing like a good ol purge.

Frankly I'm leaning towards Andrea's idea that they laid out in their thread and just ban politics from Ponyville altogether.

Because the way the atmosphere around here has been going should be giving those of us that came from old Ponychan a glaring feeling of death vu.

 No.6998

File: 1605379451937.png (5.69 KB, 295x320, 59:64, lola123.png) ImgOps Google

>>6995
Was I a tad sarcastic? Yes.

But frankly, I shouldn't be expected to be a perfect Saint when someone jumps in the thread with the only intention of levying insults directly at me. I handled that pretty damn graceful considering the circumstances.

This is just like last time when you did the same thing, carpet bombing a thread with your gaslighting and abusive message and I got up in your business. You don't get to do that and have everyone play nice with you. Stop asking for people to treat you with kid gloves when you post attacks directly at people in the thread.

 No.6999

>>6998
So yet again your excuse is if people didn’t make you angry, you wouldn't have to "correct" them

 No.7000

File: 1605380111815.png (5.58 KB, 271x303, 271:303, lola117.png) ImgOps Google

>>6999
Yes, that is correct. If people stop posting abusive things towards me and others, I will not have to respond as I do.

Stop posting hateful things, it's really easy. I don't get why you struggle with it.

 No.7001

>>7000
So you're saying you're a massive hypocrite? Because I belie when I said the same thing you said "two wrongs don't make a right"

But I get it, you're and abusive asshole, just like all the other abusive assholes I've had to deal with in the past.

 No.7002

File: 1605380805355.png (16.44 KB, 281x307, 281:307, lola93.png) ImgOps Google

>>7001
I can't be a hypocrite unless I claim to have been in the right personally.

Have I made that claim?

Look dude. The plain simple truth is - whether you realize it or not - the screenshot you posted was written with very specific language meant to attack victims of abuse and gaslight them into shutting up about their abuse. This is not a debatable thing, that is what you posted. If you don't see it, I can explain in detail why that is the truth.

You could argue that I should have educated that day instead of gotten sassy with you. But, like I said, I'm not claiming to be a Saint or in the right. I will continue to maintain that you need to stop posting abusive messages if you want to be treated kindly. It's not my emotional burden to withstand your slights against me while you remain uncontested.

 No.7003

>>6996

I propose they stop patronizing those people and treating them like they can't control themselves and expecting everyone else to just know better.

Personally, I am generally kinda disgusted by moony characterizing what I was talking about as "venting" when what I was talking about was merely expressing feelings about current events. Unfortunately that comes too close to being "partisan" for some who can't not take things personally.  

>>6995

Not going to mince words here, you're being petulant. This whataboutism is childish. Sailboat shouldn't get off the hook for insulting everyone in that thread for "getting bent out of shape". Calling this a matter of politics is transparently an attempt to demand special treatment or protection from the rules of the site for the sake of "balance" and is, as I see it, manipulation of Moony and Addy.

 No.7004

File: 1605381179198.png (13.66 KB, 216x307, 216:307, lola92.png) ImgOps Google

>>7001
Actually, let me one up you here.

I was an asshole to you that day. I'm owning my behavior 100%! I was being completely shitty! I have no trouble owning my actions.

Can you?

 No.7005

File: 1605381417732.png (18.63 KB, 307x326, 307:326, lola85.png) ImgOps Google

>>7004
Further! I would give you a very sincere apology if you owned you behavior and said you didn't realize what you had posted and would never have posted it if you knew what it meant to other people on this side of the table.

Balls in your court. I don't know you that well, so I'd like to learn the true quality of RS and why Moony seems to respect you.

 No.7006

File: 1605383153895.png (12.97 KB, 184x324, 46:81, lola112.png) ImgOps Google

>>7005
Actually, one more request. I'd like to know why you posted that screenshot in what appears outwardly to be completely randomly. At the start of the thread, you even called out someone else for misbehaving. Then suddenly you just stab out randomly (from my perspective) at the people in the thread. What happened? What were you thinking/feeling? Why did you go this route? Did you see no other options? I can't imagine why other than that you wanted to deliver the abusive message you did. To cut down people who were doing nothing (I could perceive) to you. But you should own your narrative. This is your chance to do so.

 No.7008

File: 1605385646434.png (238.87 KB, 726x478, 363:239, sad shy.png) ImgOps Google

>>6989
then i am afraid, i did not understand you...

it is not a matter of how our users, in the whole, treat politics, but in the matter of how some users have very different ideas of how they want politics to be on the site

i can imagine that it is alienating for you to not be able to express your feelings on political happenings and current events, and i would prefer that you do

i don't think we reprimanded thorax for political bias, we reprimanded him for unprofessional conduct, and even then, it was... well, we ended up reprimanding one of the reprimanders, as well.

>>6990
i mean, i am not trying to be fatalistic about it, i am trying to be realistic about it, and it was intended to be a question of sorts: are you ready to deal with that?

i am not disillusioned, just confused - seriously, what does everyone want me to do?

>>6994
>PseudoFox is talking about getting upset by a quote used in a movie. Why they are getting upset about it is for reasons others typically interpret as indicating a political identity, and in response sailboat is being a dismissive asshole to a lot of people here. Thorax is clarifying it. Does this thread need to be moved to /townhall/ now?
>
Would Luna or you or some other mod do that now?

Andrea, that's exactly why this thread exists, because typically, we would ban those who started the politicking in the thread, or if the thread is latently political, move it to townhall

>>7001
RS, i don't appreciate this.

 No.7009

File: 1605385850115.png (286.43 KB, 570x660, 19:22, eh heh 4.png) ImgOps Google

...i am worried that there are two totally irreconcilable groups of politically minded people on the site. Each side has separately accused the staff of bias for the other, while we try very hard to keep the peace in between

If we must come to head, it will not be good. And all the rest of us are caught in the middle.

 No.7010

File: 1605386844022.jpg (175 KB, 400x554, 200:277, madoka.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7009
>Each side has separately accused the staff of bias for the other
Probably because, in the normal course of things, only individuals who perceive bias speak up, while those who don't see any bias don't say anything on the subject.  I'll say that I don't perceive any bias in moderator actions.

 No.7011

File: 1605387254613.png (16.21 KB, 288x268, 72:67, 20200822_061303.png) ImgOps Google

>>7008
>what does everyone want me to do?

The only thing I want is you to act without fear. The fear that this will be ponychan 2: electric bugaloo. Without the fear of being a tyrant. Without the fear of some people thinking you are tyrannical for doing what is necessary.

The fear of old ponychan is a miasma that clouds rational thought. Whether it be us or users, people always be making or thinking that comparison. Frankly, it's time to put the past to bed and move on confidently and with decisiveness.

 No.7012

File: 1605387529635.png (21.51 KB, 150x148, 75:74, shy shy.png) ImgOps Google

>>7011
...i can be decisive, i guess. i'll look at the outcome of the referendum, and will see. i am leaning, personally, towards liberalizing again, opting in favor of more speech, not less, and issuing bans to those who breach the peace

but that is something we cna vote on

 No.7013

File: 1605388856499.png (33.24 KB, 316x254, 158:127, lola111.png) ImgOps Google

>>7012
I'm happy with that, so long as we are willing to throw out bad actors and emotionally manipulative users who try to cow us by alleging we are acting with political bias, like abusers ourselves, or that we are just as bad as ponychan. Like, any user who wants to bring up issues in policy or moderation is free to discuss that with us without trying to guilt us into submission. State the facts, explain your case. Invocations and allusions to ponychan when you don't get things your way are the acts of toxic and abusive people. Hell, I can imagine me stating this may also get the gaslight treatment. But I have the confidence to weather someone like RS calling me "another abusive asshole". The dude has no argument against me, I know the quality of person I am and I can prove it and have proven it countless times.

So I don't care who ends up being banned or where they fall on the political spectrum. I have no political preference. I'm just through with the gaslighting, through with toxic behaviors.

 No.7014

File: 1605389692952.png (220.77 KB, 446x454, 223:227, oh right 2.png) ImgOps Google

Good luck consistently slapping a permaban on anyone someone indicates as being "abusive"

 No.7015

File: 1605389820756.png (5.67 KB, 204x303, 68:101, lola126.png) ImgOps Google

>>7014
Thank you for the demonstration of toxic and manipulative behavior.

 No.7016

>>7015
I suppose I'll be looking for yet another new "home" then

 No.7017

File: 1605390043656.png (15.15 KB, 274x222, 137:111, 20200822_061255.png) ImgOps Google

>>7015
>>7016

Watch me demonstrate a proper and non toxic way of communicating.

"I have concerns about that idea thorax. What even constitutes this vague "abusive" language and what checks will be in place to ensure that isn't misused?"

But you didn't say that. Why did you not?

 No.7018

File: 1605390296012.png (17.18 KB, 860x904, 215:226, 1143706__safe_solo_blushin….png) ImgOps Google

>>6995  It's ok; I'm used to it!

>>6998
>when someone jumps in the thread with the only intention of levying insults directly at me
..............what?
saying "that people are getting all bent out of shape" directed at no one in particular is a direct insult?  How?
and you guys imply I'm the one who requires a "safe space"...

>>7003
> Sailboat shouldn't get off the hook
what a shock coming from you~

 No.7019

File: 1605390404491.png (17.37 KB, 223x299, 223:299, lola90.png) ImgOps Google

>>7016
Also
>I suppose I'll be looking for yet another new "home" then
This is also toxic language. This is a guilt trip. You know Moony and the rest of staff doesn't want you to go. Throwing out this kind of plea is frankly not okay. You can express your feelings about this, but you have to actually use appropriate language that doesn't invoke a guilt trip.

Besides, you literally *never* get in trouble here. So you have some kind of major insecurity issue going on dude. I don't know how else to state it. You too need to start acting with confidence, the confidence the staff can crack down without you getting in trouble. You aren't allowed on ponyville because the staff is lenient. You are on ponyville because your consistently a decent dude.

 No.7020

File: 1605390732886.png (38.02 KB, 192x331, 192:331, lola84.png) ImgOps Google

>>7018
So, why did you say what you did if it is not targeting me who was in fact in that thread and in fact opposed to the quote? As in, I was the subject of your statement.

You don't need to address me by quoting my post for it to be a directed attack at me and my position.

Also, invoking "safe space" here is an escalation I don't deserve. I expect a lot better from interactions with you dude.

 No.7021

File: 1605391688541.png (728.12 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, glimmer_chan_by_behind_spa….png) ImgOps Google

>>7020
>So, why did you say what you did if it is not targeting me who was in fact in that thread and in fact opposed to the quote? As in, I was the subject of your statement.
That's literally not true.  You said
>For something like this quote, I usually groan and move on. Maybe because nobody is there presently defending the crap.
You were one of the people least "bent out of shape" as in you weren't bent out of shape at all.  Others, however, were.

>You don't need to address me by quoting my post for it to be a directed attack at me and my position.
Technically, I was agreeing with you, because I was showing how "nobody is there presently defending the crap" is a massive understatement.  No one has defended this crap in decades.  I wasn't attacking your position at all.  You came to that conclusion yourself.  I'm not sure why.

It's odd to me that you took something like this and then decided "boat's attacking me personally!"  Very strange.  My apologies; that phrase was not directed at you.  The rest of the statement still stands.

>Also, invoking "safe space" here is an escalation I don't deserve. I expect a lot better from interactions with you dude.
let me see....
there's this one: >>6902
there's this one: >>6987
there's this one: >>6990
just off the top of my head.  
"you guys" demonstrably imply that I'm the one who requires a safe space

 No.7022

File: 1605392514434.png (9.03 KB, 233x241, 233:241, lola113.png) ImgOps Google

>>7021
>>7021
>"you guys" demonstrably imply that I'm the one who requires a safe space
Dude, this not a team sport. I didn't say those things. Stop making this an "us versus them" situation. Andrea does not speak for me. In fact, most of the aggressive shit she says I oppose and I've banned her multiple times for it.

I was under the impression that we were cool, despite not really being on the same part of the political spectrum. Am I misreading something here?

As to the rest of your response, I'm probably just gonna bounce. I'm not really in the mood to have a fight with you on those terms honestly

 No.7024

File: 1605393605651.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google

>more politics gumming up where I lurk
Hard pass.

 No.7025

File: 1605393930794.png (569.91 KB, 2041x3000, 2041:3000, 1490329069388.png) ImgOps Google

>>7022
>Dude, this not a team sport. I didn't say those things. Stop making this an "us versus them" situation.
I don't want this to be an "us vs them" situation, but reading up in the thread, that seems to be what is being advocated for.  From a realistic standpoint, if I'm "them", then I certainly wouldn't expect you to be on my side - nothing personal, just reality.

>I was under the impression that we were cool, despite not really being on the same part of the political spectrum. Am I misreading something here?
I think you're cool.  I have nothing against you, personally.

 No.7026

File: 1605394304068.png (501.83 KB, 950x1038, 475:519, Screenshots_2020-11-14-14-….png) ImgOps Google

>>7008
>ended up reprimanding the reprimanders

See a little cycle of abuse there Moony?  Its evidence of what i've been preaching about authoritarian approach leading inevitably right back here.  Yes, i told you so and here we are.  Believe me yet?

Its not your job to keep the peace.  A general election with a clear people's choice hasn't done that.  And you think you can.  And i thought a lost pony was grandiose.  Tisk tisk my friend.  Its just not so scary that your friends disagree.  Come on now.

>>6996
Nope but thats a good guess Artee.  I appreciate the way you say get rid of you when you mean troublemakers like me but youre too civil to say it.

Since this latest debacle is my fault, i DO have a suggestion as follows:

I.  Problem statement
Andrea is correct that we should be allowed to express our feelings, and that when someone cant handle it the correct answer is never to punish the victim for attracting the attack.  Thats what goes on around here and no sane person can deny that.

II.  Proposed Solution
Don't crack down on the expression of how people feel.  Crack down on people attacking them.

III. Argument
Person A says his opinion about a fact that is generally regarded as true, and how that fact affects him personally.
Person B says Hey that same fact affects me this other way and im unhappy about it
Person C says i think that fact is not true and here's my evidence
Person D says i disagree so die you awful person MODS HELP ME KILL THE INFIDEL

The correct solution is to advise person D that disagreement does not give an exception to the rule not to attack people.  If it recurs discipline that person.

The correct solution is not to ban expression of things that people disagree about.  If you do that, you must choose which side you wish to represent your echo chamber.  You dont want that.  Just disallow attacks like seems to have been made pretty mushy demoting kindness to a "suggestion".



I dont know why you people have to make it more complicated than that.

 No.7027

File: 1605394327485.jpg (16.79 KB, 429x362, 429:362, sad shy 2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

...i am observing, but i don't know what to say

 No.7028

File: 1605394471786.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google

>>7027
Unfortunately this is about a subject I have little to no interest in, along with not having much time to review. I'd put my two cents in about the conversations in this thread but am unable.

 No.7029

File: 1605394622764.png (5.8 KB, 313x288, 313:288, lola73.png) ImgOps Google

>>7025
I dunno, that honestly hurts me a bit. That you think I wouldn't be on your side at all. Political positioning aside, I've many times tried to go to bat for you as a person of moral character. But I guess this is the reality of these political times, I can't blame you for feeling that's the score.

 No.7030

File: 1605394969568.png (784.46 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, -_S6E1.png) ImgOps Google

>>7029  I really do appreciate it.  That said, it's statements like >>7013 that lead me to believe, if it comes down to it, it's way easier to get rid of me and other rabble-rousers than to risk the "in" crowd.  I think that's what >>7014 was alluding to as well.

 No.7031

>>7008

>i mean, i am not trying to be fatalistic about it, i am trying to be realistic about it, and it was intended to be a question of sorts: are you ready to deal with that?

look, at this point it doesn't feel like your making a distinction between expressing feelings over current events from expressing political beliefs. Like for instance, lp trying to express relief that he's not going to lose his health insurance being treated as too "partisan" in tone given his celbratory tone in the thread, seemingly because someone might see that as rubbing it in someone else's face. Lp didn't rub it in anyone else's face but still had his thread treated as being about his expression of political alliances and not about his relief over practical consequences given current events.

Or like a thread where others expressed anxieties and concerns over what might happen to them after the confirmation of ACB to the supreme court, the thread where Thorax was reprimanded for how he handled RS using that as license to actually attack and insult people here for having those anxieties, and absolving himself of any fault in the process, literally saying "the seal has been broken" in reference to the fact that it was a thread about an event involving government, despite that it was just expressions of anxieties about events and not anyone advocating for any political positions?

>i am not disillusioned, just confused - seriously, what does everyone want me to do?

I would, in general, be addressing the staff as a whole to ask them to see what their approach is actually accomplishing. Like for instance:

>Andrea, that's exactly why this thread exists, because typically, we would ban those who started the politicking in the thread, or if the thread is latently political, move it to townhall

It's like a repeat of the thread that got Thorax reprimanded for for warning RS. That's why I brought it up. You have people here expressing feelings over a quote used at the beginning of a movie from an old book. Talking about their personal feelings about it and well, coming off as feminist. It appears that sailboat is using that as license to snidely and rudely insult everyone in the thread for "getting out of shape" for a topic that I am certain is "latently political" (or I assume so, not knowing the standard by which your staff determines that) that probably would trigger that decision by the fact that it started to turn into that given sailboats unprovoked snide remark about everyone in the thread.

What does it accomplish then to take that thread and move it to townhall where it now a debate thread? What does it accomplish for anyone who participated in that thread who didn't treat the fact that some people expressed vaguely feminist sentiments as license to be rude in response?

It just opens the staff up to be manipulated.

>...i am worried that there are two totally irreconcilable groups of politically minded people on the site. Each side has separately accused the staff of bias for the other, while we try very hard to keep the peace in between
>If we must come to head, it will not be good. And all the rest of us are caught in the middle.

I think you're misinterpreting things here.

If I come to one of your threads asking how I am doing and say something about how I am worried about the fact my niece had covid and is unfortunately a long-hauler and I am worried about how that is effecting her mental health, should I be treated as being "politically minded" just because there are others who believe that covid is a hoax designed to rig the election? Can I express those concerns in your thread without it becoming political should, hypothetically, someone decide to treat me as if I am trying to make your thread political?

 No.7032

>>7031
>for how he handled RS using that as license to actually attack and insult people here for having those anxieties, and absolving himself of any fault in the process, literally saying "the seal has been broken" in reference to the fact that it was a thread about an event involving government, despite that it was just expressions of anxieties about events and not anyone advocating for any political positions?

I love how people like to drag my name through the mud for shit I didn't do and yet I'm the monster as Thorax likes to refer to me.

 No.7033

>>7022
>I was under the impression that we were cool, despite not really being on the same part of the political spectrum.

I thought the same thing. I remember always being one of the first ones to stand up for you when Noonim would start in on you.

 No.7034

File: 1605399896059.png (41.33 KB, 392x357, 56:51, lola77.png) ImgOps Google

>>7030
Who do you suppose is the "in" crowd? I don't know why you think I keep lists such as this. Do you think anyone on staff keeps a wishlist of people to axe and keep? Do *you* have a list yourself? I mean, no judgement either if you have an opinion on people, just saying that's not how any of us really operate as staff folk. There are people who need to clean up their act across the political spectrum, but I don't have a shit list of people ready for the chop. I'm just tired of people acting toxic and us as staff not being willing enough to take measures to handle it. Because of that fear I mentioned.

That said, I'm not without biases. Despite doing my best to be neutral. Truth be told though, if I had an "in" list I would have put you and artee on it. Because I've always felt you were a good faith actor, even if I wish you'd lay off certain topics and be more charitable towards people with differing experiences.

Like, lots of SJW looking people are not as bad as the kids on Tumblr are and you can actually engage us productively if you take a more charitable stance with us. I know there's also commonly the very awful SJW type that you certainly have a very clear picture of on your mind, but they don't represent all liberals. I dunno, off topic.

But whatever, no policy is being decided in this thread anyway. I've just made my desires for our direction known. I don't participate much in site policy right now, so there's not much to be worried about with regard to anything I say anyway. I'm just tired with, well, friends hurting friends. Or whatever.

>>7032
>I'm the monster as Thorax likes to refer to me.
I don't know where you get that impression. In everything that has gone down, I have never once insulted *you* or laid out a thing against your character (if I did, that was a fuck up on my part, because it doesn't really represent my feelings). In that thread, I very deliberately addressed all my scorn towards the person in that screenshot. Because I didn't want to assume you were "the bad guy". I've for sure expressed that the rhetorical device used by the person you posted was awful, but you still haven't really commented on that so I'm in the dark about what to actually think about you. If you won't even listen to why it's problematic and refuse to change stance, well then, that would be a bad look honestly.

That said, I was quite hostile. If you called me "triggered" I would not object. Whether there's any bridging the gap between us ever, I do regret the way I handled that interaction. I wish I could have a do over, but you live and move on. Sometimes your win is so pyrrhic you'd have rather lost.

To be clear and direct about my feelings about you. I think you've got a major chip on your shoulder, not about me, but something else that I still don't know. And you kinda take these little stabs at people for reasons I don't understand. I asked you why, and you ignored me earlier. So like, can't nothing about that. But your refusal to engage leaves it up to me to define you, so yeah. I'll try to be fair as I can be.

>>7033
My memory is lacking, but I believe you if you say that's the case. Thanks, for what that's worth. Dealing with noonim while I was under the personal emotional burdens I was at the time in the most literal sense broke me and I have not been the same since. I'm fine cataloging my issues like this. Every thread I moderate in noonim is present in spirit and I will tell you plainly I made bad choices interacting with you in fear of him.

For what its worth, I've done a lot of reflecting since then and I'm trying really hard to correct for that. No matter how things are between us, you are not at fault for my emotional trauma.

 No.7035

File: 1605400888670.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>7031
i think i understand better, your perspective, after reading this one. that final analogy drove things home for me, maybe.

the nature of the political climate makes it too hard to know where the political line must be drawn, for everyone - and so, staff overcompensates by being extra delicate, and the users thereby, extra -extra- delicate, meaning a lot of feelings, content, and plain discussion becomes unnecessarily fraught with consideration

do ... i understand?

 No.7036

>>7033
I feel you stood up for me somewhere here and there sometime back.  I dunno if i ever mentioned that i appreciated it.  So i wanted to say i did.  I dont recall whatever tho.

 No.7037

File: 1605401384782.png (811 KB, 1122x916, 561:458, unknown-31.png) ImgOps Google

You know I actually thinn Andrea is right that there should be some kind of middle ground where politics can be brought up without it causing a debate.

Like my LGBT threads are kind of inherently political, right? Part of the safe space there is the ability to vent about stuff that effects you, which includes politics. And even when its not venting, if its just casual mentioning of it, it still applies. However I have the hard rule that there is to be no debating in the thread. This doesnt mean politics cant be brought up, it just means no arguments are to be made over them. Some aspects of politics are still not allowed in the thread, but as a whole its not outright banned.

People should be able to talk occasionally about politics in passing without being forced into /townhall/ which is SPECIFICALLY for debates and hard discussions.

But despite agreeing with her stance, I still find Andrea's attitude and the way she has conducted herself in this thread to be very uncalled for and really wish she would stop being so confrontational.

 No.7038

File: 1605403075140.jpg (27.57 KB, 500x329, 500:329, 1316751143634.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7035
>staff overcompensates
its more fair to say staff correctly executes a flawed policy.

>>7037
>inherently political

Moony, ALL things that are important enough to talk about include things that are inherently political.

>People should be able to talk occasionally about politics in passing without being forced

Stated much better than i could.  Particularly when that issue has to do with deeply important things.

Things that are why we need a community at all, Moony.  

 No.7039

File: 1605404010418.jpg (141.82 KB, 850x850, 1:1, __jeanne_d_arc_and_jeanne_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7038
you replied to me too early in your post lp haha

 No.7040

File: 1605404041668.png (38.81 KB, 170x189, 170:189, Thinking Fluttershy.png) ImgOps Google

>>7038
lp, you responded to val, not me

>>7037
i find myself agreeing, i think, with Andrea as well in this regard , that there is htis uncovered middle ground

 No.7041

File: 1605404175649.jpeg (9.22 KB, 188x268, 47:67, images (18).jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>7040
I wish I knew how to make it work. Like a full board for just talking about politics without arguing doesnt really make sense.

Maybe a political filter like the NSFW one is a good compromise?

 No.7042

File: 1605405098359.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>7038
>its more fair to say staff correctly executes a flawed policy.

Aha!  So we are correct!  Excellent.

 No.7043

File: 1605405137319.jpg (27.05 KB, 600x600, 1:1, Shirayuki-Quotes.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7036
I will admit I do not like the things you say sometimes, especially what I mentioned the other day about wanting people like me off the site. But I always roll my eyes when you beat yourself up and request yourself to be banned. The only person I would say I personally dislike is Manley, and I don't even want to see him banned.

>>7034
>I don't know where you get that impression. In everything that has gone down, I have never once insulted *you* or laid out a thing against your character (if I did, that was a fuck up on my part, because it doesn't really represent my feelings).

That was the impression I got, yes. Especially in the post where you were talking about toxic and abusive people and my name was brought up with what I took as this insinuation like I was this big villain or boogeyman that new users that show up on Ponyville should be told horror stories about.


I have presented it to Moony that I would be willing to have a talk like you mentioned further up in private with him present. That way everyone and their mother can't step in with some smartass remark they might feel like making. And if he's there maybe he can keep us level headed as well as explain to you "why he respects me" as you put it, as I do not know, I am no one special, and am not good with talking about or thinking up anything positive about myself like these team building seminars always seem to want you to do.

 No.7045

File: 1605409750460.png (367.12 KB, 1027x767, 79:59, always happy shy.png) ImgOps Google

>>7041
a political filter? like putting the onus on the user to flair, cautiously?

i like this idea; the NSFW filter seems to have worked very well, and i have not heard a complaint yet about it

>>7042
we are ... ponies

 No.7046

File: 1605410699178.jpg (19.96 KB, 340x270, 34:27, il_340x270.1043644275_954a.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7034
I have my suspicions.  When it comes down to it, those who post regularly, those who make threads, those who keep the site alive and going, are going to get preferential treatment over those who don't.  That is to be expected.

I have a short list of people who I avoid.  I hide their threads the moment I see them.  And if they wander into a thread I might otherwise be interested in posting in, I will often choose not to instead.  If that happens to be the one active thread at night, then I simply leave.  I don't, however, petition the site to take action against them, even during instances where they've clearly broken the rules, regardless of how much I would love it if they just left and never came back.

There is a well-known adage in social media design: outrage gets clicks/shares.  That holds true here as well in a more general sense: negative emotion results in a higher likelihood of posts from those who are less engaged.  It's trivial to be positive in your outlook.  But when you get the opportunity to be negative, suddenly you can post with purpose.

I fall victim to this, myself.  The people who make mountains out of molehills in responding to me fall victim to it as well.  For me, the negative driving force is annoyance.  annoyance at the veiled attacks and criticisms.  annoyance at double standards.  annoyance at hypocrisy.  annoyance at historical revisionism.  annoyance at special pleading.  For others - I'm not sure.  It seems to me that the negative driving force is simply disagreement itself in many cases.

But I've also been around the block, and I know how the mob works here.  I can be in a "debate" with one person, and 5 others will pop in to tell me what a piece of shit I am, for disagreeing with some premise that was never stated, for holding a position I am assumed to hold, or for not just blindly agreeing with John Oliver's sophistry.  This is not the exception.  It is the rule.  I expect the result before I even post, and I've yet to be proven wrong.  And no, I don't report anyone for doing so.

I responded to lp's "Let's celebrate!" thread with 26 words.  2 sentences.  which can perhaps be summed up by the sentiment "Maybe Biden actually isn't the second coming of Christ?"  What was the response?  A colossal Gish gallop: 248 words, an argument from authority, with 13+ separate rhetorical questions/examples.  I'd be more surprised if this didn't happen, tbh.  But you see, this is the bias.  The thread was fine, until someone came along with an opposing view.  So that makes me the bad guy.  Because no one was forced to post the massive Gish gallop, until I had the audacity to disagree in the first place.

After I made my comment in the recent thread, the next comment came like clockwork - with the expected veiled jab at me as well.  Nicely done, A.  Your post, however, I honestly thought was a joke at first.  And when I came to the conclusion, that no, you were being serious, I decided to show you exactly how "we [were] talking about some book" and not simply some unattributed quote from a random movie.  I admit this could have been done more tactfully.  However, the offense that has been taken at the initial statement "all bent out of shape" is absurd.  so terrible in fact that I "shouldn't get off the hook".  To be clear, if I had wanted to be mean, I would have been mean, instead of going with the lightest ribbing possible.  The fact that you took offense to it baffles me.  And now it's being touted in an example that would make Greta Thunburg proud, in the crusade of some individuals to - I dunno - see me banned over innocuous comments I guess.  Keep trying - you'll get it right some day.  :twi7:

I don't post often lately, and when I do, it's usually because I am annoyed by something.  I expect "the mob" response, and I act accordingly, by using sarcasm to make my points as quickly as possible.

Val brought up a good point with her LGBT threads.  >>7037  These are threads that I hide on sight, not because I have anything against Val, but because I don't like the rules of the thread.  "No debating."  It works.  It keeps people from arguing.  And there's talk of using this as an example for other types of threads.  But let's imagine lp's thread "Let's Celebrate!" only the rule is applied "no political discussions are allowed."  So you may post in the thread, if you want to celebrate Biden's election, and no one else is allowed to disagree.  What then, prevents me from making a thread "The benefits of Trump's immigration policy" with the rule "no one is allowed to disagree"?  How about "Celebrating ACB's appointment" and "no one is allowed to disagree"?  This rule doesn't exactly work with politics.

Well, at least not without a homogeneous group, actively overshadowing those who are not allowed to voice their opinions.

 No.7047

File: 1605415763549.jpg (22.42 KB, 487x391, 487:391, 5a115c9fab821119dbf83ce521….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

There's a...lot going on in this thread >_>

I don't have any strong feelings. I like Val's suggestion of maybe trying a filter; I thought Townhall was working pretty well and I lurk there and post in threads occasionally.

I'll vote if you guys make a poll.

 No.7048

File: 1605417202575.jpg (35.28 KB, 400x554, 200:277, tumblr_py09ywXIoW1w2rx9wo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7039
I cited you.  It was not too early.

>>7040
Its your thread.  I spoke to you.


Is correcting my bibliography's syntax all that is worthy of response in my posts, my Moons?

Please notice and maybe respond to
>>7026
that went ignored.  Unless you meant to ignore it in which case request respectfully withdrawn.

 No.7049

File: 1605440852359.png (185.79 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 225219.png) ImgOps Google

Scrolling through /townhall/ now and I have to say...
Please don't re-open /pony/ to that.

 No.7050

File: 1605474181747.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7026
>>7048
i didn't respond because i didn't understand what you were saying. i didn't... see anything i could respond to

i think i agree with val and andrea's take, ultimately, on things, but still feel the moderate approach will likely be the best for the most amount of pople

 No.7051

The site should establish what political stances it follows and base what's allowed on that. Are we for democracy of facism? Diversity or bigotry? These aren't hard questions. Why are we going out of our way to accommodate those who support what the site claims to be morally against?

 No.7052

File: 1605480614370.png (510.43 KB, 700x677, 700:677, oh no.png) ImgOps Google

>>7051
establishing what political stances we stand for sounds like a terrifically poor idea, as interpretations of what is, and is not, democracy and fascism is precisely the reason why we have political debates at this scale

Respectfully, Manley, these are hard questions, and only those who are the most radicalized could call those questions easy.

 No.7053

>>7052
I'm pretty sure you know what fascism is, Moony. It's such an easy concept, they trust that children can grapple with the idea in saturday morning cartoons.

 No.7054

File: 1605482110931.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google

>>7053
Thanks for missing and proving his point all at once.

 No.7055

I think a deciding factor should be the maturity of the community to talk about potentially contentious issues without immediately imploding into a drama nightmare that consumes literally anything else that anyone might want to say or do and that just makes everyone regret posting here at all.

So no. I think that is a bad idea.

 No.7056

File: 1605482179178.png (154.03 KB, 826x966, 59:69, sigh.png) ImgOps Google


 No.7057

File: 1605482250313.png (112.39 KB, 2200x1519, 2200:1519, argument-hierarchy.png) ImgOps Google

>>7026
If the goal is to avoid nasty insults and such things, I agree that we should allow politics-related discussion on /pony/ and punish only those who break the rules about civility and respect.  But it seems like a number of people would rather avoid politics even if it doesn't degenerate into vitriolic exchanges of insults?

>>7051
>The site should establish what political stances it follows
I disagree.  Why should this site take a stance on controversial political issues, especially when there is a lot of disagreement among the userbase on such issues?

 No.7058

>>7056
Case in point: this right now.

 No.7059

>>7054
>>7056
No, I assure you, some cartoons for children have used fascist characters as the villains. G.I. Joe is one example.

Cobra is clearly a fascist organization, and this is portrayed as being a bad thing. Children who watched the show were able to understand this concept. I could give more examples, but I feelyou get the idea.

>>7057
Because they shouldn't BE controversial and we shouldn't be going out of our way to accommodate people taking a morally reprehensible stance. The site let a literal Nazi use the site for months until it was clear he would not spouting his rhetoric. Why was that allowed to happen?

 No.7060

File: 1605483121605.jpg (145.82 KB, 623x623, 1:1, 20200709_180159.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7041
>>7045
>a political filter? like putting the onus on the user to flair, cautiously?

Not to get involved, but i had zeke do this on /ef/ when i became a mod on pchan, with mixed results.
It didnt really stop "the drama" because the people who like to fight about politics and the people who dont like politics still fought and still complained.
The caveat being, the staff can always say "well, filter it then" which is nice.
The other issue it has, is people posting things on the "line" of politics, for instance, a post about trumps hair, is that inherently political? Thats up to mod intupritation really, and i always find staying lax about it staves off the concern trolls and line pushers.

Not saying its a terrible idea, but i think it would be a bad idea on your /pony/ board since /pony/ seems to be the equivalent to our /oat/ and you dont really have an equivalent to our /ef/.

I think you need to look at your board dynamics first, and consider having a laxer ruled board before allowing political discussion on your more safe space board.

I would invite you to read our rule on /ef/ if this is a route you wish to pursue.

 No.7061

File: 1605485020761.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

So there's definitely a need for more casual threads about more serious topics, which is something that's been apparent since we made /townhall/.  I think if we tagged stuff so that the people trying to avoid it were able to and the rest of us could participate, this would be ideal.  Obviously rules regarding general decency would still be in effect, so if you're being uncivil in any way you would have to be removed, but I think our userbase as it stands now could handle that.  And of course we still have /townhall/ if people really want to debate something rather than, say, comment on a political news event.

 No.7062

>>7059
>Because they shouldn't BE controversial and we shouldn't be going out of our way to accommodate people taking a morally reprehensible stance.
I think it is good to have some humility in our own abilities to arrive at a 'correct' conclusion about complex moral/political issues.  And it is also good to have tolerance and respect for others who arrive at different conclusions.  Some people believe that abortion is akin to murder, and others believe that eating meat is akin to murder.  If people weren't able to tolerate and be civil to others who held a 'morally reprehensible stance', then the world would be a much worse place.

 No.7063

File: 1605486511690.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>7060
thank you, mk, this is good insight

 No.7064

File: 1605487979274.jpg (74.24 KB, 500x500, 1:1, tumblr_pd40p23MTE1xbi4i5o8….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7061
You mean like some kind of options setting?

 No.7065

File: 1605488530846.jpg (142.36 KB, 586x622, 293:311, 20200705_010510.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7063
Np.

Just keep in mind, that tag or not, the political fight will spill between threads, so if you invite political discussion on what is supposed to be a chill, safe board, it wont be contained with out a lot of work by the mod team. Also, if you dont want /pony/ bogged down in rules lawyering, well, keep in mind that it tends to be the hobby of the people who post politics the most.
Allowing it on all your boards will be like a boxing match with no bell, just referees. You can go to /townhall/ for politics, but then also you have to filter it to escape it on the only other board / deal with the lingering arguments making their way into other threads, deal with the people who post "borderline" content just to poke the limits of the new tag ect..which i think will just lead to more problems.
Imo, the tag only works on /ef/ because /oat/ is there as a neutral zone / escape, and because we dont have a dedicated political board to begin with, like you all do.


Just saying, use caution before opening pandoras box is all. Not trying to coerce you one way or another, just giving my perspective after having implemented the idea.

 No.7066

File: 1605488796457.png (49.74 KB, 598x467, 598:467, hide-nsfw-tagged-images.png) ImgOps Google

>>7064
I'd imagine it would be like the "Hide NSFW tagged images" setting.

 No.7067

>>7064
>>7066

Yes, exactly like that.

 No.7068

File: 1605489808090.png (35.33 KB, 348x277, 348:277, election-celebration-threa….png) ImgOps Google

>>7065
>Also, if you dont want /pony/ bogged down in rules lawyering, well, keep in mind that it tends to be the hobby of the people who post politics the most.
Haha, the original impetus for this whole discussion was that someone made a celebration thread after the TV networks projected that Biden would win and, after the thread got moved to >>>/rock/, complained that the thread didn't technically fall under the "no politics" rule.

 No.7069

File: 1605491053747.jpg (96.63 KB, 516x488, 129:122, 20200705_010529.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7068
I know, thats kind of my point.
I feel like, if you already have a dedicated board for politics, the political tag is not worth it.
The only reason we have it over there, is because we dont have / want a dedicated political board.

So if you already have a dedicated political board, i think all making a filter and allowing it on /pony/ does is give the people who want politics all the boards, and the people who dont, none of them. It also gives them extra steps to go through if they want to even try to avoid it.

The problem as i see it, is LP and manly wanted a place to be able to express their contentment with the election, and they couldnt on /townhall/ because they werent posing a debate, and they coulnt on /pony/ because it will inevitably cause a debate.
So instead of taking /pony/ away from those who wish to avoid politics/forcing them to go through extra steps to avoid politics, why not just tailor /townhall/ to cater to the needs of the political posters and allow for more casual posting there? It seems to me that the people who argue, want to argue, so just let them argue but give others a place to escape.

If anyone has issue with me sticking my nose in this, tell me to shut up btw.

 No.7070

>>7062
Maybe on some issues. But if the site can't actually agree whether or not literal Nazis are bad, then it's never going to feel like a welcoming place to anyone non-white.

There are clearly bad thing the site should not be accommodating, yet it continues.

 No.7071

File: 1605491369406.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>7065
...i know. i helped make ef, and oat. even back then, the politics were a problem, though i do not think we could've imagined how it would be come today

we did have a dedicated political board once, on ponychan, called /dis/, for this exact purpose. /townhall/ is partly inspired by that.

 No.7072

File: 1605491926263.jpg (268.9 KB, 1274x717, 1274:717, 20200706_214224.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7071
I wouldnt say that politics is a problem on /ef/, any more than anywhere else anyway.

People are going to argue about politics, thats time immemorial, but like i said, i think the reason the tag works on /ef/ is because there are other boards that disallow politics to begin with.
See >>7069

Like, me and boats can argue about politics until it becomes a petty shitshow, but then go back to being normal later on, but we can only do that on /ef/ and only under a political tag, we cant do that on /oat/.

But even then, if you're allowing politics, that means a chance of a non political thread becoming political, and then you ether have to tag it, which might be against OPs wishes, or tell the people who started talking about it to stop, which will get a bunch of "well, politics is allowed and its just the natural flow ect.."

Consider every argument that noomin would make, before implementing a new system.
Thats why i say, you already have a political board, tailor that to the need of the political posters, dont drag their shit across to a new board haha.
You can keep the codes of conduct, but allow for a post like "im so happy /myguy/ won" posts.

 No.7073

File: 1605492120834.png (154.03 KB, 826x966, 59:69, sigh.png) ImgOps Google

>>7070
The site can, and does, agree that Nazis are bad. But we do not agree with your interpretation of who is, and is not, a Nazi.

>>7072
that is very true. ultimately, we shall put the ideas through the thinktank, produce results, and vote, but your insight has been so helpful, mk.

 No.7074

File: 1605492257628.jpg (222.96 KB, 777x718, 777:718, 20200706_214246.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7073
I'm just bored and laid off, and this is the closet thing to a "project" in my immediate vicinity.

Sorry if im stepping on toes.

 No.7075

File: 1605492284745.png (63.54 KB, 594x358, 297:179, no-advocation-of-genocide.png) ImgOps Google

>>7070
>But if the site can't actually agree whether or not literal Nazis are bad,
The /townhall/ rules specifically prohibit advocating for the worst abuses committed by the Nazis.

 No.7076

>>7073
Well you let a guy who openly admitted to being a Nazi post here for weeks, so what criteria does the site who to determine who is one?

The point is, we should not be accommodating people who are supporting things like racism and bigotry. And people should be allowed to discuss things, even political things, that affect their real lives on the site without having to worry about those people coming in and derailing everything.

We have not been allowed to discuss the passing of Justice Ginsberg of the victory of Biden in the presidency, despite those things being impactful events in a lot of the site's userbase's lives. Why not? Because people on the far right cannot keep their hatred in check? Because they cannot stop from starting arguments or being sore losers?

 No.7077

>>7076
>Well you let a guy who openly admitted to being a Nazi post here for weeks,
Mint was 19 years old at the time, a literal teenager.  I'm glad we gave him a chance here, where he could have his views challenged and hopefully grow out of them.  And I do believe that Mint did in fact moderate his view and rejects Naziism now.

 No.7078

>>7076
And what would your reaction have been if someone had started a thread celebrating Justice Barrett's confirmation or if Trump had won the election? Would you have kept your far left hatred in check or kept yourself from being a sore loser?

 No.7079

File: 1605492804263.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>7074
oh mk... i am so sorry to hear that. i hope it is not too hard a time...

i find, if i feel my toes are getting stepped on, i probably should have worn shoes

which is to say, i didn't consider this perspective, and i feel guilty for not doing so

which speaks only to the usefulness of your insight, i think, mk

but, i do not feel you have stepped on any toes, per se. quite to the contrary, i feel grateful. it does not seem like a tag system will be easy to implement, not a simple solution as it seems...

>>7076
but, he was banned, no? the wheels of justice must necessarily turn slow, lest they easily be abused and become unjust.

we have given you many opportunities, and you have been banned many times, and yet, you are still here, no?

 No.7080

>>7077
>Mint was 19 years old at the time, a literal teenager.

That's not a "literal teenager". That's considered a legal adult in the United states and most developed countries. And it's certainly old enough to understand being a Nazi is bad.

>And I do believe that Mint did in fact moderate his view and rejects Naziism now.

I doubt it, but I do not wish to converse with someone like him.

>>7078
Funny how you call not being a bigot "far left hatred". No, we shouldn't allow people to celebrate evil here, that's my point.

 No.7081

>>7079
Not for being a Nazi, though.

 No.7082

File: 1605493029342.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7081
well, you tell me then, what was he banned for?

 No.7083

File: 1605493053010.png (38.2 KB, 500x500, 1:1, define-teenager.png) ImgOps Google

>>7080
>That's not a "literal teenager".

 No.7084

>>7082
No, I wasn't banned for being a Nazi. Atleast that's not what I was told was the reason. SOrry for the confusion.

 No.7085

File: 1605493159003.png (911.39 KB, 790x807, 790:807, 1577322460093.png) ImgOps Google

>>7059
>Missing the point part 2; Electric Boogaloo

 No.7086

>>7083
Most people do not consider people over 18 to be "teenagers" because they are above the age to be legal adults. You can argue semantics all you want, but you point that Mint was young doesn't really matter when he was old enough to vote, buy a house and get married. He was well old enough to know that being a Nazi is bad.

 No.7087

File: 1605493278151.png (154.03 KB, 826x966, 59:69, sigh.png) ImgOps Google

>>7084
oh, i see.

>>7085
sigh.png has gotten a lot of use tonight ...

 No.7088

>>7087
Tracer can be a mean person, Moony. I tend to ignore him. But if you have a point you're trying to make I'd like to hear it.

 No.7089

File: 1605493409707.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 1569320966696.png) ImgOps Google

>>7087
You shouldn't be too surprised knowing the userbase you're proposing too.

 No.7090

File: 1605493579684.png (130.99 KB, 900x900, 1:1, fluttershyeyeroll.png) ImgOps Google

>>7087
Here's an eyeroll png to change things up

 No.7091

>>7080
>And it's certainly old enough to understand being a Nazi is bad.
Yes; that supports my point that it would be good to try to help him understand.  And he was young enough that his political views were still pretty malleable.

Also, I think Mint was in denial about the Nazis having actually done the bad things that they did.  I vaguely remember (but might be misremembering) that he finally got convinced he had been wrong in regard to that.

 No.7092

File: 1605493739206.png (47.2 KB, 457x507, 457:507, 74582__safe_rule%2B63_arti….png) ImgOps Google

>>7080
>No, we shouldn't allow people to celebrate evil here, that's my point.

If we try cutting out people who are evil, we won't have a site left.

 No.7093

File: 1605493916464.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 1569320966696.png) ImgOps Google

>>7092
I say we cut out those who want to cut out people from the site.

 No.7094

>>7092
People can BE evil, they just can't celebrate evil on the site.

>>7091
Again, I don't believe that is true or care about Mint personally. From my breif conversations I had with him, he struck me as a very evil person who held beliefs that I didn't just disagree with, but were actively harmful to me and my family and people like me. I'm glad he was finally removed from the site, but the fact that he was allowed to be here and spread his rhetoric for so long made me uncomfortable posting here as one of the few regular posters who is a non-white person.

I also feel that because the non-white population of the site is so small that perspective gets ignored sometimes. You want to write some of these issues off as strictly political disagreements, but they aren't for us. Sometimes it's about our very lives and livelyhoods, and it's disheartening to see the otherside, who wants to cause us directly harm, humored or accommodated.

 No.7095

>>7092
>>7093

We should give Manley a staff position as the "evil arbiter" or something like that.

>I say we cut out those who want to cut out people from the site.

Nothing like banning people based solely on their beliefis to show how against bigotry someone is.

 No.7096

File: 1605494427925.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 1569320966696.png) ImgOps Google

>>7095
The joke is that I would be banning myself, yes. Thank you for getting the joke

 No.7097

>>7096
You weren't the one I was referring to.

 No.7098

File: 1605494770076.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 1569320966696.png) ImgOps Google

>>7097
You linked to me and quoted my post.

 No.7099

File: 1605495082096.png (367.12 KB, 1027x767, 79:59, always happy shy.png) ImgOps Google

maybe we can all have ice cream! <3

 No.7100

File: 1605495106664.png (24.87 KB, 259x189, 37:27, 1569320966696.png) ImgOps Google


 No.7101

File: 1605495157181.jpg (82.02 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, Akagami-OVA-35.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7098
Yes.

>>7099
Got any Moose Tracks?

 No.7102

>>7095
I mean, it would be easy to teach the current staff how to do it. Just be like "Is this person supporting a racist on the site"? That's probably a bad sign!

 No.7103

>>7094
>From my breif conversations I had with him, he struck me as a very evil person
I don't think this notion of "evil person" is a useful concept.  A person can commit evil acts and hold some abhorrent views, but that doesn't mean that he is innately or incorrigibly evil or that he doesn't act in a morally praiseworthy manner in other aspects.  And I saw a lot of good in Mint.

>>7094
>Sometimes it's about our very lives and livelyhoods
That's true of many political issues.  E.g., shutting down coal mining cost coal miners their livelihoods and a non-negligible number of them succumbed to the opioid epidemic or committed suicide when they couldn't find other employment.

 No.7104

File: 1605495515781.png (267.24 KB, 1208x1035, 1208:1035, i have ice cream.png) ImgOps Google

>>7101
>>7100
..ice cream <3

 No.7105

File: 1605495705148.png (32.26 KB, 476x476, 1:1, 131032__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>7099
>>7104

I wish it were so simple.

 No.7106

File: 1605495819787.jpg (50.6 KB, 720x405, 16:9, Akagami-no-Shirayuki-hime-….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7105
Lactose intolerant?

 No.7107

>>7103
You were only able to see "good" in Mint because you are white. His vitriol and rhetoric was not directed at you. You would suffer no ill if he had his way. But I wish to try and ask you to see it from another perspective.

>>7103
Then the issue isn't coal, it's relocating workers and dealing with opiod epidemics. It's not a "political" issue unless you look at it from a binary position of "keep coal, let planet die" or "get rid of coal, fuck the workers".

You are also completely missing my original point and getting dangerously close to a "many sides" argument when I'm trying to discuss bigotry.

 No.7108

File: 1605496040761.png (17.45 KB, 607x597, 607:597, 144109__safe_rule-63_artis….png) ImgOps Google

>>7106

There's perhaps a variety of intolerance involved.

 No.7109

>>7107
>You were only able to see "good" in Mint because you are white.
I'm a mutt with ancestors of various ethnicities; I wouldn't be allowed to immigrate to Mint's UK any more than you would.

>>7107
>Then the issue isn't coal, it's relocating workers and dealing with opiod epidemics. It's not a "political" issue unless you look at it from a binary position of "keep coal, let planet die" or "get rid of coal, fuck the workers".
My only point is ordinary politics is certainly capable of costing people their livelihoods or even their lives.  The coal-miner example isn't a hypothetical; it is something that actually happened.

 No.7110

>>7109
Then the answer is get rid of coal, train former coal workers to work another job. Also deal with the opiod crisis separately. The opiod issue is sad, but it's one that disproportionately affects white people and thus would be easy to fix.


But OK, this isn't the place to discuss hypotheticals about coal. We are discussing politics on the site. My point was, branding things "political" and not allowing people to discuss them on the site only hurts marginalized groups of people.

 No.7111

File: 1605498775154.jpg (145.53 KB, 674x575, 674:575, 20200709_180301.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7079
Its fine, it was an expected lay-off. Part of working in the public sector. A visit from Dr winterough.

It seems people got off track to talk about mint anyway, so this might just be a momentary problem that can be solved by just waiting for the next one.

Yes, ill take ice cream, cookie dough if you have it.

 No.7112

File: 1605501101611.png (38.53 KB, 258x303, 86:101, lola136.png) ImgOps Google

>>7043
I don't really have anything against you, but I get why it would appear like I am holding some kind of strong dislike for you. Though, I'll still make no concession as to the quality of the post you had made in that thread. My opinion, but it was one of the most unnecessary and inappropriate things I've seen posted here.

If you want to talk privately, I'm cool with that. I'd prefer to learn and understand a thing than have nothing but assumption to work with.

>>7046
Still really far from understanding my priorities. I don't care who provides what quantity or quality of content. My preference goes entirely to people acting decently and acting in good faith. I'm not running a business, I have no interest in internet traffic.

Like honestly, you are not selling yourself well here. You are blaming others when it's kinda your fault that people respond poorly to you. You post like an internet troll dude. You vent your frustrations and post short, low quality, sarcasm laden posts which draw out upset replies. Dude, do you really not see what you are doing as shitty? Do you think Andrea doesn't have a pretty legitimate reason to gripe about you if this is how you have decided to act?

Do internet trolls posting low quality general attacks deserve better than veiled jabs? Like, don't tell me my offense is absurd or what you did is innocuous while also openly admitting that you make no effort sarcastic jabs! People were talking about a thing important to them and you decided to crap on that. Doesn't matter if you could have been truly "mean". To put it another way, your post added nothing to the thread, didn't open a discussion, just upset people. Is that what you want to use ponyville for? Upsetting people?

Like, I think maybe you should reflect on this dude, whether this is the kind of person you want be. Instead of blaming this on others for dog piling you, consider that you post in ways to have cultured a reputation that earned you this dog piling. Like, you can in fact discuss certain things with most people if you act decently and are willing to compromise and listen. I mean, despite the fact you're acting like a jerk I was starting to have a productive conversation with you about something. Nobody else even jumped in other than chainwall to try to help clarify my points. Imagine what it would be like if you tried approaching a discussion with people in good faith with a willingness to learn! I mean, you will probably always need to avoid Manley, but you could have a positive experience with a lot of other people if you tried and didn't create a self fulfilling prophecy.

I mean I personally wouldn't have a problem with the threads you described. Though I respect others would not like that. That's kinda the struggle, and why the site took down Biden celebration threads. I don't really have anything else to add to that, just that I understand the point you are making.

 No.7113

>>7112
Wait, why is he avoiding me? I know why I'm avoiding him...

 No.7114

I would like to state, with perfect clarity, as the person who locked LP's thread: It didn't matter who's opinion it was or why. At least not to me. I absolved both PseudoFox and Boat of any wrongdoing, mentally and emotionally, because they were simply responding to an inherently political thread. Inciting incidents matter, and Boat is perfectly fair to respond to political threads with why he's been hurt, how he feels about the politicians... really, anything. This is why politics discussion on /pony/ is madness. Everyone would be a fool NOT to voice their opinions, but we also cannot hope to control peoples' vague and inherently opposing ideological feelings on incredibly nuanced subjects. It's better it not be an option at all

 No.7115

Maybe we should talk about the elephant in the room.

The site did not need such strict political rules before Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. That's what we are all dancing around, isn't it?

It is his presence within politics that is toxic and makes people defend things the site would normally deem reprehensible. With Trump leaving office and hopefully much of public discourse, is the political board still needed, or has his rhetoric and lies damaged and divided the country so much that we cannot return to peaceful discussion? That is what we need to be discussing, all other topics pivot on that topic.

 No.7116

>>7115
>With Trump leaving office and hopefully much of public discourse, is the political board still needed

Well, while political stuff is allowed on /townhall/ and sometimes fills up its topics, if it was actually the "politics board" we would've named it as such.  It's intended for discussions of any kind in general, even if the current climate demands an eye for politics.

Also, while it can be nice to have a lighter air of political stuff in more casual places, I think some political conversations do still need the heavier moderation that's prescribed by /townhall/, lest it devolve into a lot of name calling (which sometimes happens anyway, but that's a different matter, I think).

In short, no matter what we do, I'd say we probably keep /townhall/.

 No.7117

File: 1605509245542.jpg (45.55 KB, 300x434, 150:217, saria.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7115
I'm pretty sure that Trump is a symptom and catalyst of an underlying problem of political polarization and tribalism rather than the root cause.  I would expect such things will gradually become a bit better under Biden, but I wouldn't expect any major improvements immediately after Jan 20.

 No.7118

>>7112  Ponyville has its sacred cows - social and political.  As someone who doesn't worship at those particular altars, my choices, when confronted with these cows, are 1) say nothing and continue being annoyed, 2) blow smoke up the asses of various posters, 3) get into an hours' long debates with point by point refutations that will ultimately change no one's minds, or 4) make my one-off comment and go about my business.  I find 4) to be the best option in cases like this, since it adequately gets the point across in a satisfying manner without also subtracting hours from my life.  I used to go with option 3) but have found over the years that it was just a waste of time in the vast majority of cases, and unless it's some novel issue, I tend to avoid it now.  There's no sense in rehashing the same argument for the 27th time at this point, since the outcome will be exactly the same as the previous 26.

>>7113
>Wait, why is he avoiding me?
because every conversation with you goes like this:
>

>>7114  Like I said way earlier in this thread, I'd be fine with whatever level of censorship the site chooses to use, and I'd be fine with just not seeing this sort of thing at all.  but if it's there, I'm going to have a reaction to it, just as anyone else would to things they themselves are annoyed by.

 No.7119

>>7118
Thorax asks you to stop being needlessly hostile and troll-like, and you compare me to Idiocracy... Yeah, I can't imagine why some people find you to be an abrasive jackass.

 No.7120

Thread is locked while we investigate reports.

 No.7122

File: 1606075486590.png (13.61 KB, 281x267, 281:267, lola9.png) ImgOps Google

Alright, I'm unlocking the thread and leaving a few comments here about how we as a staff want to proceed with certain issues moving forward. I'll just highlight those thoughts here for everyone as well as point out a few examples of places where users need to improve the way they communicate.

We feel there is a model of behavior that people need to adhere to that just can't be codified by the rules. We have felt limited in guiding people towards the right behaviors in the past because our tools as moderators have felt very punishing to use. For instance, there is a ban escalation system in place where users move up a ladder towards more punitive bans until permanent banning. I think the idea behind this policy was that frequent troublemakers need to understand there are consequences for their actions. The problem with that though is it led to moderator resistance to issuing corrections or educating users because often times any issue with a user is subtle and we would need rely on properly interpreting intent to actually issue an escalating ban in good faith. That is too high a bar to meet for many of us on staff, which means we often times just didn't do what needed to be done to properly moderate issues (at least that is my opinion).

The first major change is that we are completely dropping the ban escalation model. That frees us to use our system of bans more actively to break up fights and give users 'timeouts' without that actually being a punitive action against them. Secondly, our goal will be to educate users about the problems with the ways they are posting and how we would like them to improve. Our hope with these changes is for us to gently guide users towards the right behaviors without it feeling like we are policing the moral character of the user. If we give you a 'timeout' ban, that doesn't mean you are an asshole that is the doghouse, it just means in order to keep things moving smoothly we need you to take a break from things. Usually it would be for a pretty short duration, unless the offense was particularly egregious.

Nobody holds authority over the truth. Not the users, and certainly not us as staff. It is going to be a guaranteed thing that we will fail to properly interpret your behaviors when we try to educated and issue guidance. This is something we hope you will cooperate with us productively on. Because if we are misinterpreting you, then others will certainly be doing the same. That miscommunication I believe is a major source of drama on this website. I honestly believe everyone here is a genuine person of character, but sometimes things get posted that have a really bad vibe around them that many people will feel lessens our collective experience on this website. And that's a problem regardless of intent of harm. I know many of us have very opposed ideologies, but we really want people to come together as a community and attempt to bridge those gaps. And part of that is learning about the ways we annoy and upset each other and try to be as accommodating as possible.

My own hope with these changes is that I personally can help diffuse situations in a productive way rather than feel tied to whatever kinds of actions I have taken in the recent past. I pushed in a big way for a lot of this paradigm shift because I felt trapped in the ways I could actually moderate. I think at least a couple people will probably always feel a little burned by the way I have handled issues regarding them, that's understandable. Whether you are in that camp or not, I'm asking people to work with myself (and other members of staff) who are attempting to guide everyone towards more friendly interactions with each other. To keep this place something that feels safe and like home for as many people as we can.

Let me attempt to predict a few responses in advance:
>Does this mean that habitual bad actors and rules abusers will not be punished for their behaviors?  
The new model will try to assume best intent from users and guide users towards kinder interactions. Our hope is that rule breaking behavior will actually decrease if moderators are educating and using the tools to break things up rather than punish. The threat of longer bans never really had much impact on user behaviors in the first place. I think this shift will also help us issue more punitive bans as well. A lot of the resistance to extreme measures against users has been a reluctance to get things wrong about a user's motivations and what constitutes rule breaking behavior. There has been such an extreme degree of rules lawyering that has disrupted our ability to actually do anything productive. But I think under the system it will become clear quickly who wants to collaborate with us on making a friendlier ponyville and who has no intentions of truly cooperating. I think that is going to end up being the bar by which we determine who requires more serious punitive action. Uncovering true intent is hard, but knowing who is willing to work with us to create a more positive and less toxic environment is much easier.

>Issuing bans liberally sounds a lot like silencing opposition and using your power to enforce your own correctness. How is that not an abuse of power?
Our job as moderators is to keep things moving cleanly and to try to maintain the tone of the website. We don't need to be correct about anyone's intentions in order to determine that something said is not inline with that tone. You may be removed by force from a thread and effectively shut out of responding and that does not make the moderator a tyrant. Frankly, I'm pretty sure most of the staff hates being moderators. Nobody here is in it for the power, we just want to create a place for people we consider friends to engage positively. I recommend to people who worry about such things to set them aside, because you will create the conditions yourself by which we act harsher against you.

>>7118
So I am going to start here by saying that your decision to choose option 4 here is not in line with the tone we want to set for this community. You are not allowed to see something annoying and vent that at users in the manner you have. People have different opinions than you, and you are not the arbiter of truth. I'm not sure what you consider to be 'sacred cows' here, but frankly, you are probably either misunderstanding other people's positions or you are just stubbornly and defiantly in the wrong yourself. For instance, my best interpretation of your behavior in Pseudo's thread was that you think people were making the argument "A quote from 50 years ago is evidence of sexism today". Problem is, absolutely nobody was making that argument. Not myself or any other people. If I'm getting this correct, then what you did was get annoyed at a strawman and then vent that frustration at members of the thread. That is not the kind of behavior we want to see in this community. You are required to either keep your annoyance to yourself or engage constructively with other posters in the thread. This kind of venting behavior is something we've seen a few times over the past political cycle from multiple users and is not in line with our expectations for community behavior. If you are not willing to put in those hours discussing things with people in good faith, then you are required to hold your tongue. Dissenting opinions are welcome, just not in the way you have decided to make them.

An example. Instead of telling people they are getting 'bent out of shape' over nothing. Ask them why they find this something worthy of their frustrations. You might find you didn't understand their position and were annoyed at nothing, or you might even learn something. You might also find nothing was learned and nobody changed position, but that is part of being on a site with a diverse set of users.

As for dog piling you mention. You are not required to fend off conversations with several people if you don't want to. You can decline speaking to anyone if you want to focus a discussion 1:1 with someone. But if you feel people are levying unfair attacks at you, you have the power to actually do something about that if you bring it to our attention. You are not a guest or second class citizen here, which is the way it looks like you feel. If you assume that is the way you will be treated by staff, the nothing can be done to make the place more welcoming to you. If you decide to engage productively with someone and make that effort and you don't think that someone else is giving you the same consideration, report it. Or reach out to me personally and I will address that myself. I respect if you too feel boxed into the kind of responses you make. Maybe we can fix this though so you don't feel like your only option is to be annoyed and frustrated or vent at people.

Also, using a clip from Idiocracy maybe very succinctly get across the point you are trying to make, but the movie itself has such a negative premise that we don't want users to use such a clip to try to make a point. I think you have something valid to say to Manley that could even be constructive towards him if he were to listen, but consider how your messaging escalates the conflict. It may not feel as emotionally satisfying making attempts to deescalate, but in the long term that will be behavior which is rewarded so I would encourage you to take it.

>>7119
The subject of your permanent banning was recently floating around among staff (as you are aware. I state it for the benefit of the rest of the community reading this). Currently, you are not under any special restrictions but I think you are going to need to reflect on your own personal convictions if you are going to meet the bar for the kind of behavior and tone we expect from users going forward. You have quite stubbornly planted yourself onto an extreme and radical belief that quite literally all conservatives and trump supporters are evil/racist/etc. While I and many others have very strong convictions about our political beliefs and that I agree there are many very problematic people and ideas out there, what you hold onto in this regard is so polarizing that I don't blame anyone for feeling your very presence disrupts their own safety in expressing their feelings. That is a problem for the site and community.

The official political stance of ponyville is to be against extremism. To be against almost every political idea which includes the word "all". I believe your inflexibility in this has set the stage for a lot of the conservative leaning posters to feel frustrated, causing them to close up and be less generous and more hostile with other liberal leaning posters. Even if I am very politically aligned with you, this belief is not really okay to express here. I am letting you know that you will most likely end up permanently banned again some day because of this strict adherence to black and white morality. Even if you agree to keep certain things to yourself, this leaks out and it creates hostilities within the community. This isn't intended as a warning in any official capacity, just to lay out a very plain truth so that you understand what the cost of holding onto this worldview will be for you. Having a secure position on this site for the long term will likely require you to adopt more nuance and flexibility into the things you believe about other people who use this website.

 No.7126

File: 1606194388674.jpeg (23.27 KB, 346x306, 173:153, pinkie-pie-you-are-so-sma….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>7122
Max, your salary is officially doubled.

 No.7128

I'd still like to discuss what I originally brought up. With Trump by all apperances leaving office, is the political board still needed?

 No.7129

>>7128
You referring to your post [>>7115]?  You already got an answer to that: [>>7116].  Please go ahead  and read that post (or re-read it if you already have read it, since it also corrects your mischaracterization of /townhall/ as a 'political board').

 No.7130

File: 1606345431667.png (39.64 KB, 890x1780, 1:2, sticker-png-pony-not-buyin….png) ImgOps Google

>>7129
It's also a place where identity is forcibly stripped away.

If you are on the spectrum a require basic identity labels to navigate the social minefield and apply workarounds (as i am and do), then that board is a very psychologically damaging place to attempt to read, let alone interact. The fear of any established fact like which planet this is or what year it miggt be or i dont want to say cough a public officials name, might banish any conversation there like a lightning bolt from on high makes it very stressful to talk with my very few friends here.  Its oppressive.

I "like" how you people dont even try to grasp the concept before dismissing it.  Why not be happ babbling away where the only voices are harassing flies and im not allowed to swat em.  Thats not why i come to /pony.  I need names to keep my brain from popping fuses.

Edit:  oh yeah and if townhall isnt a political dumping ground then why is it nothing but /pol and threads literally dumped there from pony specifically because they are "political" hmmmmmmmmm? Answer me that or accept that townhall is nothing but a place to dump shit a few peeps around here feel they shouldnt have to see in their echo chamber.  Riddle me this.  IF you can.

 No.7131

>>7130
What do you think of the idea of adding a [#politics] tag so that political threads can appear on /pony/?  Or adding a new non-forced-anon board that allows political talk?

> why is it nothing but /pol and threads literally dumped there from pony specifically because they are "political" hmmmmmmmmm?
Here are three threads on the front page that aren't political:
https://ponyville.us/townhall/res/8107.html
https://ponyville.us/townhall/res/7923.html
https://ponyville.us/townhall/res/7395.html


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]