No.7459
File: 1735108388460.jpg (307.34 KB, 900x1260, 5:7, Christmas.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Good evening, dear friends <3 and Merry Christmas!
i hope this message isn't too sudden. The staff and i have been talking about some changes to the site, and we wanted your weigh in.
To that end, we have two propositions we'd love for you to consider and share your thoughts on.
Proposition 1: Closing Townhall
The first matter is on the possible closure of /townhall/. To put it simply... the townhall experiment hasn't worked out as we'd have liked it to, and it may be time to close up shop.
When we started Townhall, we had a bold vision for what it might be: it was to be both a well-manicured garden for sensible debate and discussion of sensitive topics, but also a place where politics and heavier topics could go, allowing pony to be a bit more carefree.
Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way. We haven’t had the time and resources to proactively manage the garden. And though we’ve had many helpful reports, it has often been difficult to manage the reports within the expectations of Townhall’s userbase. Which is to say, in plain words, that we don’t know what’s best for Townhall, and as it stands, it does not seem like Townhall is good for anyone.
Unless then, there are serious protests, the staff feels quite strongly that it is time to close townhall. What are your thoughts?
Proposition 2: IP/Tripcode Login
Ponyville's open door and gentle hand policies mean that while we are a very inviting community, with a focus on loving and tolerating even those who would wish us ill, the nature of an open board without much protections means that we must rely on users to cooperate with not only the rules as written, but the spirit of the law, so to speak, to help keep Ponyville a kind, fun, gentle place to be.
Unfortunately, it does not always end up this way, and keeping on top of these problems requires a lot of vigilant moderation... which is very taxing, and to be frank, still requires the cooperation of those being moderated against -- the site's open door policies means that is very easy to, say, skirt a perma-ban if one so chooses.
An IP system, or other such a login, will enforce a degree of accountability, and create more serious consequences for actions. But, it may act as a barrier to entry for both new users and old users alike, which is why i would love your thoughts on it.
i will also openly admit too that with Prop 2 comes an expectation that all of our users will be more willing, perhaps, to abide by the site's rules. i don't anticipate heavy-handed enforcement, but the enforcement that is levied is likely to be more effective, and that is something to keep in mind.
What do you think? Share your thoughts with us here, in Canterlot:
No.7460
File: 1735109602960.jpg (73.74 KB, 640x854, 320:427, f97c254c52c62f96990b872f07….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I appreciate the efforts and aspirations of you and the team.
Of the two ending town hall almost seems like you would then have to implement the sign in.
I have maybe a more blunt opinion that I would be open to share in private.
No.7461
File: 1735110890597.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>7460i always welcome blunt opinions!
No.7463
File: 1735122802064.png (195.41 KB, 376x400, 47:50, and then there's that ahol….png) ImgOps Google
/townhall/ creates a weird split on this website.
/pony/ seems to be predominantly progressive, with a bnch of LGBTQ+ posters, a celibration of progressive media and a disdain of conservative things.
/townhall/ then offers a very , very conservative userbase, where anti-woke / anti-LGBTQ and even some seeds of white supremacy seem to have embedded itself.
The thing about /townhall/ is that it gives an excuse to throw political topics there and quarantine the subject in this way. When you get rid of /townhall/, there will be some things to consider.
1. What do we do with political topics, Do we keep them on /pony/ again? Or do we just outright state that there's no room for political discourse on Ponyville?
2. Tangentially, cutting out /townhall/ will get rid of the more conservative posters and will cement aversion towards Ponyville from a political side. Honestly, it would cement Ponyville as a liberal echo chamber perhaps.
I don't have much about the IP tracking stuff myself. If I were a bit more data-savvy, I could hope that there's no legit concern about privacy to be had over this.
No.7464
File: 1735128573626.jpeg (120.04 KB, 1179x1158, 393:386, Gfj-O7JWsAA91w3.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>Proposition 1: Closing Townhall
Does this mean that political topics are allowed on /pony/? Or that we are forbidden from talking about political topics at all?
>Proposition 2: IP/Tripcode Login
What would be the process for getting your Tripcode whitelisted?
No.7465
File: 1735133257940.png (312.54 KB, 512x768, 2:3, 37011673.png) ImgOps Google
Im all for both of these but there are two issues, one for each
1) As others have said, what happens with politics when Townhall goes away
and 2) how does this login system work for multiple devices? I dont want to have to jump through hoops to connect to this site via my phone because I dont have my trip on here, not to mention using data vs wifi has different IPs, among other issues.
No.7467
File: 1735156845607.png (457.88 KB, 658x680, 329:340, 278c32e0b92bee8ac6e3e1325c….png) ImgOps Google
>Proposition 1: Closing Townhall
I'm absolutely for anything that denies bigots who refuse to live and let live a platform, and /townhall/ is at least 50% composed of them. I doubt they even interact with the site otherwise, they'd get hounded off any other board immediately.
>but what happen to politick when townhall go away????!?!?!?!
Nothing. It fucks off. Why would you want to discuss politics on a My Little Pony imageboard in 2024? You can talk about politics literally anywhere else on the internet if it bothers you that much. Make a Discord or something. It's really not as big of a problem as y'all are making it out to be.
>Proposition 2: IP/Tripcode Login
There are eight community moderators (i.e. not people who work with the tech side) moderating this site with maybe a hundred regular posters tops. If one mod for every thirteen users isn't enough, either they're not putting their foot down or they're not active enough.
And yes, you could try solve this through logging everyone's IPs (which I thought imageboards did anyway?), but not only do VPNs exist, some people like me have dynamic IPs that change under certain circumstances. Tripcodes would be a better idea, but not only does that close off the community from both potential returning members and potential new members, it also means that if your hard drive breaks and you don't have your tripcode memorised, you're never getting on Ponyville again.
No.7468
File: 1735179871265.png (1.19 MB, 1024x1024, 1:1, random_46.png) ImgOps Google
>>7467>it also means that if your hard drive breaks and you don't have your tripcode memorisedI use
dd
to make local full backups and Tarsnap for encrypted cloud backups of my most important files.
No.7469
File: 1735220803562.jpg (32.12 KB, 303x303, 1:1, 1734769919521.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I can't give an informed comment on 'Option Two' as such because you've not given any details as to how such a log-in system is actually going to work and be applied in technical detail. To be honest. Until then, there's not really anything clear-cut to say about that.
I suppose I can comment that it's not necessarily a bad idea. Yet it could clearly get set up and put into place in such a way that it becomes a bad idea.
I'm also posting this meme again because it's still really funny even if it's no longer Christmas.
No.7470
File: 1735230864140.jpg (8.56 KB, 198x254, 99:127, starswirlthebearded.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Proposition 1:
My thoughts are that it doesn't seem like /townhall/ gets too many posts... Many of the posts have an obvious logical fallacy or bias, and due to the high standards of the board, should be easy to moderate on the basis of the existing rules. Users could be moderated on the objective basis of whether a clear, emotionally-neutral argument was made, without idle expression of opinion or feelings (I am thinking of Socrates), which would be fair and easy to understand. If a user doesn't know what a logical fallacy or bias is, training could be provided via links to writings, courses, and/or YouTube videos.... The expected results of moderation based on logic and/or reason is that people would either stop posting or the quality of posts would increase.
If the board was moderated like this, most posts wouldn't make it onto the board or be deleted (or perhaps clarified) by moderators. I only see about two or three posts on the first three pages that seemed to follow the rules with maybe two or three others that could have been topics if a thesis had been put forth. Many posts may be good ideas or points of discussion, but they are presented in the form of a fragmented thought or biased argument, are emotional expressions without a point, are presented in jest (non-serious topics which should be on /pony/), or are 4-chan-style posts. Many discussions include casual talk about people. In addition to enforcing board rules, additional options other than closing the board include: 1) since so few posts meet the board standards, you could have users submit discussions for approval as a topic to be approved by a moderator before they become visible. 2) Perhaps in addition to #1, a 250-word requirement for the initial post in which the person explains the topic and presents a thesis.
Proposition 2:
I'm not sure that a login would help much other than keep new and returning users away, as it takes away from the site's aesthetic. How would an IP login work? You could try putting a sticky'd post of the rules on /pony/. And how would these measures make enforcement more effective?
Proposition 3: New Board
It seems like there are too many different cartoon pics/anime/furry/anthro/suggestive pics/monster-like creature pics on /pony/ nowadays. A new board where users can only post g4 and earlier (no newborn cuties) ponies (no anthro, even if it's pony) with even stricter rules than /pony/ about content might be nice. It could be called "mare," or perhaps "cuddlebox" ..."garden," maybe?
--PonyPuristv3.0 (pka: Harmonyhoof)
No.7472
File: 1735234038626.png (52.3 KB, 735x500, 147:100, strawman.png) ImgOps Google
>>7470This will make me sound like an absolute bonehead, but debating on phallacies is just annoying because people end up accusing eachother of phallacies all the time.
No.7473
File: 1735277352702.jpg (136.7 KB, 1280x528, 80:33, IMG_20241224_123612_041.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Here as with literally anywhere, when it comes to disagreements, the only options are:
A)The 4chan Option
Let anyone say anything. And I do mean anything. Bob wants to assassinate the Pope? Steve wants to make child pornography legal? Mary wants to claim that the Earth is flat and the sky is a gigantic canvas painted by demons? Have fun!
So, keep and expand /townhall/ with no rules whatsoever.
B)The Therapeutic Stalinism Option
Everybody walks on eggshells forever because of strict moderation whereby saying something even slightly controversial like "I actually don't like Jello" gets you banned forever within seconds.
So, abolish /townhall/ and make the rest of the website even less hospitable than it currently is to a dramatic degree.
There literally are no other options then these two. This is not a strawman. This is a fact of life.
Either you engage in censorship that's so heavy-handed and gross that without a doubt it's going to leave me personally being banned forever for something like, say, me criticizing Taylor Swift's latest albums, with Ponyville being a left-wing only place for sure, or else you'll have a free-for-all hellscape where I've no point in visiting ever... since every other post after I show up will be about how me and everyone else with Jewish ancestry slash belief cause all of the wars of the world or whatever.
That's that.
No.7474
File: 1735277954291.jpg (264.2 KB, 1200x426, 200:71, Shikata_Ga_Nai.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
As long as beliefs such as "people who aren't like me shouldn't be allowed to be alive" and "children I don't like should be prevented from being born in the first place" are normal, standard, natural, and routine in terms of American morality and politics, I don't see a way around this situation.
There is no "winning" when it comes to censorship. There is only various degrees of losing. You don't pick a "good" option. You pick the least bad of the various bad options.
I'm obviously personally going to be harmed if I use this website under hardcore censorship, since it'll bite me directly, but I'm also obviously personally going to be harmed if I use this website knowing that the next user who posts after me maybe thinks that masturbating to pictures and videos of adults molesting children is morally alright and maybe wants to scream that opinion in my face.
I hate both options, in terms of my previous post, but I guess I'd personally pick B) even though it'll likely result in me being permanently banned eventually because shikata ga nai.
No.7475
File: 1735288174754.jpg (7.59 KB, 303x166, 303:166, logicalfallaciesandbiases-….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7472Yeah, good point - there shouldn't be any debate about it. Certainly, whoever was doing the moderation, however, would have to fully understand the subject. People can be referred to:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ and
https://yourbias.is/ as the final authority.
AI tools, such as ChatGPT, may also be able to help discover logical fallacies/biases or to help clarify why something is a logical fallacy or bias. There are also several AI tools that already exist to help detect them (Google: ai tool for detecting logical fallacies or biases).
The strawman argument:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawmanIn addition, it might be healthier to debate what is really a logical fallacy or bias (as long as both sides are willing to learn) than how discussions now typically go.
>>7473>There literally are no other options then these two. This is not a strawman. This is a fact of life....um, actually,
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white...
Other general thoughts:
Since /townhall/ is supposed to be formal, I think it would be fine to require posts to be logical there, whatever a pony's position. It would just be censorship of illogical and/or biased arguments. Ponies would still be free to discuss whatever they wanted.
No.7476
File: 1735362967026.png (11.01 KB, 178x305, 178:305, I don't know what I'm look….png) ImgOps Google
>>7464>What would be the process for getting your Tripcode whitelisted?An important question. I do feel like having a whitelist is important, because anything else will ultimately be insufficient. But that also leaves the biggest and most awkward hurdles for actual users, and especially new ones.
>>7467>There are eight community moderators (i.e. not people who work with the tech side) moderating this siteIf you're going by the stickied list from 2017, that is very out of date. Of that list, the only people still around (again skipping the tech people, they're both here doing good work still) are Moony, Chrome, Raindrops, and me. And Moony is usually far too busy for any moderating. (And yes, we should maybe update the list.)
We're all reasonably active, I think, but any moderation action is ultimately just a matter of stamina. There are effectively zero tools to keep anyone from posting these days. Ban evasion is so easy most people are already doing it by accident.
>>7470>If the board was moderated like this, most posts wouldn't make it onto the board or be deletedI think that's an argument in favor of removing the board. Fixing /townhall/ at this point would require removing most or all of its users. We could certainly try it still, but I feel like the best case scenario (where moderation actually works) still results in a dead board.
No.7477
File: 1735363852097.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile (2024_12_….png) ImgOps Google
>>7462>>7467>>7470>>7473the issue that warrants logins isn't to enforce anyone's political views, or to hound people for accountability. we can already do that, technically... and we already don't, and haven't, evidently.
the reason some sort of login is being proposed, is to give the threat of ban any sort of power. right now, any kind of ban we can implement is trivially easy to evade... it is as easy as turning on a VPN.
If one wishes to be banned, one has to cooperate. And ban evasion is so common with our bans, that we have found not a single person we have banned in the past maybe one hundred bans, unless those bans were self-requested, chose to actually wait it out and not evade.
the solution thus far has been just to have a moderator constantly online to constantly ban... which is an exhausting solution, and means that really, Mondo is working very, very hard to constantly keep up with bans for people nobody really wants to ban to begin with.
i hope this makes more sense.
i have been very, very resistant, personally, to any sort of a login, for ages. Ponyville was founded on the principle of openness. the question is, does the trouble from ban evaders bother all of you more than the frustration of a login?
is it does not, then we do not have to implement the proposition either: these things, i think, are up to all of you to consider too!
>>7463>>7464>>7465>>7466>>7467politics will be allowed in limited degree, in as far as many things are inherently somewhat political. political discussion will be allowed in limited degree. obvious attempts to bait will be met with action, and overtime, hopefully, ended.
sailboat tells me he is working on a townhall board on ponychan.co. perhaps those who like the townhall environment may find what they seek there.
>>7473or, we remove townhall, and those who can think in only black and white can learn to see in color, or find a different place to fight, is my thinking
there is a middle ground between the anarchy of 4chan and so called Stalinism. the failure to see anyplace in between is one of the problems that inhabits townhall
>>7476yes, what mondo says is all true
No.7478
>>7477Well, good luck to sailboat then. Hopefully he'll be okay with us using his townhall as a dumping ground for "okay, this is too much, take this to [containment board]" cases, but either way the bottom line is "there's alternatives so this doesn't need to be here".
I still would like to hear the technical specifics for the login scheme. Current bans are IP bans already, and the ban evaders avoid them just fine. If there's accounts in addition to IPs, what really changes? What stops a ban evader from just doing what they did before in regards to their IP + making a new account, and then continuing on? It seems to me that any answer with a significant hurdle here will basically block genuine new users from appearing.
No.7479
File: 1735369688452.png (286.43 KB, 570x660, 19:22, eh heh 4 (2024_12_19 16_17….png) ImgOps Google
>>7478that is the trade off, sadly :c
likely, any new users would have to be manually approved by the staff, i'd imagine, unless a more practical system can be implemented
and that, as you say, will be very prohibitive to any new users :c
it is not a choice i would prefer ot make... but i will let everyone else choose how they feel is right for both!
No.7480
>>7475"Bob: I don't think adults should have sex with children because it hurts their feelings.
Steve: Facts don't care about your feelings. That's a logical fallacy.
Mary: Steve is correct. Bob is wrong to have these concerns.
(Bob gets banned.)"If the above is what /townhall/ is going to have to become, then for the love of God just delete it. Now and forever. And go with telling people to use an appropriate service for that sort of talk. Whether or not somebody commits a logical fallacy has zero, and we all know zero, relationship to the relative reasonableness of their beliefs.
Like, seriously, can't people go literally anywhere else on the internet to talk about the joys of molesting kids and whatever?
I'm sure that this can be presented in an intellectual fashion, like:
"The left-wing social bias of major medical organizations in the U.S., particularly in terms of academic institutions, presents a major challenge in evaluating the claims that've been made about childhood sexuality. A more rigorous approach can and should involve accepting the possibility of neutral or even positive types of psychological results occuring after these events, evaluated in a way that doesn't involve unnecessary applications of prior assumptions on what said children ought to believe or feel. If the particular physical parts of the body involved don't quite experience direct medical harm, the pleasures involved have some worth in being considered via a utilitarian lens that evaluates relative benefits, comparing one party in a decision to another. It's 2024. It's time to undertake debates without overwhelming left-wing assumptions."The above still has no logical reason whatsoever to be typed on any cartoon character based website, let alone especially this one. When it could be typed like... one of countless places elsewhere.
It's not that me, we, or anyone else is expecting God to impose some divine power to delete somebody's words off of the face of the whole planet. Not at all. Just a matter of noting the fact, which is a fact, that every single word could've been said someplace else.
No.7481
>>7479So just a whitelist of trips then? Perhaps a more flexible approach is called for.
We don't have THAT many people, not THAT many new users, and not THAT many ban evaders. How about generally just leaving things as-is, but giving the staff the ability to declare (internally) a temporary lockdown at which time only whitelisted users can post? This has the benefit that it would be completely transparent to existing users and it would normally not block new users who are used to how chans work. It'd be an emergency measure rather than The New Normal.
On a technical side, I don't know how far we can change the board's software, but ideally the whitelisting would happen automatically. Here's a scheme I have in mind.
A post has three unique user-identifying bits:
- the tripcode: not always present, see every single one of my posts - we can't rely on new users having trips either so I'd really rather the system wasn't 100% reliant on them
- the IP it came from: the default is dynamic IPs that keep changing, not to mention that the internet can be accessed through different hotspots; and then there's proxies/vpns, but that's another story
- the password: the one in the corner, automatically assigned to allow you to delete your posts and only your posts, hardly anyone thinks of it so it may not persist between different browsers and the like
In my idea the trips / IPs / passwords (I'll call them IDs for short) would have whitelists and blacklists. If a post has one ID which is blacklisted, that's a ban and the post stops right there. Otherwise things would depend on whether there's a mod lockdown or not.
Outside of lockdown time, the post would just go through and all its IDs would get added to their whitelists (not trips if they're not present).
During lockdown time, the post would be checked to see if it has at least one whitelisted ID. If so it would be let through, and all its IDs would be whitelisted. Otherwise it would be blocked and sent to the mods for review, displaying an appropriate message to the user. If the mods okay it the post still doesn't get added but the IDs present in it get whitelisted so further posts will come through no problem. This scheme also allows a "soft lockdown" during which rather than blocking non-whitelisted posts they come through, but are autoflagged as suspicious for the mods to look at before their IDs get whitelisted - or not, if the review says the user should be banned.
Is this bulletproof? No, clearly not. Some obvious ways to game the system jump out at me (though they rely on some preparation and knowing how it works in the first place). But it's the least disruptive way I see which should make the ban evader whackamole less of a burden on the mod team without also giving them a burden of new user approval.
No.7482
File: 1735381661984.jpg (7.15 KB, 205x246, 5:6, twistar.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7476>I think that's an argument in favor of removing the board. Fixing /townhall/ at this point would require removing most or all of its users. We could certainly try it still, but I feel like the best case scenario (where moderation actually works) still results in a dead board.Who knows what would happen to the board now or in the future. With the exception of requiring approval of posts, maybe the rest would take too much time. But at least there would still be a townhall in ponyville in case anypony ever wanted to use it to have an intelligent debate. (And where would Mayor Mare live, at any rate?)
>>7477Are there really that many banned users that post here/posts in need of moderation (at the level moderation is currently being implemented)? I almost never see moderation done on anything, unless the mod team quickly removes such posts? ...or is no moderation being attempted because of ban evasion?
>>7480...actually, Bob appears to have presented a thesis statement in this example, which is obviously not a logical fallacy or a bias. Steve responded with an ad hominem. It's difficult to say without more information, but from the given information I would say that at least an initial assessment would be that Mary may have responded based on the logical fallacy of bandwagon, as she contributes nothing to the discussion other other than mere agreement - and/or at least one of several cognitive biases, including confirmation bias, belief bias, the barnum effect, groupthink, the framing effect, the halo effect, in-group bias, and/or reactance. As cognitive biases are harder to detect than logical fallacies, the conversation would have to develop more to figure it out with some certainty. Logical fallacies, however, are usually quite black-and-white.
Therefore, in this hypothetical scenario, Steve would be warned about using an ad hominem attack. Mary would need to reveal more of their argument in order to say what her motivation was.
>Whether or not somebody commits a logical fallacy has zero, and we all know zero, relationship to the relative reasonableness of their beliefsYes, you are correct. In fact, believing that is the fallacy fallacy (
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy).
>I'm sure that this can be presented in an intellectual fashion, like: [...]...a bit too intellectual and wordy, I think. I was thinking that conversations should be more like a Socratic dialogue, as opposed to having a quantitative or overly-scientific basis (which is its own narrow subset of inquiry).
Edit: Actually, Mary's argument would be an ad hominem as well, since she said "Bob is wrong..." followed by "...to have these concerns." - implying an attack on Bob, rather than Bob's thesis (and not just using the phrases, "Steve is correct" and "Bob is wrong" as shorthand for "Steve's argument is correct" and "Bob's thesis is wrong"). Therefore, both Steve and Mary would receive warnings.
No.7483
>>7482What if I just don't want this website to incorporate the discussion of adults having sex with children in the first place, since the subject has no logical relationship to certain cartoon characters?
This is sort of like if I went to a restaurant wanting to eat a meal, and then in turn they demanded that I provided a full bunch of financial records because they're connected with the U.S. internal revenue service so then they'll review my taxes before I eat. Or if I went to a barbershop to get my hair cut and then they demanded that I opened my mouth up wide because they need to check my past dental work before they even touch my hair. Or if I went to a rock and roll concert only to be told that I can't wear a particular item of clothing because it advertises the wrong kind of desserts at a certain ice cream parlor.
Taking different goods and services that aren't in any way logically connected and then using coercion to artificially join them together is completely unreasonable no matter what way that you look at it.
It's not just even that it's illogical, but it's also actively stressful to the point of causing genuine mental and physical harm if I'm not allowed personally to use this website with safety and security (nor is anybody else in my position) in order to accommodate other people's demands to debate me (or, even worse, to challenge me on whether or not violence against me is a good idea or not).
No.7484
File: 1735390866113.jpg (8.51 KB, 256x197, 256:197, twibook.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7483I think I see what you mean. While /townhall/ was created to house discussions of almost any sort, its rules do state that "Controversial, 'politically incorrect', or unpopular opinions aside from the aforementioned are allowed, provided they are presented in good faith, and not in violation of any other rules." ...perhaps the arguments you're referring to did not seem to be presented in good faith?
That being the case, if the board has a history of lax moderation, then that may be something to take into consideration for Proposition 1. But I don't think closing it would be any different than just leaving it open and enforcing the rules (assuming they really are enforced).
It's true that deciding if an argument is presented in good faith would be difficult to discover, but it could be done to some extent by moderating on the basis of apparent cognitive biases in addition to logical fallacies.
>...demands to debate...Debate as a form if inquiry is different from Socratic inquiry. Perhaps debate as a form of discussion could be banned?
>...challenge me on whether or not violence against me is a good idea or notWell, that would be an obvious violation of the rules (/townhall/ Rules: Section 3).
...also I think that /pony/ (or a new board) needs more pony and peaceful topics and images so as to be a super-relaxing place with lots of ponies.
No.7485
File: 1735400354015.jpg (222.19 KB, 623x1050, 89:150, random_21.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7483Huh? If you don't like the topic of a thread, you're welcome to just hide the thread and never interact with it.
No.7486
File: 1735401528182.png (95.81 KB, 339x338, 339:338, !!!.png) ImgOps Google
>>7483>>7485When it comes to people discussing have sex with children, I don't want to just hide it.
It's for everyone's interest that that topic stays far away from this place.
I'd hope Moony wouldn't be too keen to look at this and say "Well, I wanted to create a place where people are free to talk about having sex with minors."
Before i get called out for this:
It's Pseudofox's example and Chain's reaction to it as "Hide it if you don't like it" that makes me underline this subject.
No.7488
File: 1735409938350.png (196.74 KB, 416x405, 416:405, a brony!.png) ImgOps Google
>>7487It's a call for freedom. People want to discuss anything they want and those who don't like that then simply must be able to ignore this.
This also applies to sensitive topics like LGBTQ-phobia, political affiliation, racism, sexism and so on and so on. Perhaps even takes on consensual prurient material....
I think from years of Ponychan stuff, I get why places may not want to deal with it and have a right and even some form of an obligation to set boundaries within their rules.
No.7489
File: 1735413532127.jpg (147.95 KB, 1591x1978, 37:46, derpy-reindeer-29b62beda9d….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7486>When it comes to people discussing have sex with children, I don't want to just hide it.>It's for everyone's interest that that topic stays far away from this place.Okay, that's a different argument (and a better argument) than what PseudoFox said:
>Or if I went to a barbershop to get my hair cut and then they demanded that I opened my mouth up wide because they need to check my past dental work before they even touch my hair. >>7487>>7488>It's a call for freedom.Yes, the idea is that a simple, bright-line policy like "all topics are allowed" is a natural Schelling point. Unfortunately, it often doesn't work in practice (see
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ and
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservative-the-eternal-struggle/ ):
>The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.>>7487Well, there's high-decoupling people like Aella who enjoy exploring weird edge cases:
https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1871804426404687981https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1872207642560745603If you want a systematic philosophical account of morality and related areas, you need it to be able to explain why it is generally wrong for adults to have sex with children.
No.7490
>>7479I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread yet, but why not just let new people in until they prove they can't follow the rules, then take away their log in privileges?
Isn't that a bit how it works anyway, minus the login?
No.7494
>>7487You've just made a left-wing, progressive statement, though. A lot of people who don't share your personal politics, Moony, will believe that the relative merits of adult-on-child sexual actions can and should be discussed here, espcially if they hold to more right-wing viewpoints more generally. And they would also believe in treating both sides of this debate/discussion/disagreement fairly in a way that both recieve a kind of "fair hearing".
Let us not forget that tradition and social history, looking back for centuries, have adult-on-child sexual actions being common even to the point of being horrible common in a lot of circumstances, such as in the Roman Empire and during the days of ancient Greece. If your moral beliefs are based on upholding and conserving the traditions of the past based on the common values of your local community... well... those people aren't going to want to be dismissed out of hand just because of "no, we're progressives and believe human rights trump traditional values".
You can say the same thing with a lot of left-wing, progressive beliefs about whatever moral stance, such as like believing that people shouldn't be subject to violence based on their racial and/or religious background where they live. Or like fired from their jobs, kicked out of their homes, removed from their educational institutions, etc. Maybe that left-wing viewpoint is right? Maybe it's wrong?
Again, if I'm a believer in conserving social tradition and upholding the moral standards of my local community that go back millenia, I'm naturally going to have a problem with Jews, or Black people, or Chinese people, or other groups infesting my spaces from the outside as invading, alien forces: the same way epidemics of polio or pneumonia wouldn't be welcome to come in. Or so my arguments will go. And they'll be valid arguments at least from the standpoint of avoiding logical fallacies.
I'd personally prefer that we just not have a /townhall/ to begin with, honestly.
I'm aware that this is both de facto and de jure me calling for the censorship of people who's politics disagree with me w.r.t. child sexual abuse and other political topics. I just think in this case censorship basically has to happen. Not really a way to avoid it and maintain sanity. Things are what they are.
No.7495
File: 1735493882330.jpeg (24.33 KB, 474x474, 1:1, Gf1u5GmWMAAczxi.jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>7492Right now, the site uses a blacklist approach -- anyone who isn't identified as banned or a bot is allowed to post. Proposition 2 is about changing it to a whitelist approach, where only those on the whitelist are allowed to post. Left unaddressed is how users would get added to the whitelist.
No.7501
File: 1735576461315.jpg (51.95 KB, 964x808, 241:202, eh heh 2.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7492>>7491what mondo means is, the current system where anyone can post, but would be banned if they broke the rules, is the same as any login system where the login is free to create, but privileges are taken away when one violates the rules
the primary problem, which is ban evasion and thus neglecting the rules, is not solved in this case, as in both cases, one can make a new account, so to speak. :c
>>7499>>7498it is hard to believe, and must be dealt with, i think
>>7494pseudofox, you have a tendency to fight too much too. :c
No.7503
>>7501What are your opinions on this idea [
>>7481 ]? And is it even technically feasible?
No.7505
File: 1735685607460.jpg (313.65 KB, 1080x1357, 1080:1357, 287461847251.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I couldn't give less of a shit about townhall since I don't see the benefit of posting there. All the more power to you if removal seems wise.
Proposition 2, however, seems like an amazing idea to me. Particularly the tripcode whitelisting idea. Unfortunately, I believe some people are too lazy to abide by the proposition. I would thoroughly enjoy the idea of insufferable cretins lacking the ability to post.
>>7467>if your hard drive breaks and you don't have your tripcode memorised, you're never getting on Ponyville again.At least transfer it to a flash drive sis
A while back for me, pen and paper would suffice, even. I mean, the current Data Encryption Standard algorithm for this imageboard allows only the first 8 characters at best for the regular tripcode. Whether "#hellowor" or "helloworldIlovetoeatchocolateicecream~" is used would make no difference.
No.7506
>>7473>There literally are no other options then these two. This is not a strawman. This is a fact of life.There is ALWAYS a third option. No matter how mundane, or idiotic. Forgetting to look for a third option will always stifle creativity and impede progress.
This is a fact of life.
Anyone who gives you two options and says there's nothing else is either trying to manipulate you, woefully unimaginative, or just lazy.
No.7507
File: 1736493723014.jpg (155.07 KB, 850x1121, 850:1121, random_18.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7459>Proposition 2: IP/Tripcode LoginIt would definitely to useful to have this functionality for a lockdown mode even if it isn't used all the time.
