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

/rules/ - Ponyville Rules

Ponyville Rules the Waves!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.7[View All]

File: 1544890183661.jpg (307.34 KB, 900x1260, 5:7, Christmas.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>890205
Concerning Christmas Truce initiative.
31 posts and 18 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.39

File: 1544908377759.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>37
And you definitely can, Artee.

>>38
If they haven't caused trouble before, it's likely they won't in the future. If they do, there's a first warning system in the new policy.

It's okay to discuss political topics. It's not okay to fight over them. And some will be watched more carefully than others.

 No.40

>>25
>>28
If I see a derailed mess of a thread full of personal attacks and general unpleasantness with no reply from a mod to indicate that disciplinary action has been taken, what am I supposed to make of that? The obvious answer is of course that nothing has been done, either because the mods do not care about obvious rule breaking, or because the mods do not think that the awful behaviour is against the rules somehow. I can only speak for me, but I can't imagine that I'm the only one that thinks like that. Public warnings serve an important purpose in making it crystal clear to the userbase what is not acceptable and that the mods are commited to doing something about it.

 No.41

>>39
Makes it sounds like a kind of passive aggressive sort of "if we think you are a problem you are not allowed to talk about things, but we also don't actually want to say that directly" type of deal.

it just seems to make the rule even more pointless to me, as you are basically saying, the rule isn't actually something that's going to be enforced, unless you are what is deemed by the staff to be a problem poster. In which case, different rules than those which normally apply to users apply to you. Which, of course, I don't really think is fair to begin with, but moreover, makes the whole Fiasco pointless.

Why not be direct.
While I do dislike, as mentioned, treating users differently from one another, I still vastly prefer honesty over underhandedness. And, unfortunately, this is starting to really read like underhandedness to me.

 No.42

>>40
This. So much this. That, and like I said, it makes people who have issues feel like they are being ignored.

 No.43

>>39
I don't think it would be fair on the truce.

Let's see hoxw things go, though.

Some folks need to learn to take a joke though.

 No.44

>>42
Absolutely. You don't want to send that kind of message to people. I don't make reports, mostly because I just lurk, but also because why would I care to report things if I'll never see anything come of it? I don't understand where you get the energy to bother with reports from.

 No.45

File: 1544910335947.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google

>>41
it's never that black and white, but needless to say, after so many explosive fights, there are frankly people we trust less to be civil.

>>43
Just be civil, and things will be okay.

>>44
>>42
Totally understandable. Frankly though, it hasn't done much good: what would public messages do, if nothing changes when private messages haven't done anything?

this present initiative is more frontloaded, and better for it.

 No.46

>>45
Isn't that the point of rule 1? This isn't really an answer to doing it in an indirect manner, however.

If private messages have not changed anything, why have you not resorted to bans?
>"Third Degree offenses are the least serious, and shall be met with multiple warnings, only to be escalated if the behavior immediately continues, or if the behavior occurs multiple times from the same user over a reasonable period of time, or if the behavior causes enough disturbance on site to warrant substantial staff attention"
Seems that this would give you power to do such with the problem user.

Not sure what you mean by "frontloaded". It seems to be sawing off an arm to spite the hand.

 No.47

>>25
>Users are -already- warned and banned for violating Rule 1. It's just not always public.
Oh!  I've been assuming that if I report a post but see no action, that means that the post was not in violation.  I think mods should add a "(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST - RULE 1)" so that people don't think that those sorts of posts are acceptable.  Letting reporters see the resolution of their reports would also be nice, I realize this would take a lot more dev effort.

 No.48

>>47

We actually already have a warning system like that in place, we really should have been using it(EXAMPLE OF WARNING TEXT)

 No.49

>>47
I'd really like to see the reporter getting at least some kind of updates on their reports. You're often left wondering if it was missed entirely.

 No.50

>>45
Yeah, instead of thinking that the mod team simply doesn't bother to give out warnings in most cases, I'm now thinking that the warnings they do give out have done little to get rid of the problem. I guess that's a bit better? Now I at least know for sure that the staff takes action against rule breaking, even if that action doesn't accomplish much.

I still think that more visible mod action would help show the users that the mods care, and that is very valuable. Just a single reply in a thread stating that warnings have been given out would be better than nothing.

I also think that this new initiative is a great idea though. I'm looking forward to seeing what effect it will have on the problem

 No.51

File: 1544913145674.png (409.99 KB, 827x839, 827:839, adine_think.png) ImgOps Google

>>50
My stance is you shouldn't scold users openly, but there's not really good reason not to directly state when a rule has been violated.

 No.52

>>48
This is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for on rule breaking posts. Please use it more.

 No.53

>>51
Oh yeah, that makes sense. Private discussions and in depth explanations still have their place, but a short, public warning to remind everyone that the rules exist would be good to see more often.

 No.54

>>16
Oh yeah, that's right.  Just enforcing rules 1,5,6,8 would address my concerns and probably solve the whole politics nastiness issue.

 No.55

>>54
Seems to me this is exactly what this is, but better and more precise c:

 No.56

>>55
Why do you need to enforce rule one only in certain frets? Why not enforce rule one everywhere?

 No.57

>>56
A bit of a misrepresentation. It is enforced everywhere already, with good effect. The only arena that needs extra enforcement is politics.

 No.58

>>56

Because we may end up hurting or banning people who probably do not deserve it, as they normally would be behaving fine without the political drama incited by some

 No.59

>>57
But couldn't you simply apply rule one to people calling others cruel, jerks, or pushing negative assumptions of their character about?

It's just seems to me that there are clear violations already being made in these threads, that under rule 1, should already have a reasonable response.

>>58
But, given that this seems to be mainly one single users issue, wouldn't it be easier not to impede on everybody else's ability to discuss politics freely?
Considering that this is only an issue with one single person's inability to be civil or respectful, why not simply take care of that one individual, as opposed to restricting everybody's capacity to discuss what they would like to discuss.

 No.60

>>59
I don't think the staff sees this situation as being the fault of a single user. If they did they would just deal with that specific user and leave the rest of us be.

 No.61

>>60
Well, then I'd suggest they need to look more deeply into these threads. As, it's always one user involved every single time, and every single time oh, there is this issue of a rule one violation.

I'm not sure if there is some specific reason they don't want to get rid of the guy, but, I'm going to try to make a proper document of every instance where this stuff happens, and hopefully that would force the hand, make them actually do something practical about it.

 No.62

Going to respond to the idea that this is just a matter of a single user and just a matter of enforcing rule 1.

There is certainly more than one user here who contributes to escalation of drama and hostility over political topics.

And I am of the perception that enforcement of specific rules concerning political topics being unnecessary because it's possible for people to be civil without the need for such rules comes from a place where political discussions are between people who mostly agree anyway within self-selected groups.

I don't think what is considered in that perspective is that simply bringing up controversial topics and expressing opinions about them that end up stepping on the toes of other people's sense of principles and identity has the effect of driving people away and leaving those groups self selecting.

Personally I think the only way we could have a space where people could discuss all ideas constructively and fairly without emotions getting so heated that violations of rule 1 become practically an inevitablity would require such an overhaul of how this site works that we would need a board where mods are more like full-time referees and people can be locked out of discussion until everyone else has a chance to respond. Basically like a form of moderated debate.

However since that is unrealistic to expect from a tiny imageboard run by unpaid volunteers whose priorities in life would have to be outside the board, the more realistic solution would be just to place a moritorium on debates in general.

 No.63

File: 1544925053501.png (168.56 KB, 785x1000, 157:200, 1544667569107.png) ImgOps Google

>>7
Hugs, Moons.

 No.64

>>62
>simply bringing up controversial topics and expressing opinions about them ... has the effect of driving people away
Maybe we could introduce a #politics thread tag like the Ponychan #Mature tag, so that those people can avoid such threads, and to prevent non-political threads from becoming too political.

 No.65

>>62
My problem is, I've had plenty of discussions on controversial topics, which haven't devolved into angry shouting matches. I've had discussions with plenty of people who have radically dfferent ideals and principles, without issue.

 No.66

>>55
>Seems to me this is exactly what this is
Huh?  I was favoring allowing robust  political debate of ideas, but without the ad hominems and other nastiness directed at other users that have been plagueing recent threads here.

 No.67

File: 1544928664516.jpg (49.62 KB, 612x752, 153:188, i need this shirt.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

People aren't pissed off because you don't want them to talk about "politics," people just don't feel welcome here because this reaction indicates you would rather keep an atmosphere of fake solidarity than listen to people. People don't want to post somewhere where people can say grossly ignorant things and have it be shrugged off, but when that viewpoint is questioned, suddenly have it be a "political debate." The only reason it devolves into what you call fighting or arguing is because people aren't willing to sit back and be insulted.

To be honest Moony is a cool guy and a decent friend so I don't really bother bringing it up out of not wanting to be a dick, but if this is the route you all wanna take, I, and i'm sure at least a few others, can't say we're sure we have a place to belong here. But I guess it's more important to you all to keep an air of getting along than saying "hey, that's a shitty thing to say, don't air your offensive views." That's fair, just know it's artificial and not real.

 No.68

File: 1544929174797.jpg (71.81 KB, 697x710, 697:710, why do you fucking think a….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

and I should be clear, I do not care if people agree with the same things I do or not. But the simple truth is, people don't walk around here saying they hate the hard right or that people who believe in creationism are crazy people. But people on this site do walk around saying gay people are degenerates who will sleep with anything, or that gay people are too vocal about being gay. That's not hyperbole, they're verbatim quotes. Don't try and kid yourselves that you don't know why people are annoyed reading this stuff. It's not the people calling it out who are the problem, it's the people sayin it.

end of the day though, like I say, waste of time saying this. pic related

 No.69

File: 1544936164763.png (775.57 KB, 989x712, 989:712, TB98.png) ImgOps Google

>>68
No, people care too much. Which caused all this.

 No.70

I thought the warnings/bans/etc. were supposed to be listed in the /rules/ section anyway?
What point is there in updating a post ( USER HAVE BEEN WARNED FOR THIS POST ) when that post is like #50 in a 200-post thread?
No one's necessarily going to see it.

 No.71

>>68
>But people on this site do walk around saying gay people are degenerates who will sleep with anything, or that gay people are too vocal about being gay. That's not hyperbole, they're verbatim quotes.


That's not ok, and as far as I know, has never been ok.

 No.72

>>70
>I thought the warnings/bans/etc. were supposed to be listed in the /rules/ section anyway?
I thought it was only for non-obvious  interpretations of the rules?  Eg, like how they made a thread to address the controversy over whether "oldfag" is allowed to be used (as opposed to only mentioned)

 No.73

>>70
>What point is there in updating a post ( USER HAVE BEEN WARNED FOR THIS POST ) when that post is like #50 in a 200-post thread?
>No one's necessarily going to see it.
Sometimes I go back through a thread  and look for such warnings.  Especially if I reported a post.

 No.74

>>67
>>68

You were a very large part of the problem in the recent thread about being kind-hearted

You were exactly as vicious as the people you are angry with

 No.75

>>67
>>68
As I believe was said to you in the /pony/ thread, I just don't see that occur here. Maybe I'm just not around when those things happen.
Would've thought they're already against the rules, anyway.

 No.76

>>73
Same. Haven't yet seen one, though. Part of why I really want more transparency when it comes to rule 1.
As is, I end up with the vibe that my issues are being ignored.
Which isn't really productive, of course.

 No.77

File: 1544959249261.png (66.69 KB, 305x277, 305:277, ye.png) ImgOps Google

>>74

sorry, I would never want to ruin the atmosphere. What are people supposed to do? Be quiet so as not to rock the boat? I posted maybe three times at most before you all locked the thread, so calling me a large problem is kind of funny when two in particular argued back and forth in it over the course of about 100 posts.

>>75

I should be clear that it's not a huge majority of the site, but it is a quite vocal part of it, and they are continuously encouraged by this weird desire to have a harmonious ambience above all else because nothing ever happens to them. The moderation team just lock the thread and basically say "don't do it again" and then the member just does it again the next day. It's like you would all rather nobody talk about the event and pretend nothing happened rather than just say "hey, don't say dumb shit." The funny thing is that I don't have a problem with difference of opinion to be honest, that's not my problem; if some dude on this site thinks gay people all have AIDS and will hump anything that moves, that isn't gonna ruin my day. But it's the fact that if someone gets pissed off by that and responds, they will censor disagreement immediately, but not give any thought for why disagreement began in the first place. Again I am trying very hard not to call out individuals for the sake of not causing you more grief, but believe that they exist here prominently.

>>71

the message sent is that it is okay when the people who say it don't get banned or stopped, while the moderators delete replies for being too reactionary. sorry but that's the truth

>>69

well like I said dude if the attitude on this site is that it's okay as long as nobody is being angry, then people don't want to be here. I for one aint sitting here and watching people have discussions about why people of my orientation are perverts while you ban a post for saying the word "Fuck"; but then again, that's why I only lurk this site in the first place rather than being active in it.

 No.78

>>77
Oh, okay, I think I know what you're referring to, then. Yeah, I can see that being an issue.

 No.80

Can we add racism to the list of political issues?  seriously.

 No.81

File: 1545010530838.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>80
there's no list, sailboat. there's the spirit of the rule.

 No.82

>>12
Going to have to bump anon's suggestion, as it'd solve major problems I have currently.
I think it could easily be added to Rule 1, though, myself.

 No.83

File: 1545394638715.png (236.38 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Fluttershy_sad_S01E22.png) ImgOps Google

>>82
i respect both you and anon's suggestion, but this is going to be a hard no.

The issue isn't the rule. It's in the spirit of the rule. A new rule will only mean current incivility shall extend itself either around the rule or right up to it.

Moving the goalposts won't change anything.

Ponyville is a pony site for pony fans. Not for politics. The right to have political debate here is a privilege, and that privilege has been pushed to and past it's limits for far too long

 No.84

>>83
>i respect both you and anon's suggestion, but this is going to be a hard no.
Hmm, I dunno what you're saying "no" to, because you guys did exactly what Noonim and I have been asking for in >>>/canterlot/2869 .

 No.85

File: 1545523918333.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>84
If so, then perhaps i have misunderstood: what you are asking for then, we have already been doing. i did not interpret your meaning in that way.

 No.86

>>85
Yeah, my main complaint (and Noonim's too, I believe) was that certain user(s) had been repeatedly poisoning conversations (recently mostly political threads, but some other threads too) by posting insulting insinuations about the intentions or character of other users.  I did make a suggestion of adopting a new rule, but as Noonim pointed out early in the thread, a new rule wasn't necessary, because the existing rules were enough to cover it.  So you guys addressed my main issue (by taking visible action against that sort of toxic behavior and indicating that you will continue to do so).

 No.87

File: 1545900961708.jpg (26.63 KB, 250x237, 250:237, thumb.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The truce has ended, let the games commence!!

 No.88

File: 1545967949441.jpg (3.21 MB, 4160x2080, 2:1, 20180704_165812.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So, just my opinion, sooner or later your going to have to get ban happy.  Chans as a rule are just volitale anymore, is what it is.  Sad thing i've always noticed about the pony fandom, it attracts the mentally ill.  People hate the weak, the poor and the outcasts, this fandom attracts them.  For those who remember people like swiper?  Enough said.  

Just an idea, consider making this place a closed forumn of sorts, make it  by invitation only and don't hesitate to suspend or ban those who don't follow the rules.  Downside of anon chan culture, you attract everyone, the decient and not so decient alike.  

 No.89

File: 1546456156884.png (384.88 KB, 945x969, 315:323, bryce_normal_b_flip.png) ImgOps Google

>>83
Incivility wouldn't be an issue if the rules are enforced, as that is straight up the point of rule 1.
And I'd go as far as to say we're seeing that now, on /pony/. There's been a few threads of controversial topics that are perfectly fine.
>>85
My suggestion was to either apply rule 1 when it comes to hostile assumptions, ala items like, let's say, "Mooney is just being cruel", or "Mooney is just saying that to make me look stupid", and so on. Though, it seemed that this wasn't going to be a rule 1 violation, at least going by my thread discussing the matter, so, I had bumped Anon's suggestion for the same concept only specific.
Though his rule was only for politicis, I'd prefer it was everywhere.

Regardless, it seems now, this is a rule violation, so, I'm happy enough as is.


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