/canterlot/ - Canterlot

>>4465
>I looooooove you noonim. That's why I'm here, suffering abuse from you.
Well, that's sweet of you. But, it's not exactly healthy for either of us.
At least not with the way things are going right now.
I've been hung out to dry for far too long here, and I do not feel like it's going to get much better, so it's leaving me desperate for any solution I can find, but ultimately still distrustful of the people who've let the trouble prolong.

I'm sorry to hear you're hurting over this shit. But, like I said, so am I.
While I've never been one to believe that misery really loves company, it's certainly harder to empathize when you're miserable too.

>I'm at least glad to know where I stand with you. Can't win them all I guess.
You're not the worst, and I'll always giving you credit for at least saying something.
But, yeah. Not really felt our conversations for a while now really felt like they were going anywhere. Not just here, I mean, but, elsewhere as well.
It feels like far too often, you've got critiques and defenses, but no solutions or support to offer.

>>4461
>IMHO, you do have a legitimate grievance about enforcement of the rules w.r.t. Manley, but you're just digging yourself into a hole with your combative arguing.  I suggest trying to find some common ground instead.

I agree. While I think Manley gets away with a lot, I wouldn't consider it due to any intentional maliciousness or bias from the mods.

>>4466
Honestly, the way the warning was presented was my biggest problem. Especially since you never really warned for the insulting and, as that anon earlier put it, dickish attitude given.
Again, it was the difference between a stern, direct, blatant warning, and this wishywashy vague "guys stop calm down be nice" seemingly completely ignoring the insulting shit beforehand.
The warning you gave mentioned not a bit of it, as it happens.
>And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point.  Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry.  Ask questions rather than making accusations.

Well, let's start with something simpler, as far as a workaround:
Would you be cool with adding the particular item to the rules of /townhall/?
As in including such conduct under the "uncivil behavior"?
If I actually know the staff'd do something when I'm repeatedly treated rather dickishly like that, I'd be uninclined to respond, especially in kind. And of course, if the sarcasm is a major problem, rather than engaging in that particular dickish behavior, it should be reported and ignored likewise.

But, as is, I do not really feel confident that this type of thing won't happen again, given that both in your warning and the statements made by Thorax at least here in this thread, it doesn't seem like it's actually accepted as something not allowed.
As though the kind of "You're just being a dick" is somehow something that should be left alone and present on the site.

>>4466
I guess for a more practical point towards this, if I were to rewrite the warning, it'd be something along the lines of
>Address the arguments, not your perceived tone. Saying someone's "needlessly antagonistic" isn't going to end up productive. "
And probably just end it with a
>"Don't do it again"

As is, I got a very stern warning for something that, according to the town hall rules anyway, appears to be a rather minor infraction, but, the item that was supposed to "not be tolerated" seemed to be ignored outright, if not heavily softened and treated with gloves.

>"2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans."
Strongly discouraged, with a mere "may result", VS
>"Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. "
Now while it, at least going by that anon's arguments, isnt' necessarily ad hominem, it's definitely uncivil. He'd even agree there.
Unless it was your impression that such items weren't actually against the rules I guess.

>>4470
>>4469
Though I guess this probably'd deserve another thread, anyway. I guess I can do that tomorrow. I'd have to figure out the particular phrasing involved anyway.
I'm thinking "attacking tone", or "accusatory claims of behavior" maybe?

I'll have to think about it, but, I definitely think it should be attached to 2, in any case. With, obviously, a much heavier item than "strongly discouraged", given it's quite a bit more detrimental to a given conversation.

>>4471
Oh, or we could end up using an item like Chain had posted earlier.
Just basically forbid the bottom three as clear poor quality and unproductive arguments.

Though, I still gotta be honest: I'm not really understanding the major difference between "You're an asshat" and "You're being an asshat".
Like, they both feel the same to me.

>>4468

It can admittedly be a tough situation to judge, because people have hated Manley for longer than he'd want me to inform people.  And that isn't even entirely unwarranted, but the result is there's a lot of built up grudge that you have to trudge through when answering reports.  I've said it before, but there's situations where Manley and I have said the same thing in almost exactly the same way and everyone laughed at my joke and Manley got reported.

The short of it, though, is we all have biases, and that isn't intentional, but it's also not avoidable.  We have to do our best to maintain a reasonable environment where nobody is upset while acknowledging that sometimes people get upset over things that would unfairly affect other users if we acted on that.

>>4469

You've been saying similar things most of the night and I haven't responded because the language you're using seems...off.  Like I saw what happened, and then there's this grey area where I'm missing something, and then you're really upset.  I really just didn't have a response, but I'm gonna try because I've been avoiding it for hours and other people need to go to bed.

So to iterate, it's a lot about perception.  What I, other members of the staff, and probably some number of users see as insulting is not the same as what you see as insulting.  The things you called insults in that thread are things that the rest of us kinda nodded our heads to, like "Yeah, that's a legit reaction."

Is it a good reaction?  No.  No, it's far from ideal, it's not constructive to a discussion environment, and in general it isn't okay.  But it also didn't come out of nowhere and it's the kind of response we would expect a person to have to what you said.  If the comment you made was removed, the other stuff wouldn't have happened.  When reviewing rules and taking action you have to go beyond what's written and into what's actually going to make the board better.  If the rules didn't require interpretation we could have an AI do all the modding.  The onus is on you to not trigger other people into reacting, not on other people to have perfect stoic emotions.

We've hit Manley for that before, because his language can also unintentionally hit the wrong nerve and set people off, in which case we try not to blame the people reacting to it too harshly.  Every time he says something that sets people off and other people respond to it and there's this whole big mess we have to clean up, Manley is in the spot you're in right now, claiming "Well everything they said was also bad."  Which is correct, but not the biggest problem.  The people responding to his actions do get told to relax and back off and some of them also do still get bans because they're too interested in posting angry messages on the board that no one needed to see.

And with that said, again, the warning was given to each of you.  The way you interpreted the text made it seem like you were getting hooked super hard and he was getting off easy, but it was actually still a very flat warning.  If either of you continued in that behavior then I would've jumped to bans.  Again, without caring who either of you were.  I should've banned you for everything you said in the thread after my post, but I hesitated too much because the extra rants you were going on that were still very much derailing the thread were critical of me and deleting that and banning you would've been bad optics.  I didn't need you even angrier than you already were.  

The other person in question, when I posted what I did, dropped the subject.  Like you can say how poorly written it was, and I might even agree a bit, I could probably do that differently in the future, but the other person in question got the message and did what I wanted him to do.  Maybe that's because he's more used to interpreting my messages?  But the thread was no longer being derailed by that argument and could in theory go back to being on topic, which is the point of moderation to begin with.

>>4476
>What I, other members of the staff, and probably some number of users see as insulting is not the same as what you see as insulting.  The things you called insults in that thread are things that the rest of us kinda nodded our heads to, like "Yeah, that's a legit reaction."
So again I must ask, as I keep doing:
Does this mean you think it would be acceptable or productive for me to go to anyone who disagrees with me or I have any kind of argument with and say "You're just being an ass"?
Do you believe that will end well?
>The onus is on you to not trigger other people into reacting, not on other people to have perfect stoic emotions.
Okay. Again, like I've said prior: Are you seriously saying it's okay for me to fly off the handle and start insulting someone in that way, saying "you're just being an asshole, you're just acting shitty, you're just being a dick", because I thought they were a bit sarcastic?
Like, seriously?

>Manley is in the spot you're in right now, claiming "Well everything they said was also bad."
You know what the difference is?
If Manley pissed me off and I said "You're acting like a shithead", I'd damn well expect to be punished for that.
Especially when the initial issue is so much more minor as far as I can tell.
Again, the difference between 'WILL NOT BE TOLLERATED' and "strongly discouraged".

>.  The people responding to his actions do get told to relax and back off and some of them also do still get bans because they're too interested in posting angry messages on the board that no one needed to see.
Yeah. I've noticed. It seems usually he gets a finger-wagging, and others get banned, unless it's them who initiated.
'Least that's definitely been my experience.
Funny, though, it's not the case this time.

>And with that said, again, the warning was given to each of you.  The way you interpreted the text made it seem like you were getting hooked super hard and he was getting off easy, but it was actually still a very flat warning.
Is that why you didn't even adress the part of the problem of the insulting and rude conduct, and instead went the route of very softly trying to tell us both, which in case you forgot was the case, to chill?

Again:
>"And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point.  Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry.  Ask questions rather than making accusations."
It's damn light. It doesn't say one thing about the dickish comments made. And over the "may be warned", "strongly discouraged" bit, you gave a much, much, much heavier handed reply.
Meanwhile, again, you completely ignored the dickish bits.

I see why you didn't want to bring it up. It's a really hard thing for me to at all understand, at least from where you're coming from.
It seems like you're all okay with this with this shit.

I don't get that.
But if that's really the case. Fine.
I'll start responding in kind, then
I'll engage in the same kind of behavior I'm calling out here, over the slightest problems, percieved slight, or minor rulebreak.
After all, that's damn well what happened here, and jack shit came of it.

It's really, really hard for me to see this kind of thing and assume the best in you guys.
Especially when I KNOW you wouldn't like it if I started just replying to you saying you're being an asshole, or you're just being callious and cold, or you're just being a heartless jerk.
I know damn well that'd hurt you.
And I know you know damn well, it's something that has clearly hurt me.
But, if you're not going to care: Fine.
Why the fuck should I?

Man, I was feeling like there was real progress being made here with you. I was thinking I could finally go to bed.


How the hell do people keep justifying this kind of abbrasive attitude?
Like, do you seriously fucking think it's going to be any kind of productive if people're able to just constantly shit on eachother like that?
Do you really believe that people constantly going "YOU'RE BEING AN ASSHOLE", "NO YOU'RE BEING A DICK" is going to result in actual fucking dialogue, and not animosity and fighting?
What's the point, here.
If you guys aren't willing to at least accept that, why the hell should I bother. I should just get myself permabanned already and leave this place. Keep this kind of major darkness out of my life.

To clarify, again, the official "warning" was >>>/townhall/104
>"That kind of sarcasm isn't really appropriate for the board.  I remind you, and everyone present, that this board has harsher rules and anything falling outside of those rules will be more firmly dealt with than normal."
Followed by
>"And on that note, you're both sort of proto-debating the debate here at this point.  Try to stay on topic, assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith rather than trying to catch them on pedantry.  Ask questions rather than making accusations."
I think anyone with half an eye can see the first was far more strict, direct, and placed in a warning tone to the 2nd. And meanwhile, the 2nd never even bothered to mention the whole dickish "UR JUST BEING A JERK" garbage.
The closest you get is the "assume the other person is presenting arguments in good faith", but that's pretty well cut out by the "trying to catch them on pedantry".
It literally makes no mention of the insults whatsoever.
So yeah, damn well I had issue with this. You never addressed in that post the things I had reported and had a problem with.
They were ignored.
As fucking usual.
Every time I seem to use the report function, either you guys do jack shit about it, or I'm the one warned off.

Good example being the last time, where Moony had deleted the only proper warning I've ever seen the guy get. Unless you count actions by Luna, anyway, which, I wouldn't, since they left over this shit.
Instead of a warning to Manley, specifically citing his actions, we got Rarity saying

>Manley, yeah, you're talking behind Noonim's back here. His age has little to do with his behavior.
>Noonim, I get it, you see Manley say something about you and you feel the need to go against it. You can just not engage, let it wither on the vine.
>Can I get you both to just walk away from this and not escalate further? I don't think that's too big an ask.
As though somehow in that case I was somehow equally to blame for his dickish response.,

Funny how it only works one way, isn't it?
I do the most minute thing, something that's supposedly "strongly discouraged", and I get the strong warning.
He does a clear and flat insulting behind my back, and for whatever reason, we're both the problem.
We both need to walk away. Whoever started it suddenly didn't matter there.

After a while this type of stuff ends up making a pattern, you know.

Ok just

Mondo, assuming your speaking for most of the staff,

Is it against the rules or not, for a poster to assume someone has a bad intention behind their actions or statements, with little to no solid evidence?

Or is just discouraged?

>>4482
As it happens I literally had an entire thread around this idea.
It was never addressed or clarified, as it happens.
Scootaloo did seem interested in the idea, though. But, near as I can tell, nothing official came of it. Mostly because the same problem persisted later.
>>2658

>>4486
Also, damn, I just realized we've gone through nearly 2000 posts since then.
Oof.

>>4479
>>4480

>Does this mean you think it would be acceptable or productive for me to go to anyone who disagrees with me or I have any kind of argument with and say "You're just being an ass"?

Do I think it would be acceptable?  Somewhat, yeah, I think that kind of response is natural and expected.  Do I think it's productive?  No, which is why I still give out warnings for it and tell people to cut it out.

>If Manley pissed me off and I said "You're acting like a shithead", I'd damn well expect to be punished for that.

In most cases we wouldn't punish that, unless it went on for post after post, which would be taking it too far and result in us stepping in to try to defuse the situation, which is what I did and it worked.

>I don't get that.

I said you wouldn't.  We're on such different wavelengths that it's impossible to communicate or understand each other.  But I've responded now, as you've requested, that's the best I can do.

>>4480
>How the hell do people keep justifying this kind of abbrasive attitude?

Because this website has shown me what a human is and what a human does.  I said this the last time the topic of justice came up.  I don't have the privilege of ignoring human behavior and trying to force people to adhere to an ideal.  Sometimes people get upset and say things that aren't ideal.  You've been that way for the past eight or nine hours.  But things don't get better by shutting down abrasive attitudes with force.

>>4481

Not unlike the thread from before, you're getting really hung up on pedantry.  The exact wording of both the rules and the mod post do not matter to the extent you seem to think they do.  I am not a police officer, or a judge, or a jury.  I am a moderator.  I am here to moderate.  "make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent."  Things had become intense, it was my job to step in and make them less so.  We do not want an intense website.  That is the goal of moderation.  The goal of moderation is not doling out justice and punishment.

Again, yes, wording could've been better, because apparently you at least did not interpret things in the way I intended.  That is a failure of communication on my part and I seek to improve that in the future.  But there just isn't the issue here you're seeing.

>>4482
>Mondo, assuming your speaking for most of the staff,

That's a big assumption and even I am not willing to say that is the case.  By all means if people come along tomorrow and say "No Mondo, that's wrong, you should do it this way." I will not even argue the point.

>Is it against the rules or not, for a poster to assume someone has a bad intention behind their actions or statements, with little to no solid evidence?  Or is just discouraged?

In a sense, those are the same thing to me.  The rules are things we discourage.  That's why the first response to every offense is a warning.  Which regardless of officiality is just meant to ask that they don't do something again.  The assumption is always that they just didn't know it was discouraged.  If you are continously doing things we discourage, then we have to take further action and go to bans.

Like I said in an upwards paragraph, the goal of moderators is to moderate.  We want to avoid the website becoming extreme or intense.  That is largely the reason we made this site to begin with.  We think the rules are good guidelines for achieving that goal, but they're not perfect.  I don't think any of us believe them to be perfect.  Even now after we've been through a few drafts and iterations they don't solve every problem or interaction.  That's on us to interpret.

The only time we act as police rather than moderators is when someone with no post history shows up and advertises their random websites or starts spamming porn.  Which is a lot easier than moderating because I can just hit "Ban and Delete All Posts" and I don't have to worry about the person's feelings.

What's the point of forced anonymity when people can tell who people are?

I would have to assume that Zecora wasn't pinpointing you because they wouldn't have known it was you... but they're a mod, they will know it's you based on IP or whatever

Seems like an oversight. Is there a way to make it so mods don't see IPs on that board? Or something similar to that?

>>4488
>No, which is why I still give out warnings for it and tell people to cut it out.
Have you considered that actually addressing it directly would be better than issuing warnings that never even mention it?

>In most cases we wouldn't punish that, unless it went on for post after post, which would be taking it too far and result in us stepping in to try to defuse the situation, which is what I did and it worked.
Well, I think that should change.
You should punish for that.
Things should not be allowed to escalate to the point of direct insults like that. And, yeah, I still think "You're acting like a shithead" to be a pretty direct insult. Maybe it's to the "behavior" rather than the individual, but, still, its' a dick thing to do.

if you guys started to enforce that type of thing, it'd go a long, long way for making me feel better about the way things are here.

>I said you wouldn't.  We're on such different wavelengths that it's impossible to communicate or understand each other.  But I've responded now, as you've requested, that's the best I can do.
I guess.
But, man. I just don't understand how anyone'd find "You're acting like a shithead" to be something acceptable or allowable on a given website. Especially on a board where we're supposed to encourage productive dialogue.
And, don't give me the "I warned him for that".
You didn't.
The text is there to see.

>You've been that way for the past eight or nine hours.
For what it's worth, I think you ought to've.
Hell, someone ended up doing it, a while back.
>>4357
A good two hours were lost there.
Didn't really help, of course.
But, I've always been someone who advocates enforcement of the letter of the law, over how you "feel" at a given time.
Less likely to result in this, where people feel like there's no fairness, no consideration, they're just left to their own devices while things play a nasty game.
I said before, trust is vital with any given system of governance, which, like I said, I'd count this place as.
If you lose the trust of the userbase of your given system, it falls apart.
Whether that be because nobody cares about your rules and will ignore them, evade bans, or just do the same thing when they get back, or whether it be because everyone ends up leaving.
Having a system where some are held to one standard, while others another, will not last.

>Not unlike the thread from before, you're getting really hung up on pedantry.  The exact wording of both the rules and the mod post do not matter to the extent you seem to think they do.
Maybe not to you, who they do not effect.
They matter a helluva lot to me, who's been directly put under them.

This is a big part of why I think a rotation might be a great way to go, actually.
I think you've lost a lot of perspective. That, or, maybe you just never cared about these things like I do.
Like I said, I don't really care less when it comes to the punishment, as much as the justification behind it.
You could ban me for a day, ban me for a week, ban me for a year. You could just give me a warning, as is the case here. I'd still be upset, likely equally so, because it's just not fair.
Some are treated to one standard. Some are treated to another.
You can say it's not so, but, I sure don't see it that way. And, given you just call it "pedantry" when I give you evidence in that regard, I'm not inclined to accept your arguments to the contrary. Because I don't see it that way.

> I am a moderator.  I am here to moderate.  "make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent."  Things had become intense, it was my job to step in and make them less so.  We do not want an intense website.  That is the goal of moderation.  The goal of moderation is not doling out justice and punishment.
Maybe that should be changed then.
Maybe the title should be shifted.
Because, I don't give a damn about your moderation. Especially when it's worked out so horrifically poorly for you.
Like I pointed out here >>4487 we've had two thousand new posts on /canterlot/ since I made one of my earlier complaints about Manley.
Two thousand.
Pretty sure you're not going to pretend we've reached any kind of "moderation" at present. If anything, things've escalated and ecsalated as a result of your inaction in this regard.

Maybe this is more about me, than you.
Maybe this is my personality.
I am a person who puts extreme, intensely strong priority to principles.
My greatest personal fear is that I will one day end up betraying those principles, either due to personal weakness, fatigue, or jadedness.
Some people fear fire, disappointment, failure, and so on. I guess for me failure could be a part of it, but, I never want to lose sight of what I believe in.
As a result, I'm not inclined towards mediation where it is not fair or just. When someone is allowed to continue bad behavior despite the standards others are held to, I get upset. Very upset, as it happens.

Your moderation has failed to moderate. So, maybe it wasn't the best idea?

>Again, yes, wording could've been better, because apparently you at least did not interpret things in the way I intended.  That is a failure of communication on my part and I seek to improve that in the future.  But there just isn't the issue here you're seeing.
When stuff is flat out ignored like it was, when I'm left holding the entirety of the strict hand, when I've been treated repeatedly like this, it's really hard to accept it as just a bit of bad communication.
I don't want to say "I don't believe you", but, I don't.
But, I will at least pretend to, for what that's worth.
if what you are saying is that the incredibly lightly worded post that doesn't address the particular problem I've had at all is actually warning against that behavior, I can accept that.
Provided it acts as an actual warning. As in, if it happens again, you'll actually take action.

If you can at least promise me that, I can step back. Maybe not happily, maybe not fully content, but, I'll have an excuse I can go back to that at least says something. At least leaves a possibility.



If there really isn't any kind of possibility of change or potential fixings, I'd at least like to know.
If nothing else, at least knowing there's no hope of fixing anything here lets me understand that any attempt is pointless.
This has really fucked up my entire day. Possibly the week, if I'm unlucky.
This was supposed to be my birthday week, where for the few days I get off, I end up going out with family, getting something to eat, hanging out, maybe seeing a movie or something. Instead, I pretty much got stuck here, just spinning further and further into a seriously miserable pit.
I don't want to do some "woe is me" shit, here. It's not the goal to drum up sympathy, or whatever, I just want to try to get you to understand that, when I beg you here to tell me if there's a chance, I'm not asking for a chance.
I'm specifically trying to find out if there is a chance.
Because if there's not, I can cut this place out.
I can cut the thing that, frankly, has been doing a whole lot of damage to me for far too long here.

I'm far too tired to handle this type of thing. Especially after what had happened on Ponychan. I really cannot afford another spiral like that, as, frankly, stupid as it sounds, that left me in the 2nd darkest place I've ever been. I do not want to end up going through that again. I don't think it really will have that effect, given that Ponychan was a home online for me for ages, through a rather significant portion of my life. But, still. The jagged and cracked bit I managed to scrape out of there isn't going to handle another fall well, I figure. So, if it's really the way it has to be, I can cut this place out too if I have to.

>>4490
It's not like forced anonymity makes much a difference anyway.
You can pretty much always tell someone's typing style.
Though I admit you guys have made me fall some out of practice.

>>4490
>What's the point of forced anonymity when people can tell who people are?

Unfortunately it all requires good faith on the part of the users and staff.  When you go to a masquerade and people have flimsy masks on, you're not supposed to try to guess who everyone else is and announce it.  "Charitable Llama" seemed to have at the least a pretty strong inkling of who "Stunning Hummingbird" was even though ostensibly they were unknown characters.  I'm not sure if the reverse was also true.

In general, as a mod, I don't actually browse the site while logged in, because I don't want to see people's IP addresses.  It seems like a breach of privacy.  A tool that can be important at times, but not something I casually want to have active.  When I first examined the thread, it was with no knowledge of who anyone was.

After reviewing the thread and getting confused as to what exactly was going on and why things were reported, it became more relevant.  First I went to the reports screen and checked who reported things, because a lot of the time that reveals why something was reported.  That's when I discovered who Charitable Llama was, and on my own inkling I decided to also check who Stunning Mockingbird was and sure enough, it was exactly who I would've expected to come into conflict with a Llama.

>Seems like an oversight. Is there a way to make it so mods don't see IPs on that board? Or something similar to that?

Probably technically, but I'm not really the person to ask about whether it's possible or even whether it's a good idea.

>>4493
Yeah that's not actually accurate, though. It's not really easy to tell people's typing styles. People have confused me with other people dozens of times, and other people with me, and other people with other people, et cetera.

>>4495
Well I'm just saying there's no point in making it anonymous if everyone knows each other anyways. It's a dumb gimmick that doesn't even work as intended.

>>4495
I didn't really know until it started going to the complete disregard for what I was saying, honestly.
After that, it became a pretty sure thing.
I've yet to meet anyone who can misunderstand and misrepresent me the way he can.
Especially with the way he constantly insists I'm not trying to clarify my given argument, despite me literally making every single post have a large chunk devoted to clarifying my argument.
Seriously, not a single person I have encountered does that last part.

But, yeah, I didn't go in the thread with any kind of realization. That came around about... I think maybe 94?
That's when I was suspicious at least. I guess it was sure afterwards, but, the insistence I prove something I never said is pretty clear.

>>4492
>But, I've always been someone who advocates enforcement of the letter of the law, over how you "feel" at a given time.

And that is one of the key points here, really.  To borrow D&D terms, our very alignments are in opposition.  You are lawful, you believe in the law, that is your being.  I am chaotic and I do not believe in the law.  Really, the only lawyer I know seemingly repeatedly displays how flawed the law can be, it's his job to fix it so people aren't harmed by the law.  If this were 1st edition D&D we would literally be speaking different languages (maybe that was second edition, don't quote me there).

But nerdy references aside, that's why we don't understand each other.  That's why we both assuredly say what we believe and then look at the other person like "What the fuck is that guy even on about?"  It's both simple and complex.  The simple part is that we disagree on almost everything we've said to each other and it's unlikely that will ever change.  The complex part would probably take a few high level philosophy books.

>When stuff is flat out ignored like it was, when I'm left holding the entirety of the strict hand

Like, it wasn't strict.  That was my point.  You weren't dealt with strictly.  You weren't fined or imprisoned or something, I just literally asked you to monitor if things you say might be interpreted in a snarky manner, because that's what just happened and it caused problems.  I deeply apologize that you felt I was too strict on you, but the only way I could've done less is if I had done nothing.  Like I can't even politely request things without my mod tag on there because I'd just show up as Flatulent Weasel or something and you'd wonder why you should listen to me at all.  The whole point of a warning is that it isn't very strict.

If it does keep happening, for either you or Stunning Hummingbird then yeah, we'll have to escalate the situation.  So far it hasn't, though!  So far I said "Hey don't do that." and then people stopped doing that, and I might go talk to him more just to communicate even better exactly what happened and what could go down better.

>If there really isn't any kind of possibility of change or potential fixings, I'd at least like to know.

There is a possibility of change.  I expect we'll be discussing change whenever people have time to do so, which may not be immediate.  Everyone but me tends to be busy, that's why I'm usually on here acting as the face.

Will that be enough change?  Will it be the change you want?  I don't know.  I can't guarantee we'll do something that'll make you want to stick around.  If you wanted to leave I'm not gonna be like "Yeah, wow, fuck that guy, glad he's gone." but it's not in me to try to to everything I can to get you to stay, either, especially when I know it'll make you, other users, or the staff stressed and unhappy, which is largely what today has been for everyone involved.

No one likes this, we all have different ideas for what went wrong, and it sucks.

>>4499
It's not really the "law" I believe in, as much as it is the concept of a just and fair system.
If you let rules sway and wave, it causes people to lose trust, breeds a chaotic attitude, and generally spreads animosity, in my experience.

>ike, it wasn't strict.  That was my point.  You weren't dealt with strictly.  You weren't fined or imprisoned or something, I just literally asked you to monitor if things you say might be interpreted in a snarky manner, because that's what just happened and it caused problems.
"Strict" in the sense, I mean, that I was treated with far more strength and set ruling, than he was.
I know I wasn't punished or anything, but, like I said, that hardly matters.
The problem was, I got an actual warning. He got half of one of mine, that was incredibly light-handed and not at all phrased strictly, and of course, like I said, ended up missing the entire problem I had raised.
>I deeply apologize that you felt I was too strict on you, but the only way I could've done less is if I had done nothing.
You know that's not my point.
My point is that you weren't strict enough on the other half.
If you warned me formerly for something that was "heavily discouraged" on its own, I'd completely understand.
Problem is when it's combined with this kind of dickish shitflinging being completely ignored, and the guy who did it getting the other half of an incredibly softly and politely worded reply that doesn't sound anything like a warning, but more as a request.

>If it does keep happening, for either you or Stunning Hummingbird then yeah, we'll have to escalate the situation.  So far it hasn't, though!  So far I said "Hey don't do that." and then people stopped doing that, and I might go talk to him more just to communicate even better exactly what happened and what could go down better.
So, you mean that it will be considered a proper warning against the conduct of attacking tone in that kind of rude and hostile manner, then? You kind of skipped that part, of me asking you about it, and, I really do need to know.

>There is a possibility of change.  I expect we'll be discussing change whenever people have time to do so, which may not be immediate.  Everyone but me tends to be busy, that's why I'm usually on here acting as the face.
Do you think maybe this time around for once you guys can actually reach out, maybe reply in this thread or somewhere else, or hell even directly to me over discord or something , when you do?
Because, I hear that a lot.
A lot of the time, that's what's said, before nothing actually ends up happening.

>I can't guarantee we'll do something that'll make you want to stick around.
It's not really a matter of "want". It's more of what's healthy for me.
Like I said, this literally burned the entire day here for me. A supposed-to-be rather special day, frankly, and one of my very few off days.
So, instead of having a good time with family, relaxing and getting out the stress of life, I've been here, getting more and more stressed out, and with some nasty sulk cropping up a time or two as a bout of depression hits.

I'm not asking you for some kind of "oh, you poor thing let me help you" response, here. I just need it cold and flat, frankly. If you can get me that much, at least, it'd go a long way. But, continuing this charade, it's not really feeling like anything's actually happening.
Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth keeping up. Or if maybe what I need to do is something extreme enough to force the issue.
In a way I guess I'm trying that. I don't know the specific rules on adding site-related items to threads or posts, but, I do intend to put that discord link in any major OP I make with pretty much the same message.
Who knows? maybe something will come of it.

>>4501
>>4499
I do want to throw in, though, since I feel like you kind of skipped it:
Your system that you're talking about, the "moderation" thing.
It's not working. The problem here has persisted as a result, and it's pretty well effecting others.
It might be high time you examine what you really want out of the ideal of "moderation". Whehter or not it's worth trying to moderate between two entities, if that moderation merely keeps them in constant aggressive conflict.

>>4501
>So, you mean that it will be considered a proper warning against the conduct of attacking tone in that kind of rude and hostile manner, then? You kind of skipped that part, of me asking you about it, and, I really do need to know.

What I was warning him (and half you) for was mostly derailing the thread.  The warning there was not for something you deemed as insulting or "dickish".  The conversation itself had shifted far away from the thread's topic and into a sort of meta discussion about the discussion, which isn't useful to a discussion board.

To be completely straight, I don't view "you are assuming malice" as some kind of insult against your character.  It's someone trying to tell you that they aren't malicious and didn't mean to start a conflict.  You can't take "I didn't mean to insult you" as an insult.  That's like...that's really bad.  Those were not ad hominem attacks meant to discredit your arguments, those were announcements that the other user was uncomfortable and didn't like where the conversation was going.

Which he also could've avoided by just not talking to you, which is my usual suggestion when that happens, but no one listens to that suggestion.  Though I think he was really trying to reach out and come to an accord there, too, not just dismiss you as someone not worth his time.  So my request, my hope, is that if that happens you don't start explaining why actually it wasn't snarky at all and they're wrong for suggesting you were wrong.  Which maybe is too heavy a request, I don't know.

>So, instead of having a good time with family, relaxing and getting out the stress of life, I've been here, getting more and more stressed out, and with some nasty sulk cropping up a time or two as a bout of depression hits.

If that was your day then I suggest you leave.  Again, not as whether I want you here or you want to be here, but because that's really unhealthy, like you said.  I absolutely cannot say that what happened won't happen again, that the situation won't come up and you wont' be compelled to post in a huge angry thread on /canterlot/.  I can say we're always trying to avoid it and it was a big enough deal today that we talked a lot about what we might change, but again I can't actually say it won't keep happening.  I can't say our changes will work.  And your cynicism isn't misplaced, I can't even say for sure that we'll make changes.

>>4502

Well it certainly failed today because I wasn't even there to moderate until things got out of hand, which is part of the problem of my idea of moderation, it usually requires an active presence.  The alternative to that, unfortunately, is banning half or more of our users for their repeated rules violations.  And then there's no website because everyone is gone.  We get to keep our serials with like four people in them because they don't interact with the rest of the site to have arguments.

goddamn, if this whole thing is unhealthy for you then just leave instead of being vindictive about any alleged "error" in the mod staff's judgement and try to drag them down with guilt trips and threats

>>4503
Misunderstanding, it seems. Should've checked this, before hand, but I guess I assumed you'd've actually read the thread.
>To be completely straight, I don't view "you are assuming malice" as some kind of insult against your character.  It's someone trying to tell you that they aren't malicious and didn't mean to start a conflict.  You can't take "I didn't mean to insult you" as an insult.  That's like...that's really bad.  Those were not ad hominem attacks meant to discredit your arguments, those were announcements that the other user was uncomfortable and didn't like where the conversation was going.
Not what happened.
Read the thread.
Context is vital to these things. You should know that most of all, given your position.

>>>/townhall/87
>"Again, you are assuming malice on the part of the child, which you cannot know. This thread is not for debating the ethics of putting down dogs."
It was not about him.
Claiming it was saying "I didn't mean to insult you" is simply wrong, given the context.
You should've read this.

>>4506
It's not one error.
IT's been a damn long time coming. Nearly if not a full year now.
I've been trying to get them to do this shit for a damn long while, and the only time anything was ever done was when Luna came back.
But that was pretty brief, as evidently the refusal to do anything about Manley didn't sit well with them.

>>4507
>Misunderstanding, it seems. Should've checked this, before hand, but I guess I assumed you'd've actually read the thread.

Sorry, I was pulling quotes from the image you posted in the other thread displaying the things you considered insults.  Could you point out again which things were insults?  Was it just the other stuff in the picture?

>You're being needlessly antagonistic.
>You're just being needlessly antagonistic for no reason.

By more than one account your first two posts were immediately hostile sounding.  Which I sort of get the first one, I'm big on dogs, too.  I can see why you'd be upset by dog euthanasia.  But no one was actually putting down dogs in the thread, you didn't need to call people out for their dog murder.

>You simply say "I never said that!" and then get beligerent.

This is close, this is closer.  Still a bit of a stretch to call it an insult, that's more just airing grievances, but like almost I could see it.

For comparison, yesterday I issued a ban to RS, wherein the quote was:

>Like the actual fact that you're a fucking moron.

Which is not only clearly insulting, like it's an aggressive offensive move with no way to misinterpret the intent, but it happened in a thread where I had already warned them.

But so we're clear on this, 'cause again there's a really huge gap in our communication, do you consider "Like the actual fact that you're a fucking moron." equivalent to "You're being needlessly antagonistic."?

>>4503
>which isn't useful to a discussion board.
Neither is hostile attacks like this.
It's not productive to say someone's being "needlessly antagonistic". It's not productive to say they're "assuming malice". It's not productive to say they're "getting belligerent".

If instead of responding to anything you said, I just claimed that you were being a cold hearted jerk, we wouldn't get anywhere.
And I don't think you'd appreciate it either.

>Which he also could've avoided by just not talking to you, which is my usual suggestion when that happens, but no one listens to that suggestion.
For what it's worth, I tried that.
Didn't pan out.
Instead I got shittalked behind my back, and when I pointed it out to staff, I ended up getting as much the trouble.
Not to mention it still persisted.

Funny, in this case, the person who started shit got in trouble, but in that case, the person who started shit got off scott free...
Weird how things like that work, isn't it?

> So my request, my hope, is that if that happens you don't start explaining why actually it wasn't snarky at all and they're wrong for suggesting you were wrong.  Which maybe is too heavy a request, I don't know.
That's how you address problems and misunderstandings. You explain why you said what you did.
What, do you think I should just accept whatever's said to me, instead?
So, if instead of responding to your arguments, I just said you're being unempathetic and cruel, you'd just accept that statement, and bend over?
You wouldn't bother clarifying?

>I can say we're always trying to avoid it and it was a big enough deal today that we talked a lot about what we might change, but again I can't actually say it won't keep happening.
I don't need a guarantee, I just need a chance to build something.
It doesn't need to never happen, as much as I need some kind of solution sought for.
Because I've got the stability to last for a bit with it, at least. Maybe less stability more stubbornness, anyway. I can take gradual steps, but, I need actual movement.
I can't keep with this wishywashy crap where you guys don't even bother to try to reach out and help me, and seem to ignore everything the moment I stop screaming on /canterlot/ about it.

I'm going to try to at least leave off for tomorrow, if nothing else. Dunno if it's really worth doing given it's 3AM here, but, fuck it. It's the last day I had and I wanted to go to the naval aviation museum.
If you can at least give me an idea if anything's actually being done then, I'd be grateful.

>>4509
>Sorry, I was pulling quotes from the image you posted in the other thread displaying the things you considered insults.  Could you point out again which things were insults?  Was it just the other stuff in the picture?
>>4507
>>>/townhall/87
>"Again, you are assuming malice on the part of the child, which you cannot know. This thread is not for debating the ethics of putting down dogs."

At least for that one. Otherwise, I'd point to  >>>/townhall/100, where I had linked every one.
First one was >>>/townhall/85
>"You're being needlessly antagonistic."
2nd was >>>/townhall/87
>"Again, you are assuming malice on the part of the child, which you cannot know. "
3rd was >>>/townhall/93
>"You are saying that all dog attacks are the fault of the victim. Unless you can prove that, you can't keep saying that.
>Again, you're not actually debating the OP topic. You're just being needlessly antagonistic for no reason."
Last was >>>/townhall/97
>"In both instances, you claim it was the victim's (the "dick kid") fault for antagonizing the dog. You ignored other situations where the dog might be at fault, or neither party is at fault. Both of those things are possibilities. You are right, you never directly argue those things NEVER happen. But when you argue only for one situation and ignore the other possible explanations, then you make it appear as if you are saying only the situation you are arguing ever happens. Espeically when the statement is made in declarative fashion. In >>83 (You) you create a hypothetical scenario where "the kid was prodding the thing" and "behaving like a dick". A hypothetical situation with very specific circumstances. When you do not indicate that your hypothetical ONLY applies to itself and not all dog attacks, then it makes it seem like your arguing that your hypothetical is typical for all dog attacks. Your argument is not clear, and instead of clarifying, you simple say "I never said that!" and get belligerent. That is bad debate form. You should never, in a debate, say someone has misinterpreted your stance and then not clarify your stance. You should always do both. "

You were the guy who ended up warning us in that thread, right?
I had expected you must've read the context involved.

>By more than one account your first two posts were immediately hostile sounding.  Which I sort of get the first one, I'm big on dogs, too.  I can see why you'd be upset by dog euthanasia.  But no one was actually putting down dogs in the thread, you didn't need to call people out for their dog murder.
It wasn't even about dog murder. It was a lighthearted comment in relation to >>>/townhall/71
>"That's because the horse won't be able to heal from that injury the same way a human can. That's not an apt comparison."
Saying that, since that's the rationale against >>>/townhall/70 's
>"If a horse breaks a leg, it gets shot. Why don't we turn the emergency room into an execution chamber?"
Statement. Which, by the way, is also pretty light-hearted and what I'd call "sarcastic" or "smarmy", if my reply was.
'Course, you didn't give him flak, because it didn't make a huge thing.
Unfortunately it's hard to predict what'll set people off.
Anyway; I had made the reply >>>/townhall/84
>"So, we should shoot people who end up disabled. Makes sense to me."
in a light hearted sort of way in the same vien as Helpful Porpoise [70] using the argument used a moment ago.
It was not intended in a hostile manner, it wasn't even something I really care about. I mean, if the horse can't walk, being that it's a horse, it pretty well fucks up the horse, so I think it's rather reasonable to kill horses, honestly.

Again, though, I have to ask: Did you actually read the thread before you made a judgement?
Because you're really giving me the feeling you didn't.

>This is close, this is closer.  Still a bit of a stretch to call it an insult, that's more just airing grievances, but like almost I could see it.
In a seriously unproductive way.
Again, should I just start saying you're being unempathetic and dismissive?
Would you be inclined to just bend over backwards to such a statement?
Would you not at all take issue with such a statement? Isn't it thoroughly uncharitable, and unproductive?

>But so we're clear on this, 'cause again there's a really huge gap in our communication, do you consider "Like the actual fact that you're a fucking moron." equivalent to "You're being needlessly antagonistic."?
No. It's a fair step down, but both are insulting.
The difference'd be the level step.
Though funny enough there's a lot of circumstance around RS. It's not like his statement was out of nowhere. Manley was insulting him throughout that thread, and it's a great example of why I think this is a double standard. Because you didn't ban him, despite his constant hostile assertions about RS.

Again, another straw that piled up. This stuff's not out of nowhere. I don't accuse you guys of some kind of bias from one single thread. This has been going on for a long time.

>>4509
Since you brought it up, though, let's talk about that.
Do you genuinely consider the conduct that Manley engaged in, within that thread, not to be hostile, insulting, and disruptive?
Do you think a statement like >>>/pony/954936
>"Guys, he literally said "anything that doesn't agree with what I already think is fake." I don't think he's going to be swayed by facts.:"
is not something that would cause some aggression?
Do you think, incidentally, that it was productive for a member of staff to entertain such a clearly insulting statement?
>>>/pony/954937
>"People are rarely, if ever, swayed by facts.  It's just not a good strategy for convincing people of something."
Do you think that Manley's continual lies, and yes when it comes to saying "he literally said" when it literally wasn't something he said is, in fact, a lie, contributed to the situation?
Do you think that his insistence that RS was "afraid of black people", again another thoroughly insulting item, had anything to do with it?

I have to ask, why do you give such consideration to one set of circumstances, because one person made a mild slipup, yet you see fit to stretch such a thread on and on without a single warning?

You wonder why I see a major bias at play. This is why.
I do not believe you when you say you "seek to be fair", as you put it.
The standard does not persist. Sometimes it applies, sometimes it doesn't. Yet always, seemingly in one particular direction.

Or am I to presume it's okay to say the kind of shit he did, make up the kinds of things he did?
Shall I say "Manley literally said he wants kill the disabled", for example? Or would that not obviously be unacceptable.

>>4511
>Did you actually read the thread before you made a judgement?

I did.  And I still have it open on my second monitor, so I keep reading portions of it occasionally to try to confirm what you're talking about.

>It wasn't even about dog murder. It was a lighthearted comment in relation to

Your first two posts.  Your first post included:

>And, honestly, to be quite frank, it's bullshit that you kill a dog who happens to bite an idiot kid.  That kid was prodding the thing, behaving like a dick. It's not the dog's fault your kid's a retard.

That is some incredibly hostile language.  It was right above your second post and definitely set the tone for your interactions throughout the thread.  Remember, you were anonymous, so we didn't see Noonim in that post.  We saw someone we've never met before and had no assumptions about.  These statements were the very first thing we saw of "you".

I don't think that kind of hostility is inhrenetly rule break, it wasn't quite over the line.  It didn't seem like it belonged there, but it wasn't too crazy, and again, I also have a soft spot for dogs.  But the follow up post had now had its tone set by this post, which while not rule breaking was not really nice which might be why people interpreted your next post differently than you intended.

And even comparing your second post to Helpful Porpoise's from the beginning of the thread, and they are comparable, there's some key differences.  Helpful Porpoise does lightheartedly attempt to turn the logic of the OP around, but he ends his post with a question, which is about as non-hostile as you can get and absolutely perfect for a debate environment.  Your post still called out the same logic for the same reasons, but it didn't present it as a question, it essentially just called the logic stupid.

So there's the full grammatical breakdown from what I saw, since we seem to be very interested in grammar.

>The difference'd be the level step.

The difference is very relevant to me, because in my eyes it's a huge difference.  One is flatly against the rules, and one is mostly okay with the acknowledgement that at least one person is unhappy about it.

>>4512
>Do you genuinely consider the conduct that Manley engaged in, within that thread, not to be hostile, insulting, and disruptive?

In reverse order:  Disruptive?  No.  There was nothing to disrupt, that activity was the whole thread.  Insulting?  I could see how someone could be insulted, but I don't think any of it could actually be considered an insult.  Hostile?  Sure.  Just to take the most immediate quote:

>Guys, he literally said "anything that doesn't agree with what I already think is fake." I don't think he's going to be swayed by facts.

Yeah, that's a pretty hostile post.  But then, that wasn't unprompted, either.  Most of the thread had been pretty hostile.  Posters who weren't hostile were an exception.  I had considered locking the thread several times, but always ultimately decided against it because that also tends to really upset people.  It's really a no-win scenario.

Also, this wasn't on the /townhall/ board, where we're specifically trying to be more heavy handed in our moderating.  The knife thread probably should've just been moved to /townhall/ where such moderation could be applied to a guaranteed heated debate, but it wasn't even in the navigation bar yet and I wasn't sure how it worked.  Either way, anything in the knife thread isn't really subject to the same scrutiny.

Finally, if we're talking the inciting post...

>If all the police are horrible racist (even the ones from minority communities) murderers that go around in Abrams tanks and jets trying to meet an unwritten quota of killing people then obviously the solution isn't to ban guns and only rely on them to solve problems.

Nothing Manley said was hostile up until this post happened, which actually had an eye roll image attached to it to clear up any confusion, unlike your post in /townhall/ which could be argued to be in good faith.  Even in the face of another person who was so hostile he was wishing death on half the thread and I had to delete his posts and repeatedly ban him because he was evading, Manley and others shrugged it off.  The hostility of this post I would consider unprompted and open to scrutiny, it was the poison in the well, so to speak.  Hostile responses to this post I would consider human, if still frowned upon.

>and yes when it comes to saying "he literally said" when it literally wasn't something

Unfortunately they changed the definition of literally to mean "mostly kinda", which isn't ideal but it makes his statement correct.  RS really did just respond to essentialy if not literally say that views he hears from sources that do not agree with his own are "DNC shills".  Manley paraphrased, but he didn't pull that out of nowhere. So that's more grammar out of the way

>Do you think that Manley's continual lies, and yes when it comes to saying "he literally said" when it literally wasn't something he said is, in fact, a lie, contributed to the situation?
>Do you think that his insistence that RS was "afraid of black people", again another thoroughly insulting item, had anything to do with it?

For starters, neither of those happened before RS came into the thread, clearly already upset in a targeted fashion.  And second, no, I don't think suggesting someone is "afraid of black people" is an insult.  It doesn't pass my threshold for insult.  Which isn't to say that my threshold is calling people retarded and nothing else hits that level.  But if one's actions could imply that you're afraid of something and the response is "I think you're just afraid of something" then it's unequestionably below my threshold for an insult.

>yet you see fit to stretch such a thread on and on without a single warning?

I gave softer warnings to two people I didn't expect to do anything too extreme.  And then they didn't do anything too extreme for hours.  Finally it hit a point past what I thought was acceptable, one guy got a short ban, the thread died, and then the guy who was banned was back and posting again later that evening.

For as messy as that thread was, I don't necessarily consider it a failure.  Was there some mod bias?  Yeah.  I tried to give RS the benefit of the doubt for the whole thread, because I like RS.  Eventually he pushed it too far.  And honestly, if it weren't for that one last post I probably would've let them keep going.  Hostility or no, it's not like I don't think RS had a fair opinion on the situation, he was ultimately just trying to get his point accross.  But no matter how inappropriately set you think my lines are, I do have them, and the line was crossed.

>>4512

Also, I'm going to bed.  And you should also go to bed, if you haven't already.  It's like 5am here.  Not that I have anything to do tomorrow, I'm unemployed and can barely walk anyway.  But you have stuff you wanted to do and none of this is actually important.

>>4513
>Your first two posts.
The item in which had received the accusation of antagonism was 84. It was literally directly in response to 84.
Also... This kind of throws a wrench in the whole "this is over the smarm in 84" narrative you guys were using a bit ago, doesn't it?

I could see what you're getting at, though, and I think as a result, if you had warned me for that post, I could understand where you're coming from.
And, ultimately, as a result, I can see your rationalization as a result. Though it wasn't really connected, outside of perception. I've got a strange thing were I can rather disconnect posts made from one another. It's somewhat weird, but, yeah, they're a tad fire and forget.

>And even comparing your second post to Helpful Porpoise's from the beginning of the thread, and they are comparable, there's some key differences.  Helpful Porpoise does lightheartedly attempt to turn the logic of the OP around, but he ends his post with a question, which is about as non-hostile as you can get and absolutely perfect for a debate environment.
Even such a sarcastic and hyperbolic suggestion?
I don't know if I buy that.
Throwing a "makes sense to me", I do not think, is "calling the logic stupid" as you put it, and, I really don't see it as any more smarmy, sarcastic, or otherwise hostile, than Porpoise's post.
But, I guess this is why it's massively subjective. And probably why the rule is a "might result in warning", "strongly discouraged" thing, instead of a flat "do not do this".

>One is flatly against the rules, and one is mostly okay with the acknowledgement that at least one person is unhappy about it.
Is that really so?
Then I guess I better start doing that to everyone I see.
Might as well start with you:
You're just being generally heartless and cold about things.
Real productive, right? Not at all something insulting or harmful, and it's totally something we should allow on the site.

I do genuinely mean this when I say I will take what you have said here, and I will try to cause as much trouble as I physically can with this.
If you're going to say it's okay, I'm damn well going to abuse it to the point where you have to stop it. Because I sure as fuck don't think it's acceptable. That's some major dickishness that I know you wouldn't appreciate to you.

>>4513
>Nothing Manley said was hostile up until this post happened, which actually had an eye roll image attached to it to clear up any confusion, unlike your post in /townhall/ which could be argued to be in good faith.
I don't know about that.
I kept him filtered for exactly this type of shit, but, he starts straight off the back with some major strawmanning and rather hostile assumptions of people.
>>>/pony/954479
>When the number of mass knifings a year matches the number of mass shootings, then we'll talk about knife control. Otherwise this is just a diversion by people who don't want to address that the ease of access to guns is a problem in this country while children are getting shot.
>>>/pony/954509
>Yeah because guns are harder to get in the UK. That doesn't prove your point. Also prove it. What problem will it create? Less kids getting shot?
>>>/pony/954509
>That's only if there is a complete ban on all guns. That's not what the majority of people asking for gun control want. It's just become a strawman argument to avoid discussing the topic.
>Also, keep in mind, I'm not white. My right to a carry a fire-arm is already infringed because of the corrupt police system. Doing so poses a real threat on my life

And these are literally his first posts.
I guess since you seem to be rather anti-gun yourself, you're inclined to agree with them. But I sure don't. They represent someone who, since I'm apparently allowed to say this now, is being an asshole, actively strawmanning the conversation the whole way through.
Again, I don't talk to him on these kinds of things, for exactly this reason.
He will never honestly represent his opposition. I'm convinced he's incapable of it.

>
Unfortunately they changed the definition of literally to mean "mostly kinda", which isn't ideal but it makes his statement correct.  RS really did just respond to essentialy if not literally say that views he hears from sources that do not agree with his own are "DNC shills".  Manley paraphrased, but he didn't pull that out of nowhere. So that's more grammar out of the way
I really think that's a nasty strawman of his arguments.
Again, I think your sharp political bias on the particular subject influences heavily your opinion here.

But, fine. If that's okay, I'm going to be spreading around that Manley literally said "we should kill the disabled", deal?

>And second, no, I don't think suggesting someone is "afraid of black people" is an insult.  It doesn't pass my threshold for insult.  
Really?
Weird.
I find being callled a racist one of the biggest insults around.
But, okay. Great. We found another item I am going to spread around.

>ostility or no, it's not like I don't think RS had a fair opinion on the situation, he was ultimately just trying to get his point accross.  But no matter how inappropriately set you think my lines are, I do have them, and the line was crossed.
Yeah, problem is you never seem to give a damn about the line for anyone else

>>4514
Probably for the best, but, honestly, given your statemnets here, there's such a massive line at hand, that I do not believe we agree on the standards we should hold people to.

I will say, I will genuinely tomorrow or possibly the day after be engaging in the behavior that you've okayed here in this thread, and I do vow that I will stir as much trouble as I physically can with it, until such a time as you actually take a stand against this.
i will do the exact kind of dishonest argumentation, I will strawman, I will lie, I will misrepresent, I will assume the worst, until you have to do something .Because this shit should not be allowed.
And so help me, either I will get myself permanently kicked from this place or I will get this shit stopped.
Because god knows I'm sick of dealing with it

>>4515
>>4516
Well, actually, I'll rephrase:

I'll wait until someone else responds, clarifying that what you say is accurate, and is okay, and then I'll do the shit you're talking about.

If it's okay by the rules, then it's okay by the rules, and the massive pile of disruption I will cause is fine.
Hell, I'll start bothering Manley with it.
I know he hates the shit as much as I do, he just never rationalizes how it effects others.
But I can be pretty certain if I start strawmanning his arguments like that, misquoting him, misrepresenting him, lying about him, accusing him of all kinds of mallice, he'll get pissy. And, God as my witness, I will stretch every one of those fights as far as I can possibly do.
Because, fuck that noise.
This shit should not stand, and so, if because it's him doing it, nothing gets fixed, then I am damn well going to force a fix by my own hands or get booted trying. Because at least that's something I can do.



I will say this: Thanks.
You gave me a functionality that results in either my effective removal from this place, or an absolute change that solves this particular problem.
That's seriously something I can use.
And, hell, it's more in my personality. I've always been a spiteful sort, I kind of pride the concept honestly.
So, if scraping the edge that keeps him around is what I have to do, in order to get rid of that edge, then great. That's perfect. Either the edge disappears or I do. Either way, my crisis is solved.
It's also something I can actually sleep on without the whole antsy flip-flopping, since I've got to wait for someone else anyway.
Seriously, it's thoroughly perfect. Genuinely, thanks for being flat and honest here, this is a lifesaver.

...Or maybe we've both gone too long in a thoroughly emotionally draining thread, far too late at night, and are behaving irrationally...
Possibly.
I'll just leave it for tomorrow. See if I've completely snapped then, or whatever.

>>4517
Okay. My input.

If I were the admin I would ban this person immediately for this post alone.

You don't get to pick which mods need to babysit you, you don't get to decide which rules apply to you, and you don't get to use the entire community as your personal toilet because you feel entitled to.

>>4519
Going off of that one, probably warranted, honestly. I was very tired. As I think was Mondo, given that he had actually adressed the particular items he was then saying are perfectly acceptable and okay by the rules.

Though I do stand by the idea that if the stuff's going to be allowed, I'll end up using it.
I know it'll cause fights and conflicts, and, if it's not with Manley, they might just actually do something.

>>4513
>which actually had an eye roll image attached to it to clear up any confusion,

It's not an eyeroll picture though, it's a look of concern. Literally if you go to derpibooru and search for Silverstream and eyeroll that picture doesn't come up. I had been keeping an eye on the thread because I knew it would be turned into the typical Manley centered anti/pro gun shit show but then Manley turned it into a cop bashing circlejerk, and I'm pretty sure I've explained to you in the past why something like that irks me. But I was merely annoyed, because it's Manley, and I've stopped taking anything he has to say about anything seriously. So I had no hostile intent when I made my first post, as he was not who I intended to engage with when I made my post, as I have taken a vow to try and ignore him because of his behavior unless he really gets on my nerves.

When I made my first post it was a genuine question regarding the concept of the conflict of ideas in regards to those wanting to ban guns, yet hate the police even though they would be needed more to fill the gap left behind by taking away peoples' right to self defense.

>Eventually he pushed it too far.  And honestly, if it weren't for that one last post I probably would've let them keep going.

That's because even my patience has limits and when I saw that Manley was falling back to his usual debate tactics of plugging his ears and going "lalalala" to any counter points to his own, and coupled with his increasingly uncivil behavior, I had had enough. I knew I would get banned but I didn't care because 1.If he ws allowed to get away with uncivil behavior why should I care about being civil myself, and 2. I figured well maybe if this is what it takes, that if the mod that got the report on my post did an investigation and saw why I said what I said, to get someone to take a look at his behavior and tell him to cut it out, I was willing to take that bullet. Because like Noonim has said in this thread and others he's made, this is a pattern of behavior that he engages in with more than one person, Noonim is just the one willing to constantly complain about it.

>>4521
Honestly, I'm shocked you lasted that long.
Like I pointed out, his arguments were mainly strawmans and rude characterizations of the oppositions with pretty much the worst possible assumptions of anyone who disagrees.
I probably'd've lost my temper far earlier. But, like I said, that's why I ended up filtering him out.

Noomin

I think I have Thursday and Friday off if you're still interested.

>>4523
Sadly, I work those days.
I'm usually off Mondays, Tuesdays, and Saturdays. But, Saturdays are my DnD game night, so, I might not be available then. Depends. My GM is flaky, anyway, and so for the past few weeks, we haven't had anything going then.

Unfortunately, I work the late shift, so, I'll be out until pretty much midnight. Though if you want to do it then, I guess I can.
Doing it before work'd be hard, since I usually have to get ready at around two thirty-ish.

I'm definitely interested, though, and will make time wherever I can for it.

>>4524
I get off early on Saturday (3 pm), and I won't know my schedule for next week until then. I don't know what your time zone is, but it's 10pm for me right now.

>>4525
Also I was going to say I'm usually ok to go after I get off work, and I usually get a couple morning shifts a week. Sometimes they even give me a 4 am shift and I'm off at like 1.

>>4525
>>4526
It's 12 right now for me. So, I think after work'd probably not work, on my side. Seems I start work right when you get back, too.

But if you get off early on Saturday, and that's only around 5pm I think for me, that'd do okay.
I'll see if I can't hit up my GM to find out if there's a game night then, and let you know. Otherwise, I guess we'd have to wait until next week.

>>4527
K. I'll just keep checking back then.

>>4529
If you prefer, you can also hit me up on Discord, at The River Acis#1230

>>4530
>>4530
Says it's not working

Mine's Drowy#6788

>>4531
I think it's the spaces. For some reason, any spaced user name gives a bit of trouble.
Sent the thingy though.