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
>>37And you definitely can, Artee.
>>38If 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.41
>>39Makes 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.43
>>39I 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.45
File: 1544910335947.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
>>41it'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.
>>43Just be civil, and things will be okay.
>>44>>42Totally 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
>>45Isn'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.50
>>45Yeah, 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
>>50My 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.59
>>57But 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.
>>58But, 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.61
>>60Well, 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.65
>>62My 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.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
>>68No, people care too much. Which caused all this.
No.74
>>67>>68You 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>>68As 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
>>73Same. 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
>>74sorry, 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.
>>75I 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.
>>71the 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
>>69well 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.81
File: 1545010530838.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>80there's no list, sailboat. there's the spirit of the rule.
No.82
>>12Going 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
>>82i 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.85
File: 1545523918333.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>84If 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.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
>>83Incivility 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.
>>85My 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.
