With the revelations in these past couple days, it's become quite clear that the current /mlpol/ policy page is out of date and misleading, even intentionally so.
The most misleading statements is in the FAQ:
>What staff has administrative access to the server, and why?
>Atlas: super sexy owner of mlpol.net former /pol/lack, access because yes
This statement is untrue and misleading. Atlas is not the owner of /mlpol/ and has not been for some time now. This really should have been announced prior to the happening, but that's a separate discussion.
It is not acceptable to leave misleading information about the boards page, because it makes adequate transparency and community input impossible, so it really needs to be fixed as soon as reasonably possible. However, changing it is a very serious issue that warrants community discussion on the matter, so let's talk about what the policy board says, what anyone thinks it should say, and how it should be stated.
For starters, the topic above also relates to the staff rules, particularly rules #2:
>2. Staff will maintain a level of transparency with the community
This rule seemed clear enough when it was written, but now it seems as though it lacks specificity and is open to very liberal interpretation. The definition of transparency is easy enough to understand, but the wording "a level of transparency" is evidently vaguer than it seemed. According to recent revelations, informing the community about a change in ownership was not considered to be within that level of transparency, and leaving blatantly untrue statements on the policy page was deemed to be acceptable under said policy.
So the questions are is:
>What exactly is the staff's standard of transparency in regards to what the board deserves to know?
>What kinds of information are considered to be open to the community?
>How is the standard of transparency maintained and enforced, and what is the decision making process for revealing something or leaving it secret?
>What members of staff are responsible/accountable for making sure that the operations and issues concerning /mlpol/'s structure and community are disclosed to the public?
>On what basis is the community able to confidently trust that the staff is being honest and transparent with them, and how are users able to confirm this other than taking the policy page at face value?
>Does the /mlpol/ staff consider it necessary to inform the community about big changes in staffing, policy, ownership of the board or operations before they occur, or only after the matter?
>In the event that it occurs, do the staff have any policies concerning "sensitive" information deemed too risky to expose? (perhaps things such as personal information and doxxable data)
In addition, rule #2 outlines committments to the community made by the staff, but reveal very, very little about how the staff make decisions amongst themselves, how the staff is managed, and most importantly, how the staff policies are enforced. The Staff policy does mention some things thing in regards to rules are enforced and says in four places that staff found to break the rules face "punitive measures" up to immediate dismissal. Now, several of those lines are as-written described as zero-tolerance policies, but that is also questionable, because although rule #1 #3 and #4 serious and clear enough to call for those measures, rule #2 is, apparently, vague enough to be open to interpretation and has even be observably broken and disregarded either through premeditated intent or negligence before. Earlier discussions brought up the issue that zero tolerance policies might put persons on the defensive and potentially harm transparency. There are surely degrees of accountability between doing nothing and outright expulsion, but those degrees are not defined anywhere.
So, questions arise from that:
>How exactly does the /mlpol/ staff discipline itself?
>Are there degrees by which staff consider and account for alleged misconduct?
>Who is/are the final arbiter(s) for considering if/when actions by the staff violate the letter or spirit of the rules?
>How can the users of the board confidently trust that staff are accountable for inappropriate behavior?
>How do the staff con
The complications with rule #2 also proppose issues with rule #3:
>3. Staff will take all community suggestions into account
>As this is a community site and not a top-down dictatorship like some other sites user input is very important
Rule #3 is in essence contingent on the proper application of rule #2, because transparency is necessary for healthy site user input, and site user input is indeed very, very, very important because it distinguishes /mlpol/ from other chans where talking this stuff on /qa/ for weeks on end doesn't actually produce any long-term results. The community cannot voice it's opinions on matters if they are not punctually made aware of them, let alone if the policy page misleads them.
So, questions arise from that:
>Aside from merely using the board, how are the staff able to ensure that their decisions represent the will of the community?
>How, and through what mediums, does the staff make sure that community considerations are taken into account and fascilitate user input?
>On what matters is community consideration deemed to be necessary in decision making?
>How often does the staff seek out direct user input on matters of any kind?
14 replies and 6 files omitted.
User rules #1 and #2 used be be "DO NOT TALK ABOUT /MLPOL/" listed twice. They changed it a few years back.
The policy page looks kind of awkward with them missing though. Skipping rule 10 wasfine because it's supposed to be an unwritten rule.
Tbh, the "no generals" rule could use some revision or clarification of what a "general" really is. /mlpol/, due to its slow nature and absurdly high bump limit (why is it so high, btw?), has a lot of threads that have lasted for months or even years, and series of threads that have lasted even longer.
Generals became cancerous in some regards on /mlp/ and /pol/, but it looks like we've got several that fit the definition but lack the name.
/sp/ was the first to be excepted, when a number of contributors were banned on /pol/. Anonfilly came later after being entirely banned on /mlp/. It has since and recently been welcomed back on 4chan but there are many fillies who resent how they were treated over there and are always welcome to lewd the filly here.
/mlh/ is a harmless funposting thread that due to that very high bump limit, will not consume the catalog. Also I think there was some drama to do with a 4chan jannie. Anyway, they're fine, as are the other more obscure ones.
The general consensus has been that the generals - in name or not - are not generals in the cancerous /mlp/ general sense, but that these generals are more generally generals.
>>5881>but that these generals are more generally generals
That doesn't make any sense at all, but somehow I think I understand what you mean.
Anyway, the point is that the no generals rule might actually be a bit misconstrued. There are more generals than what you mentioned, like the 2-year old art thread, the writefag circle, the garbage can, the random news thread, the gif thread, the music thread, the "Jewish containment thread" and the various RP threads; all of those could be considered generals. Perhaps the long-term bumping of threads is a product of the "check the catalog first" rule, combined with the absurdly high bump limit, but we definitely have generals on /mlpol/.
The real question is whether or not we really disliked generals in the first place, or just wanted to dissassiate from the cancerous generals of /mlp/ and /pol/? The rule was written on the 4chan board, in the midst of sudden liberation from the trifles of the other two boards, and a high-speed explosion of content; in those two golden days, threads were being made every minute as other threads slid, but the board was still comfy. Of course, mlpol.net is pretty different from /mlpol/ in terms of speed and number of users, so it's questionable if that rule should remain when it seems as though the board users don't really care about it.
It's a hot take though, there were days of debate about whether or not /sg/ should have been given an exeption, and /filly/ had some drama when it was introduced, but whether or not those same distinctions apply to various other threads currently and potentially on the board is worth questioning.
Since the mainboard thread has been bu.plocked, I'll just post this here and see what happens.
>No staff member shall use the information he obtains in his position on staff for personal gain, lulz, or to harass/humiliate a user or other staff members
>The information of the users is sacred and shall not be used outside of needs by administration, we don't even have access to IP addresses from the users, we keep no logs, not even error logs, outside of what the website provides us directly.
>Using information for any purpose, including selling to others, data mining for malicious purposes, or for any reason are grounds for immediate removal from staff position, permanent banning from the site, and if the offense is serious enough, main staff will cooperate with law enforcement
>>5882>no generals rule
Pitching in here, a lot of the rules we have here were written when we were still on 4chan and are a result of the assumption that the mods and jannies wouldn't enforce any kind of quality control on the board, as they do. They were written the way they were to cement etiquette for the board culture. While generals are cancerous, the rule was specifically meant to avoid the situation that you see on /mlp/, where 80% of the board is generals and get almost no content at all. They purely exist to be bumped. We don't generally have that problem here outside of a couple threads (OiE and its offshoot thread) because we don't have the activity or shitposting that results in fast thread cycling, and thus bumping. So I've always assumed that the no generals rule on this site would be enforced to prevent bump generals.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk, here's a horse.