I've been a proud member of this community for nearly four years, but I've come to realize that I know next to nothing about how the site is run, or who really runs it.
Let's have a general topic thread about this:
How many active mods are there on the /mlpol/ staff?
Who has administrative access to the /mlpol/ server? (the policy page is outdated; it mentions Fallenpinapple, and nobody has heard from him in years)
How exactly does /mlpol/ vet its staff members, and what process did the current staff go through to get there?
What powers and privileges to /mlpol/ staffers have over the workings of the site?
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
File (): 339B78099F6CDFFB47FF7D41785B2A26-19649.jpg (19.2 KB, 337x288, 1937082.jpeg)
124 replies and 27 files omitted.
>>5823
I'll save my hardcore masturbation over federated social media and just say that there are alternatives to the social platforms you barely tolerate, and if you have someone skilled to manage your instance, you'll even find you like them
I'll save my hardcore masturbation over federated social media and just say that there are alternatives to the social platforms you barely tolerate, and if you have someone skilled to manage your instance, you'll even find you like them
>>5816
>on what basis do the past and current staff vet new ones into the system?
Frankly it's a little disorganized these days. To be even more frank it's always been disorganized; it's just gotten to be more so lately. We've lost most of the original mods we had way back when, but we've had the same basic core group for several years now and we haven't really felt the need to do much hiring as we're all pretty much used to each other and know each other. If anything, we probably have more staff than we really need. We did take on a new guy recently, AngryMob. Usually the vetting process involves a voice interview on Discord, but the problem is that everyone has to be available at the same time, which has gotten harder and harder to coordinate. AngryMob was actually interviewed when I was not present. As far as what we vet people on, again there isn't a set battery of questions, we mostly just talk to them, ask them about their history with the site, political views, favorite pony, and so forth, and if they feel like a good fit we usually try them out.
>How do the staff ensure that the climatev remains transparent and consistent with the values of the /mlpol/ community?
Some of the concerns that have been brought up about transparency are reasonable, and I can understand people's concerns. A lot of drama goes on behind the scenes with staff that has often led to people being fired, ragequitting, regular quitting, being promoted and/or demoted, and most of the time we don't announce anything about it because it doesn't really have any practical effect on site operations and frankly most of it isn't that interesting. Probably 95% of the shit that staff fight about is interpersonal drama that has nothing to do with the site.
The site being transferred from Atlas to Pupper for example was, in retrospect, probably something we ought to have made an announcement or something about, but it really was a fairly mundane event. We can certainly try to be more transparent about things like that in the future, if people are concerned, but it basically was just a handoff from one person to another within the same team, not some huge transfer of ownership like moot selling 4chan to hiro. It was basically just transferring the server from Atlas, who founded the site, to Pupper, who wrote the bulk of its code and already had admin credentials and was therefore the sensible choice.
>From what I've gathered, I think there's an element of seniority involved, but I don't really know if that's the case...
Staff roles were fairly rigid in the early days, we had the Titan role which was held by Atlas, an Admin role I think, a Head Moderator role that was held by Sapphire Star and then Lotus I think, then a Moderator role and a Janitor/Scruffy role. At this point, though, the roles still exist but are basically meaningless. Everyone on staff has the same powers as far as the site code is concerned, with the only significant exception being Pupper, because he has access to the actual server. There have been some minor shuffles and squabbles over who technically has what title, but in practical terms we're all more or less equal and there's not much of an internal chain of command. I actually have completely lost track over what my "role" is at this point and to be perfectly honest I don't give a shit; my role in the Discord server has been "Shitposter General" since time immemorial so that's how I think of myself. Mostly I just mod the board and weigh in if I have an opinion on something that is being discussed.
>>5818
The policy page has not been updated in years, and you're right; it probably should be changed and it probably should be a community decision. That can certainly all be discussed.
>on what basis do the past and current staff vet new ones into the system?
Frankly it's a little disorganized these days. To be even more frank it's always been disorganized; it's just gotten to be more so lately. We've lost most of the original mods we had way back when, but we've had the same basic core group for several years now and we haven't really felt the need to do much hiring as we're all pretty much used to each other and know each other. If anything, we probably have more staff than we really need. We did take on a new guy recently, AngryMob. Usually the vetting process involves a voice interview on Discord, but the problem is that everyone has to be available at the same time, which has gotten harder and harder to coordinate. AngryMob was actually interviewed when I was not present. As far as what we vet people on, again there isn't a set battery of questions, we mostly just talk to them, ask them about their history with the site, political views, favorite pony, and so forth, and if they feel like a good fit we usually try them out.
>How do the staff ensure that the climatev remains transparent and consistent with the values of the /mlpol/ community?
Some of the concerns that have been brought up about transparency are reasonable, and I can understand people's concerns. A lot of drama goes on behind the scenes with staff that has often led to people being fired, ragequitting, regular quitting, being promoted and/or demoted, and most of the time we don't announce anything about it because it doesn't really have any practical effect on site operations and frankly most of it isn't that interesting. Probably 95% of the shit that staff fight about is interpersonal drama that has nothing to do with the site.
The site being transferred from Atlas to Pupper for example was, in retrospect, probably something we ought to have made an announcement or something about, but it really was a fairly mundane event. We can certainly try to be more transparent about things like that in the future, if people are concerned, but it basically was just a handoff from one person to another within the same team, not some huge transfer of ownership like moot selling 4chan to hiro. It was basically just transferring the server from Atlas, who founded the site, to Pupper, who wrote the bulk of its code and already had admin credentials and was therefore the sensible choice.
>From what I've gathered, I think there's an element of seniority involved, but I don't really know if that's the case...
Staff roles were fairly rigid in the early days, we had the Titan role which was held by Atlas, an Admin role I think, a Head Moderator role that was held by Sapphire Star and then Lotus I think, then a Moderator role and a Janitor/Scruffy role. At this point, though, the roles still exist but are basically meaningless. Everyone on staff has the same powers as far as the site code is concerned, with the only significant exception being Pupper, because he has access to the actual server. There have been some minor shuffles and squabbles over who technically has what title, but in practical terms we're all more or less equal and there's not much of an internal chain of command. I actually have completely lost track over what my "role" is at this point and to be perfectly honest I don't give a shit; my role in the Discord server has been "Shitposter General" since time immemorial so that's how I think of myself. Mostly I just mod the board and weigh in if I have an opinion on something that is being discussed.
>>5818
The policy page has not been updated in years, and you're right; it probably should be changed and it probably should be a community decision. That can certainly all be discussed.
>>5825
>Staff roles were fairly rigid in the early days, we had the Titan role which was held by Atlas, an Admin role I think, a Head Moderator role that was held by Sapphire Star and then Lotus I think, then a Moderator role and a Janitor/Scruffy role.
Atlas took on the Titan role pretty early on but it wasn't anything special other than the name, he was still admin with the perms that went with it, with the obvious (off-site) addition of him having the root password.
I held Head Moderator and then admin, head moderator went away after that promo (I don't think there was anything different other than head mod was purple and admin was red)
I think pineapple had a lead dev role when he was doing all the site coding
>Staff roles were fairly rigid in the early days, we had the Titan role which was held by Atlas, an Admin role I think, a Head Moderator role that was held by Sapphire Star and then Lotus I think, then a Moderator role and a Janitor/Scruffy role.
Atlas took on the Titan role pretty early on but it wasn't anything special other than the name, he was still admin with the perms that went with it, with the obvious (off-site) addition of him having the root password.
I held Head Moderator and then admin, head moderator went away after that promo (I don't think there was anything different other than head mod was purple and admin was red)
I think pineapple had a lead dev role when he was doing all the site coding
Anonymous
No.5827
>>5824
>alternatives to the social platforms you barely tolerate
Truth is, I not really into social media altogether, or not any of the popular normie patforms. Chansites were the closest thing to social media I eer used for a while.
I made a discord for /mlpol/-related puposes, and only really kept using it in an attempt to try to maintain communication with the site staff, and later as a means to find and encourage contentfags across the fandom and some minor hobby-related stuff. I'm very much open to alternative platforms, but most of all I prefer chanlike boards where I can stay anonymous and shitpost freely.
>alternatives to the social platforms you barely tolerate
Truth is, I not really into social media altogether, or not any of the popular normie patforms. Chansites were the closest thing to social media I eer used for a while.
I made a discord for /mlpol/-related puposes, and only really kept using it in an attempt to try to maintain communication with the site staff, and later as a means to find and encourage contentfags across the fandom and some minor hobby-related stuff. I'm very much open to alternative platforms, but most of all I prefer chanlike boards where I can stay anonymous and shitpost freely.
File (): DDB8DD8E007BC2A12BF40D561A625E2F-872509.png (852.1 KB, 1331x767, admins.png)
>>5825
>At this point, though, the roles still exist but are basically meaningless.
That is one thing I was able to gather from my clawing at discord. Apparently the staff uses a discord server for the bulk of its communications, and some have said things about there being "too many roles".
So, if the staff are basically all equal in their capacities, how do they really make decisions? Is it like a simple majority thing where they vote in planned sessions? From what I've understood, the staff have some challenges in making decisions because it's difficult to get most of the staff online at once to even talk about things, let alone make decisions.
>At this point, though, the roles still exist but are basically meaningless.
That is one thing I was able to gather from my clawing at discord. Apparently the staff uses a discord server for the bulk of its communications, and some have said things about there being "too many roles".
So, if the staff are basically all equal in their capacities, how do they really make decisions? Is it like a simple majority thing where they vote in planned sessions? From what I've understood, the staff have some challenges in making decisions because it's difficult to get most of the staff online at once to even talk about things, let alone make decisions.
>>5822
>What exactly is the staff's standard of transparency in regards to what the board deserves to know?
I wish I had an official-sounding clear cut answer I could give you, but we really don't have a standard "X is public info, Y is private info" internal policy we could pull out and show you. This is pretty much a homebrew operation run by lazy anons who suck at organizing things. We changed servers once as I recall, and I am fairly certain it was announced. Anything major that could affect posting, like moving the server to another country, transferring ownership to an unknown/third party, selling ads, things like that, we would definitely be upfront about.
>What kinds of information are considered to be open to the community?
Again, basically if anything huge happened we would tell you. Internal bickering, which accounts for the vast majority of role changes and such, we usually don't publicize.
>How is the standard of transparency maintained and enforced, and what is the decision making process for revealing something or leaving it secret?
Honestly? We handle it the same way we handle just about everything that needs to be decided. We argue about it, sometimes call each other names, and if we're at all lucky an actual decision gets made. It's usually sort of an informal consensus.
>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?
There is no designated person for this. Issues that would fall under this category rarely come up.
>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?
In addition to taking the policy page at face value, you can also take our word at face value. This is the internet, we are all anonymous, and you have no more real reason to trust us than you would trust anyone else online. However, I will show you something. Are you watching? Here:
>What exactly is the staff's standard of transparency in regards to what the board deserves to know?
I wish I had an official-sounding clear cut answer I could give you, but we really don't have a standard "X is public info, Y is private info" internal policy we could pull out and show you. This is pretty much a homebrew operation run by lazy anons who suck at organizing things. We changed servers once as I recall, and I am fairly certain it was announced. Anything major that could affect posting, like moving the server to another country, transferring ownership to an unknown/third party, selling ads, things like that, we would definitely be upfront about.
>What kinds of information are considered to be open to the community?
Again, basically if anything huge happened we would tell you. Internal bickering, which accounts for the vast majority of role changes and such, we usually don't publicize.
>How is the standard of transparency maintained and enforced, and what is the decision making process for revealing something or leaving it secret?
Honestly? We handle it the same way we handle just about everything that needs to be decided. We argue about it, sometimes call each other names, and if we're at all lucky an actual decision gets made. It's usually sort of an informal consensus.
>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?
There is no designated person for this. Issues that would fall under this category rarely come up.
>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?
In addition to taking the policy page at face value, you can also take our word at face value. This is the internet, we are all anonymous, and you have no more real reason to trust us than you would trust anyone else online. However, I will show you something. Are you watching? Here:
>>5831
Every person currently on staff can use any name and any capcode they want. I can impersonate Atlas if I want. I could go through the catalog and delete every single thread if I want. I think I can even add and remove boards if I want; I don't remember if Pupper removed that power or not. I could do all sorts of silly mischief on this site, and there would be literally no consequences beyond losing my unpaid volunteer position on a message board so conceptually ridiculous that most people I know wouldn't even believe me if I told them that it exists and that I'm a mod on it. I don't do any of this mischief because I have no reason to; I am here because I care about the retarded love child of /mlp/ and /pol/ and I want to see it succeed. The other anons on staff are the same. You can trust us because we have literally nothing to gain by lying to you.
>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?
Staffing changes we usually don't announce. Sometimes individuals like to make an announcement when they become staff or when they leave, but it's entirely up to the individual. We could probably make an official roster of who is on staff at any given time if that would make people more comfortable.
Official policy hasn't really changed since the inception of the board. Any major changes would likely involve a thread on the board and an actual discussion. There have been some discussions about convening a formal thread to rewrite the rules but nothing has ever come out of it. If you guys like, we could probably do something like that; I think we're still using the rules that were written in 2017 for the original 4/mlpol/.
Ownership of the board has only been transferred once from Atlas to Pupper as far as I can recall; again, we mostly keep internal staff rearrangements internal, but if it's a huge concern we can probably make that some of that information more public.
>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)
I think we've had some instances where people posted dox or potentially self-incriminating things in the past. When we see it, we usually delete the post and give the user a NiceNotice or a Warning that explains why the post was deleted. Like most moderation decisions, it's usually just whoever notices it takes care of it; if there's any question as to whether or not the post ought to be deleted, they can bring it up in the staff discord or use their judgement.
I'll get to the rest of these in a sec.
>>5826
I remember Pineapple as Lead Dev, the role went to Pupper eventually. Pineapple is still on staff, he just doesn't play much of an active role and rarely checks in.
Every person currently on staff can use any name and any capcode they want. I can impersonate Atlas if I want. I could go through the catalog and delete every single thread if I want. I think I can even add and remove boards if I want; I don't remember if Pupper removed that power or not. I could do all sorts of silly mischief on this site, and there would be literally no consequences beyond losing my unpaid volunteer position on a message board so conceptually ridiculous that most people I know wouldn't even believe me if I told them that it exists and that I'm a mod on it. I don't do any of this mischief because I have no reason to; I am here because I care about the retarded love child of /mlp/ and /pol/ and I want to see it succeed. The other anons on staff are the same. You can trust us because we have literally nothing to gain by lying to you.
>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?
Staffing changes we usually don't announce. Sometimes individuals like to make an announcement when they become staff or when they leave, but it's entirely up to the individual. We could probably make an official roster of who is on staff at any given time if that would make people more comfortable.
Official policy hasn't really changed since the inception of the board. Any major changes would likely involve a thread on the board and an actual discussion. There have been some discussions about convening a formal thread to rewrite the rules but nothing has ever come out of it. If you guys like, we could probably do something like that; I think we're still using the rules that were written in 2017 for the original 4/mlpol/.
Ownership of the board has only been transferred once from Atlas to Pupper as far as I can recall; again, we mostly keep internal staff rearrangements internal, but if it's a huge concern we can probably make that some of that information more public.
>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)
I think we've had some instances where people posted dox or potentially self-incriminating things in the past. When we see it, we usually delete the post and give the user a NiceNotice or a Warning that explains why the post was deleted. Like most moderation decisions, it's usually just whoever notices it takes care of it; if there's any question as to whether or not the post ought to be deleted, they can bring it up in the staff discord or use their judgement.
I'll get to the rest of these in a sec.
>>5826
I remember Pineapple as Lead Dev, the role went to Pupper eventually. Pineapple is still on staff, he just doesn't play much of an active role and rarely checks in.
>>5825
>A lot of drama goes on behind the scenes with staff that has often led to people being fired, ragequitting, regular quitting, being promoted and/or demoted, and most of the time
See, this is actually kind of important to me. For at least 3 or even 4 years I've been developing horrible vague suspicions about internal drama with the staff that none of the site users had access to. It always worried me and made me antsy.
>we don't announce anything about it because it doesn't really have any practical effect on site operations and frankly most of it isn't that interesting. Probably 95% of the shit that staff fight about is interpersonal drama that has nothing to do with the site.
See, I kind of disagree there. The actual mechanics of the site may be independent from the daily canter of the community, but who runs the site is still important to the community itself. I feel like users deserve to know who's hands they're in, what said hands are doing, and who the next person is if hands change. If things happen that are significant enough to result in changes in staff or firings, that really sounds like something that users should be able to know about.
>A lot of drama goes on behind the scenes with staff that has often led to people being fired, ragequitting, regular quitting, being promoted and/or demoted, and most of the time
See, this is actually kind of important to me. For at least 3 or even 4 years I've been developing horrible vague suspicions about internal drama with the staff that none of the site users had access to. It always worried me and made me antsy.
>we don't announce anything about it because it doesn't really have any practical effect on site operations and frankly most of it isn't that interesting. Probably 95% of the shit that staff fight about is interpersonal drama that has nothing to do with the site.
See, I kind of disagree there. The actual mechanics of the site may be independent from the daily canter of the community, but who runs the site is still important to the community itself. I feel like users deserve to know who's hands they're in, what said hands are doing, and who the next person is if hands change. If things happen that are significant enough to result in changes in staff or firings, that really sounds like something that users should be able to know about.
>>5830
>In addition to taking the policy page at face value, you can also take our word at face value.
Yeah, and I did that for 4 years, but then there was this whole thing about the page accurrately representing the ownership of the board, so that's become less than reassurring...
>our word
Well it's not like anyone until 2 days ago said anything so there wasn't any word to take.
>>5831
>>5832
>>5833
>you have no more real reason to trust us than you would trust anyone else online
Yeah, that illustrates it really well.
I think the foundation of the trust that the community puts in the site is really backed by nothing except transparency itself, which is why it's so important.
>In addition to taking the policy page at face value, you can also take our word at face value.
Yeah, and I did that for 4 years, but then there was this whole thing about the page accurrately representing the ownership of the board, so that's become less than reassurring...
>our word
Well it's not like anyone until 2 days ago said anything so there wasn't any word to take.
>>5831
>>5832
>>5833
>you have no more real reason to trust us than you would trust anyone else online
Yeah, that illustrates it really well.
I think the foundation of the trust that the community puts in the site is really backed by nothing except transparency itself, which is why it's so important.
>>5825
>it's always been disorganized
>Usually the vetting process involves a voice interview on Discord, but the problem is that everyone has to be available at the same time, which has gotten harder and harder to coordinate.
Yeah, that is indeedpretty disorganized...
>it's always been disorganized
>Usually the vetting process involves a voice interview on Discord, but the problem is that everyone has to be available at the same time, which has gotten harder and harder to coordinate.
Yeah, that is indeedpretty disorganized...
>>5837
its slightly better than it was, where we all got into a non-voice chat and just bullied people for 30 minutes and if they weren't faggots about it they were in
its slightly better than it was, where we all got into a non-voice chat and just bullied people for 30 minutes and if they weren't faggots about it they were in
Anonymous
No.5841
File (): 0FDB4FF9FC6CA141FA8217D960D97708-95276.jpg (93.0 KB, 700x688, stinkypeepee.jpeg)
I have a question for OP
How many times hasLotus 'someone on staff' fundamentally edited your posts, deleted them outright, derailed/raided one or more of your threads, or banned you for posts/content that has nothing to do with any rules for the site?
Elway, same question, pertaining to OP.
How many times has
Elway, same question, pertaining to OP.
>>5828
>So, if the staff are basically all equal in their capacities, how do they really make decisions? Is it like a simple majority thing where they vote in planned sessions? From what I've understood, the staff have some challenges in making decisions because it's difficult to get most of the staff online at once to even talk about things, let alone make decisions.
This is actually something that has become more of a problem lately. How things get decided tends to vary from situation to situation; again, it's mostly sort of an informal consensus process.
However, I'll balance this out by saying that the overwhelming majority of things that get discussed have very little to do with actual site operations, and there are few mission-critical issues that even need to be decided in the first place. The site really doesn't require that much actual moderation these days; it's mostly just deleting botspam.
>>5834
>See, this is actually kind of important to me. For at least 3 or even 4 years I've been developing horrible vague suspicions about internal drama with the staff that none of the site users had access to. It always worried me and made me antsy.
It really is a lot less interesting than you think it is. The Discord staff chat is probably 95% shitposting, with the remaining 5% fluctuating between actual mod discussion and the occasional argument over something relatively dumb. Most of the time things are pretty chill; then once and awhile something will happen that gets everyone pissed off at each other, then it's chill again.
If you have any questions about any specific event I will do my best to provide whatever details I can.
>>5834
>See, I kind of disagree there. The actual mechanics of the site may be independent from the daily canter of the community, but who runs the site is still important to the community itself. I feel like users deserve to know who's hands they're in, what said hands are doing, and who the next person is if hands change. If things happen that are significant enough to result in changes in staff or firings, that really sounds like something that users should be able to know about.
Fair point, and again we can probably post some kind of staff roster and update it every time someone joins or leaves, if you really want to know who is on staff and who more or less does what. Making big bold site announcements every time someone gets hired or fired seems a bit overdramatic, but we can probably maintain a public list if you guys want.
>>5822
>(with regard to the enforcement of all staff rules)
>How exactly does the /mlpol/ staff discipline itself?
When Atlas was in charge he would just summarily fire people if there was sufficient cause, and then summarily hire them back if they asked nicely enough. The most egregious disciplinary event that occurred during the site's history was a single mod who went rogue and deleted a bunch of threads; that event was quite public and I think is pretty well documented. That sort of thing, obviously, is clear grounds for immediate dismissal, but again it's not much of a problem these days as we have a consistent group of people who have been with the site for some time now. If anyone else was planning to do anything destructive they would have done so by now.
At present, Pupper has control of the site at a technical level and controls access to moderator privileges, so if it were really necessary to remove someone's credentials it would be done by him.
>Are there degrees by which staff consider and account for alleged misconduct?
It's all handled pretty much organically and it depends on the situation and the misconduct.
>Who is/are the final arbiter(s) for considering if/when actions by the staff violate the letter or spirit of the rules?
Initially, Atlas. Since he's been gone it's been less clear; again, it usually just depends on the situation. There have been some efforts to establish a more formalized power structure but nothing super-dependable has come up. At one point we had a loose structure consisting of Pupper in some kind of final boss role, with myself and two other staff holding arbitrary Admin titles that could vote on major decisions. It proved a bit too complicated to be tenable.
Again, if someone does something that is a clear violation of rules or an abuse of power Pupper would likely just remove their mod powers and that would be that. If there's some question of whether or not the situation warrants that level of action there would likely be some group discussion of it.
>How can the users of the board confidently trust that staff are accountable for inappropriate behavior?
See my earlier post regarding trust.
>>5839
>Use your pony senses anon. They are more accurate than a written contract.
This is actually pretty much my philosophy on how the site should be run most of the time.
>So, if the staff are basically all equal in their capacities, how do they really make decisions? Is it like a simple majority thing where they vote in planned sessions? From what I've understood, the staff have some challenges in making decisions because it's difficult to get most of the staff online at once to even talk about things, let alone make decisions.
This is actually something that has become more of a problem lately. How things get decided tends to vary from situation to situation; again, it's mostly sort of an informal consensus process.
However, I'll balance this out by saying that the overwhelming majority of things that get discussed have very little to do with actual site operations, and there are few mission-critical issues that even need to be decided in the first place. The site really doesn't require that much actual moderation these days; it's mostly just deleting botspam.
>>5834
>See, this is actually kind of important to me. For at least 3 or even 4 years I've been developing horrible vague suspicions about internal drama with the staff that none of the site users had access to. It always worried me and made me antsy.
It really is a lot less interesting than you think it is. The Discord staff chat is probably 95% shitposting, with the remaining 5% fluctuating between actual mod discussion and the occasional argument over something relatively dumb. Most of the time things are pretty chill; then once and awhile something will happen that gets everyone pissed off at each other, then it's chill again.
If you have any questions about any specific event I will do my best to provide whatever details I can.
>>5834
>See, I kind of disagree there. The actual mechanics of the site may be independent from the daily canter of the community, but who runs the site is still important to the community itself. I feel like users deserve to know who's hands they're in, what said hands are doing, and who the next person is if hands change. If things happen that are significant enough to result in changes in staff or firings, that really sounds like something that users should be able to know about.
Fair point, and again we can probably post some kind of staff roster and update it every time someone joins or leaves, if you really want to know who is on staff and who more or less does what. Making big bold site announcements every time someone gets hired or fired seems a bit overdramatic, but we can probably maintain a public list if you guys want.
>>5822
>(with regard to the enforcement of all staff rules)
>How exactly does the /mlpol/ staff discipline itself?
When Atlas was in charge he would just summarily fire people if there was sufficient cause, and then summarily hire them back if they asked nicely enough. The most egregious disciplinary event that occurred during the site's history was a single mod who went rogue and deleted a bunch of threads; that event was quite public and I think is pretty well documented. That sort of thing, obviously, is clear grounds for immediate dismissal, but again it's not much of a problem these days as we have a consistent group of people who have been with the site for some time now. If anyone else was planning to do anything destructive they would have done so by now.
At present, Pupper has control of the site at a technical level and controls access to moderator privileges, so if it were really necessary to remove someone's credentials it would be done by him.
>Are there degrees by which staff consider and account for alleged misconduct?
It's all handled pretty much organically and it depends on the situation and the misconduct.
>Who is/are the final arbiter(s) for considering if/when actions by the staff violate the letter or spirit of the rules?
Initially, Atlas. Since he's been gone it's been less clear; again, it usually just depends on the situation. There have been some efforts to establish a more formalized power structure but nothing super-dependable has come up. At one point we had a loose structure consisting of Pupper in some kind of final boss role, with myself and two other staff holding arbitrary Admin titles that could vote on major decisions. It proved a bit too complicated to be tenable.
Again, if someone does something that is a clear violation of rules or an abuse of power Pupper would likely just remove their mod powers and that would be that. If there's some question of whether or not the situation warrants that level of action there would likely be some group discussion of it.
>How can the users of the board confidently trust that staff are accountable for inappropriate behavior?
See my earlier post regarding trust.
>>5839
>Use your pony senses anon. They are more accurate than a written contract.
This is actually pretty much my philosophy on how the site should be run most of the time.
Anonymous
No.5844
File (): E633CACB8E40C3AC93A313A28A117C54-391180.png (382.0 KB, 1318x1100, 3d4e599eedffaac0240fb1d4775a273411517faa62b44446f450cd757ca4cba8.png)
>>5843
>This is actually pretty much my philosophy on how the site should be run most of the time.
This.
As long as the mind is balanced, they won't let you down.
>This is actually pretty much my philosophy on how the site should be run most of the time.
This.
As long as the mind is balanced, they won't let you down.
Anonymous
No.5845
>>5842
OP here: I really did not want to bring that up, because it is is not what the thread is supposed to be about, and I don't consider /qa/ to be a place to discuss personal complaints but systemic ones; but since he had the gall to claim that the four basic questions in the OP constitute as a """personal vendetta""" or trying to cause a """rebellion""" just to discredit any attempt at transparency, I will just go ahead and say that it's more times than I can really count. Sometimes hundreds of times in a single day if I had the gall to try to post something else similar that he didnt like.
OP here: I really did not want to bring that up, because it is is not what the thread is supposed to be about, and I don't consider /qa/ to be a place to discuss personal complaints but systemic ones; but since he had the gall to claim that the four basic questions in the OP constitute as a """personal vendetta""" or trying to cause a """rebellion""" just to discredit any attempt at transparency, I will just go ahead and say that it's more times than I can really count. Sometimes hundreds of times in a single day if I had the gall to try to post something else similar that he didnt like.
>>5822
>(with regard to rule #3)
>Aside from merely using the board, how are the staff able to ensure that their decisions represent the will of the community?
Telekinesis. Apart from that, we'd just ask, or anyone could just bring it up. What I'm doing now is basically in the interest of that; if the community feels there is some kind of disconnect or lack of trust between us and you, you're always welcome to voice those concerns to us. We don't want to be your adversary. Most of us are also on Discord as well, and are members of all the main mlpol servers under recognizable names. If for whatever reason you would rather use that method of communication than the board, the MLPOL.net Official Server would probably be the best way to get our attention, either that or PM. I generally accept anyone from the community who PMs me or sends me a friend request. I also run movie night, and there is a chat room there. There are ample opportunities for anyone in the community to get hold of just about any staff member they have a crush on and whisper any sweet nothings they like.
>How, and through what mediums, does the staff make sure that community considerations are taken into account and fascilitate user input?
See above.
>On what matters is community consideration deemed to be necessary in decision making?
Up to you, really. We rarely make any huge changes, and if we wanted to do something huge we'd likely make a thread about it first. If we did something without asking and you considered it to be huge enough that we should have asked, you can bring it up with us and we will respond. That is literally what is taking place right now.
>How often does the staff seek out direct user input on matters of any kind?
If there's something we feel concerns the community as a whole we ask, however there really hasn't been much of that lately. The most recent board-changing event that's taken place has been the switch from the old code based on vichan to the custom code written by Pupper, and he has kept everyone pretty up to date on everything going on there.
Some decisions that arguably affected the community, such as the addition of new boards, were made impulsively or without input. For instance, /sp/ was created for fun by Pupper and myself one night, and /a/ literally just exists because Atlas popped into chat one day and said "hey @everyone let's make an anime board." /ub/, as I recall, was made through a lengthy deliberative process that involved voting or something; I remember a thread about it. The process was actually fairly tedious as I recall. /cyb/ was also another of Atlas' pet projects, /vx/ I believe was suggested by Lotus, /1ntr/ just sort of appeared one day; I have literally no idea where they came from but they're chill ass niggers so who cares. Users are free to suggest any site feature/modification they would like to see, or voice any concerns they might have, through the channels listed above or by posting on the site.
>>5842
>pertaining to OP
If Lotus or 'someone on staff' fundamentally edited any of OP's posts, deleted them outright, derailed/raided one of more of his threads, or banned him for posts/content that had nothing to do with any rules for the site, I'm not personally aware of it. Thus, my direct answer to your question, I suppose, would be 0 times. This sounds like a rather specific complaint.
I can say that in general, editing posts is not supposed to be done except in extreme situations where it is called for, for instance if a user posted potentially damaging personal info about themselves. Like all mod functions, the edit post function is available to moderators but subject to responsible use. Arbitrary post deletions or banning a user without cause would be an abuse of mod privileges, assuming there was reasonable evidence that the decision had been made arbitrarily. Derailing a thread or raiding it might be shitty behavior, but whether or not it would constitute an abuse of staff powers would probably depend on how and why it was done, and whether staff powers were actually used in some unfair way. I will freely admit to having used shitposty methods to derail silly threads and will defend this as a valid moderation technique; but again, like all staff powers, it's subject to responsible use.
>(with regard to rule #3)
>Aside from merely using the board, how are the staff able to ensure that their decisions represent the will of the community?
Telekinesis. Apart from that, we'd just ask, or anyone could just bring it up. What I'm doing now is basically in the interest of that; if the community feels there is some kind of disconnect or lack of trust between us and you, you're always welcome to voice those concerns to us. We don't want to be your adversary. Most of us are also on Discord as well, and are members of all the main mlpol servers under recognizable names. If for whatever reason you would rather use that method of communication than the board, the MLPOL.net Official Server would probably be the best way to get our attention, either that or PM. I generally accept anyone from the community who PMs me or sends me a friend request. I also run movie night, and there is a chat room there. There are ample opportunities for anyone in the community to get hold of just about any staff member they have a crush on and whisper any sweet nothings they like.
>How, and through what mediums, does the staff make sure that community considerations are taken into account and fascilitate user input?
See above.
>On what matters is community consideration deemed to be necessary in decision making?
Up to you, really. We rarely make any huge changes, and if we wanted to do something huge we'd likely make a thread about it first. If we did something without asking and you considered it to be huge enough that we should have asked, you can bring it up with us and we will respond. That is literally what is taking place right now.
>How often does the staff seek out direct user input on matters of any kind?
If there's something we feel concerns the community as a whole we ask, however there really hasn't been much of that lately. The most recent board-changing event that's taken place has been the switch from the old code based on vichan to the custom code written by Pupper, and he has kept everyone pretty up to date on everything going on there.
Some decisions that arguably affected the community, such as the addition of new boards, were made impulsively or without input. For instance, /sp/ was created for fun by Pupper and myself one night, and /a/ literally just exists because Atlas popped into chat one day and said "hey @everyone let's make an anime board." /ub/, as I recall, was made through a lengthy deliberative process that involved voting or something; I remember a thread about it. The process was actually fairly tedious as I recall. /cyb/ was also another of Atlas' pet projects, /vx/ I believe was suggested by Lotus, /1ntr/ just sort of appeared one day; I have literally no idea where they came from but they're chill ass niggers so who cares. Users are free to suggest any site feature/modification they would like to see, or voice any concerns they might have, through the channels listed above or by posting on the site.
>>5842
>pertaining to OP
If Lotus or 'someone on staff' fundamentally edited any of OP's posts, deleted them outright, derailed/raided one of more of his threads, or banned him for posts/content that had nothing to do with any rules for the site, I'm not personally aware of it. Thus, my direct answer to your question, I suppose, would be 0 times. This sounds like a rather specific complaint.
I can say that in general, editing posts is not supposed to be done except in extreme situations where it is called for, for instance if a user posted potentially damaging personal info about themselves. Like all mod functions, the edit post function is available to moderators but subject to responsible use. Arbitrary post deletions or banning a user without cause would be an abuse of mod privileges, assuming there was reasonable evidence that the decision had been made arbitrarily. Derailing a thread or raiding it might be shitty behavior, but whether or not it would constitute an abuse of staff powers would probably depend on how and why it was done, and whether staff powers were actually used in some unfair way. I will freely admit to having used shitposty methods to derail silly threads and will defend this as a valid moderation technique; but again, like all staff powers, it's subject to responsible use.
>>5846
If someone wanted to discuss targetted abuse of staff powers that weren't necessarily related to the rest of the site, where would they go to complain?
If someone wanted to discuss targetted abuse of staff powers that weren't necessarily related to the rest of the site, where would they go to complain?
>>5848
If someone feels they are being directly singled out or targeted by a particular staff member and don't feel comfortable posting about it on the board, the easiest method would be to contact a neutral staff member via Discord and bring up the complaint with them. I suppose I can volunteer myself as a goto for this sort of thing: `Figuratively John Elway#2903` They should be prepared to offer some kind of tangible proof of whatever the allegation is, if they want it taken seriously. They can create a throwaway Discord account if they don't like using Discord. Maybe we can set up a protonmail or something as a complaint box as well. I can't promise results, but we can certainly look into allegations of staff misconduct. I'm starting to feel like a high school counselor or HR manager or something.
If someone feels they are being directly singled out or targeted by a particular staff member and don't feel comfortable posting about it on the board, the easiest method would be to contact a neutral staff member via Discord and bring up the complaint with them. I suppose I can volunteer myself as a goto for this sort of thing: `Figuratively John Elway#2903` They should be prepared to offer some kind of tangible proof of whatever the allegation is, if they want it taken seriously. They can create a throwaway Discord account if they don't like using Discord. Maybe we can set up a protonmail or something as a complaint box as well. I can't promise results, but we can certainly look into allegations of staff misconduct. I'm starting to feel like a high school counselor or HR manager or something.
File (): D9908C3F072DB397B59A0D15F1C92461-143931.png (140.6 KB, 900x564, 062e0a3bdb5b5c2f26dec9fe2b8a8f0f1a66aa415b8c4be39649663d214800ac.png)
>>5848
>If someone wanted to discuss targetted abuse of staff powers
Knock it off.
You're typing like you are an endlessly abused victim, that the psycho staff is out to get you.
Rip off the mask from your face and confess, you want a crack where to slip your bitterness and to cause harm, and that is wicked. In psychological term you are gaslighting your victims to get concessions which will be used to wide your range of demands.
>If someone wanted to discuss targetted abuse of staff powers
Knock it off.
You're typing like you are an endlessly abused victim, that the psycho staff is out to get you.
Rip off the mask from your face and confess, you want a crack where to slip your bitterness and to cause harm, and that is wicked. In psychological term you are gaslighting your victims to get concessions which will be used to wide your range of demands.
>>5850
Anon, do not put words in my mouth. I also do not want to discuss it here, because it's not about me, or (You). I'd prefer to talk about it in private.
Anon, do not put words in my mouth. I also do not want to discuss it here, because it's not about me, or (You). I'd prefer to talk about it in private.
Anonymous
No.5852
>>5851
Or public. Whichevers most convienient. I don't really give a fuck anymore so long as I can finally get answers.
Or public. Whichevers most convienient. I don't really give a fuck anymore so long as I can finally get answers.
>>5850
>abused victim
On this board, over the years, I witnessed a lot of staff behavior that I dismissed at the time because I assumed they only ever happened to me. Now I have begun to worry that they weren't just directed at me, but other users as well in a site-wide, systemic fashion. If that really is the case, I do not think it is appropriate to remain silent about them.
>abused victim
On this board, over the years, I witnessed a lot of staff behavior that I dismissed at the time because I assumed they only ever happened to me. Now I have begun to worry that they weren't just directed at me, but other users as well in a site-wide, systemic fashion. If that really is the case, I do not think it is appropriate to remain silent about them.
>>5850
>wide your range of demands
What are you even talking about? What "demands" have been posted to this thread that sound like they could be anything personal, let alone harmful? Is transparency that frightening to you?
>wide your range of demands
What are you even talking about? What "demands" have been posted to this thread that sound like they could be anything personal, let alone harmful? Is transparency that frightening to you?
Anonymous
No.5855
>>5843
>Fair point, and again we can probably post some kind of staff roster and update it every time someone joins or leaves, if you really want to know who is on staff and who more or less does what. Making big bold site announcements every time someone gets hired or fired seems a bit overdramatic, but we can probably maintain a public list if you guys want.
This sounds like a doable compromise. It would mean that the information is available to the community, even if it's discreet.
>Fair point, and again we can probably post some kind of staff roster and update it every time someone joins or leaves, if you really want to know who is on staff and who more or less does what. Making big bold site announcements every time someone gets hired or fired seems a bit overdramatic, but we can probably maintain a public list if you guys want.
This sounds like a doable compromise. It would mean that the information is available to the community, even if it's discreet.
>>5853
Look I believe, but not 100% sure, it happened to me that the mod was in a bad mood. However, because I'm not a faggot to screech for silliness, I let it go.
Take in count I am not kissing the mods' asses, I just understand that there's a hierarchy in place needed to make the place to run smoothly = Mods are Gods. Period.
So, the method to go along is simple, if the mods says of tip you about something, just follow the advise and that's it.
Look I believe, but not 100% sure, it happened to me that the mod was in a bad mood. However, because I'm not a faggot to screech for silliness, I let it go.
Take in count I am not kissing the mods' asses, I just understand that there's a hierarchy in place needed to make the place to run smoothly = Mods are Gods. Period.
So, the method to go along is simple, if the mods says of tip you about something, just follow the advise and that's it.
Anonymous
No.5857
>>5854
>Is transparency that frightening to you?
No transparency, but rigid goalpost that can be used by faggots to gain a beachhead. Fuzzy rules allow the management a relaxed handling of faggotry. At the same time also it loosen up the users by allowing fun.
>Is transparency that frightening to you?
No transparency, but rigid goalpost that can be used by faggots to gain a beachhead. Fuzzy rules allow the management a relaxed handling of faggotry. At the same time also it loosen up the users by allowing fun.
>>5856
>However, because I'm not a faggot to screech for silliness, I let it go.
See, I thought this exact same thing, but only because I thought nobody else was the target of it. Now I am beside myself that all of that was directed towards other site users. I can only imagine how many of our previous artists and contentfags go frustrated and left forever because they were treated like shit, how much board traffic may have suffered because one person was in a bad mood, and it makes me sick.
>However, because I'm not a faggot to screech for silliness, I let it go.
See, I thought this exact same thing, but only because I thought nobody else was the target of it. Now I am beside myself that all of that was directed towards other site users. I can only imagine how many of our previous artists and contentfags go frustrated and left forever because they were treated like shit, how much board traffic may have suffered because one person was in a bad mood, and it makes me sick.
File (): 7E22F89D95880E720AFA521A167517F4-250231.png (244.4 KB, 942x848, d5dd0379f7d7d7046f0f96a1eceb8d8e7e477c7fee8252bb8fb27e46714906cd.png)
>>5858
>See
Ahem, I said "silliness" and NOT 100% sure, therefore don't dare to use it like support for screeching. Leave that for faggots.
>See
Ahem, I said "silliness" and NOT 100% sure, therefore don't dare to use it like support for screeching. Leave that for faggots.
File (): 4E03AEA785F254A8054403021577790B-62086.jpg (60.6 KB, 791x581, bullcrapple.jpg)
I notice the discussion suddenly stopped and all boards are dead. Is because everypony moved to Discord?
Anonymous
No.5865
Anonymous
No.5866
>>5864
I think it's because Elway did a really good job of honestly answering all those questions one by one so some anons are satisfied.
Also Anons have jobs/school too, and the boards aren't any more dead than usual.
I think it's because Elway did a really good job of honestly answering all those questions one by one so some anons are satisfied.
Also Anons have jobs/school too, and the boards aren't any more dead than usual.
>>5867
OP here. Most of my questions for the topic of the OP (moderation and staffing) have been answered for the time being, and much has been clarified which has helped to put me at relative peace. I think the discussion of the other topics raised in this thread would be better off in their own respective threads, such as the happening of the site ownership changing without announcement, the site's difficulties related to transparency, or the how the policy page needs to be changed. Right now I'm just absorbing the rammifications of what I just heard and considering what I think if them, what else there is to say, and what the next step is.
>>5864
I think it's been well established by now that discord is not the best way to discuss site-related matters, or really any way at all. That's it's own topic though, which could probably be continued here considering it relates to how to contact the staff as well as transparency and user input.
OP here. Most of my questions for the topic of the OP (moderation and staffing) have been answered for the time being, and much has been clarified which has helped to put me at relative peace. I think the discussion of the other topics raised in this thread would be better off in their own respective threads, such as the happening of the site ownership changing without announcement, the site's difficulties related to transparency, or the how the policy page needs to be changed. Right now I'm just absorbing the rammifications of what I just heard and considering what I think if them, what else there is to say, and what the next step is.
>>5864
I think it's been well established by now that discord is not the best way to discuss site-related matters, or really any way at all. That's it's own topic though, which could probably be continued here considering it relates to how to contact the staff as well as transparency and user input.
File (): DC155C128E35975B0CB7A65BA5884EE2-116498.jpg (113.8 KB, 1703x953, 800362.jpg)
>>5868
>and much has been clarified which has helped to put me at relative peace
So, I understand you are going to give a chance to Friendship.
>and much has been clarified which has helped to put me at relative peace
So, I understand you are going to give a chance to Friendship.
For good measure
>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
>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
>>5885
If only any of it were true. Shall I detail the laundry list of failure to abide by that policy?
If only any of it were true. Shall I detail the laundry list of failure to abide by that policy?
File (): D92286A3F965298486BB2356A1B335DA-967160.png (944.5 KB, 8203x8264, 815527.png)
>>5887
Mlpol has been operating outside its professed intent for a very long time. The highlighted section is but a part of it.
Mlpol has been operating outside its professed intent for a very long time. The highlighted section is but a part of it.
Ninjas
No.5890
>>5889
OH yeah. And had staff adequately addressed the issue prior, this all could have been avoided. But no, as is par for the course, decisive individuals decided to pretend it didn't happen and assume it would go away. It wont go away.
OH yeah. And had staff adequately addressed the issue prior, this all could have been avoided. But no, as is par for the course, decisive individuals decided to pretend it didn't happen and assume it would go away. It wont go away.
Anonymous
No.5891
File (): 0E8F984EF1D4D7003DCACB10315807AC-1018474.gif (994.6 KB, 1280x720, dYTaa05.gif)
Not sure what actually this is about, because the stated reasons don't have enough merit for such a overblown push for "clear rules"
Anyway, can we be friends again?
Anyway, can we be friends again?
Anonymous
No.5892
File (): 9C40A4D87D04B789627CDC91D9915DB5-87616.png (85.6 KB, 292x256, E.png)
File (): 2D5981C7D07BA87F8355472448AC0C8A-247437.jpg (241.6 KB, 1920x1080, ToWhatDegree.jpg)
>>5887
To: Any Anon
Subject: RETWD
Gaze upon this sequence, backwards, inversely and fowards.
Sincerely, Anon
To: Any Anon
Subject: RETWD
Gaze upon this sequence, backwards, inversely and fowards.
Sincerely, Anon
124 replies and 27 files omitted.
[View All] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-174] [Next]
174 replies | 41 files | 17 UUIDs | Page 7