ATLAS IS NO LONGER THE OWNER OF MLPOL.NET
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY PUPPER
THESE EVENTS TRANSPIRED "SOME TIME LAST YEAR", WITH NO PRIOR NOTICE
Events indicated by Lotus (Admin) in >>5498 → and >>5500 →
What the heck is going on here?
What led to this decision, and how was it decided? What does this entail for the future of mlpol.net?
And, most importantly, why was the board never informed of this? If the change occurred last year, that should have been plenty of time for an announcement. When were you planning to tell us about this? The site's policy page says that Atlas is the owner of mlpol.net, but apparently that hasn't been the case for a long time now.
>2. Staff will maintain a level of transparency with the community
I thought this was supposed to be what distinguished us from 4cuck. Does this policy not matter anymore either? There was a time when this community held half a dozen strawpolls just to decide whether or not gay clop should be censored, and now site leadership is changing without announcement?!
What is happening to /mlpol/? What else has been going on behind all of our backs, and why aren't you telling us about it?
Where is Atlas? He's been silent for some time, but I thought he was just being lazy/disinterested, because he was always pretty chill about how he handled the site. He stopped doing Tea With Atlas a long time ago (i think the last one was around this time last year), so the site hasn't directly heard from him for a while. Never did he indicate that he would cease to be the owner of mlpol.net. This is totally unprecendented.
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
1616452936_2.png (439.1 KB, 4000x3920, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.png)
155 replies and 37 files omitted.
>>5526
Eh, Pupperwoff's a cool guy that doesn't afraid of anything. The king is dead, long live the king, I guess. That said, I think keeping it quiet out of concern for anons ringing the bell and screaming the end is nigh is selling the rest of us short, as you know, OP is a faggot. If Atlas is having IRL troubles, then it's understandable and admirable that he transfer ownership to the next in line and I hope he continues to hang around. My only concern is whether Pupperwoff is prepared to deal with the increased responsibilities of being both the admin and codemonkey.
So, does this mean I can shitpost about Atlas shrugging now?
Eh, Pupperwoff's a cool guy that doesn't afraid of anything. The king is dead, long live the king, I guess. That said, I think keeping it quiet out of concern for anons ringing the bell and screaming the end is nigh is selling the rest of us short, as you know, OP is a faggot. If Atlas is having IRL troubles, then it's understandable and admirable that he transfer ownership to the next in line and I hope he continues to hang around. My only concern is whether Pupperwoff is prepared to deal with the increased responsibilities of being both the admin and codemonkey.
So, does this mean I can shitpost about Atlas shrugging now?
>>5622
>Atlas had taken a step back for a while by that point
Some of this might've been vaguely aware of this through other mediums, but there wasn't any announcement of that either.
>Atlas had taken a step back for a while by that point
Some of this might've been vaguely aware of this through other mediums, but there wasn't any announcement of that either.
>>5635
It probably is unfair to the great masses of Anons who have an interest, though I don't feel the events of today have proven me wrong about the panic/doom posters.
I can't say that the increased responsibilities isn't a valid concern. I figured the change would have no effect as things would continue as before, but the transition was accompanied by another change in staff structure. Things have stabilized now.
>Atlas Shrugged
I would like to think he will return as our emperor to lecture us over the state of the world while drinking tea. If not as an executive emperor, then at least as a symbolic one.
>>5636
When was the last time you saw Atlas announce a policy or other change? July of 2017? How many times have you seen him post since, particularly where the subject of the post was entirely serious? And compare that to the numerous times you've seen myself, Pupperwoff, John Elway or Ninjas post since then on serious issues of moderation. I really don't think anyone who has been around these three years can really say they didn't see this coming. It's reflected in the way staff interacted with the board just as surely as it has reflected in the staff discord server.
[Read more] It probably is unfair to the great masses of Anons who have an interest, though I don't feel the events of today have proven me wrong about the panic/doom posters.
I can't say that the increased responsibilities isn't a valid concern. I figured the change would have no effect as things would continue as before, but the transition was accompanied by another change in staff structure. Things have stabilized now.
>Atlas Shrugged
I would like to think he will return as our emperor to lecture us over the state of the world while drinking tea. If not as an executive emperor, then at least as a symbolic one.
>>5636
When was the last time you saw Atlas announce a policy or other change? July of 2017? How many times have you seen him post since, particularly where the subject of the post was entirely serious? And compare that to the numerous times you've seen myself, Pupperwoff, John Elway or Ninjas post since then on serious issues of moderation. I really don't think anyone who has been around these three years can really say they didn't see this coming. It's reflected in the way staff interacted with the board just as surely as it has reflected in the staff discord server.
>>5637
He has indeed been mostly silent since 2018. The formal change in leadership, however, was quite the sudden revelation.
>When was the last time you saw Atlas announce a policy or other change?
That begs the question, how many more huge changes to site policy have there been since 2017 that haven't been announced?
He has indeed been mostly silent since 2018. The formal change in leadership, however, was quite the sudden revelation.
>When was the last time you saw Atlas announce a policy or other change?
That begs the question, how many more huge changes to site policy have there been since 2017 that haven't been announced?
>>5638
>Sudden change in leadership
It really isn't though. Atlas told me that the reason he set up the "dual admins" system that we maintained all the way until Atlas's 'formal' retirement, was so that Atlas could step back and not have to run the site himself. Atlas transferring the domain name changed absolutely nothing in how the website was run.
>How many more huge changes to site policy have there been since 2017 that haven't been announced?
I don't think there's anything? Somethings have changed, and they have been mentioned in capcoded posts.
>Sudden change in leadership
It really isn't though. Atlas told me that the reason he set up the "dual admins" system that we maintained all the way until Atlas's 'formal' retirement, was so that Atlas could step back and not have to run the site himself. Atlas transferring the domain name changed absolutely nothing in how the website was run.
>How many more huge changes to site policy have there been since 2017 that haven't been announced?
I don't think there's anything? Somethings have changed, and they have been mentioned in capcoded posts.
Anonymous
No.5641
>>5640
Then there's really no reason as to why these changes shouldn't have been announced, or why the policy page wasn't updated.
Then there's really no reason as to why these changes shouldn't have been announced, or why the policy page wasn't updated.
>>5640
The simplest solution to this issue is to stop making excuses and actually follow the policy set out.
As you've spent seven(ish) hours (and counting) making excuses as to why you didn't announce something so significant, i've got little reason to believe the staff isn't fucked.
You had one fucking job.
Goddamnit.
>We didn't tell you because we thought people would make big, red text threads inviting panic
And yet it happened anyways when people found out on their own.
Nice way to kick the can down the road.
I swear, every time i come back to this autism festival it's to worse and worse news. Fucking hell.
Is it too much to ask for this place to not be on fire somehow every time i visit?
Of course it is. Because the internet is now a meat grinder that devours everything on it in an endless cycle, and pony is first on the chopping block for bucking the trends for over a decade.
[Read more] The simplest solution to this issue is to stop making excuses and actually follow the policy set out.
As you've spent seven(ish) hours (and counting) making excuses as to why you didn't announce something so significant, i've got little reason to believe the staff isn't fucked.
You had one fucking job.
Goddamnit.
>We didn't tell you because we thought people would make big, red text threads inviting panic
And yet it happened anyways when people found out on their own.
Nice way to kick the can down the road.
I swear, every time i come back to this autism festival it's to worse and worse news. Fucking hell.
Is it too much to ask for this place to not be on fire somehow every time i visit?
Of course it is. Because the internet is now a meat grinder that devours everything on it in an endless cycle, and pony is first on the chopping block for bucking the trends for over a decade.
>>5646
It really isn't a big change though. Nothing more than which account has a domain name. It wasn't a big deal either way, which is I why I didn't bother to omit the fact when someone asked "who is active on staff?" Anyone who followed mlpol.net to even the barest degree knew that Atlas wasn't active and wasn't managing the site. It makes no difference to the operation of the website except that server payments and domain name renewals are a bit more reliable now.
It really isn't a big change though. Nothing more than which account has a domain name. It wasn't a big deal either way, which is I why I didn't bother to omit the fact when someone asked "who is active on staff?" Anyone who followed mlpol.net to even the barest degree knew that Atlas wasn't active and wasn't managing the site. It makes no difference to the operation of the website except that server payments and domain name renewals are a bit more reliable now.
>>5647
Thank you for confirming that the site is fucked (and the staff is cucked) for the foreseeable future, given policy in place is not going to be followed.
A transfer of ownership, no matter how delayed or slow, should have been announced when it happened, not had to be asked about a year after the fact.
Personally i'd even hazard staff changes should be announced as well, but we'll start with the important shit (that won't ever be done).
Thank you for confirming that the site is fucked (and the staff is cucked) for the foreseeable future, given policy in place is not going to be followed.
A transfer of ownership, no matter how delayed or slow, should have been announced when it happened, not had to be asked about a year after the fact.
Personally i'd even hazard staff changes should be announced as well, but we'll start with the important shit (that won't ever be done).
>>5645
>>5647
The problem is that they never should have had a need to ask in the first place. Which could have been circumvented if staff was transparent on the whole matter as they were supposed to be. If you actually announced that Atlas stepped down due to IRL reasons and Pupperwoff is taking his place in the meantime, this would have been avoided. More over, all rule changes, no matter how minor, should be publicly announced, not kept secret. Failure to do any of that means that staff is compromised and must step down. Which leads us to now. Right now, there is no reason to believe that staff is not compromised, not when you keep on making empty excuses and refuse to accept responsibility. Why should anyone trust you? You all have failed and must be erased from the team and from the site as a whole. Failure to comply the policy must not be tolerated by anyone.
>>5647
The problem is that they never should have had a need to ask in the first place. Which could have been circumvented if staff was transparent on the whole matter as they were supposed to be. If you actually announced that Atlas stepped down due to IRL reasons and Pupperwoff is taking his place in the meantime, this would have been avoided. More over, all rule changes, no matter how minor, should be publicly announced, not kept secret. Failure to do any of that means that staff is compromised and must step down. Which leads us to now. Right now, there is no reason to believe that staff is not compromised, not when you keep on making empty excuses and refuse to accept responsibility. Why should anyone trust you? You all have failed and must be erased from the team and from the site as a whole. Failure to comply the policy must not be tolerated by anyone.
>>5622
>that fucking spoiler
Are you saying that staff isn't even entirely sure where the money for this site comes from? What? How? And again, what?
>that fucking spoiler
Are you saying that staff isn't even entirely sure where the money for this site comes from? What? How? And again, what?
>>5648
>Thank you for confirming that the site is fucked (and the staff is cucked) for the foreseeable future
A peasant shitposter here.
The above statement makes no sense, be the owner/staff X or Y, my freedom to shitpost doesn't change a bit.
On the announcement side, what difference makes if the mod is T or S? None, as everyone is a poner who knows proper chan culture to interact with us.
On the trust side, what difference makes if the staff says D or F to reassure us of their good will? None, in the end you just trust your pony senses and do what you have to do.
All which bring an unavoidable conclusion, you are upset and can't reason properly to evaluate the huge effort you are putting for minimal details which are irrelevant for /mlpol/ operation.
>Thank you for confirming that the site is fucked (and the staff is cucked) for the foreseeable future
A peasant shitposter here.
The above statement makes no sense, be the owner/staff X or Y, my freedom to shitpost doesn't change a bit.
On the announcement side, what difference makes if the mod is T or S? None, as everyone is a poner who knows proper chan culture to interact with us.
On the trust side, what difference makes if the staff says D or F to reassure us of their good will? None, in the end you just trust your pony senses and do what you have to do.
All which bring an unavoidable conclusion, you are upset and can't reason properly to evaluate the huge effort you are putting for minimal details which are irrelevant for /mlpol/ operation.
>>5650
There's no reason for everyone to know where the funding comes from for the sake of privacy, what he probably means is that the site is funded on donations and there's no real way to verify exactly who's donating given how payment processors work. Only the site owner would have that info, which is the way it should be. I'm sure you don't blog your bank statements far and wide for god and all the world to see.
There's no reason for everyone to know where the funding comes from for the sake of privacy, what he probably means is that the site is funded on donations and there's no real way to verify exactly who's donating given how payment processors work. Only the site owner would have that info, which is the way it should be. I'm sure you don't blog your bank statements far and wide for god and all the world to see.
>>5650
No, I'm saying that I don't handle the money, because I don't handle the servers. It's privately funded, I believe by Pupperwoff. It used to be funded by private agreement by a different staff member who I don't think wants his name mentioned here. If he disagrees, he can say so here. I paid for it once. Pupperwoff owns the servers, so I believe it is him.
If we were accepting donations to pay for the upkeep of the site I would consider financial transparency extremely important, but since we don't take money from outside parties I don't think it's important so long as the servers remain running. What Pupperwoff does with his own money is his own business.
>>5652
I don't think we take donations. I think it is all paid for out of pocket by members of staff.
No, I'm saying that I don't handle the money, because I don't handle the servers. It's privately funded, I believe by Pupperwoff. It used to be funded by private agreement by a different staff member who I don't think wants his name mentioned here. If he disagrees, he can say so here. I paid for it once. Pupperwoff owns the servers, so I believe it is him.
If we were accepting donations to pay for the upkeep of the site I would consider financial transparency extremely important, but since we don't take money from outside parties I don't think it's important so long as the servers remain running. What Pupperwoff does with his own money is his own business.
>>5652
I don't think we take donations. I think it is all paid for out of pocket by members of staff.
>>5653
Wait, we don't? Oh god, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised since relying on payment processors for revenue would never be a sure thing given the political climate. Maybe we could bullshit a church, take donations through that and funnel it to /mlpol/ as a community website for the church of horsefucking or whatever, it works for scientology.
Wait, we don't? Oh god, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised since relying on payment processors for revenue would never be a sure thing given the political climate. Maybe we could bullshit a church, take donations through that and funnel it to /mlpol/ as a community website for the church of horsefucking or whatever, it works for scientology.
>>5652
>>5653
That little indication of uncertainty, read as-is would imply to me that there exists the probability of the site being financed through means other than out-of-pocket payments from staff. That was what set off the alarm bells. If it really is privately funded and you don't take donations (either from individuals or organizations), please just say it with more clarity and certainty in the future, as the possibility opens up multiple cans of really nasty worms.
And while I'm typing, I'll take this opportunity to join the others and say that there was a point in time when the ownership change became official, and staff should've notified every of that when it occurred. Not telling us is lying by omission, and keeping that line about Atlas being the "super sexy owner of mlpol.net" on the policy page is just straight up lying, for a very long time.
>>5653
That little indication of uncertainty, read as-is would imply to me that there exists the probability of the site being financed through means other than out-of-pocket payments from staff. That was what set off the alarm bells. If it really is privately funded and you don't take donations (either from individuals or organizations), please just say it with more clarity and certainty in the future, as the possibility opens up multiple cans of really nasty worms.
And while I'm typing, I'll take this opportunity to join the others and say that there was a point in time when the ownership change became official, and staff should've notified every of that when it occurred. Not telling us is lying by omission, and keeping that line about Atlas being the "super sexy owner of mlpol.net" on the policy page is just straight up lying, for a very long time.
>>5648
>>5649
What >>5651 says is correct. Who owns the servers and the domain name, and thus is "site owner" in the legal sense, changes absolutely nothing about what you are able to post or how you interact with the site, and it didn't really change much on our side either.
If I thought it were super important and absolutely needed to be kept secret, I wouldn't have casually mentioned it while answering a completely different question from an anon about who is active on staff. It was neither announced nor kept secret because it didn't affect much.
Of course you have your mind made up, and you probably did long before today.
>>5654
There was a paypal link and then a hatreon link in the very earliest days of the website, and then a store after that. But I think it has been privately funded for almost its entire existence.
>>5655
I am one member of staff, and I'm not responsible for the server upkeep. If Pupperwoff were posting here, he could give you the exact answer. But he isn't, it's only me. My knowledge is limited, but that doesn't mean that no one on staff knows. That just means that the people who know with certainty are not talking to you.
>that line about Atlas being the "super sexy owner of mlpol.net" on the policy page is just straight up lying
Having met and seen Atlas in person, I can tell you that sentence is lying about more than just Atlas being the owner of mlpol.net.
[Read more] >>5649
What >>5651 says is correct. Who owns the servers and the domain name, and thus is "site owner" in the legal sense, changes absolutely nothing about what you are able to post or how you interact with the site, and it didn't really change much on our side either.
If I thought it were super important and absolutely needed to be kept secret, I wouldn't have casually mentioned it while answering a completely different question from an anon about who is active on staff. It was neither announced nor kept secret because it didn't affect much.
Of course you have your mind made up, and you probably did long before today.
>>5654
There was a paypal link and then a hatreon link in the very earliest days of the website, and then a store after that. But I think it has been privately funded for almost its entire existence.
>>5655
I am one member of staff, and I'm not responsible for the server upkeep. If Pupperwoff were posting here, he could give you the exact answer. But he isn't, it's only me. My knowledge is limited, but that doesn't mean that no one on staff knows. That just means that the people who know with certainty are not talking to you.
>that line about Atlas being the "super sexy owner of mlpol.net" on the policy page is just straight up lying
Having met and seen Atlas in person, I can tell you that sentence is lying about more than just Atlas being the owner of mlpol.net.
Although an announcement should have been made the reason it wasn't is clearly due to neglect, not out of mischief. If site ownership was a secret then it never would have been casually mentioned in the first place. People are overreacting due to a mistake, and although vigilance is needed in this political climate, paranoia towards the site isn't. Again, it hasn't affected how the site is run at all.
>>5655
In their defense, the policy page does make it clear that pupperwoff is next in line for site ownership, and he owns it now. So policy was followed in one way if not another. It was a mistake to keep it quiet this long, though I can't blame Atlas for possibly wanting to avoid questions as to why he'd transfer ownership, some would want to know the specific reasons, and he'd then have to blogpost about his troubles presumably.
Nothing has actually changed, the site continues to operate on the frontend as it always has, the mods continue to do their work as they have been (especially in regards to northeastern european promo shitposting and that one KYS fag), the site hasn't been taken in a new direction. A slip in transparency is nothing to scoff at, but some are turning molehills into mountains, and it's getting extremely tiring to see users maintaining hair trigger hypervigilance to the point of paranoia. Attaching a picture of a pony to baseless accusations and wild speculation does not make it any less irritating, either.
>>5656
Well, if the site had funding issues, I'm sure we really would be ringing the bells and screaming the end is nigh. Private funding out of pocket doesn't sound like a good long term solution to me, it reminds me a lot of 4chan in the early days come to think of it, though we aren't nearly as large a site or have as gay an administrator as moot, so what would I know.
[Read more] In their defense, the policy page does make it clear that pupperwoff is next in line for site ownership, and he owns it now. So policy was followed in one way if not another. It was a mistake to keep it quiet this long, though I can't blame Atlas for possibly wanting to avoid questions as to why he'd transfer ownership, some would want to know the specific reasons, and he'd then have to blogpost about his troubles presumably.
Nothing has actually changed, the site continues to operate on the frontend as it always has, the mods continue to do their work as they have been (especially in regards to northeastern european promo shitposting and that one KYS fag), the site hasn't been taken in a new direction. A slip in transparency is nothing to scoff at, but some are turning molehills into mountains, and it's getting extremely tiring to see users maintaining hair trigger hypervigilance to the point of paranoia. Attaching a picture of a pony to baseless accusations and wild speculation does not make it any less irritating, either.
>>5656
Well, if the site had funding issues, I'm sure we really would be ringing the bells and screaming the end is nigh. Private funding out of pocket doesn't sound like a good long term solution to me, it reminds me a lot of 4chan in the early days come to think of it, though we aren't nearly as large a site or have as gay an administrator as moot, so what would I know.
>>5656
What >>5651 is completely incorrect. Everything he mentioned is very important and must not be kept secret. Hell, I am sure that this guy was you, because who else would be bullshitting this hard, but you? Sorry, mate, but your line about " It was neither announced nor kept secret because it didn't affect much" is simply not true. It really does affect much. And attempting to deny this only further confirms that the staff may as well be compromised.
What >>5651 is completely incorrect. Everything he mentioned is very important and must not be kept secret. Hell, I am sure that this guy was you, because who else would be bullshitting this hard, but you? Sorry, mate, but your line about " It was neither announced nor kept secret because it didn't affect much" is simply not true. It really does affect much. And attempting to deny this only further confirms that the staff may as well be compromised.
>>5656
>lying about more than just Atlas being the owner
Fine, that one got a chuckle, but you are still dancing around the point.
>>5657
>>5658
It's the principle of the thing. Trust has been broken. If the site is in better hands, that's great I guess, but the trust between staff and community (which is already kind of low, because most of us tend to be paranoid schizos one way or the other), and that trust has to be built back up now. Takes a bit longer than updating code, too.
>lying about more than just Atlas being the owner
Fine, that one got a chuckle, but you are still dancing around the point.
>>5657
>>5658
It's the principle of the thing. Trust has been broken. If the site is in better hands, that's great I guess, but the trust between staff and community (which is already kind of low, because most of us tend to be paranoid schizos one way or the other), and that trust has to be built back up now. Takes a bit longer than updating code, too.
>>5660
Thanks for confirming that you're the shill that was defending staff's incredibly poor decisions or...
>>5662
>Add (You) exists
...You could be making it all up, which means you could very well be Lotus samefagging. Not like it matters, because what matters is that you are being awfully defensive of staff breaking the policy.
Thanks for confirming that you're the shill that was defending staff's incredibly poor decisions or...
>>5662
>Add (You) exists
...You could be making it all up, which means you could very well be Lotus samefagging. Not like it matters, because what matters is that you are being awfully defensive of staff breaking the policy.
>>5661
Well fine, you've made your point about that, but at this point we're all just talking in circles about it. Which begs the question, what do you actually want from them if we're going on about this slip for so long? For them all to resign? Update the policy page? Issue a public apology? I don't see anything constructive going on, just a bunch of posts beating the proverbial dead horse that, yes, this event did indeed happen and it's super bad that it did. It's starting to sound like a broken record.
Well fine, you've made your point about that, but at this point we're all just talking in circles about it. Which begs the question, what do you actually want from them if we're going on about this slip for so long? For them all to resign? Update the policy page? Issue a public apology? I don't see anything constructive going on, just a bunch of posts beating the proverbial dead horse that, yes, this event did indeed happen and it's super bad that it did. It's starting to sound like a broken record.
Anonymous
No.5665
>>5663
>Thanks for confirming that you're the shill that was defending staff's incredibly poor decisions or...
Actually it is fairness to me, not ass kissing.
The site runs smoothly, shills are properly managed, what else can I ask?
You on the other hand are sowing seeds of discord and aggressively addressing the staff for nothing burgers.
So, who is the shill here?
>Thanks for confirming that you're the shill that was defending staff's incredibly poor decisions or...
Actually it is fairness to me, not ass kissing.
The site runs smoothly, shills are properly managed, what else can I ask?
You on the other hand are sowing seeds of discord and aggressively addressing the staff for nothing burgers.
So, who is the shill here?
>>5659
>It really does affect much
What does it affect exactly? Because the only change I notice is that the website doesn't go down when Atlas forgets to pay the servers.
>it's very important
What is so important about it? Sure, it's better to announce who owns the servers when there is a transfer, but when announcing that will lead to questions about Atlas's personal life that violate his privacy, as well as doom posting about people leaving, then the tradeoff isn't worth it
>the site is compromised
Do you really think that having the guy who wrote the code of the site and is listed in the policy page as being the backup owner in case Atlas is unfit owning the site, is on the same level as federal agents having access to the website's backend? Do you honestly believe that?
>>5661
>the principle of the thing
And my principle is respecting Atlas's privacy and letting him go out quietly and with dignity as he wanted, without unnecessary questions or OH MY GOD HE BETRAYED THE FANDOM.
Again, if it were my intent to keep it super sekrit for all eternity, I wouldn't have mentioned it casually in answer to a different question.
>>5663
Are you trolling us?
[Read more] >It really does affect much
What does it affect exactly? Because the only change I notice is that the website doesn't go down when Atlas forgets to pay the servers.
>it's very important
What is so important about it? Sure, it's better to announce who owns the servers when there is a transfer, but when announcing that will lead to questions about Atlas's personal life that violate his privacy, as well as doom posting about people leaving, then the tradeoff isn't worth it
>the site is compromised
Do you really think that having the guy who wrote the code of the site and is listed in the policy page as being the backup owner in case Atlas is unfit owning the site, is on the same level as federal agents having access to the website's backend? Do you honestly believe that?
>>5661
>the principle of the thing
And my principle is respecting Atlas's privacy and letting him go out quietly and with dignity as he wanted, without unnecessary questions or OH MY GOD HE BETRAYED THE FANDOM.
Again, if it were my intent to keep it super sekrit for all eternity, I wouldn't have mentioned it casually in answer to a different question.
>>5663
Are you trolling us?
>>5661
This little bit of negligence is enough to completely sever trust? Don't count on it. This drama is all so tiresome. Again, it never was deliberately withheld, there's nothing to gain from making a stink about it.
This little bit of negligence is enough to completely sever trust? Don't count on it. This drama is all so tiresome. Again, it never was deliberately withheld, there's nothing to gain from making a stink about it.
>>5664
>what do you actually want from them
Address that it was bad, at the very least.
>Update the policy page?
That's a start.
>Issue a public apology?
Meh. That would be energy that could've been spent on making sure that transparency really is a thing from now on. A promise and demonstration of keeping said promise would go a lot further than any apology.
The reason this thread reads like a broken record, is that multiple anons want to voice their similar opinions about it.
>>5667
>it never was deliberately withheld
Read the post above yours.
[Read more] >what do you actually want from them
Address that it was bad, at the very least.
>Update the policy page?
That's a start.
>Issue a public apology?
Meh. That would be energy that could've been spent on making sure that transparency really is a thing from now on. A promise and demonstration of keeping said promise would go a lot further than any apology.
The reason this thread reads like a broken record, is that multiple anons want to voice their similar opinions about it.
>>5667
>it never was deliberately withheld
Read the post above yours.
Anonymous
No.5670
>>5669
>Address that it was bad, at the very least.
It has been, and you're going to have to have patience for other staff to get around to this thread and make their statements. They ain't omnipresent.
>That's a start.
Agreed.
>That would be energy that could've been spent on making sure that transparency really is a thing from now on.
It is a thing, this was a minor infraction and it wasn't committed with malicious intent, which grants it a degree of leeway, at least in my opinion.
>Address that it was bad, at the very least.
It has been, and you're going to have to have patience for other staff to get around to this thread and make their statements. They ain't omnipresent.
>That's a start.
Agreed.
>That would be energy that could've been spent on making sure that transparency really is a thing from now on.
It is a thing, this was a minor infraction and it wasn't committed with malicious intent, which grants it a degree of leeway, at least in my opinion.
It's worth mentioning that changes to the public policy page must be made through server access. The page cannot be changed with a simple admin account. I assure you, there are plenty of other things that need addressing in the code.
>>5669
>Read the post above yours.
<Again, if it were my intent to keep it super sekrit for all eternity, I wouldn't have mentioned it casually in answer to a different question.
>Read the post above yours.
<Again, if it were my intent to keep it super sekrit for all eternity, I wouldn't have mentioned it casually in answer to a different question.
Anonymous
No.5673
>>5672
That just means it was deliberately withheld for a lesser amount of time than eternity. It also says
>And my principle is respecting Atlas's privacy and letting him go out quietly and with dignity as he wanted, without unnecessary questions or OH MY GOD HE BETRAYED THE FANDOM.
right above it, as the reasoning for why it was withheld. It's all there in plain English. If you actually have something else to add, then proceed, but that specific claim of yours is still invalidated by the post directly preceding yours.
Did they tell us? No. wɪðˈhɛld
Was it on purpose? Yes. dɪˈlɪbərɪtli
That just means it was deliberately withheld for a lesser amount of time than eternity. It also says
>And my principle is respecting Atlas's privacy and letting him go out quietly and with dignity as he wanted, without unnecessary questions or OH MY GOD HE BETRAYED THE FANDOM.
right above it, as the reasoning for why it was withheld. It's all there in plain English. If you actually have something else to add, then proceed, but that specific claim of yours is still invalidated by the post directly preceding yours.
Did they tell us? No. wɪðˈhɛld
Was it on purpose? Yes. dɪˈlɪbərɪtli
>>5667
Little bit of negligence, my ass! There is nothing little about this at all. And how can you say it wasn't deliberately withheld when it actually was? Staff told us nothing and they did it on purpose.
>>5666
>Do you really think that having the guy who wrote the code of the site and is listed in the policy page as being the backup owner in case Atlas is unfit owning the site, is on the same level as federal agents having access to the website's backend?
Given how the transfership got handled and only became known less than a day ago despite whole year or more passing since then? Despite him not even being listed as backup owner a year ago? Maybe only as a response to this day's thread, but before? I doubt that. Pupperwoff should've stuck to coding instead of administrating. If he was any good, he wouldn't have kept this transfership a secret, he would have said that Atlus is resigning due to IRL reasons and he's taking his place. That's what should have happened. Instead, he and the rest of the staff kept this a secret. They probably kept a lot more than that a secret. And would have kept it that way, if no one asked about the moderation team and you haven't revealed the news that should have been revealed a long time ago. This indicates that not only did the staff neglect upholding the transparency rule, they did it for so long that it should not be surprising that this might be seen as site being possibly compromised.
>And my principle is respecting Atlas's privacy and letting him go out quietly and with dignity as he wanted, without unnecessary questions
No question is unnecessary. Also, there is nothing wrong with questions about Atlas's personal life when you already have a good answer already, perhaps even several such answers. And the doompost part is just more useless excuses. It would be one thing if the event was very recent, that would be minor and forgivable. But when such an event is being kept secret for more than a year then it is no longer minor and much less forgivable.
>>5671
Then, I suppose we should wait for Pupperwoff to appear and explain just what the fuck was he doing and how many more things he keeps secret that really shouldn't be.
>>5664
>Which begs the question, what do you actually want from them if we're going on about this slip for so long?
>For them all to resign?
The community must decide their punishment.
>Update the policy page?
Only with the community's consent and the updates must be made clear.
>Issue a public apology?
Alongside with above, but they also must ensure that transparency will be a thing from now on and will be applied retroactively.
[Read more] Little bit of negligence, my ass! There is nothing little about this at all. And how can you say it wasn't deliberately withheld when it actually was? Staff told us nothing and they did it on purpose.
>>5666
>Do you really think that having the guy who wrote the code of the site and is listed in the policy page as being the backup owner in case Atlas is unfit owning the site, is on the same level as federal agents having access to the website's backend?
Given how the transfership got handled and only became known less than a day ago despite whole year or more passing since then? Despite him not even being listed as backup owner a year ago? Maybe only as a response to this day's thread, but before? I doubt that. Pupperwoff should've stuck to coding instead of administrating. If he was any good, he wouldn't have kept this transfership a secret, he would have said that Atlus is resigning due to IRL reasons and he's taking his place. That's what should have happened. Instead, he and the rest of the staff kept this a secret. They probably kept a lot more than that a secret. And would have kept it that way, if no one asked about the moderation team and you haven't revealed the news that should have been revealed a long time ago. This indicates that not only did the staff neglect upholding the transparency rule, they did it for so long that it should not be surprising that this might be seen as site being possibly compromised.
>And my principle is respecting Atlas's privacy and letting him go out quietly and with dignity as he wanted, without unnecessary questions
No question is unnecessary. Also, there is nothing wrong with questions about Atlas's personal life when you already have a good answer already, perhaps even several such answers. And the doompost part is just more useless excuses. It would be one thing if the event was very recent, that would be minor and forgivable. But when such an event is being kept secret for more than a year then it is no longer minor and much less forgivable.
>>5671
Then, I suppose we should wait for Pupperwoff to appear and explain just what the fuck was he doing and how many more things he keeps secret that really shouldn't be.
>>5664
>Which begs the question, what do you actually want from them if we're going on about this slip for so long?
>For them all to resign?
The community must decide their punishment.
>Update the policy page?
Only with the community's consent and the updates must be made clear.
>Issue a public apology?
Alongside with above, but they also must ensure that transparency will be a thing from now on and will be applied retroactively.
Anonymous
No.5675
>>5674
You're fucking insane. Your priorities are utterly goddamned screwed if you're getting this worked up about something so minor. Get a sense of perspective, man, get some fucking humility. You're gonna talk about punishment like we're bringing up war criminals for tribunal? Go take a fucking walk outside for a while.
You're fucking insane. Your priorities are utterly goddamned screwed if you're getting this worked up about something so minor. Get a sense of perspective, man, get some fucking humility. You're gonna talk about punishment like we're bringing up war criminals for tribunal? Go take a fucking walk outside for a while.
Anonymous
No.5677
>>5676
TBH, it is like the family of AOC just parachuted here. Totally full SJW talking and attitude.
TBH, it is like the family of AOC just parachuted here. Totally full SJW talking and attitude.
>>5676
>gonna talk about punishment
I don't think "punishment" is the right course of action, but some apparent accountability would be good.
If the site policy rules can be broken with no regard, and nothing happens, how are we supposed to trust that they're ever being followed?
>gonna talk about punishment
I don't think "punishment" is the right course of action, but some apparent accountability would be good.
If the site policy rules can be broken with no regard, and nothing happens, how are we supposed to trust that they're ever being followed?
>>5678
OP is looking for some vendetta masquerading as a fair request.
Give an inch and they will take a mile.
OP is looking for some vendetta masquerading as a fair request.
Give an inch and they will take a mile.
>>5678
His only good point is that the transfer of ownership should have been announced at some point. That's something we can agree on. However, he goes off the rails with "this site is compromised" and "the community must decide their punishment." The staff don't work for us and certainly aren't our slaves, they're fellow horsefuckers who just want the /mlpol/ experience to stay alive. Asking them to be more open about such things as far as they can while respecting privacy is reasonable, constantly lambasting them (in reality only Lotus, who has put his neck out here) is not.
>>5680
Motte & bailey tactics.
His only good point is that the transfer of ownership should have been announced at some point. That's something we can agree on. However, he goes off the rails with "this site is compromised" and "the community must decide their punishment." The staff don't work for us and certainly aren't our slaves, they're fellow horsefuckers who just want the /mlpol/ experience to stay alive. Asking them to be more open about such things as far as they can while respecting privacy is reasonable, constantly lambasting them (in reality only Lotus, who has put his neck out here) is not.
>>5680
Motte & bailey tactics.
>>5679
We're talking about holding a group of people who keep this site running out of their own time and money accountable for a minor slip up, when every single one of us should know damn well the policy is intended to protect this site and its community from malicious opacity. A zero tolerance enforcement of policy regardless of the circumstances will only do more harm than good. If you don't trust that the site is being run in good faith, then get involved in helping.
We're talking about holding a group of people who keep this site running out of their own time and money accountable for a minor slip up, when every single one of us should know damn well the policy is intended to protect this site and its community from malicious opacity. A zero tolerance enforcement of policy regardless of the circumstances will only do more harm than good. If you don't trust that the site is being run in good faith, then get involved in helping.
Anonymous
No.5684
Anonymous
No.5687
>>5681
>Motte & bailey tactics.
It reminds me of the last posts in the books thread, one of them was very educative, at least for me:
>>>/mlpol/303876 → →
>Motte & bailey tactics.
It reminds me of the last posts in the books thread, one of them was very educative, at least for me:
>>>/mlpol/303876 → →
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-205] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
205 replies | 51 files | 26 UUIDs | Page 5
[Add to Thread Watcher]