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 43 files omitted.
>>5680
He's not the OP. I am. Don't misconstrue the intent of this thread.
It's supposed to be about transparency and community input as defined by the site's policies.
>>5683
I only want to be able to trust that the policies of this site will be taken more seriously in the future, not burning the whole place to the ground.
> If you don't trust that the site is being run in good faith, then get involved in helping.
That's what I'm trying to do right now.
He's not the OP. I am. Don't misconstrue the intent of this thread.
It's supposed to be about transparency and community input as defined by the site's policies.
>>5683
I only want to be able to trust that the policies of this site will be taken more seriously in the future, not burning the whole place to the ground.
> If you don't trust that the site is being run in good faith, then get involved in helping.
That's what I'm trying to do right now.
1616504017.png (269.8 KB, 680x680, 655FA7FA-DA10-43B4-9B04-7C23654C2FD9.png)
I guess since we are all posting, I might as well bring up my involvement in hopes to put a stop to this freak out. I am the one that suggested in the first place not to tell anyone. I know this is enough to condemn myself to these posters out for blood, but there is a reason to my madness. I’ll let you be the judge if that reasoning was retarded or not.
My reasoning was that this would mark in the minds of posters, especially ones that made this thread, that this was the start of a new era, without the original founder, while all the while, he is still around and can just come back, which I hope he does sooner rather than later. There is a charisma around him that makes the site much more enjoyable when he is around.
I don’t very much like change. There have been some disagreements as to the direction of the site, some really really early on in site history that would have altered the site completely if gone unopposed, and yet, it was opposed. We tend to reject nearly all changes in favor of keeping everything the same. The largest debates we have as staff now is if something should be deleted, someone should be banned, and when we should allot downtime to update the code of the site. The code is the only major change the site has had recently, and before that was the addition of several other boards for other topics of discussion that don’t quite fit the ponies/politics theme.
And I will still hold to having made the right call, because as far as I am concerned, Pupper is just holding a temporary position. Atlas should have and I believe would have made it known himself to all of you if his time as overlord of all existence was up. An announcement of the sorts would imply he just simply abandoned ship, ran away, quit and never looked back. That isn’t the person Atlas is.
It was agreed, even after the staff took up my view of the matter, that if anyone should ask, we would tell them, despite the backlash, because it is a level of transparency to make it known should there be a question to staff. I will further add that I am against the suggestion that there should be a change log, in part because I will be fighting to keep all changes to the site to a minimum, if not changed at all. An empty change log would only drive suspicion and a desire to see more added over time. Additions should stem from the users and not the staff. Plus, a change log with “We sat on our asses, banned KYS filly for spam, and hated going back to work in the morning” would get pretty depressing.
To sum it up, I did it. The rest simply didn’t disagree with my suggestion, so please stop trying to make the whole of staff out to be a secret keeping monster. There is no broken trust, just a couple of angry anons. If Atlas never comes back, then to us he is still the leader, regardless. He is just not here right now. We operate like this until he comes back.
[Read more] My reasoning was that this would mark in the minds of posters, especially ones that made this thread, that this was the start of a new era, without the original founder, while all the while, he is still around and can just come back, which I hope he does sooner rather than later. There is a charisma around him that makes the site much more enjoyable when he is around.
I don’t very much like change. There have been some disagreements as to the direction of the site, some really really early on in site history that would have altered the site completely if gone unopposed, and yet, it was opposed. We tend to reject nearly all changes in favor of keeping everything the same. The largest debates we have as staff now is if something should be deleted, someone should be banned, and when we should allot downtime to update the code of the site. The code is the only major change the site has had recently, and before that was the addition of several other boards for other topics of discussion that don’t quite fit the ponies/politics theme.
And I will still hold to having made the right call, because as far as I am concerned, Pupper is just holding a temporary position. Atlas should have and I believe would have made it known himself to all of you if his time as overlord of all existence was up. An announcement of the sorts would imply he just simply abandoned ship, ran away, quit and never looked back. That isn’t the person Atlas is.
It was agreed, even after the staff took up my view of the matter, that if anyone should ask, we would tell them, despite the backlash, because it is a level of transparency to make it known should there be a question to staff. I will further add that I am against the suggestion that there should be a change log, in part because I will be fighting to keep all changes to the site to a minimum, if not changed at all. An empty change log would only drive suspicion and a desire to see more added over time. Additions should stem from the users and not the staff. Plus, a change log with “We sat on our asses, banned KYS filly for spam, and hated going back to work in the morning” would get pretty depressing.
To sum it up, I did it. The rest simply didn’t disagree with my suggestion, so please stop trying to make the whole of staff out to be a secret keeping monster. There is no broken trust, just a couple of angry anons. If Atlas never comes back, then to us he is still the leader, regardless. He is just not here right now. We operate like this until he comes back.
Anonymous
No.5691
There's no fucking IDs in this thread. Everyone is getting mixed up. Maybe this would be better off in:
https://mlpol.net/mlpol/304420
https://mlpol.net/mlpol/304420
>>5690
Damn it. I can never get the Mod name thing to work right. I’m Fasces. I will never get used to namefagging.
Damn it. I can never get the Mod name thing to work right. I’m Fasces. I will never get used to namefagging.
>>5688
"Unpunished"? All he did was not properly announce "Yeah this guy's busy with IRL shit so his best friend's in charge for now" when it happened.
It ain't like he embezzled site funds for a private project that doesn't benefit the site or white people.
"Unpunished"? All he did was not properly announce "Yeah this guy's busy with IRL shit so his best friend's in charge for now" when it happened.
It ain't like he embezzled site funds for a private project that doesn't benefit the site or white people.
>>5690
>It was agreed, even after the staff took up my view of the matter, that if anyone should ask, we would tell them, despite the backlash, because it is a level of transparency to make it known should there be a question to staff.
Well, that's a bit reassuring, but isn't that kind of lucrative? We can't exactly ask questions about things that we don't know are happening.
>It was agreed, even after the staff took up my view of the matter, that if anyone should ask, we would tell them, despite the backlash, because it is a level of transparency to make it known should there be a question to staff.
Well, that's a bit reassuring, but isn't that kind of lucrative? We can't exactly ask questions about things that we don't know are happening.
>>5690
Thank you very much! I just wish you posted this quite some time ago when Lotus was taking the brunt of the vitriol. The poor guy must've gotten a headache from all this.
Thank you very much! I just wish you posted this quite some time ago when Lotus was taking the brunt of the vitriol. The poor guy must've gotten a headache from all this.
Anonymous
No.5696
>>5690
I think you have made the worst call possible. Suggesting not to tell anyone about the transfership is nothing but a mistake. And I doubt anything can possibly justify what you have done. You should have told everyone from the start and made it clear that Pupperwoff is taking Atlas's place for the time being while he's sorting his IRL issues out, if Lotus to be trusted. Keeping quiet on such an important matter was a mistake. The rest should have disagreed and revealed what was going on instead of willingfully breaking one of the most important rules.
I think you have made the worst call possible. Suggesting not to tell anyone about the transfership is nothing but a mistake. And I doubt anything can possibly justify what you have done. You should have told everyone from the start and made it clear that Pupperwoff is taking Atlas's place for the time being while he's sorting his IRL issues out, if Lotus to be trusted. Keeping quiet on such an important matter was a mistake. The rest should have disagreed and revealed what was going on instead of willingfully breaking one of the most important rules.
All I want is to be able to trust that the policies of this board are being followed...
>>5697
>The rest should have disagreed and revealed what was going on instead of willingfully breaking one of the most important rules.
This raises it's own questions.
Is there some kind of secrecy pact within the administration? Are site staff made to comply with issues to cover these things up? What happens if there's a disagreement among the staff when it pertains to transparency?
Tbh, the staff policy page is really vague. It claims that the staff are supposed to be transparent and take community input, but it doesn't really say anything about the agreements and policies that the staff have among themselves. How is it that decisions are made? If mods disagree with certain courses of action, are they allowed to tell the rest of us?
>>5697
>The rest should have disagreed and revealed what was going on instead of willingfully breaking one of the most important rules.
This raises it's own questions.
Is there some kind of secrecy pact within the administration? Are site staff made to comply with issues to cover these things up? What happens if there's a disagreement among the staff when it pertains to transparency?
Tbh, the staff policy page is really vague. It claims that the staff are supposed to be transparent and take community input, but it doesn't really say anything about the agreements and policies that the staff have among themselves. How is it that decisions are made? If mods disagree with certain courses of action, are they allowed to tell the rest of us?
>>5688
>This is quite serious
Your priorities are fucked in a world where literal genocide would be considered a major happening, not a site admin failing to notify us that he was stepping down due to personal reasons. They're not getting away with it, this entire thread is them not getting away with it. They failed to notify us and pretty much all of us have expressed disappointment with that failure, the point of contention is what should be done about it. Obviously the policy page should be updated to reflect that actual site ownership.
Otherwise, vague calls of 'punishment' seem to be ruling the day here, and according to policy, that involves dismissal. So let's talk about accountability.
Presumably most of the staff knew about this for almost a year, under the policy, that would mean they'd all have to resign, including pupperwoff. That's at the very least yet another change in site ownership, to who? We're presumably gutting the core of the staff running the site over this. Any of you fags willing to step up? Got the money? The time? Do you really? You might as well be calling to have /mlpol/ shut down over something that wasn't done out of any malicious intent.
This isn't to say nothing should happen, so let's talk minimising accountability to a single person. Who's responsibility should it have been to notify us about the change of site ownership? Why, naturally the owner of course! So according to policy, pupperwoff has to resign.
So what do we do? What do you think we should do, actually say something instead of reeing about what happened, others have. Apology, which has been given, at least by Lotus. Update to the policy page, which we have to wait for someone with system access to do, no one's said no to that. What's really being left unsaid is that some people in this thread want to see a resignation, and I'm just saying that's a terrible fucking idea given the circumstances around this.
>>5689
A tea time should be held to discuss this when more of the staff are available to talk with the community, and it's been fielded already. More than that is something we can't accomplish in this thread.
[Read more] >This is quite serious
Your priorities are fucked in a world where literal genocide would be considered a major happening, not a site admin failing to notify us that he was stepping down due to personal reasons. They're not getting away with it, this entire thread is them not getting away with it. They failed to notify us and pretty much all of us have expressed disappointment with that failure, the point of contention is what should be done about it. Obviously the policy page should be updated to reflect that actual site ownership.
Otherwise, vague calls of 'punishment' seem to be ruling the day here, and according to policy, that involves dismissal. So let's talk about accountability.
Presumably most of the staff knew about this for almost a year, under the policy, that would mean they'd all have to resign, including pupperwoff. That's at the very least yet another change in site ownership, to who? We're presumably gutting the core of the staff running the site over this. Any of you fags willing to step up? Got the money? The time? Do you really? You might as well be calling to have /mlpol/ shut down over something that wasn't done out of any malicious intent.
This isn't to say nothing should happen, so let's talk minimising accountability to a single person. Who's responsibility should it have been to notify us about the change of site ownership? Why, naturally the owner of course! So according to policy, pupperwoff has to resign.
So what do we do? What do you think we should do, actually say something instead of reeing about what happened, others have. Apology, which has been given, at least by Lotus. Update to the policy page, which we have to wait for someone with system access to do, no one's said no to that. What's really being left unsaid is that some people in this thread want to see a resignation, and I'm just saying that's a terrible fucking idea given the circumstances around this.
>>5689
A tea time should be held to discuss this when more of the staff are available to talk with the community, and it's been fielded already. More than that is something we can't accomplish in this thread.
Ninjas
No.5703
>>5694
People tend to eventually ask where you are if you aren’t around. I just hoped he would have been back before this conversation.
>>5695
Sorry. I had to get some rest before work. I will be going after this post, so I won’t be back for some time, but I will pick it up from there.
>>5697
It was not a mistake as I mentioned. Feel free to disagree with my assessment of reasoning and then we can see if my reasoning was flawed, but I believe my reasoning was solid. I don’t care if you can’t personally trust the people that have kept the site safe for years. Their record should afford this easily. I don’t claim that same level of record, but this is something you have blown out of proportion. No rule was broken. We promised a level of transparency and you got it. Upon questioning we revealed his absence. We do not promise full transparency. I’m sorry if this is not to your liking. I felt this situation was sensitive enough to keep back, especially if people start prodding for personal details. The rest simply followed suit. I don’t think it is fair to levy blame on others for agreeing because sometimes you can find yourself agreeing to things that you wouldn’t normally because no other option has been argued or put to words like the first suggested course of action.
>>5698
I believe that to be the wisest course of action. But the people in this thread calling for reform will not take such an easy path I’m afraid. They will be heard, but it would be best to just move on.
[Read more] People tend to eventually ask where you are if you aren’t around. I just hoped he would have been back before this conversation.
>>5695
Sorry. I had to get some rest before work. I will be going after this post, so I won’t be back for some time, but I will pick it up from there.
>>5697
It was not a mistake as I mentioned. Feel free to disagree with my assessment of reasoning and then we can see if my reasoning was flawed, but I believe my reasoning was solid. I don’t care if you can’t personally trust the people that have kept the site safe for years. Their record should afford this easily. I don’t claim that same level of record, but this is something you have blown out of proportion. No rule was broken. We promised a level of transparency and you got it. Upon questioning we revealed his absence. We do not promise full transparency. I’m sorry if this is not to your liking. I felt this situation was sensitive enough to keep back, especially if people start prodding for personal details. The rest simply followed suit. I don’t think it is fair to levy blame on others for agreeing because sometimes you can find yourself agreeing to things that you wouldn’t normally because no other option has been argued or put to words like the first suggested course of action.
>>5698
I believe that to be the wisest course of action. But the people in this thread calling for reform will not take such an easy path I’m afraid. They will be heard, but it would be best to just move on.
>>5702
>You might as well be calling to have /mlpol/ shut down over something
That's clearly not what he's calling for.
>Any of you fags willing to step up? Got the money? The time? Do you really?
If that's what it takes to have a transparent board where the pivotal policies are actually followed, then sure as heck. I want reform.
>You might as well be calling to have /mlpol/ shut down over something
That's clearly not what he's calling for.
>Any of you fags willing to step up? Got the money? The time? Do you really?
If that's what it takes to have a transparent board where the pivotal policies are actually followed, then sure as heck. I want reform.
>>5702
Pupper will not be resigning. If you want blood, you can call for me to resign, but you will not touch the admins. No one else is fit to hold power responsibly than the people already in it. The years have proven that.
>>5705
All policies have been followed as written. It is your own interpretation of what those rules that has not. Your call to reform is not a reform but a total change of the hands of power. This is both uncalled for and overkill.
Pupper will not be resigning. If you want blood, you can call for me to resign, but you will not touch the admins. No one else is fit to hold power responsibly than the people already in it. The years have proven that.
>>5705
All policies have been followed as written. It is your own interpretation of what those rules that has not. Your call to reform is not a reform but a total change of the hands of power. This is both uncalled for and overkill.
>>5705
You're correct, he's not calling for that, he's not calling for anything just shrieking about violated trust and a need to punish the perpetrators. Which according to policy is dismissal. So yes, while he's not calling to shut down /mlpol/, that will be the actual result since no one in this thread has stepped up to offer themselves as replacements to lost staff. We're not just talking about removing a couple of mods and jannies here, but the literal technicians that maintain the site's functions.
>I want reform.
Okay, so what can you do? You got any web dev experience, financial security to pay the running costs? Or are you just a retard ideas guy?
>>5706
I'm not calling for anyone to resign, honestly I don't think this is nearly as bad as people are making it out to be, since I can tell the difference between breaking the rules maliciously and breaking them out of an (arguably) misguided sense of benevolence.
You fags, and I mean that affectionately, have sat on this for about a year, and what has happened? Zero negative impact on the community, none at all. In fact, we'd never have noticed at all if it had never been brought up. That alone should prove you guys are on the level, even if it wasn't a good idea to keep this quiet this long. So I'm arguing for leniency in this case given the staff's exceptional record up to now.
[Read more] You're correct, he's not calling for that, he's not calling for anything just shrieking about violated trust and a need to punish the perpetrators. Which according to policy is dismissal. So yes, while he's not calling to shut down /mlpol/, that will be the actual result since no one in this thread has stepped up to offer themselves as replacements to lost staff. We're not just talking about removing a couple of mods and jannies here, but the literal technicians that maintain the site's functions.
>I want reform.
Okay, so what can you do? You got any web dev experience, financial security to pay the running costs? Or are you just a retard ideas guy?
>>5706
I'm not calling for anyone to resign, honestly I don't think this is nearly as bad as people are making it out to be, since I can tell the difference between breaking the rules maliciously and breaking them out of an (arguably) misguided sense of benevolence.
You fags, and I mean that affectionately, have sat on this for about a year, and what has happened? Zero negative impact on the community, none at all. In fact, we'd never have noticed at all if it had never been brought up. That alone should prove you guys are on the level, even if it wasn't a good idea to keep this quiet this long. So I'm arguing for leniency in this case given the staff's exceptional record up to now.
>>5706
>resigning
No concessions poner.
Draw the line and make a stand. You are not alone.
OP's faggotry can't be allowed.
>resigning
No concessions poner.
Draw the line and make a stand. You are not alone.
OP's faggotry can't be allowed.
>>5706
>All policies have been followed as written.
That simply isn't true.
Staff rule #2 says that staff will be transparent. For an amount of time "since last year", the policy page since last year said that the owner of the site was someone other than who it really is: the policy page was a lie, and therefore it was not transparent.
As for staff rule #3, which says that community considerations would be taken into account, the community was given no prior notice or any opportunity to express opinions on this matter before it occured, so community considerations were not taken into account.
So, overall, it really looks like these very important rules are either not being followed, or aren't being interpretted.
What is going to happen to amend this?
>>5708
Nobody asked for resignation. We're asking for transparency/accountability. Hold your fucking horses.
>All policies have been followed as written.
That simply isn't true.
Staff rule #2 says that staff will be transparent. For an amount of time "since last year", the policy page since last year said that the owner of the site was someone other than who it really is: the policy page was a lie, and therefore it was not transparent.
As for staff rule #3, which says that community considerations would be taken into account, the community was given no prior notice or any opportunity to express opinions on this matter before it occured, so community considerations were not taken into account.
So, overall, it really looks like these very important rules are either not being followed, or aren't being interpretted.
What is going to happen to amend this?
>>5708
Nobody asked for resignation. We're asking for transparency/accountability. Hold your fucking horses.
>>5702
>Otherwise, vague calls of 'punishment' seem to be ruling the day here, and according to policy, that involves dismissal. So let's talk about accountability.
Well maybe then there should be some degrees of accountability between just doing nothing and outright dismissal. Maybe then the staff would be more willing to come forward if they fuck up. instead of just keeping everything secret.
>Otherwise, vague calls of 'punishment' seem to be ruling the day here, and according to policy, that involves dismissal. So let's talk about accountability.
Well maybe then there should be some degrees of accountability between just doing nothing and outright dismissal. Maybe then the staff would be more willing to come forward if they fuck up. instead of just keeping everything secret.
>>5709
I will reiterate, the policy as written has been followed. There has and will always be a level of transparency, but not everything should be out in the open. I argued that this was one of those times it should not be mentioned in transparency. If you wish, since I have to leave for work, mention how the community would have benefited from the knowledge and how this falls into should have been transparent and I will see your reasoning. I will look over your arguments when given a chance.
I will reiterate, the policy as written has been followed. There has and will always be a level of transparency, but not everything should be out in the open. I argued that this was one of those times it should not be mentioned in transparency. If you wish, since I have to leave for work, mention how the community would have benefited from the knowledge and how this falls into should have been transparent and I will see your reasoning. I will look over your arguments when given a chance.
>>5707
>financial security to pay the running costs?
What's it cost, a couple hundred dollars a month? I think I could pick it up. I use this site every day, and I wouldn't mind paying for it if there were any indication that
>We're not just talking about removing a couple of mods and jannies here, but the literal technicians that maintain the site's functions.
Nobody fucking asked for anyone to be removed. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
>financial security to pay the running costs?
What's it cost, a couple hundred dollars a month? I think I could pick it up. I use this site every day, and I wouldn't mind paying for it if there were any indication that
>We're not just talking about removing a couple of mods and jannies here, but the literal technicians that maintain the site's functions.
Nobody fucking asked for anyone to be removed. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
Anonymous
No.5713
>>5704
>We do not promise full transparency
Then, please, tell me why are you a staff member, if you are not promising full transparency? If we had full transparency, if we had an announcement there would be no drama happening surrounding this.
>But the people in this thread calling for reform will not take such an easy path I’m afraid. They will be heard, but it would be best to just move on.
I do not believe so. Moving on will not happen until it will be ensured that staff will follow the staff rules and a proper announcement of the (temporary) transfership will be made as soon as possible. People deserve to know what was happening behind the scenes since past year.
>We do not promise full transparency
Then, please, tell me why are you a staff member, if you are not promising full transparency? If we had full transparency, if we had an announcement there would be no drama happening surrounding this.
>But the people in this thread calling for reform will not take such an easy path I’m afraid. They will be heard, but it would be best to just move on.
I do not believe so. Moving on will not happen until it will be ensured that staff will follow the staff rules and a proper announcement of the (temporary) transfership will be made as soon as possible. People deserve to know what was happening behind the scenes since past year.
Something that bears consideration in all this, and is a reiteration of a previous point.
/mlpol/ is not a democracy.
The site, domain, and even the proprietary code (intellectual property) all belong to Pupper. So, while the site is ostensibly democratic, it is not a democracy. Do with that info what you will.
Furthermore, Fasces is a gud boi, if woefully naive and a bit sycophantic at times. Those criticisms aside, his track record of erring on the side of caution is well established and not inappropriate.
The site is driven by users, but it isnt run by users, which is at the heart of why there is still a discord diaspora that generally avoids using the site (with exception). When /mlpol/ was made a private venture, it would not have been possible without someone(s) taking responsibility and putting their name on the dotted line. And the individual who until very recently (yours truly, btw) made the agreement with Atlas to cover operational costs for the site, it was done under the express notion that contributions were voluntary and would offer no credit or influence over site policy.
Just an fyi for you all
/mlpol/ is not a democracy.
The site, domain, and even the proprietary code (intellectual property) all belong to Pupper. So, while the site is ostensibly democratic, it is not a democracy. Do with that info what you will.
Furthermore, Fasces is a gud boi, if woefully naive and a bit sycophantic at times. Those criticisms aside, his track record of erring on the side of caution is well established and not inappropriate.
The site is driven by users, but it isnt run by users, which is at the heart of why there is still a discord diaspora that generally avoids using the site (with exception). When /mlpol/ was made a private venture, it would not have been possible without someone(s) taking responsibility and putting their name on the dotted line. And the individual who until very recently (yours truly, btw) made the agreement with Atlas to cover operational costs for the site, it was done under the express notion that contributions were voluntary and would offer no credit or influence over site policy.
Just an fyi for you all
>>5710
>should be some degrees of accountability
Then what we need to discuss is how to accomplish this. A tea time was proposed earlier which would be the ideal setting to do that in at a time when more staff are available to talk with. You know, since not all of them are here right now.
>>5712
>Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
Sorry, but I had to make an assumption since they weren't putting their cards on the table at all. Sometimes the best way to do that is to accuse them of wanting bullshit so they come out and correct you with what they actually want.
Obviously we're not removing anyone, that's a dumb idea, but we do need to sit down and discuss a real means of ensuring future transparency without having to throw out every staffer that so much as steps a toe out of line, especially when it can't be proven to have been done maliciously.
[Read more] >should be some degrees of accountability
Then what we need to discuss is how to accomplish this. A tea time was proposed earlier which would be the ideal setting to do that in at a time when more staff are available to talk with. You know, since not all of them are here right now.
>>5712
>Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
Sorry, but I had to make an assumption since they weren't putting their cards on the table at all. Sometimes the best way to do that is to accuse them of wanting bullshit so they come out and correct you with what they actually want.
Obviously we're not removing anyone, that's a dumb idea, but we do need to sit down and discuss a real means of ensuring future transparency without having to throw out every staffer that so much as steps a toe out of line, especially when it can't be proven to have been done maliciously.
>>5711
>There has and will always be a level of transparency, but not everything should be out in the open.
Well, I think then that calls to question what the actual level of transparency really is then, because to me the question of who owns the site seems like a really big deal.
I guess that's a separate discussion though.
>mention how the community would have benefited from the knowledge
Knowing who owns the site means owning who is the ultimate decision maker and arbiter for everything related to the site. We call Atlas "Titan" because we consider him the one who bore the weight of the site. If that changes, it should be announced to the community so that we all know what's going on and trust the process.
And disclosing it a long time ago, when it happened, or even some time before it happened, would have meant that the community wouldn't have been misled about who owned the place. It means nobody would have been lied to.
There were a lot of times when I considered making a thread here to ask about Atlas. He had been getting harder and harder to reach for a while now, but I thought he was just busy. I paid it no second thought because whenever I checked the policy page, I saw that he was still the owner of the website. Now that I know that that isn't the case, I feel like a fucking idiot for just blindly trusting it with no further question.
>>5715
Even I could pay that.
[Read more] >There has and will always be a level of transparency, but not everything should be out in the open.
Well, I think then that calls to question what the actual level of transparency really is then, because to me the question of who owns the site seems like a really big deal.
I guess that's a separate discussion though.
>mention how the community would have benefited from the knowledge
Knowing who owns the site means owning who is the ultimate decision maker and arbiter for everything related to the site. We call Atlas "Titan" because we consider him the one who bore the weight of the site. If that changes, it should be announced to the community so that we all know what's going on and trust the process.
And disclosing it a long time ago, when it happened, or even some time before it happened, would have meant that the community wouldn't have been misled about who owned the place. It means nobody would have been lied to.
There were a lot of times when I considered making a thread here to ask about Atlas. He had been getting harder and harder to reach for a while now, but I thought he was just busy. I paid it no second thought because whenever I checked the policy page, I saw that he was still the owner of the website. Now that I know that that isn't the case, I feel like a fucking idiot for just blindly trusting it with no further question.
>>5715
Even I could pay that.
>>5714
>/mlpol/ is not a democracy.
It doesn't need to be a democracy, but it should at the very least be transparent. Even Best Koreans have the dignity of knowing who their leader is.
>/mlpol/ is not a democracy.
It doesn't need to be a democracy, but it should at the very least be transparent. Even Best Koreans have the dignity of knowing who their leader is.
>>5719
I agree wholeheartedly. Transparency is one of a dozen unresolved issues that prompted my resignation, alongside the unwillingness to discuss it and them.
I agree wholeheartedly. Transparency is one of a dozen unresolved issues that prompted my resignation, alongside the unwillingness to discuss it and them.
>>5718
Why wasn't this brought up too? If money was an issue, the community should've been notified.
Now I'm sketical about how this site is being funded. I didn't pay it very much mind since the store closed, but apparently I can't count on knowing if big decisions are being disclosed.
Why'd the site store get closed anyway? Iirc, it was some combination of the company not wanting to print nazi shirts and people simply not using it. Ii guess that topic deserves its own thread.
Why wasn't this brought up too? If money was an issue, the community should've been notified.
Now I'm sketical about how this site is being funded. I didn't pay it very much mind since the store closed, but apparently I can't count on knowing if big decisions are being disclosed.
Why'd the site store get closed anyway? Iirc, it was some combination of the company not wanting to print nazi shirts and people simply not using it. Ii guess that topic deserves its own thread.
>>5716
>Obviously we're not removing anyone, that's a dumb idea, but we do need to sit down and discuss a real means of ensuring future transparency without having to throw out every staffer that so much as steps a toe out of line, especially when it can't be proven to have been done maliciously.
That's basically what I'm getting at. It's not like I don't like Pupper or would have really protested him being owner if we all only knew about it, but the lack of transparency on the matter makes me reconsider every little thing I payed no mind to until now. It's downright creepy, and that's why I was so upset.
>Obviously we're not removing anyone, that's a dumb idea, but we do need to sit down and discuss a real means of ensuring future transparency without having to throw out every staffer that so much as steps a toe out of line, especially when it can't be proven to have been done maliciously.
That's basically what I'm getting at. It's not like I don't like Pupper or would have really protested him being owner if we all only knew about it, but the lack of transparency on the matter makes me reconsider every little thing I payed no mind to until now. It's downright creepy, and that's why I was so upset.
1616508959_1.png (207.9 KB, 713x541, 0EF0F2FDA4392494D3E98CD8FDA55035-212851.png)
1616508959_2.jpg (121.5 KB, 1000x464, DBEF3F693604C213407042A346743E27-124364.jpg)
>>5690
Thanks that makes a lot of sense. As stated nothing really changed.
A changelog of everything is always in the green feels redundant.
>>5516
OP is pretty fucking shit at explaining his position in a calm sensible manner.
>>5705
You've proven to be a long time member, and jumpy. Everything was there. Your 'level of transparency' wasn't in everyone's best interest and not Atlas'.
There isn't a working solution just moar transparency. How? In a way that continues the site.
>>5702
>Otherwise, vague calls of 'punishment' seem to be ruling the day here, and according to policy, that involves dismissal. So let's talk about accountability.
I for one don't give a shit about punishment, that didn't work.
There are two points at play.
>(OP)
Is being hysterical. Yes, changes did and do happen that are small and over all mundane. Somehow he got lost from where he was to right now.
He wants to be on staff, and has badgered everyone for a reply.
>>5716
That does work.
>>5707
This.
Changelogs that say 876 days without unusual incident is boring and tedious.
>>5709
>Atlas hands over the domain for personal reasons
<most poners here aren't in a position to do anything about it
<what could they do that hasn't already been done
<nothing
<even if objections are raised irl's a cunt
>On the other hand
<Atlas has to hand over the domain for personal reasons
<Well wishes from poners (besides the obligatory ahhhhhh! posting.)
<nothing happens
2. Staff will maintain a level of transparency with the community
/mlpol/ is a community of like-minded individuals, we are not barbarians hyped up on ape testosterone
We are driven by a need to maintain this website, not by a need to steal your info and sell it to the highest bidder
If a thread is posted on /qa/ it is to be addressed within two days at most, even if the reply is negative or a simple "I don't know"
Staff found to deliberately delete threads or posts to avoid discussing important topics about the site can face punitive measures up to and including dismissal
3. Staff will take all community suggestions into account
As this is a community site and not a top-down dictatorship like some other sites user input is very important
Staff found to be deliberately removing community suggestions to avoid changes on the site or push their own agenda will be subject to punitive measures up to and including dismissal
One more thing to consider is that this is opaque by design so outside forces can't fuck around here. This is the bastion of hoerspussy, pony, and politics and more.
This could have been found by digging enough and making conclusions a hallmark of early day April fools /mlpol/ or so I've gathered.
Staff rule 1. Is also followed to protect fellow user and supreme ruler of everything Atlas, and Pupper, and the users by proxy.
>>5717
Quadruple the costs as emergency.
Pupper has the legal copyright due to, paying the server (maybe more possibly just out of pocket), having the domain, and overhauling the code. From a security standpoint I'm assuming it's a pain in the ass to get anything done and not ssh in. And so that there are little to no points of failure.
>>5720
That... is a very good point.
>>5721
Due to the business anon going somewhere (it's in a thread). The method of having the store up wasn't working without him on that front. So a business with realistically low through put is hard to keep open except through third parties that have their own stuff to deal with. Ect. mlpol and ponerpics is paid out of pocket as far as we're aware.
(((Outside hostiles))) do love to have a vice grip on all money flow.
[Read more] Thanks that makes a lot of sense. As stated nothing really changed.
A changelog of everything is always in the green feels redundant.
>>5516
OP is pretty fucking shit at explaining his position in a calm sensible manner.
>>5705
You've proven to be a long time member, and jumpy. Everything was there. Your 'level of transparency' wasn't in everyone's best interest and not Atlas'.
There isn't a working solution just moar transparency. How? In a way that continues the site.
>>5702
>Otherwise, vague calls of 'punishment' seem to be ruling the day here, and according to policy, that involves dismissal. So let's talk about accountability.
I for one don't give a shit about punishment, that didn't work.
There are two points at play.
>(OP)
Is being hysterical. Yes, changes did and do happen that are small and over all mundane. Somehow he got lost from where he was to right now.
He wants to be on staff, and has badgered everyone for a reply.
>>5716
That does work.
>>5707
This.
Changelogs that say 876 days without unusual incident is boring and tedious.
>>5709
>Atlas hands over the domain for personal reasons
<most poners here aren't in a position to do anything about it
<what could they do that hasn't already been done
<nothing
<even if objections are raised irl's a cunt
>On the other hand
<Atlas has to hand over the domain for personal reasons
<Well wishes from poners (besides the obligatory ahhhhhh! posting.)
<nothing happens
2. Staff will maintain a level of transparency with the community
/mlpol/ is a community of like-minded individuals, we are not barbarians hyped up on ape testosterone
We are driven by a need to maintain this website, not by a need to steal your info and sell it to the highest bidder
If a thread is posted on /qa/ it is to be addressed within two days at most, even if the reply is negative or a simple "I don't know"
Staff found to deliberately delete threads or posts to avoid discussing important topics about the site can face punitive measures up to and including dismissal
3. Staff will take all community suggestions into account
As this is a community site and not a top-down dictatorship like some other sites user input is very important
Staff found to be deliberately removing community suggestions to avoid changes on the site or push their own agenda will be subject to punitive measures up to and including dismissal
One more thing to consider is that this is opaque by design so outside forces can't fuck around here. This is the bastion of hoerspussy, pony, and politics and more.
This could have been found by digging enough and making conclusions a hallmark of early day April fools /mlpol/ or so I've gathered.
Staff rule 1. Is also followed to protect fellow user and supreme ruler of everything Atlas, and Pupper, and the users by proxy.
>>5717
Quadruple the costs as emergency.
Pupper has the legal copyright due to, paying the server (maybe more possibly just out of pocket), having the domain, and overhauling the code. From a security standpoint I'm assuming it's a pain in the ass to get anything done and not ssh in. And so that there are little to no points of failure.
>>5720
That... is a very good point.
>>5721
Due to the business anon going somewhere (it's in a thread). The method of having the store up wasn't working without him on that front. So a business with realistically low through put is hard to keep open except through third parties that have their own stuff to deal with. Ect. mlpol and ponerpics is paid out of pocket as far as we're aware.
(((Outside hostiles))) do love to have a vice grip on all money flow.
Anonymous
No.5724
>>5722
I'm not to be honest, yeah it was a mistake, but our guys have a pretty good track record in running this site for as long as they have and out of their own pockets no less, that earns them points in my book. On top of the fact that we didn't notice the change until now, no negative changes in policy, no lapses in moderation, 4chan was much rockier at this point in its lifespan in regards to policy, funding and definitely transparency.
I hope Atlas is okay, in all this bickering, we really haven't paid much mind to that.
I'm not to be honest, yeah it was a mistake, but our guys have a pretty good track record in running this site for as long as they have and out of their own pockets no less, that earns them points in my book. On top of the fact that we didn't notice the change until now, no negative changes in policy, no lapses in moderation, 4chan was much rockier at this point in its lifespan in regards to policy, funding and definitely transparency.
I hope Atlas is okay, in all this bickering, we really haven't paid much mind to that.
>>5721
Site funding was an agreement between myself and Atlas at the very beginning of mlpol.net. Not even staff was notified at the time, many/most learned some time later (not unlike how the site is learning about staff changes now).
The agreement was precipitated by the site's patreon, and then Atlas' paypal getting shut down for hateful activity. This told me as an individual that (((agencies))) would do what they could to prevent the site from perpetuating its self by cutting off finances. So, I reached out to Atlas directly to ensure that the site could continue, without having to resort to ads, malware, etc. One may notice there never has been any advertisements on /mlpol/ and it is intended to stay that way indefinitely.
As for the store operator, he was fired by Atlas personally for repeatedly starting shit in staff, after numerous instances of threatening to quit all while never functionally contributing to the operations of the site. He initially set up the store (something that was later revealed to be no easy task) but then was content to rest on his laurels and even act disparagingly toward staff who were active and motivated toward moderating the site. In any case, when he was terminated he scrubbed the store of personal details (which effectively nuked it) and in the aftermath, it's been discovered how few t-shirt companies will abide pastel nazi imagery coming from their locations.
Fun fact, he also set up the store to garner himself a small portion of the profits from the store.
[Read more] Site funding was an agreement between myself and Atlas at the very beginning of mlpol.net. Not even staff was notified at the time, many/most learned some time later (not unlike how the site is learning about staff changes now).
The agreement was precipitated by the site's patreon, and then Atlas' paypal getting shut down for hateful activity. This told me as an individual that (((agencies))) would do what they could to prevent the site from perpetuating its self by cutting off finances. So, I reached out to Atlas directly to ensure that the site could continue, without having to resort to ads, malware, etc. One may notice there never has been any advertisements on /mlpol/ and it is intended to stay that way indefinitely.
As for the store operator, he was fired by Atlas personally for repeatedly starting shit in staff, after numerous instances of threatening to quit all while never functionally contributing to the operations of the site. He initially set up the store (something that was later revealed to be no easy task) but then was content to rest on his laurels and even act disparagingly toward staff who were active and motivated toward moderating the site. In any case, when he was terminated he scrubbed the store of personal details (which effectively nuked it) and in the aftermath, it's been discovered how few t-shirt companies will abide pastel nazi imagery coming from their locations.
Fun fact, he also set up the store to garner himself a small portion of the profits from the store.
What's up with how IDs are turned off in this thread? That means only admins can tell what posts are coming from who.
>>5723
>OP is pretty fucking shit at explaining his position in a calm sensible manner.
It was midnight, and I was pissed off. I just knew the topic needed to be raised.
>He wants to be on staff, and has badgered everyone for a reply.
I asked about maybe being a janitor three years ago, and have tried to establish contacts with the mods about various topics I considered to be important every third month or so, and got answers like "ask again later" almost every single time I tried through PMs in the staff server. I only kept that stupid discord account open after making it because I hoped to be able to year from Atlas every now and then. I don't know how else anyone is supposed to communicate here.
What i really want is to be able to know what's going on with this board, because I care about this place and its future. I don't think you should have to be a staff member just to know who owns the site, especially when transparency is supposed to
>I for one don't give a shit about punishment, that didn't work.
I don't care about "punishment" either. That's not what this thread is about; someone else is just angry. Nobody needs to be punished, but it does need to be transparent, and that's worth talking about.
>>5726
/qa/ doesn't have IDs, following the model of the original 4/qa/. Perhaps that's not the best way of facilitating discussion, but that hasn't been an issue until now.
>>5727
I wouldn't go that far. There has been no evidence that money has ever been mishandled.
[Read more] >OP is pretty fucking shit at explaining his position in a calm sensible manner.
It was midnight, and I was pissed off. I just knew the topic needed to be raised.
>He wants to be on staff, and has badgered everyone for a reply.
I asked about maybe being a janitor three years ago, and have tried to establish contacts with the mods about various topics I considered to be important every third month or so, and got answers like "ask again later" almost every single time I tried through PMs in the staff server. I only kept that stupid discord account open after making it because I hoped to be able to year from Atlas every now and then. I don't know how else anyone is supposed to communicate here.
What i really want is to be able to know what's going on with this board, because I care about this place and its future. I don't think you should have to be a staff member just to know who owns the site, especially when transparency is supposed to
>I for one don't give a shit about punishment, that didn't work.
I don't care about "punishment" either. That's not what this thread is about; someone else is just angry. Nobody needs to be punished, but it does need to be transparent, and that's worth talking about.
>>5726
/qa/ doesn't have IDs, following the model of the original 4/qa/. Perhaps that's not the best way of facilitating discussion, but that hasn't been an issue until now.
>>5727
I wouldn't go that far. There has been no evidence that money has ever been mishandled.
Anonymous
No.5730
>>5729
>when transparency is supposed to
*when transparency is supposed to be part of what distinguishes us from 4chan.
>when transparency is supposed to
*when transparency is supposed to be part of what distinguishes us from 4chan.
>>5729
>no evidence
Theres no receipts, but the individual in question openly proclaimed that he was getting a cut of the profits on several occasions, in staff chat. I have further (anecdotal) evidence, but that issue is moot.
>no evidence
Theres no receipts, but the individual in question openly proclaimed that he was getting a cut of the profits on several occasions, in staff chat. I have further (anecdotal) evidence, but that issue is moot.
>>5733
I cant but offer my assurances that he did in fact state that, as well as various other conformational statements that validate the point, yes.
I cant but offer my assurances that he did in fact state that, as well as various other conformational statements that validate the point, yes.
Anonymous
No.5735
>>5723
>opaque by design
That's really not what the policy page says. It says the opposite.
/mlpol/ is supposed to be a self-sustaining, community-led effort. It's not a top-down hierarchy. It's supposed to be transparent, because part of what made everyone fed up about 4chins was that the administration did as it wished without disclosure or input. It's the reason why we have staff rule number 2, because we all remeber what it was like screeching on 4/qa/ and clawing at the board for even a shred of a response to our request to make that glorious trainwreck of a prank board last even one day longer, and all we got in response was a twitter post saying
>it's cute
>opaque by design
That's really not what the policy page says. It says the opposite.
/mlpol/ is supposed to be a self-sustaining, community-led effort. It's not a top-down hierarchy. It's supposed to be transparent, because part of what made everyone fed up about 4chins was that the administration did as it wished without disclosure or input. It's the reason why we have staff rule number 2, because we all remeber what it was like screeching on 4/qa/ and clawing at the board for even a shred of a response to our request to make that glorious trainwreck of a prank board last even one day longer, and all we got in response was a twitter post saying
>it's cute
Anonymous
No.5736
>>5734
>>5732
>>5725
I would need to know more about this before I can have a concrete opinion on the matter. It sounds semi-serious, but I'm still tryting to get over the first thing. I don't really suspect any wrongdoing has occured in that manner yet, but then again I'm not sure what I believe anymore... I think that calls for its own thread to prevent further derailing this one.
>>5732
>>5725
I would need to know more about this before I can have a concrete opinion on the matter. It sounds semi-serious, but I'm still tryting to get over the first thing. I don't really suspect any wrongdoing has occured in that manner yet, but then again I'm not sure what I believe anymore... I think that calls for its own thread to prevent further derailing this one.
>>5690
You know, there are posters here who wouldn't go as far as to call the staff monsters for keeping secrets, but still very much dislike the keeping of specific kind of secrets, especially for this large amount of time, with me being one of them. So first of all, you don't get to take all the responsibility for a bad decision that was made by consensus. Second, yes it was a bad decision: not only do you have the situation you were trying to avoid back then, but then you made it worse by procrastinating this long about sharing the news. That is what unfolded just now. No matter how much and how nicely you go on about "he's still our leader", the fact remains that site ownership has changed, and nothing was said about it. The policy page, from that point onward, included a straight up lie.
>There is no broken trust, just a couple of angry anons.
You don't get to decide that. The angry anons are angry because they're not sure how trustworthy you are anymore. Because you kept this a secret. Because that is how people work. Lead them astray, and they will trust you that much less. And "you" in this case is still the whole staff, and not just you.
You know what would make this better? The staff collectively owning up to these actions, instead of one guy trying hog all the responsibility and pretending that everyone who expresses criticism is out for blood. You know, address it directly, face the complaints, instead of talking circles around it? How hard would that be?
Almost like you did here. >>5704
Almost. Except as an admin post, maybe in a sticky'd thread, to make sure everyone knows what is and has been going on, together with an update to the staff list on the policy page.
Short and to the point, optionally with a "sorry" or a "we stand by the decision". Absolutely doesn't matter which. But none of the phrase warping and dancing around the point, none of this voluntary martyrdom bullshit and none of the justifications like protecting an adult from personal questions online that can just be ignored by not answering (Seriously?). You know, like adults.
Because the more you dress it up, the worse it will get. That much should be obvious by now.
[Read more] You know, there are posters here who wouldn't go as far as to call the staff monsters for keeping secrets, but still very much dislike the keeping of specific kind of secrets, especially for this large amount of time, with me being one of them. So first of all, you don't get to take all the responsibility for a bad decision that was made by consensus. Second, yes it was a bad decision: not only do you have the situation you were trying to avoid back then, but then you made it worse by procrastinating this long about sharing the news. That is what unfolded just now. No matter how much and how nicely you go on about "he's still our leader", the fact remains that site ownership has changed, and nothing was said about it. The policy page, from that point onward, included a straight up lie.
>There is no broken trust, just a couple of angry anons.
You don't get to decide that. The angry anons are angry because they're not sure how trustworthy you are anymore. Because you kept this a secret. Because that is how people work. Lead them astray, and they will trust you that much less. And "you" in this case is still the whole staff, and not just you.
You know what would make this better? The staff collectively owning up to these actions, instead of one guy trying hog all the responsibility and pretending that everyone who expresses criticism is out for blood. You know, address it directly, face the complaints, instead of talking circles around it? How hard would that be?
Almost like you did here. >>5704
Almost. Except as an admin post, maybe in a sticky'd thread, to make sure everyone knows what is and has been going on, together with an update to the staff list on the policy page.
Short and to the point, optionally with a "sorry" or a "we stand by the decision". Absolutely doesn't matter which. But none of the phrase warping and dancing around the point, none of this voluntary martyrdom bullshit and none of the justifications like protecting an adult from personal questions online that can just be ignored by not answering (Seriously?). You know, like adults.
Because the more you dress it up, the worse it will get. That much should be obvious by now.
[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]