/qa/ - Questions and Answers

Keeping the community together by giving you a voice


If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/
Note: JS is reccomended to be able to post effortlessly, but I am working on a system where that won't be needed.

Name
Email
Subject
By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
Comment
0
Select File / Oekaki
File(s)
Password (For file and/or post deletion.)

whatyoujustposted.png
Screenshot (161).png
Screenshot (162).png
Screenshot (163).png
/mlpol/ Policy Page and FAQ Discussion
Anonymous
No.5810
5829 5835 5870 5877 6254
With the revelations in these past couple days, it's become quite clear that the current /mlpol/ policy page is out of date and misleading, even intentionally so.
The most misleading statements is in the FAQ:
>What staff has administrative access to the server, and why?
>Atlas: super sexy owner of mlpol.net former /pol/lack, access because yes
This statement is untrue and misleading. Atlas is not the owner of /mlpol/ and has not been for some time now. This really should have been announced prior to the happening, but that's a separate discussion.

It is not acceptable to leave misleading information about the boards page, because it makes adequate transparency and community input impossible, so it really needs to be fixed as soon as reasonably possible. However, changing it is a very serious issue that warrants community discussion on the matter, so let's talk about what the policy board says, what anyone thinks it should say, and how it should be stated.

For starters, the topic above also relates to the staff rules, particularly rules #2:
>2. Staff will maintain a level of transparency with the community
This rule seemed clear enough when it was written, but now it seems as though it lacks specificity and is open to very liberal interpretation. The definition of transparency is easy enough to understand, but the wording "a level of transparency" is evidently vaguer than it seemed. According to recent revelations, informing the community about a change in ownership was not considered to be within that level of transparency, and leaving blatantly untrue statements on the policy page was deemed to be acceptable under said policy.

So the questions are is:
>What exactly is the staff's standard of transparency in regards to what the board deserves to know?
>What kinds of information are considered to be open to the community?
>How is the standard of transparency maintained and enforced, and what is the decision making process for revealing something or leaving it secret?
>What members of staff are responsible/accountable for making sure that the operations and issues concerning /mlpol/'s structure and community are disclosed to the public?
>On what basis is the community able to confidently trust that the staff is being honest and transparent with them, and how are users able to confirm this other than taking the policy page at face value?
>Does the /mlpol/ staff consider it necessary to inform the community about big changes in staffing, policy, ownership of the board or operations before they occur, or only after the matter?
>In the event that it occurs, do the staff have any policies concerning "sensitive" information deemed too risky to expose? (perhaps things such as personal information and doxxable data)

In addition, rule #2 outlines committments to the community made by the staff, but reveal very, very little about how the staff make decisions amongst themselves, how the staff is managed, and most importantly, how the staff policies are enforced. The Staff policy does mention some things thing in regards to rules are enforced and says in four places that staff found to break the rules face "punitive measures" up to immediate dismissal. Now, several of those lines are as-written described as zero-tolerance policies, but that is also questionable, because although rule #1 #3 and #4 serious and clear enough to call for those measures, rule #2 is, apparently, vague enough to be open to interpretation and has even be observably broken and disregarded either through premeditated intent or negligence before. Earlier discussions brought up the issue that zero tolerance policies might put persons on the defensive and potentially harm transparency. There are surely degrees of accountability between doing nothing and outright expulsion, but those degrees are not defined anywhere.

So, questions arise from that:
>How exactly does the /mlpol/ staff discipline itself?
>Are there degrees by which staff consider and account for alleged misconduct?
>Who is/are the final arbiter(s) for considering if/when actions by the staff violate the letter or spirit of the rules?
>How can the users of the board confidently trust that staff are accountable for inappropriate behavior?
>How do the staff con

The complications with rule #2 also proppose issues with rule #3:
>3. Staff will take all community suggestions into account
>As this is a community site and not a top-down dictatorship like some other sites user input is very important
Rule #3 is in essence contingent on the proper application of rule #2, because transparency is necessary for healthy site user input, and site user input is indeed very, very, very important because it distinguishes /mlpol/ from other chans where talking this stuff on /qa/ for weeks on end doesn't actually produce any long-term results. The community cannot voice it's opinions on matters if they are not punctually made aware of them, let alone if the policy page misleads them.
So, questions arise from that:
>Aside from merely using the board, how are the staff able to ensure that their decisions represent the will of the community?
>How, and through what mediums, does the staff make sure that community considerations are taken into account and fascilitate user input?
>On what matters is community consideration deemed to be necessary in decision making?
>How often does the staff seek out direct user input on matters of any kind?
85 replies and 17 files omitted.
Anonymous
No.6078
6081 6087
>>6076
>Gaslighting
Stop using that word if you don't know what it means. I've gotten really, really, really sick of your aimless shit spewing, because I can tell you have indeed allowed personal grievance (while some indeed founded) to get in the way of productive conversation, and even derailed unrelated threads to that end.
I am actually trying to have a discussion here, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't poison the fucking well with your cynical, obnoxious, counterproductive bullshit.

However
>>6073
>trying to exact revenge
Lotus could you freaking not further deteriorate this conversation by implying some hidden poster is acting in a strictly hostile / ulterior motive fashion based on information that only you gave access to? Not everything is 100% personal, believe it or not. Even if that suspicion is founded, it's beside the point, and all it's done is effectively made everyone paranoid. This is not supposed to be personal.
It literally doesn't matter who the opnion comes from, just the argument itself. In this threads there have been whiny egotistical assholes who only want to complain, and there have also been whiny egotistical assholes who have made very good points on said matters: there is definitely overlap between the two groups, and I can tell because this is a tiny community and some of us recognize each other by posting style (yeah, I see you, Anon who avatarfags with the same handful of pony pics), but not all of the time, which in this thread has led to pointless ad homenim and refusal to consider each other's arguments.

Now all 4-8 posters here who have something they're disgruntled about are going to have to freaking prove that their opinions are genuine and they're not sussus amogus unless they're posting with a mod ID. You basically just exacerbated the problem of posters in the thread being hostile to each other because they suspect people of being malignant, instead of considering what they have to say.

This thread is basically completely derailed at this point. I gave have a heart to retype the OP and start a new one.
Anonymous
No.6079
6081
>>6077
That's pretty similar to what I want as well.
I think if anything, there could just be some greater transparency, because the gap between what the mods know and what the userbase knows has only grown over the years.
While I don't think heavy moderation is important to /mlpol/, I do think it's preferable for the posters to be aware of what the mods are up to and how they make decisions. Whether that should be expressed through policy or through some other means is up for debate.
Lotus
## Admin
No.6081
6082 6085
>>6078
The issue of poster motivation is indeed relevant and important for two reasons. One, it gives a false impression of what user preferences are. People a person who do not care about what they claim to care about loudly accuses the staff and advocates for a position they are not invested in.

Second, the existence of bad faith calls into question the wisdom of changing the policy page. The main argument within staff against reforming the rule page into a specific set of rules is that such rules will be argued and interpreted by those in bad faith to use against the site. Another user in this thread has expressed the same opinion.

Beyond this, if a person does not want the thing they claim to want, then giving them that thing will not satisfy them. So if users say they are angry about x but you know the grief is personal, there is little reason to address x. Motivation is very much relevant, as the whole point of this thread is to measure user preferences. When people are dishonest about their preferences there is an issue.

>>6079
What exactly would constitute "greater transparency" to you?

Transparency, likewise, is an issue where the existence of bad faith actors is very much relevant.
Anonymous
No.6082
>>6081
You can't be certain that arguments are being made in bad faith, even if personal motivations are involved. Let arguments stand for themselves. We're not so retarded that we'd be convinced into completely destroying ourselves for nothing.
>used against the site
What kind of scenario are you even imagining? What kind of policy page would we actually agree to that could be "used against the site"? It's not like we're just going to collectively decide we need mandatory BBC threads on the front page.
>but you know the grief is personal, there is little reason to address x.
I disagree. Anyone has to be a at least a little bit pissed of to even bother saying something. Having personal troubles doesn't mean that their arguments are invalid. That's also unfair to good faith actors who may have coincidentally agreed with the one you considered to be bad faith only to have that argument discredited despite their own opinions. Every argument should be taken seriously if it's articulated correctly. We all have our own personal issues/motivations, but it's the argument that counts. A good argument stands alone.
>Greater transparency
For starters the staffs decision making process is very vague, almost cryptic. Sometimes it feels like the only way to know what the staff does it why it does it is to be staff yourself; I don't think that's a good thing. It's also rather inconvenient to speak directly with the staff, especially since Discord has proven itself to be unreliable.
Some Anon's have mentioned Tea with Atlas in this thread. Perhaps something similar could be rebooted in the future.
>Transparency, likewise, is an issue where the existence of bad faith actors is very much relevant.
If you're referring to the instance when the sexually confused gost tried to split our community by manufacturing disgust at gay porn and demanding it be censored, whilst using that to drive away artists and content creators, there's a case to be made for that. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be transparent about how we operate, since good faith actors shouldn't be shut out either.
That was, though, back in the time when /mlpol/ was so bottom-up that we held multiple stawpolls for every little decision and talked constantly about any potential change to or vision if the site. Maybe we could bring back some of that old energy and get anons more involved with the site.
Anonymous
No.6084
6085
shitposting.png
>>6077
>I'd probably collapse all of the rules into three bullet points
This!
Keep it bare simple and fuzzy.
If every poster is driven by the spirit of Friendship, there's nothing to be afraid.
I'm not naive and I'm know that the staff are humans and can turn into dicks, however, that's the reason why there is a poner at the top to put order when is needed. So, the ultimate law derives from him; as the hierarchy is already established.
It is not so hard to understand this and to end the controversy once and for all.
Anonymous
No.6085
6086
6177604.png
29088.gif
2190241.png
>>6077
>>6084
Fuzzy is fine for general guide lines that's basically what is done on a day to day.
For a community driven site that ambiguity without also clear lines of what to not cross and which are ment to always be crossed is a necessity. With only one or the other the spirit is lost or the means of which the true goal is obtained.
>So, the ultimate law derives from him; as the hierarchy is already established.
I'd recomend rules for rulers video. Also Jocko's decentralized command because that appears to be relevant as well. While the rules for rulers is apathetic it does give across the points being made and why that is not the entire story. In a grouo founded on friendship and politics knowing of such things is in my opinion vital.
The community that also includes staff has a voice to say about the goings on. The first people that is looked to in times of strife is each other and staff when the time is right. That said there is a time and place for saying everything is fine and should be the same without evidence is tiresome. Out right dismissal means the issue may be brought back repeatedly. On the case of being dismissed.
All of this is done by the good will and generosity by said people who are in keeping with the site.
The clearly defined aspiration to aspire toward is important.
Now, I will say no one is perfect. Pony demonstrates the wrongful error that can happen. Pony also shows some remedies and what could have been done to prevent it in the first place.

>One, it gives a false impression of what user preferences are. People a person who do not care about what they claim to care about loudly accuses the staff and advocates for a position they are not invested in.
Second, the existence of bad faith calls into question the wisdom of changing the policy page. The main argument within staff against reforming the rule page into a specific set of rules is that such rules will be argued and interpreted by those in bad faith to use against the site.

The same applies to fuzzy definitions. Because then it's all interpretation.
Friendship, ponies, and politics. Nobody has to agree fully with each other on most of the topics, but the point of existing is. Starting with the assumption of maliciousness closes off the necessity of understanding other points and reasons.
>>6073
Oh boy
>Community will never bow to assblasted members
I don't need to explain how that'll go wrong, but I will.
>Staff will take all community suggestions into account
>Staff will never bow to assblasted former staff members
Make sure those suggestions are fully taken into account with as unbaised as possible.
>No staff member shall use the information he obtains in his position on staff for personal gain, lulz, or to harass/humiliate a user or other staff members
This is a place for shitposting. Like a lot of shitposting.
>>6071
>A fuzzy policy page is imperative to avoid that.
Uhhhh just the opposite. The real problem is embodying the spirit of the law rather than the letter. Issue with that is clear confines is what make laws (and rules of anykind) something learnable. To also prevent frustration.
Otherwise we could sum up the policy page on two sentences.
<Users, don't be dickweeds.
<Staff, don't be asshats.
Easy and fuzzy.
The how and why is the issue at play that is what necessitates clarity and good will.

>>6081
>So if users say they are angry about x but you know the grief is personal, there is little reason to address x.
The only issue is if x is valid.
Even if it is personal and it's mere lashing out. The fact x is valid still means it's valid. No matter how much someone says it's fine and there isn't a problem.
Maybe I should just shut up as a newfag and leave oldfags to bicker how issues multiply.
Anonymous
No.6086
6092 6095
6rftVEg.png
>>6085
>For a community driven site that ambiguity without also clear lines of what to not cross and which are ment to always be crossed is a necessity.
It might be necessary only for newfags, but a simple mod's warning would make the trick easily.
>I'd recomend rules for rulers video.
That's fine, but I remember that /pol/ worked best when the tyrant turkroach was in charge, as soon as he was ousted from his own board, everything went awry.
A hierarchy is a must. If not, ask Celestia.
>The same applies to fuzzy definitions. Because then it's all interpretation.
Exactly, then the last arbiter is the board's owner, as it should be.
Anon, you are using rhetoric to stick a wedge into the staff's authority, if you accept their decisions, even if they are not of your liking, all this issue about a silly policy page will go away.
Anonymous
No.6087
>>6078
Uhm, you clearly dont understand the concept of gaslighting so your objection is comprehensible. Having said, gaslighting comes in many forms/contexts. The obvious one is where a person manipulates the other into questioning their memory, sanity, and mental stability. Another is where one person wilfully frames a testimony, description, or summary in such a way to imply to the nescient observer that the other person has questionable memory, sanity, or mental stability.
Its comparable to poisoning the well, except it tends to be rhetorical and conjectural. It's a very common tactic amongst lawyers, narcissists, and jews.
Anonymous
No.6088
6090 6094
rule.jpg
Fuzzy rules give leverage to mods against community subversion. Prevents things like shareblue and talmudry.

Demarcated rules limit the power of mods to influence the community. Prevents scruffening and hampers takeovers.
Anonymous
No.6089
6091
Wtf happened while I was asleep.
Anonymous
No.6090
>>6088
What kind of "community subversion" are you even expecting?
Anonymous
No.6091
6093
>>6089
Mods were so 'not' assblasted by my efforts that they made mention of it in the policy. Oh, and theres a a modified policy. Its true now
Anonymous
No.6092
>>6086
Didn't we establish at the beginning of this board that it's not stop-down hierarchy? We're a community site, and we should have community driven decisions.
Anonymous
No.6093
>>6091
>theres a a modified policy.
I guess modifying the rules is easier than it sounds...
Anonymous
No.6094
6096
>>6088
>Prevents scruffening
Scruffening is what happens when mods are allowed to rule with impunity with no community input.
>leverage to mods against community
Why do they need more leverage? They're already mods.
You've repeated this like three times now and you haven't explained what could actually happen as a result of it.
Anonymous
No.6095
>>6086
>A hierarchy is a must. If not, ask Celestia.
Last I checked, the staff did not claim to be exalted goddesses. They're just humans who signed up at the right time. They're capable of mistakes, and they're equally capable of having bad ideas. That's not a bad thing, it just means that they're people.
Anonymous
No.6096
6097
>>6094
The point of a policy page, a constitution, or anything like that is to set clear limits on how power can be used along with guidelines on how power should be used.
Anonymous
No.6097
>>6096
That's basically what I'm getting at.
Lotus
## Admin
No.6098
6101
F3E3B7A25A9B29A84F461ED3F7D81045-92961.png
How about someone who thinks policy should be changed propose a specific change of what it should be changed to.
Anonymous
No.6099
6100 6101 6134
What if members had to vote on putting staff in or out of power? So a vote is needed before a new staff member can be added or an old one can be demoted
Anonymous
No.6100
6101
>>6099
A lovely idea in spirit, but so easily exploitable by a variety of potential agendas that dont support the site. Beyond that, the implementation of such a policy would be a nightmare.
Janny positions used to be a thing though, just saying
Anonymous
No.6101
6102 6104
>>6099
That is a decent idea to address things like accountability, but as >>6100 to says, it's not exactly easy to implement, and could also be exploitable by discord trannies who just get a bunch of off-site weirdos to bomb strawpolls. Kind of like how that stupid goat and the snailfaggot did so to manufacture the illusion of intolerance to gay pony stuff on the board and scare away users.
However, I'm not really concerned about that, because we stopped being the target of persistent raiders more than three years ago; these days it's just the occasional troll, so there's little need for excessive paranoia.

The real implementation challenge is that /mlpol/ users have very little way of actually knowing who the staff are or how they operate. There's probably only a handful of users who even know the user-names of the staff, and they can't exactly vote on things that they're not aware of. If anything it would end up with brief flame wars with both sides accusing each other of having personal grievances, while the rest of the board just watches not knowing wtf is going on.

>>6100
>Janny positions used to be a thing though, just saying
Used to be a thing? Whatever happened to that? Was that a product of all staff having admin access?

>>6098
I'm starting to feel like this thread is too derailed to even talk about this... Perhaps another thread for that would help us not get confused about everything.

But on that note, I'm starting to feel like the "no generals" rule is kind of oddly applied. Fact of the matter is that we still have generals on /mlpol/, even if the ones with "general" in their name got explicit permission (/sg/ and filly). Existing de-facto generals on this site include:
>Art thread
>Jewish Concentration thread
>Random News thread
>Garbage Can (we have /sp/. Why is this necessary?)
>the roleplay threads on /vx/
>All-encompassing tabletop thread
>Covid thread
>Etc
A thread that lasts several months, either through bumps or being remade, is a de-facto general. By that definition, most of /mlpol/'s content is created in generals. Whether these generals are beneficial or detrimental to the site is open for debate, but I think it's worth reviewing if we want to keep the "no generals" rule, since it hasn't really been enforced.
Anonymous
No.6102
6103 6105
>>6101
>Was that a product of all staff having admin access?
No, that was just a result of everyone having been a jannie for 'long enough', in case of those who began as jannies. Atlas' primary concern was to ensure 24/7 surveillance of the site be they jannies, mods, or admins. After a while, jannies were just sort of transitioned into moderators, for ease of more staff functions than jannies were set to be able to do. This was all on the old code, which hasnt been coded to differentiate between staff positions.
Theres honestly no concern for abuse of admin privs by current staff, but there is something to be said for staff that performs little/no function for the site, especially as pertains to being available for a collective staff meeting
Anonymous
No.6103
>>6102
...on the old code, *rather than the new code, which....
Anonymous
No.6104
>>6101
Also to the point about generals, the high bump limit and extended catalog veritably ensure that theres never so many active 'generals' that stuff gets wiped. Spike's thread gets bumped every few weeks, because the 'generals' arent being remade every other second, hence enforcement of that rule is more geared toward prohibiting nonsense generals like the nightly twilight thread
Anonymous
No.6105
>>6102
>being available for a collective staff meeting
I've noticed this has been an issue. Perhaps there should be a bulletin/schedule of sorts.
Anonymous
No.6106
6107 6109 6110
DFgfFZt.png
Just for the record.
1- I firmly oppose ANY change to the police page.
2- I think that buckling to demands for such a change will open the door for more and more "democratic" changes. We all know what the word "progressiveness" means.
3- The Admin/staff is well versed about to manage efficiently this board.
4- Community input wasn't or isn't hindered for a policy page at all, therefore calls to change it because of that is void.
5- Happenings and Generals are a guidance and mostly apply to newfags.
7- Even to the naked eye the policy page appears not to reflex reality, in practice is meaningless because /mlpol/ was and is working smoothly. Again, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
7- At this point, I no longer believe that calls to change the policy page are in good faith, even a nigger can see that.
Anonymous
No.6107
6108 6111
>>6106
Are you going to make an argument against changing the policy page besides "fuck democracy" and the old "appeal to tradition"?
Democracy has its faults but what other methods are there to keep power in check?
Anonymous
No.6108
>>6107
>what other methods are there to keep power in check?
>to keep power in check
Okay, here it is the key argument. For those asking change, the real issue is the Administration.
Allow me to repeat my mantra: If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
Anonymous
No.6109
>>6106
>1
That's fine. It's still worth discussing though.
>2
>"progressiveness"
Who the fuck said anything about progressiveness?
>3
That's debatable.
>4
>void
What, are you talking about? This is just a /qa/ thread, not a fucking court.
>5
>Mostly appy to newfags
What is supposed to distinguish newfags from oldfags on an anonymous board? Rules should be applied evenly.
>5
There are definitely things worth fixing/considering. It was only yesterday that the errors were amended
>6
Stop lumping everyone together.
Anonymous
No.6110
6112 6115
>>6106
You're welcome to all those impressions, however I contest your allegations of good faith. I use mis-directive tactics deliberately, and I've gotten what I came for. The refined policy is quite precise in its wording. The policy retains and overtly emphasizes that ultimate discretion is with staff. That's an advisable and strategic position, as staff stands primarily against subversion and infiltration. That discretion is emphatically for bans and such, but is implied for the entire running of the site. Meaning, the application and interpretation of the rules, which are intended to be more in spirit than in rigid lines, are at the discretion of staff.
Beyond that, data has been updated, and staff will hopefully be arranging for a Tea time With uhhhhh I recommend booz, btw[/-] ..... or some other form of board interactivity. It seems a win for all sides
Anonymous
No.6111
6113 6115
jones-jewish-revolutionary-spirit-cover1.jpg
c8cfdabcdd2f6a06df996919301691bfce2297bc83f4a1c99bae95d125dd7be8.jpg
>>6107
>Are you going to make an argument against changing the policy page besides "fuck democracy" and the old "appeal to tradition"?
A captain and a helmsman are needed to keep the ship steady, sailors not.
If those people are not up the task, a mutiny may ensue; however this is not the case at all and calls to restrict their power because of muh future conflicts are a sure source of friction and troubles. Also this is not Friendship.
Anonymous
No.6112
6114
little-pony-ice-cream-800x450.jpg
>>6110
>It seems a win for all sides
If the demanding party agrees to knock it off, I'll be pleased.
Anonymous
No.6113
>>6111
>not friendship
Since when does "friendship" mean "top-down, unquestioned impunity"?
Anonymous
No.6114
>>6112
Don't treat the "demanding party" like it's one person.
Also, what demand are you referring to?
Anonymous
No.6115
6116
Nam_o.png
444355_ow+dr.jpeg
1926266.png
>>6111
A ship without sailors seamen is dead in the water.
>As this is a community site and not a top-down dictatorship like some other sites user input is very important
Thanks for hearing out our concerns.
>>6110
I am also looking foward to more interactive chances. Although it can be hard to find the time especially considering the circumstances globally.
Anonymous
No.6116
6122
My Little Pony - Dr. Whooves - Facehoof.png
>>6115
>top-down dictatorship
>fictitious exaggerations
This sounds to me like those lesbians that were fingered when young and now proclaim to be rape survivors.
Anonymous
No.6117
6118 6120 6122
I am so appalled by all of the shit-flinging here. Posters seem more concerned about each other's "motives" thinking it'll somehow end the site, or making passive aggressive remarks about obscure drama and "gaslighting", than actual policy discussion.
So far the only things about the policy discussed have been:
>Please edit the fee incorrect lines on the page so it's accurate (done)
>Consider the future of the no generals rule? (no conclusion reached)
>Maybe staff should have clearer rules for themselves? (no progress into what that even means)
122 replies and everything except that has just been shit-flinging. Leave the fucking drama at the door.
Anonymous
No.6118
6119 6122
>>6117
>So far the only things about the policy discussed have been:
And leave everything like it was.
Anonymous
No.6119
>>6118
That's another point, I guess. It's still worth talking about.
Lotus
## Admin
No.6120
6121 6122 6123
297B4789BF3087D9F47FDDFF81C58749-1785914.png
>>6117
>Consider the future of the no generals rule
As I understand it, and as Atlas explained to me, the reason Generals were so hated was because they were their own self contained communities that disrupted a greater unified board identity and participation. On /mlp/ they were especially hated for useless bumps and making the board feel smaller, although on /pol/ they were basically necessary to sustain many threads on the extremely fast paced and spam-filled board. I don't really think the no-generals rule is helpful on /mlpol/ and I don't really care to keep it. I don't know if I've ever enforced it.

I don't think any rule should be touched until all of them are revised.

>Maybe staff should have clearer rules for themselves?
Staff rules have really never been very clear. Code of conduct is generally brought up when someone perceives an infraction, rather than in any formally stated list of rules. There has historically been a hierarchy, but as Elway mentioned in another thread that has mostly melted away. There's a general rule to consult other moderators before taking action, and as much as possible all decisions are as collective as possible, but you don't need permission to delete child porn links. In any case, I think that staff rules are mostly an internal matter anyways.
Anonymous
No.6121
6134
>>6120
> I don't really think the no-generals rule is helpful on /mlpol/ and I don't really care to keep it.
Basically what I'm getting at. I'm not adamant about removing it, but idk if it does is any good.
>I don't think any rule should be touched until all of them are revised.
Also a fair consideration, although given the past 120 posts idk how we can go about getting there in a productive/civil manner.
>I think that staff rules are mostly an internal matter anyway
That's a decent point, although I think it's worth it for the community to be aware of internal matters.
As you just noted, the staff situation has changed before, and will probably change again in the future for whatever reason. Making users more aware of internal matters would give Anons the chance to voice concerns and decide if they're comfortable with changes as they occur.
Anonymous
No.6122
6123
>>6116
Uhhh I think you may have misquoted the wrong guy. I just reposted the policy page stuff. And made a semi-serious seamen joke.
Unless that's a reply to the reply to the chain of replies.

Everybody has their talents, wisdom and skillsets for various situations and tasks.
>>6117
>>6118
I think an example of the rules in motion provide greater accessibility. I think that would be nice. Right now the history behind them is there for sure. So discussing the context behind the rules and the intent would be nice.
>>6120
This provodes context and the reasoning behind the rule so it's not simply no generals, it's no generals that take the cues from cesspools.
Anonymous
No.6123
6124 6130
>>6122
This, the no generals could be reworded for clarity, but it's like a restaurant sign that says "no animals", where exceptions are allowed for service animals, who know how to behave.
>>6120
Speaking of staff rules, can we assume that any remaining staff have learned their lesson and have been put on notice about NOT harassing, doxing, editing/deleting posts, and otherwise targeting users who make them mad but otherwise arent breaking any letter or spirit of a rule?
John Elway
## Moderator
No.6124
6125
>>6123
>Speaking of staff rules, can we assume that any remaining staff have learned their lesson and have been put on notice about NOT harassing, doxing, editing/deleting posts, and otherwise targeting users who make them mad but otherwise arent breaking any letter or spirit of a rule?
If we say yes, will you stop shitting up the entire site with your autism?
Anonymous
No.6125
6126 6130 6131
>>6124
>the entire site
Hey, you decided it was a good idea to lock my thread. How'd THAT work out for ya?
>if we say yes, will you
So long as it's not an empty promise, sure. I'm not one of the aggrieved parties and I cant speak to/for them, but so long as the site is safe from *ahem* those shenanigens going forward (I cant imagine any other pressing issues to address and I know itll be a cold day in hell before I'm anywhere near the loop XD) my case is rested. Serious question though; in the event of future incidents where anons feel it necessary to object or report staff behavior, how should they go about resolving the issue? Even before I started hammering the point, there has been some observable contempt thrown around about even discussing the policy.
Tl;dr a bit more community involvement is all I can really offer.
Anonymous
No.6126
6127
>>6125
Dude, stop. You're being a bitch.
Shitting up other threads is not going to help you accomplish your goal, and it's quite frankly been in thorn in the side to the rest of us who want to have a productive conversation about policy.
Anonymous
No.6127
6128 6129
>>6126
Do as you Will, my Will is manifest
Anonymous
No.6128
>>6127
>my Will is manifest
It sounds like messianism.
Anonymous
No.6129
>>6127
Wtf are you even talking about?
Lotus
## Admin
No.6130
6132 6176
>>6123
Well, until a few months ago, we had a staff member who would edit user's posts, would get into arguments with users, and - when he got angry, and while still posting anonymously - would claim that he was a moderator and would threaten action against them. We were going to fire him for doings exactly the above, getting into an argument, threatening to delete a user's post, and then actually deleting a post, but knowing we would do this, he quit before we could fire him. So yes. Since he's been gone, the last few months have been pretty good actually, and I'd say the staff is solid, if maybe we could use another member.

>>6125
>Hey, you decided it was a good idea to lock my thread. How'd THAT work out for ya?
Are you claiming that you de-railed OP's thread in retaliation for John Elway locking that "why was I banned" thread? You have bitched about your personal grievances in the Fallout: Equestria thread, the board emojis thread, and the Seb thread on /sp/, and basically every recent thread on /qa/, often posting with a name, I guess hoping it will give you greater credibility with users. Is all of that your response to Elway locking your thread?
John Elway
## Moderator
No.6131
68cc89050ba30045e8771146a546249e46323acf7fd26a501e9052a105736060_1.jpg
>>6125
>Hey, you decided it was a good idea to lock my thread. How'd THAT work out for ya?
pic

Seriously though, while I remain utterly perplexed as to what, if anything, you're actually angry about, I think you can relax about the "shenanigans". I don't know of any shenanigans currently going on, and we have no plans of incorporating any in the future.

>Serious question though; in the event of future incidents where anons feel it necessary to object or report staff behavior, how should they go about resolving the issue? Even before I started hammering the point, there has been some observable contempt thrown around about even discussing the policy.
Well, as I've said in previous threads, anyone who has any issue they would like to discuss is welcome to make a thread about it here, and that's generally how these issues are brought up. Ironically, this very thread was a discussion on site policy until you decided to derail it. I also have made it clear that I'm willing to personally listen to issues that users bring up to me privately via Discord, and I have heard and dealt with such concerns before. As I've said, I don't guarantee anyone that they will necessarily get the outcome they would like, but we're always willing to hear user complaints. However, if you're just going to spam incoherent, angry walls of text at me and make obnoxious demands, then I reserve the right to ignore you and/or bantz on you. This site is basically a service provided free-of-charge to the mlpol community, and staff are unpaid. You're honestly entitled to absolutely nothing here; we try to accommodate as many users as we can, but if you really don't like the way the site is being run there's nothing stopping you from fucking right off and starting your own. MLPOL at one time had as many as four independent sites operating simultaneously, this just happened to be the one the community settled on.

Anyway, I'll stop derailing the thread now. Apologies to OP.
Anonymous
No.6132
>>6130
>until a couple months ago we had a few staff members
>one of whom did so on advise and/or witnessing other staff members
>started fights by calling out other staff for rules violations, or a refusal to actually operate in any staff capacity, preferring to hugbox on discord and pretend the users have no need/right to know significant changes to the staff, namely Atlas
Fixed those for you. It would be too troublesome to amend them all, but that will suffice.
>are you claiming
No, but it illustrates bad faith from the outset. If being an asshole is actionably against the rules, that's an important detail for a site committed to free expression to declare.
One last correction. Nigel is fine by the way, he is developing his game more. We talk every so often, and he's proven to be a decent listener when you can phrase things correctly.
For the observer, this is an important detail because aside from spelling corrections, the only posts I edited or deleted were Nigel's, except those requested by a user.
Go ahead Lotus. Claim the same.
As far as getting piss drunk and doing stupid shit, yep. Guilty as charged. This is among several reasons I openly stated my removal from admin was appropriate, and my subsequent quitting was then cursory.
But as the new policy states/implies, ultimate discretion is up to staff; to punish Ninjas' misdeeds or forgive Lotus' included. But now, regardless of what anyone thinks of me, the cat is out of the bag.
As far as derailing, this has everything to do with policy, from the literal written policy, to its interpretation, as well as the attitude with which it is applied, and especially under what circumstances it is being violated and why.
Anonymous
No.6133
6136
I'm just going to make a new thread to discuss the No Generals rule.
Lotus
## Admin
No.6134
>>6121
>I think it's worth it for the community to be aware of internal matters. As you just noted, the staff situation has changed before, and will probably change again in the future for whatever reason. Making users more aware of internal matters would give Anons the chance to voice concerns and decide if they're comfortable with changes as they occur.
I want to address this as well as the suggestion in >>6099 that hiring or removing staff should be up to a vote, and why I disagree strongly with both.

First, I'll address the idea of staff elections. mlpol.net staff is something like a law enforcement agency, or a tech support group. And it sort of makes sense to have a position like a Sheriff be elected, because who is selected as sheriff sets a tone for policy. Do you want loser enforcement or stricter enforcement? Do you trust the guy at the top or not? And that's what voting is best at: expressing the preferences of the community, and what people want for their community.

But each new and existing member of staff isn't the equivalent of Sheriff. They are more an equivalent of a Sheriff's deputy, someone who is hired to bring about the vision of the law or the guy on top. And it makes absolutely no sense to have every single deputy or lower employee be elected. For one, there is no way the people voting can possibly have enough information to make that decision. They can only get a minimum of information and maybe hear a few arguments, but they can never do what an actual hiring committee can do, which is spend several days over a period of weeks interviewing, gathering information, and considering.

Second, if you need to fire someone, especially on a board like this, then you need to do it immediately before that staff member can find a way to retaliate. Sure, you can give a staff member in charge the power to suspend an account but not formally "fire" the offending staff member, but then this leads to a whole trial over whether the dismissal was correct, and this leads back into the problem of the userbase at large not having sufficient information. Context of actions is important, and the people actually on staff will know more about context than the userbase at large.

Democracy is great at being a measure of community preferences, as most people know what they want and don't want, and what they like and don't like. It isn't so great as a way of making complex and information-heavy decisions. The general policy direction of the site is a perfectly valid subject of a vote, but staff hiring? Not so much.

And further, the userbase may be moderated or have tech support from a staff member, but they don't have to interact with and work with the staff member on a daily basis. mlpol.net staff is a team. As mentioned before, one of the unwritten but still persistent internal staff rules is that as much as possible, moderator actions and changes to the site code are decisions that are to be made with the consultation and approval of at least one other staff member. This rule hasn't applied to blatant spam, but still it is a rule we try to follow. The staff, to be effective, must cohere and work together as a team. The people who are on staff have much more interest in making sure incoming staff are people they can get along with, and much more of an understanding of how the new person will work with the group. Another reason why staff hiring should remain with staff.

As for how the users are supposed to know who is and is not on staff, this actually refers back to another staff rule: when you post as a member of staff, you never post anonymously, or with an anonymous moderator capcode. You always post under your staff handle, and a capcode. This way, users know who the staff are, and who is saying what. It probably wouldn't hurt to add a staff members list to the policy page.

Finally, on the subject of "awareness of internal matters," much of what occurs has no business being public. Most of what happens within staff is complete silence, statements like "deleted cp links," personal bullshitting, or discussing the best way to make a color cycle. Trivialities that have no relevance to people outside. And when there is disagreement, it can be personal in nature. Staff leaving or entering is often surrounded by drama and is the result of interpersonal relationships within staff. And we have little desire to let drama spill out onto the board. That's actually yet another one of our little unwritten rules. Keep disagreements and drama within staff. The staff has, since march, been very harmonious and there would be little to report besides "all quite within the staff discord server." But even if it weren't quiet, internal matters ought to remain internal matters.
Anonymous
No.6136
6152
>>6133
Done >>6135 →
Anonymous
No.6152
>>6136
>tfw it's already full of shit-flinging
Anonymous
No.6158
6168 6173
Are there any other policy questions worthy of their own thread, so I can put an end to this dumpster fire?
Anonymous
No.6168
6170
>>6158
Okay, are there any other policy discussions that people would rather remain kept contained in this shit-flinging thread, before I make any more posts?
Anonymous
No.6170
6172
>>6168
Nobody? Nobody's going to act offended if I ask a new question or raise a new topic about the policy page?
Anonymous
No.6172
09499.gif
>>6170
Anonymous
No.6173
6175
>>6158
Is there any kind of policy that says how staff that break the policy should be treated?
Anonymous
No.6175
6241
>>6173
As far as I can tell, only these lines:
>Using information for any purpose, including selling to others, data mining for malicious purposes, or for any reason are grounds for immediate removal from staff position, permanent banning from the site
>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
>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
Nothing else is on the policy page. Just guidelines for those particularly egregious acts.
Anonymous
No.6176
>>6130
>maybe we could use another member
Is this an actual thing?
Anonymous
No.6241
6242 6246
>>6175
You are neglecting a key phrase.
>All moderation decisions and bans are ultimately up to staff's discretion
Translation: the enforcement (or refusal to enforce) of those staff guidelines is subject to staff.
Ergo: staff has rules, but only if they feel like it. And, if they feel like going beyond the rules in their enforcement, thats something they also reserve the right to do also.
Legalese is a bitch
Anonymous
No.6242
>>6241
Huh, that's a good point.
Anonymous
No.6246
6247
>>6241
What sort of alternative would you propose then?
Anonymous
No.6247
6248
>>6246
Theres nothing to propose, its as comprehensive as I could imagine. It acknowledges that 9999 times the rules will be adhered to in spirit if not in letter and that is a responsibility of staff to enforce/maintain, but that on that 1 exception staff may exercise discretion in deviating from the rules.
Now, under what context staff has deviated from the rules bears consideration, though possibly in another thread?
In any case, such exceptional assholes cases where deviation occurs are arguably where transparency becomes most important and I trust that staff - through tea time and other avenues - has made transparency a priority
Anonymous
No.6248
6250
>>6247
It would be worth bringing that up at the next tea time then.
Anonymous
No.6250
6251
>>6248
>Tea time
How about too little, too late. You guys have been letting these fools push you around since the very start. This whooooole shitshow could've been avoided if you bothered to show any strength, oh, was it really around mid March? But don't mind me, you know. Might actually require you to get off your ass and do a quick edit and take out the trash. For crying out loud, gentlemen.
Anonymous
No.6251
6252
>>6250
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Anonymous
No.6252
6253
34e.gif
>>6251
I believe that faggot is demanding action.
Anonymous
No.6253
6254
>>6252
I don't understand. Action on what?
Anonymous
No.6254
6255 6256
1388.png
>>6253
Not sure who or what exactly he wants, but it must be the OP >>5810
I'm not staff but I understand that things are running fine, therefore I oppose any changes, even to modify a simple dot.
Anonymous
No.6255
>>6254
I am the OP. Idk what Anon is referring to.
I'm just here to discuss board policy.
Anonymous
No.6256
6257
>>6254
Even if you're opposed to changes, I hope you recognize that changes have been made before in the past, sometimes with little discussion. Perhaps in some cases they were good, or less good, but in any case it's important to talk about them.
So I hope you participate in the discussion to talk about potential and past changes, to critique what they might do or have done to us, so we can all maintain this comfy board.
Anonymous
No.6257
6258 6264 6267
0ea.png
>>6256
>I hope you participate in the discussion to talk about potential and past changes
>potential changes
None is needed.
Anonymous
No.6258
>>6257
Suit yourself then.
Anonymous
No.6264
6265 6266
>>6257
Why? Can you really call this situation perfect?
Anonymous
No.6265
>>6264
Yup.
Anonymous
No.6266
6267
>>6264
It's not bad. I wouldn't call it perfect though.
Anonymous
No.6267
6268 6269 6274
>>6266
Perfection is unattainable
>>6257
For the time being, through no small amount of effort.
Lets not pretend that one singulat line in the policy page took 9ver a year to drag out. That "oh so hard" amendment that amounted to a full sentence.
You know, that thing that was unattainable.

Whats the story on THAT? IM not begrudging the shift its self, I find its quite apt.
What I WOULD like to know is how the delay and avoidance can be justified given that it literally took a single sentence. You do realize that the unwillingness to rise to a challenge is foremost on my issues to address with staff right?
Look, I get it better than most, you do it for free. That doesnt (or shouldnt) potentiate a decreased/eliminated motivation.
Ill break it down simply.
Why did it take a year and some exceptional strong-arm tactics to motivate a single sentence change to the policy page, and why did it go unmodified for so long? so long?
Anonymous
No.6268
>>6267
I guess that's a fair point.
Anonymous
No.6269
6270
>>6267
I'm not sure what you meant by "strong arm tactics" though.
Anonymous
No.6270
6271
>>6269
Whether youre being disingenuous, or entirely generous, unless you had a hand in delaying the aforementioned changes then your comprehension is unnecessary and irrelevant
Anonymous
No.6271
6272
>>6270
>unecessary and irrelevant
Says you.
Anonymous
No.6272
6273
>>6271
Am I wrong? Is there something to be gained from your incomprehension?
Anonymous
No.6273
>>6272
Now you're just confusing me.
What are you talking about?
Lotus
## Admin
No.6274
6275
ED2694D4-33A9-4505-A013-573474928B56.jpeg
DE5C5F41-C1E3-436E-903D-B7A469F215E8.jpeg
>>6267
Ninjas, shut up. You were on staff for nine out of those twelve months, and you didn’t push for a change to the policy page.

Here’s a screenshot of you explicitly saying you were fine with not making a public notice that Atlas stepped down, dated July 31, 2020. Stop trying to convince people who weren’t there that you pushed for a policy page change, because you didn’t, and you didn’t care.

We didn’t change the sentence because of pressure from you. We know that you never cared about the sentence in the first place and it wouldn’t have pleased you to change it. We did it for someone else.
Anonymous
No.6275
>>6274
Ah, the gaslighter in chief.
Yes, I acceeded to Pupper's insistence that no notice be made to the board, in spite of objections. I notice you neglect THAT part of the discussion, using a single out-of-context post to try and whitewash the exchange. Its almost like youre trying to rhetorically spin my position as being different from my professed intent. But you wouldnt do that would you, thats what a narcissist would do.
Anonymous
No.6276
Why can't this argument have its own thread, ffs.
Anonymous
No.6277
6278
It's all so tiresome.
Anonymous
No.6278
6279
>>6277
It doesnt have to be. The victory condition for this leg is 'own up to it'.
If I were on staff, it would be something like "I on behalf of staff apologize for the previous position of neglecting to notify the site users of changes in site structure. I further promise to not use bullshit excuses like 'its hard' when faced with some editing. Also, I wont delete/abuse posters who make me mad"
Anonymous
No.6279
>>6278
I think some of this is due to being unable to keep the thread on-topic...
Anonymous
No.6280
6281
HoodieShybyJustaninnocentPony1461960540112.png
Hello everyponer, I'm back.
If you poners allow me, This silly argument about the policy page is a storm in a teapot.
Just knock this caprice off and let everyponer back in business.
If you don't mind.
Anonymous
No.6281
6282
>>6280
I'm not really trying to argue here. I'm still trying to figure out what Anon is talking about.
Anonymous
No.6282
6283
>>6281
>I'm still trying to figure out what Anon is talking about.
To OP and supporters.
Anonymous
No.6283
6284
>>6282
I am OP. I don't know what you mean about "supporters" because I haven't really called for anything.
Anonymous
No.6284
6285
1624986366343.png
>>6283
>I am OP. I don't know what you mean about "supporters" because I haven't really called for anything.
Anonymous
No.6285
dac.jpg
>>6284
>I can't communicate like an grown man, so here's this meme