With the revelations in these past couple days, it's become quite clear that the current /mlpol/ policy page is out of date and misleading, even intentionally so.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?
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
135 replies and 33 files omitted.
>>6040
>tea with Atlas
>without Atlas
Not exactly Tea with Atlas in that event, and the use of TG e name is as inappropriate as camping on a 2+ year out-of-date policy 'cuz changing the policy is HAAAAARD'
It doesnt matter if it's hard. It doesnt matter (or it shouldnt) that finding a consensus is difficult. That's literally the JOB of staff, who have proven an abysmal and unconscionable dereliction of duty. But it's okay, cuz we have pony emojis right?
>tea with Atlas
>without Atlas
Not exactly Tea with Atlas in that event, and the use of TG e name is as inappropriate as camping on a 2+ year out-of-date policy 'cuz changing the policy is HAAAAARD'
It doesnt matter if it's hard. It doesnt matter (or it shouldnt) that finding a consensus is difficult. That's literally the JOB of staff, who have proven an abysmal and unconscionable dereliction of duty. But it's okay, cuz we have pony emojis right?
>>6043
Of course it wouldn't be Tea with Atlas, but something similar would be nice. Maybe where we all sit down in a cytube or something and talk about politics briefly and users can directly ask questions about the site. Just call it "Tea Time" or something snappier.
>'cuz changing the policy is HAAAAARD'
I think the policy could use some amendment, but i think the first step should just be to errata the page. We can all agree that the inaccurrate parts should be fixed:
>Only a few have admin access -> All staff have admin access
>Site is owned by Atlas -> Site is owned by Pupper
>Next in line for owner is Pupper -> ??? (still waiting for the answer to that. who gets the keys if Pupper is kill?)
These inacurracies shouldn't be hard to fix, with the exception of maybe the last one (I really hope somebody actually know the answer to that question though).
The actual policy itself could use revision too, but it shouldn't be difficult to correct the page before hand.
>pony emojis
Say what now?
[Read more] Of course it wouldn't be Tea with Atlas, but something similar would be nice. Maybe where we all sit down in a cytube or something and talk about politics briefly and users can directly ask questions about the site. Just call it "Tea Time" or something snappier.
>'cuz changing the policy is HAAAAARD'
I think the policy could use some amendment, but i think the first step should just be to errata the page. We can all agree that the inaccurrate parts should be fixed:
>Only a few have admin access -> All staff have admin access
>Site is owned by Atlas -> Site is owned by Pupper
>Next in line for owner is Pupper -> ??? (still waiting for the answer to that. who gets the keys if Pupper is kill?)
These inacurracies shouldn't be hard to fix, with the exception of maybe the last one (I really hope somebody actually know the answer to that question though).
The actual policy itself could use revision too, but it shouldn't be difficult to correct the page before hand.
>pony emojis
Say what now?
Anonymous
No.6047
>>6044
Oh, theres far more about the policy that is fallacious. For example: should a staff member be found to be violating staff policy, precedent indicates that they will NOT be removed/banned, but be welcomed back with open arms and with no lasting consequence consequence. That is, when a staff member has ACTUALLY targeted, harassed, and doxxed a user. This policy (in conflict with the written policy) was enacted by Atlas himself, and occurred on more than one occasion.
As far as bans, there really are no rules. I got banned for shitposting and hiring some newfags feelings, while Nigel got banned for - and I'm quoting - Lol, cuz you cant control yourself. I'd love to see THAT one justified by the existing policy
Oh, theres far more about the policy that is fallacious. For example: should a staff member be found to be violating staff policy, precedent indicates that they will NOT be removed/banned, but be welcomed back with open arms and with no lasting consequence consequence. That is, when a staff member has ACTUALLY targeted, harassed, and doxxed a user. This policy (in conflict with the written policy) was enacted by Atlas himself, and occurred on more than one occasion.
As far as bans, there really are no rules. I got banned for shitposting and hiring some newfags feelings, while Nigel got banned for - and I'm quoting - Lol, cuz you cant control yourself. I'd love to see THAT one justified by the existing policy
>>6043
>But it's okay, cuz we have pony emojis right?
>Muh policy page
Sarcasm aside, I think the policy page is fine as it is.
If it's not broken, why fix it?
And I know, I know; according to you, that page should be modified just to please you.
>But it's okay, cuz we have pony emojis right?
>Muh policy page
Sarcasm aside, I think the policy page is fine as it is.
If it's not broken, why fix it?
And I know, I know; according to you, that page should be modified just to please you.
>>6048
>I got banned for shitposting and hiring some newfags feelings
C'mon, you're back, right? So such a ban wasn't a big deal.
In the end, I think, it is about to temper some aggressive feelings.
>I got banned for shitposting and hiring some newfags feelings
C'mon, you're back, right? So such a ban wasn't a big deal.
In the end, I think, it is about to temper some aggressive feelings.
Anonymous
No.6052
horse pussyAnonymous
No.6053
>>6050
It's literally broken. It's inaccurate and misleading.
Did you not read the first 20-something posts of this thread?
It's literally broken. It's inaccurate and misleading.
Did you not read the first 20-something posts of this thread?
Before we get into side arguments over what offenses are bannable (which could be its own thread), can we just agree that those few inaccurate parts of the policy page should be fixed? Not even changing the policy, just updating the page.
It really shouldn't be that hard to replace a few lines of text.
It really shouldn't be that hard to replace a few lines of text.
>>6055
>It really shouldn't be that hard to replace a few lines of text.
I oppose that idea, not because it is right or wrong, but because of your non spoken motives.
>It really shouldn't be that hard to replace a few lines of text.
I oppose that idea, not because it is right or wrong, but because of your non spoken motives.
>>6044
>>Only a few have admin access -> All staff have admin access
This is actually a quirk of the new board code, not something that was done by design. Pupper would have to explain the technical details but for whatever reason dividing permissions between roles is complicated. So, for the time being all staff have the same level of permissions. As far as I know it's on the list of things that will eventually be fixed.
>>Next in line for owner is Pupper -> ??? (still waiting for the answer to that. who gets the keys if Pupper is kill?)
Most likely if anything happened the site would pass to either Lotus or myself, depending on who wanted it and who was available.
>>6055
>Not even changing the policy, just updating the page.
>It really shouldn't be that hard to replace a few lines of text.
Updated.
https://mlpol.net/policy
>>6048
>As far as bans, there really are no rules. I got banned for shitposting and hiring some newfags feelings, while Nigel got banned for - and I'm quoting - Lol, cuz you cant control yourself. I'd love to see THAT one justified by the existing policy
Bans are handed out infrequently if at all. It's pretty much a last-resort option we use to deal with users who are being super-obnoxious and can't be reasoned with through any other means. You, of course, would know this perfectly well. If you'd like us to order you any kind of soothing balm for your still-aching bum-wounds by all means let us know.
[Read more] >>Only a few have admin access -> All staff have admin access
This is actually a quirk of the new board code, not something that was done by design. Pupper would have to explain the technical details but for whatever reason dividing permissions between roles is complicated. So, for the time being all staff have the same level of permissions. As far as I know it's on the list of things that will eventually be fixed.
>>Next in line for owner is Pupper -> ??? (still waiting for the answer to that. who gets the keys if Pupper is kill?)
Most likely if anything happened the site would pass to either Lotus or myself, depending on who wanted it and who was available.
>>6055
>Not even changing the policy, just updating the page.
>It really shouldn't be that hard to replace a few lines of text.
Updated.
https://mlpol.net/policy
>>6048
>As far as bans, there really are no rules. I got banned for shitposting and hiring some newfags feelings, while Nigel got banned for - and I'm quoting - Lol, cuz you cant control yourself. I'd love to see THAT one justified by the existing policy
Bans are handed out infrequently if at all. It's pretty much a last-resort option we use to deal with users who are being super-obnoxious and can't be reasoned with through any other means. You, of course, would know this perfectly well. If you'd like us to order you any kind of soothing balm for your still-aching bum-wounds by all means let us know.
Anonymous
No.6064
>>6063
I haven't been ranting about anything. I'm just trying to get the thread back on track since it's been derailed repeatedly.
There's like five other Anons here right now and nobody can tell them apart because this board doesn't have IDs.
I haven't been ranting about anything. I'm just trying to get the thread back on track since it's been derailed repeatedly.
There's like five other Anons here right now and nobody can tell them apart because this board doesn't have IDs.
>buck breaking apologists
Aww, I kind of liked that meme for what it was worth. Maybe it's better off staying on 4chins though.
Aww, I kind of liked that meme for what it was worth. Maybe it's better off staying on 4chins though.
>>6065
Updated page. Removed it as you are right, and it might become stale after a while having it there.
Updated page. Removed it as you are right, and it might become stale after a while having it there.
>>6057
Sometimes I wish there were ways for users to tell each other apart on this board, because Anons getting needlessly antagonistic about "motives" has become a trend in the past few months. It's become really cancerous.
Sometimes I wish there were ways for users to tell each other apart on this board, because Anons getting needlessly antagonistic about "motives" has become a trend in the past few months. It's become really cancerous.
1623462850.png (209.6 KB, 600x446, _dabbing_apple__by_cayfie-db0t37z.png)
>>6066
Brilliant. It would have been nice if it didnt require belligerent coersion to pull that out of you. I rest my case though, as promised
For fucks sake, that didnt need to have taken a goddamn year. I told you I would make you do it though
Brilliant. It would have been nice if it didnt require belligerent coersion to pull that out of you. I rest my case though, as promised
For fucks sake, that didnt need to have taken a goddamn year. I told you I would make you do it though
>>6068
>Anons getting needlessly antagonistic about "motives"
>needlessly
Not quiet "needlessly" when you get a grasp in human psychology and the implications of the modifying the policy page, which very well be used to cause mayhem by cornering the staff.
A fuzzy policy page is imperative to avoid that.
>Anons getting needlessly antagonistic about "motives"
>needlessly
Not quiet "needlessly" when you get a grasp in human psychology and the implications of the modifying the policy page, which very well be used to cause mayhem by cornering the staff.
A fuzzy policy page is imperative to avoid that.
>>6071
>cause mayhem by cornering the staff
That is nonsense. There are easier ways to cause mayhem.
>A fuzzy policy page is imperative to avoid that.
>fuzzy
This is even more nonsense.
Do you want a "fuzzy" constitution and a "fuzzy" bill of rights too? Do you think the Scruffening was good when countless Anon's were banned for "fuzzy" reasons, or 4/pol/ staff's "fuzzy" decision making process for what threads they leave up and what threads get deleted? Do you endorse Discord's "fuzzy" policy for what servers it scrubs and what it leaves up? Does that really sound like what makes a good platform to you?
Rules exist for a reason. policies don't need to be draconian; they just need to be clear. A concise policy is a good thing, so long as it's actually good.
It's important too. It's important because the policy and how it's followed/enforced is part of what /mlpol/ offers to attract users and maintain its current userbase. It's supposed to be one of the things that makes us better than 4/pol/ or any of the other chans. At the very least it's worth making sure that users know what it is and trust that it's properly implemented. Some anons get angry over things, but that's just part of the package of having a board where meta discussion actually means things.
But so we're on the same page, what sort of "implications" are you talking about? It's not like the policy page hasn't been amended before. Rules one and two were deleted, even though they were once considered so important that they needed to be posted twice.
[Read more] >cause mayhem by cornering the staff
That is nonsense. There are easier ways to cause mayhem.
>A fuzzy policy page is imperative to avoid that.
>fuzzy
This is even more nonsense.
Do you want a "fuzzy" constitution and a "fuzzy" bill of rights too? Do you think the Scruffening was good when countless Anon's were banned for "fuzzy" reasons, or 4/pol/ staff's "fuzzy" decision making process for what threads they leave up and what threads get deleted? Do you endorse Discord's "fuzzy" policy for what servers it scrubs and what it leaves up? Does that really sound like what makes a good platform to you?
Rules exist for a reason. policies don't need to be draconian; they just need to be clear. A concise policy is a good thing, so long as it's actually good.
It's important too. It's important because the policy and how it's followed/enforced is part of what /mlpol/ offers to attract users and maintain its current userbase. It's supposed to be one of the things that makes us better than 4/pol/ or any of the other chans. At the very least it's worth making sure that users know what it is and trust that it's properly implemented. Some anons get angry over things, but that's just part of the package of having a board where meta discussion actually means things.
But so we're on the same page, what sort of "implications" are you talking about? It's not like the policy page hasn't been amended before. Rules one and two were deleted, even though they were once considered so important that they needed to be posted twice.
For those of you who don't know, "Ninjas" was on staff for three years (March 2018 to the beginning of March 2021), and during that time did and said absolutely nothing to try to update the policy page and rule page. The only reason he pretends to care now is to attempt to incite a personal army to exact revenge against Pupperwoff or the staff or something.
>>6071
>>6072
The rule page we have now, with a few minor changes, is almost one for one based on a meme created on 4chan four years ago. It has only so much relation to how rules are and have been enforced on the website.
I think it needs to be changed. The problem is deciding on what it should be replaced with. It's not enough to say "it needs to be changed," because it must necessarily be changed to something else specific.
>>6068
We can turn on IDs, at least in specific threads, if necessary.
[Read more] >>6071
>>6072
The rule page we have now, with a few minor changes, is almost one for one based on a meme created on 4chan four years ago. It has only so much relation to how rules are and have been enforced on the website.
I think it needs to be changed. The problem is deciding on what it should be replaced with. It's not enough to say "it needs to be changed," because it must necessarily be changed to something else specific.
>>6068
We can turn on IDs, at least in specific threads, if necessary.
Anonymous
No.6074
>>6071
Also
>Not quiet "needlessly" when you get a grasp in human psychology
Anon, I really don't think that's the right way to approach it on an Anonymous board. You're assigning extra traits and motives to someone who is probably just very angry/autistic, and because of that you're closing yourself off to civil discussion: basically internal ad homenim. It's an internet equivalent to road rage.
Also it doesn't help that you can't really be sure who's making which post. I know that someone (maybe you and/or maybe someone else), has confused my posts with someone else's posts dozens of times in this thread alone and reacted with unfounded hostility as a result.
tl;dr, just chill, m8.
Also
>Not quiet "needlessly" when you get a grasp in human psychology
Anon, I really don't think that's the right way to approach it on an Anonymous board. You're assigning extra traits and motives to someone who is probably just very angry/autistic, and because of that you're closing yourself off to civil discussion: basically internal ad homenim. It's an internet equivalent to road rage.
Also it doesn't help that you can't really be sure who's making which post. I know that someone (maybe you and/or maybe someone else), has confused my posts with someone else's posts dozens of times in this thread alone and reacted with unfounded hostility as a result.
tl;dr, just chill, m8.
>>6073
I mean, IDs could help with confusing anons for others, but I also think they might also do more harm than good considering how long threads go for before they slide... That's why I haven't asked for it. It's alright like this, for now.
Really, it shouldn't matter "who" says something when it's really just the reasoning that counts
>based on the meme created on 4chsn years ago
Yeah, I remember. I was in that thread.
Truth be told, that meme was created back in the time when /mlpol/ was envisioned as a high-speed, self-maintaining community that didn't even need moderation because anon's would simply slide all of the shill threads and scare away redditors by spamming horse porn and memes. It's still my vision of an ideal /mlpol/, although reality is that we function very differently from the board back in April.
I wouldn't say the policy needs any drastic overhaul, but I do think it's just worth discussing what we want our site to be like going forward. Opening the discussion gives room for Anons to say what they want.
I mean, IDs could help with confusing anons for others, but I also think they might also do more harm than good considering how long threads go for before they slide... That's why I haven't asked for it. It's alright like this, for now.
Really, it shouldn't matter "who" says something when it's really just the reasoning that counts
>based on the meme created on 4chsn years ago
Yeah, I remember. I was in that thread.
Truth be told, that meme was created back in the time when /mlpol/ was envisioned as a high-speed, self-maintaining community that didn't even need moderation because anon's would simply slide all of the shill threads and scare away redditors by spamming horse porn and memes. It's still my vision of an ideal /mlpol/, although reality is that we function very differently from the board back in April.
I wouldn't say the policy needs any drastic overhaul, but I do think it's just worth discussing what we want our site to be like going forward. Opening the discussion gives room for Anons to say what they want.
>>6075
My vision for /mlpol/ is the same now as it was in the beginning; a community based around My Little Pony and politics, with maximum freedom to express creativity. I want as little moderation as possible, with moderation basically there to remove spam and raiders. I'd probably collapse all of the rules into three bullet points: Engage with the board in good faith (No raiding, no thread derailment); No cluttering up the board (No spam, no advertising, have some minimum quality); Don't post anything that will get our server terminated or result in an FBI warrant (self explanatory). I'd like there to be more posters, as many posters as possible. But really, whether someone choses to post or not isn't in my power.
My vision for /mlpol/ is the same now as it was in the beginning; a community based around My Little Pony and politics, with maximum freedom to express creativity. I want as little moderation as possible, with moderation basically there to remove spam and raiders. I'd probably collapse all of the rules into three bullet points: Engage with the board in good faith (No raiding, no thread derailment); No cluttering up the board (No spam, no advertising, have some minimum quality); Don't post anything that will get our server terminated or result in an FBI warrant (self explanatory). I'd like there to be more posters, as many posters as possible. But really, whether someone choses to post or not isn't in my power.
>>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.
[Read more] >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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
[Read more] 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.
[Read more] 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.
>>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.
>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.
>>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.
[Read more] >>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.
>>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.
>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.
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.
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.
Demarcated rules limit the power of mods to influence the community. Prevents scruffening and hampers takeovers.
>>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
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.
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
>>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.
>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.
[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] [151-185] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
185 replies | 47 files | 24 UUIDs | Page 8
[Add to Thread Watcher]