Why is it that when site aspects are changed quitely with little-to-no user input there's rarely any controversy, but when a user makes a thread here to voice legitimate concerns and hear the site's opinions or start conversations about potential changes a bunch of users are suddenly on edge about "subversion"?
Legit quastion. We weren't always like this; we used to talk about the present state and future of the site casually without this level of paranoia. How can we fix the increasingly hostile atmosphere on this board?
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
File (): 85C40EB53459220E2AEB351B8E16DBE1-1105942.png (1.1 MB, 4388x4463, IMG_9228.png)
Autism for one and some users want their changes and other changes coming before them will not please them. The bonus to all of this is also the innate knowing the desire to change comes from user base no longer pleased with the site, which creates factions of the unpleased vs the people that don't want to let go.
I am part of the ones that don't want to let go, but I will admit the flaws in my stance. Each change should be thought through to the logical conclusions it would bring and bringing these up offends one side or the other. Meanwhile, rolling the dice with a quick change doesn't let there be time to think about it to get offended unless the change is terrible. Then there won't be an end to the legacy of that change even if reverted.
It is sort of a no-win situation, so my best advice is to brave the storm of complaints and simply put forward the best arguments you have, and the claims of subversion will be dismissed if the suggestion is well argued for by the people actually considering it.
I am part of the ones that don't want to let go, but I will admit the flaws in my stance. Each change should be thought through to the logical conclusions it would bring and bringing these up offends one side or the other. Meanwhile, rolling the dice with a quick change doesn't let there be time to think about it to get offended unless the change is terrible. Then there won't be an end to the legacy of that change even if reverted.
It is sort of a no-win situation, so my best advice is to brave the storm of complaints and simply put forward the best arguments you have, and the claims of subversion will be dismissed if the suggestion is well argued for by the people actually considering it.
File (): DAE45714E858C69FA4D26810DB5974B4-86419.jpg (84.4 KB, 957x714, 7u687pjihb741.jpg)
>>6736
>We weren't always like this
I can tell you what happened, but you're not gonna like it
>fix the increasingly hostile atmosphere
Youre gonna like that one even less
>>6738
>Each change should be thought through to the logical conclusions it would bring and bringing these up offends one side or the other
Additionally, individuals need to decide and realize what is more important; the ends, or the means? We can be freeze peach purists and suffer jewfags and shill arguments, ir we can be proper National Socialists, and prohibit blatant degeneracy. Sorry, that was probably too specific, but Im leaving it.
>It is sort of a no-win situation
Horseshit
>the people actually considering it
Was that a tacit nod to the fact that staff makes unilateral decisions based on their feelings without consulting the board, and that convincing the board is irrelevant since staff does what it wants? It sure LOOKS like a tacit nod to the fact that staff makes unilateral decisions based on their feelings without consulting the board, and that convincing the board is irrelevant cuz staff does what it wants...
>We weren't always like this
I can tell you what happened, but you're not gonna like it
>fix the increasingly hostile atmosphere
Youre gonna like that one even less
>>6738
>Each change should be thought through to the logical conclusions it would bring and bringing these up offends one side or the other
Additionally, individuals need to decide and realize what is more important; the ends, or the means? We can be freeze peach purists and suffer jewfags and shill arguments, ir we can be proper National Socialists, and prohibit blatant degeneracy. Sorry, that was probably too specific, but Im leaving it.
>It is sort of a no-win situation
Horseshit
>the people actually considering it
Was that a tacit nod to the fact that staff makes unilateral decisions based on their feelings without consulting the board, and that convincing the board is irrelevant since staff does what it wants? It sure LOOKS like a tacit nod to the fact that staff makes unilateral decisions based on their feelings without consulting the board, and that convincing the board is irrelevant cuz staff does what it wants...
Anonymous
No.6742
>>6738
>some users want their changes and other changes coming before them will not please them
I'm not sure what you mean here.
>comes from user base no longer pleased with the site
Well, that's not how I feel. From the very beginning of this site I always tried to contribute to the community with a growth-based mindset based on how to make this place better. I see a lot of potential in /mlpol/, but I as one poster can only do so much, and sometimes I reflect on years of site experience and decide that it's about time to say something about how things work.
>people that don't want to let go.
I wholeheartedly understand aversion to change, because unknown changes could also fuck things up, or simply change things in ways that users are not comfortable.
That's why I think a sort of temporary trial system for future changes could be in order, so that any change is reversible if the site isn't satisfied with the outcome.
>Then there won't be an end to the legacy of that change even if reverted.
That's sounds like a legitimate concern, but I again don't really understand. What kind of legacies could reverted board changes bring about?
>It is sort of a no-win situation
Well, let's be optimistic here. We're all dignified horsefuckers; I hope we can get back to the point where we freely talked about these things.
>some users want their changes and other changes coming before them will not please them
I'm not sure what you mean here.
>comes from user base no longer pleased with the site
Well, that's not how I feel. From the very beginning of this site I always tried to contribute to the community with a growth-based mindset based on how to make this place better. I see a lot of potential in /mlpol/, but I as one poster can only do so much, and sometimes I reflect on years of site experience and decide that it's about time to say something about how things work.
>people that don't want to let go.
I wholeheartedly understand aversion to change, because unknown changes could also fuck things up, or simply change things in ways that users are not comfortable.
That's why I think a sort of temporary trial system for future changes could be in order, so that any change is reversible if the site isn't satisfied with the outcome.
>Then there won't be an end to the legacy of that change even if reverted.
That's sounds like a legitimate concern, but I again don't really understand. What kind of legacies could reverted board changes bring about?
>It is sort of a no-win situation
Well, let's be optimistic here. We're all dignified horsefuckers; I hope we can get back to the point where we freely talked about these things.
>>6739
The opposite is the case, as you well know Ninjas. I openly discussed it not just with you, but whoever will listen to tea time first, which was where we agreed for the displeasure for the shill. This is only the first part of discussion of course, as not everyone listens to that show by a long shot.
So, is the lack of action in itself making a decision without consultation? Should every action be given a solid yes or no in the moment it is brought up? Is there no time for consideration? I argue quite the opposite. For instance, my agreement to the problem in itself was not the proper number of staff to support action against the user, because that would be in essence saying I am more important than what the rest of staff would rule on. We not only fully consider what the site wants, but what each other want and attempt to be courteous to each other's concerns.
The user you bring up is indeed a user, a very autistic one as well to be going this long with this tenacity. Yet the fact remains that all indications show it is a user and not just a paid detractor. Therefore, the debate is valid to discuss if action should be warranted because the implications of banning someone for a disagreement can be expanded greatly to anyone the site or staff disagrees with, which I doubt anyone would greatly enjoy, especially you as you have advocated against that.
Then by what means do we effectively through the book at the user? Having a different opinion? I would take throwing threads off topic, and that can work, but discussion should be had so it does not appear staff have a bias against people for arbitrary reasons, as you are even promoting in this post.
The opposite is the case, as you well know Ninjas. I openly discussed it not just with you, but whoever will listen to tea time first, which was where we agreed for the displeasure for the shill. This is only the first part of discussion of course, as not everyone listens to that show by a long shot.
So, is the lack of action in itself making a decision without consultation? Should every action be given a solid yes or no in the moment it is brought up? Is there no time for consideration? I argue quite the opposite. For instance, my agreement to the problem in itself was not the proper number of staff to support action against the user, because that would be in essence saying I am more important than what the rest of staff would rule on. We not only fully consider what the site wants, but what each other want and attempt to be courteous to each other's concerns.
The user you bring up is indeed a user, a very autistic one as well to be going this long with this tenacity. Yet the fact remains that all indications show it is a user and not just a paid detractor. Therefore, the debate is valid to discuss if action should be warranted because the implications of banning someone for a disagreement can be expanded greatly to anyone the site or staff disagrees with, which I doubt anyone would greatly enjoy, especially you as you have advocated against that.
Then by what means do we effectively through the book at the user? Having a different opinion? I would take throwing threads off topic, and that can work, but discussion should be had so it does not appear staff have a bias against people for arbitrary reasons, as you are even promoting in this post.
Remember when we used to hold strawpolls for site changes and decisions? Maybe we could bring that back in some form.
>>6743
>The opposite is the case, as you well know Ninjas
I dont, actually. You and I have had productive exchanges, but that both tops and ends the list. Yes, (you) are receptive to input, to your credit.
>should every action be given a solid yes or no
Begging the question would be some real progress, ngl
>that would be in essence saying I am more important than what the rest of staff would rule on
Incorrect. That would be in essence saying you are more DECISIVE than the rest of staff, who I would argue have left far too much to consensus and staff agreement.
My position was and has always been, individual.members of staff know facets of the mlp fandom, and are somewhat authoritative in their purview; as such, everyone has an opinion and no one's opinion supercede another's. That is, until Pupper took over. Nuff said.
>We not only fully consider what the site wants, but what each other want and attempt to be courteous to each other's concerns
Reposting that with emphasis
>We not only fully consider what the site wants, but what each other want and attempt to be courteous to each other's concerns
As I said, making unilateral decisions without consulting the site.
When did staff 'feelings' become the principal concern when directing the site, I wonder disnigenuously cuz I know the answer?
>The opposite is the case, as you well know Ninjas
I dont, actually. You and I have had productive exchanges, but that both tops and ends the list. Yes, (you) are receptive to input, to your credit.
>should every action be given a solid yes or no
Begging the question would be some real progress, ngl
>that would be in essence saying I am more important than what the rest of staff would rule on
Incorrect. That would be in essence saying you are more DECISIVE than the rest of staff, who I would argue have left far too much to consensus and staff agreement.
My position was and has always been, individual.members of staff know facets of the mlp fandom, and are somewhat authoritative in their purview; as such, everyone has an opinion and no one's opinion supercede another's. That is, until Pupper took over. Nuff said.
>We not only fully consider what the site wants, but what each other want and attempt to be courteous to each other's concerns
Reposting that with emphasis
>We not only fully consider what the site wants, but what each other want and attempt to be courteous to each other's concerns
As I said, making unilateral decisions without consulting the site.
When did staff 'feelings' become the principal concern when directing the site, I wonder disnigenuously cuz I know the answer?
>>6747
Being decisive and making the wrong call is how a lot of changes to the site have happened without approval by either staff or the site in instances such as editing posts without consent, which you disapprove of, adding boards arbitrarily, which you disapprove of, and making certain members of staff of more importance, which you disapprove of.
Of each of these instances, I have been a voice against these outcomes, and yet you have not been so consistent. You dislike /a/, which I also do and attempted to argue against the addition but was overrode by a single staff member asking Atlas to implement. As for text editing, you have some history of it. You aren't alone by far, but I have been consistently opposed to it while you have shifted position. Meanwhile, on the topic of positions in staff having more power, you directly supported a system that made all members of staff equal but me in admin authority, then left staff breaking this equilibrium that you helped to create. The fault of these things you rail against can be shown to be part of your own actions and your own misunderstanding of where the fault lies.
If you had considered the concerns of staff, you would have likely caused the outcome to not only be different but come to a point where there is no massive tension between you and staff, which is something I wish would end. It is important to work as a team in staff and that was something that has been hard for you to agree with. The decisive can be a great benefit in times of crisis, but changes of the nature as presented in the queries of the users typically don't require dire action. Rather, a cool and collected approach will see that we do not implement something terribly or something at all that is not productive or harmful to the user experience.
This is what I mean in that we consider staff as well as the site. There is wisdom in seeking the council of others before making decisions and if the council disagrees, it is wise to figure out why and how it can be remedied.
Being decisive and making the wrong call is how a lot of changes to the site have happened without approval by either staff or the site in instances such as editing posts without consent, which you disapprove of, adding boards arbitrarily, which you disapprove of, and making certain members of staff of more importance, which you disapprove of.
Of each of these instances, I have been a voice against these outcomes, and yet you have not been so consistent. You dislike /a/, which I also do and attempted to argue against the addition but was overrode by a single staff member asking Atlas to implement. As for text editing, you have some history of it. You aren't alone by far, but I have been consistently opposed to it while you have shifted position. Meanwhile, on the topic of positions in staff having more power, you directly supported a system that made all members of staff equal but me in admin authority, then left staff breaking this equilibrium that you helped to create. The fault of these things you rail against can be shown to be part of your own actions and your own misunderstanding of where the fault lies.
If you had considered the concerns of staff, you would have likely caused the outcome to not only be different but come to a point where there is no massive tension between you and staff, which is something I wish would end. It is important to work as a team in staff and that was something that has been hard for you to agree with. The decisive can be a great benefit in times of crisis, but changes of the nature as presented in the queries of the users typically don't require dire action. Rather, a cool and collected approach will see that we do not implement something terribly or something at all that is not productive or harmful to the user experience.
This is what I mean in that we consider staff as well as the site. There is wisdom in seeking the council of others before making decisions and if the council disagrees, it is wise to figure out why and how it can be remedied.
Anonymous
No.6750
File (): 0B465FE9E6B2206E862308E40F015490-28727.jpg (28.1 KB, 342x334, 7118.jpg)
File (): 97B61FD71CDAC2A07BD0A7BC32066EFB-566231.png (553.0 KB, 2037x2500, 446371.png)
>>6736
I'm conditioned to be naturally paranoid. Somehow I manage to stick my feet in stage places. ~\
/~
I'm conditioned to be naturally paranoid. Somehow I manage to stick my feet in stage places. ~\
/~Sigh. I hate correcting the record.
>editing posts without consent, which you disapprove of
Wrong, Im fully in favor of editing posts so long as the edits are logged and established. I dont feel editing is a privilege that users should enjoy though, that should rest exclusively with those tasked/responsible for maintaining the site. Yes, I abused the edits to correct errant spelling and phrasing, and a rebuke was appropriate. I also edited Nigel's no sense posts and I fucking stand by it. I have NEVER opposed the ability to edit posts, and that divide is among those by which Pupper decided I was the devil incarnate. How DARE I disagree with THE Pupper, about the site, which he knows ever so well than anyone else cuz reasons?
>/a/
I never said I dislike /a/, but Im under no illusions as to why it became a thing unnecessarily. For clarification I WAS the one staff member Atlas asked if it should be implemented, and I said YES.
>the things u did
At LEAST phrase it authentically.
I advocated for a triumvirate; 3 admins (me, Lotus, and Elway) to administrate the site (thats what admin means), such that there would never be a stalemate, where a 2/3 vote would be the decisive factor. In this way, no 1 person gets to call the shots without another admin's backing (read: no arbitrary decisions).
I left staff when everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) decided I was power-mad (cuz pupper said so, curse my egalitarian intentions).
Tl;dr. You had your chance to fix this with my help. I LEFT staff because YOU lot decided that the site 'didnt need to know', including but not limited to, Atlas leaving and putting Pupper as owner.
>editing posts without consent, which you disapprove of
Wrong, Im fully in favor of editing posts so long as the edits are logged and established. I dont feel editing is a privilege that users should enjoy though, that should rest exclusively with those tasked/responsible for maintaining the site. Yes, I abused the edits to correct errant spelling and phrasing, and a rebuke was appropriate. I also edited Nigel's no sense posts and I fucking stand by it. I have NEVER opposed the ability to edit posts, and that divide is among those by which Pupper decided I was the devil incarnate. How DARE I disagree with THE Pupper, about the site, which he knows ever so well than anyone else cuz reasons?
>/a/
I never said I dislike /a/, but Im under no illusions as to why it became a thing unnecessarily. For clarification I WAS the one staff member Atlas asked if it should be implemented, and I said YES.
>the things u did
At LEAST phrase it authentically.
I advocated for a triumvirate; 3 admins (me, Lotus, and Elway) to administrate the site (thats what admin means), such that there would never be a stalemate, where a 2/3 vote would be the decisive factor. In this way, no 1 person gets to call the shots without another admin's backing (read: no arbitrary decisions).
I left staff when everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) decided I was power-mad (cuz pupper said so, curse my egalitarian intentions).
Tl;dr. You had your chance to fix this with my help. I LEFT staff because YOU lot decided that the site 'didnt need to know', including but not limited to, Atlas leaving and putting Pupper as owner.
>>6755
There is no room for editing of posts on a site where your posts are anonymous.
And yes, you are power-mad if you feel that not just that you can edit posts but exclude the discussion of that and the most you leave for a log of the edit taking place was "I did it". This is an overreach in power and you were assmad about being called out for it. You left because you can't handle everyone saying you did it retardedly, especially given your history with editing and calling out the staff that have in the past.
I will stand with my condemnation of you for your edit because it was not only not called for, but other measures would work much better in context of both precedent and effectiveness.
And you aren't against Pupper alone, as much as you think he is the reason you aren't liked. You pissed off everyone by your actions and you not only keep twisting the dagger, but you refuse to attempt to let it go when we offer the chance. You come back to the Tea time program to leave it immediately after. You don't work with us. You constantly believe you are the victim.
But I do thank you for correcting the record that you support editing and expect you drop using it as an attack on staff in the future... who am I kidding? You are going to hold your actions in higher regard despite it being equivalent.
There is no room for editing of posts on a site where your posts are anonymous.
And yes, you are power-mad if you feel that not just that you can edit posts but exclude the discussion of that and the most you leave for a log of the edit taking place was "I did it". This is an overreach in power and you were assmad about being called out for it. You left because you can't handle everyone saying you did it retardedly, especially given your history with editing and calling out the staff that have in the past.
I will stand with my condemnation of you for your edit because it was not only not called for, but other measures would work much better in context of both precedent and effectiveness.
And you aren't against Pupper alone, as much as you think he is the reason you aren't liked. You pissed off everyone by your actions and you not only keep twisting the dagger, but you refuse to attempt to let it go when we offer the chance. You come back to the Tea time program to leave it immediately after. You don't work with us. You constantly believe you are the victim.
But I do thank you for correcting the record that you support editing and expect you drop using it as an attack on staff in the future... who am I kidding? You are going to hold your actions in higher regard despite it being equivalent.
Anonymous
No.6765
>>6758
being able to edit posts for roleplay is an essential though. Thats really the only reason why I don't roleplay here.
For everything else, yeah, no reason to edit posts.
being able to edit posts for roleplay is an essential though. Thats really the only reason why I don't roleplay here.
For everything else, yeah, no reason to edit posts.
File (): 9C06B5EE9069F64396463784C1C9A9F3-1562902.gif (1.5 MB, 822x540, b8530d8f.gif)
>>6736
>we used to talk about the present state and future of the site casually without this level of paranoia.
And there are very good reasons for that. if you are an oldfag, you should know better and not to trigger alarms.
>How can we fix the increasingly hostile atmosphere on this board?
There is not such a thing. On the contrary, there is plenty of Friendship around. Do not confuse disagreements with hostility.
>we used to talk about the present state and future of the site casually without this level of paranoia.
And there are very good reasons for that. if you are an oldfag, you should know better and not to trigger alarms.
>How can we fix the increasingly hostile atmosphere on this board?
There is not such a thing. On the contrary, there is plenty of Friendship around. Do not confuse disagreements with hostility.
>>6758
Your post - and you - are fraudulent. My intent has never resembled what you assert, and my actions in context defy as you have presented. That divide - of contextual and literal truth versus subjective and interpretive - speaks volumes as to why I stand in opposition now. Not that there is any legitimacy to this exchange, but for enquiring minds...
Your post - and you - are fraudulent. My intent has never resembled what you assert, and my actions in context defy as you have presented. That divide - of contextual and literal truth versus subjective and interpretive - speaks volumes as to why I stand in opposition now. Not that there is any legitimacy to this exchange, but for enquiring minds...
>>6767
>if you are an oldfag, you should know better and not to trigger alarms
I am an oldfag though. Wtf did these alarms come from? They've been building up and it's time to stop.
>Do not confuse disagreements with hostility.
I get it when people disagree, and I respect it l, but some of these baseless accusations of 'subversion' are coming at unprecedented rates.
>if you are an oldfag, you should know better and not to trigger alarms
I am an oldfag though. Wtf did these alarms come from? They've been building up and it's time to stop.
>Do not confuse disagreements with hostility.
I get it when people disagree, and I respect it l, but some of these baseless accusations of 'subversion' are coming at unprecedented rates.
>>6768
Please explain my fraud. I am open to being corrected. Your actions do not defy what I have presented. You have cut communication to most all staff, you constantly claim staff are against the user base and against yourself, you defy all means to reconcile, and you have contradictory standards of authoritarian action while appeasing the masses with open debate of action.
You cannot simultaneously edit posts that you don't find fit and ban users while asking for staff to not take each other's opinions into account in conjunction to the site's desires. You aren't explaining your position well if this is not your position. Please communicate what you intend, and I can work with it. As it stands, you are calling me a fraud and leaving it with no proof. You are discrediting me with no reason other than your personal bias on your positions. You support your own actions and did not consider what might happen both with the site and your fellow staff members. This is the literal truth and the subjective is you are rash and abrasive, which could be overcome if you weren't playing the victim and simply open up for moving past differences.
Please explain my fraud. I am open to being corrected. Your actions do not defy what I have presented. You have cut communication to most all staff, you constantly claim staff are against the user base and against yourself, you defy all means to reconcile, and you have contradictory standards of authoritarian action while appeasing the masses with open debate of action.
You cannot simultaneously edit posts that you don't find fit and ban users while asking for staff to not take each other's opinions into account in conjunction to the site's desires. You aren't explaining your position well if this is not your position. Please communicate what you intend, and I can work with it. As it stands, you are calling me a fraud and leaving it with no proof. You are discrediting me with no reason other than your personal bias on your positions. You support your own actions and did not consider what might happen both with the site and your fellow staff members. This is the literal truth and the subjective is you are rash and abrasive, which could be overcome if you weren't playing the victim and simply open up for moving past differences.
>>6769
>They've been building up and it's time to stop.
Mmmm... nope. You, as an oldfag, should know that it is not possible to lower the guard, it is bad and harmful advise.
>baseless accusations of 'subversion'
As an oldfag, you should know that you are first of all an anon, and as such, you should know what is permissible, what is not, what is suspicious and it will get flak.
So, I'm guessing if you are a kike or a legit poner, also I am one of those fags who mentioned the word "subversion" and I stand for it.
>They've been building up and it's time to stop.
Mmmm... nope. You, as an oldfag, should know that it is not possible to lower the guard, it is bad and harmful advise.
>baseless accusations of 'subversion'
As an oldfag, you should know that you are first of all an anon, and as such, you should know what is permissible, what is not, what is suspicious and it will get flak.
So, I'm guessing if you are a kike or a legit poner, also I am one of those fags who mentioned the word "subversion" and I stand for it.
>>6776
>lower the guard
See, that's exactly the mindset I'm talking about. Wtf do we have to be on guard when talking amongst ourselves? We weren't always this paranoid. There was a time when we got raided by /jp/sies a dozen times a day and we still weren't afraid to talk about changes to the site in open.
>permissible
What is 'permissible?'
>lower the guard
See, that's exactly the mindset I'm talking about. Wtf do we have to be on guard when talking amongst ourselves? We weren't always this paranoid. There was a time when we got raided by /jp/sies a dozen times a day and we still weren't afraid to talk about changes to the site in open.
>permissible
What is 'permissible?'
>>6770
Your entire opening paragraph is false, for starters.
As fpr the secpnd paragraph, Im not going to entertain explaining a position Ive never held. I:
- dont see editing posts as a great thing
a. but still a necessary function to have available
b. sometimes useful for trolling and shenanigens
c. highly useful for mobileposting corrections
Thats my position on editing posts. Shall we delve into the otber gross mischaracterizations?
Your entire opening paragraph is false, for starters.
As fpr the secpnd paragraph, Im not going to entertain explaining a position Ive never held. I:
- dont see editing posts as a great thing
a. but still a necessary function to have available
b. sometimes useful for trolling and shenanigens
c. highly useful for mobileposting corrections
Thats my position on editing posts. Shall we delve into the otber gross mischaracterizations?
>>6779
See, that is a useful clarification. I am in favor of the function itself being available upon request. However, the way it has been used is specifically without request, which is what I assumed the argument has been about.
As for trolling, there is room for debate. Pupper has the code ready for the filter system, but we want to know if users would view that similarly to editing without permission and miss the comedic effect. So, would supporting this make the position hypocritical to hold to not edit?
The means you did it was still rash and uncalled for when you didn't consult staff nor how it might appear dystopian that what you type is subject to review and censorship instead of the classic shit on the user with humor to correct the behavior with continued behavior subject to moderation.
>>6781
>>6782
You both have massive post histories. You aren't kikes.
See, that is a useful clarification. I am in favor of the function itself being available upon request. However, the way it has been used is specifically without request, which is what I assumed the argument has been about.
As for trolling, there is room for debate. Pupper has the code ready for the filter system, but we want to know if users would view that similarly to editing without permission and miss the comedic effect. So, would supporting this make the position hypocritical to hold to not edit?
The means you did it was still rash and uncalled for when you didn't consult staff nor how it might appear dystopian that what you type is subject to review and censorship instead of the classic shit on the user with humor to correct the behavior with continued behavior subject to moderation.
>>6781
>>6782
You both have massive post histories. You aren't kikes.
Anonymous
No.6785
Anonymous
No.6786
>>6782
You don't, but maybe consider arguments and proposals at face value instead of assuming every potential change is subversion. Shills haven't visibly given enough of a fuck to try to change the site's meta in public threads, even the CIA-appointed zioshill hasn't, so maybe consider that anyone who goes to /qa/ to open a discussion about an issue only does so because they actually give a fuck about this community.
You don't, but maybe consider arguments and proposals at face value instead of assuming every potential change is subversion. Shills haven't visibly given enough of a fuck to try to change the site's meta in public threads, even the CIA-appointed zioshill hasn't, so maybe consider that anyone who goes to /qa/ to open a discussion about an issue only does so because they actually give a fuck about this community.
File (): E1C38F2F08B12248A5624C3D23BCA951-651831.jpg (636.6 KB, 4000x3000, 2613439.jpg)
>>6736
I think it's fine. People generally accept small, undiscussed changes to... actually basically everything, because it comes to them as a fait accompli, and in any case the changes almost never really matter. People flip out about small changes when asked for input because modern western society is extremely rich and comfortable, and humans are only really built for lives of actual struggle and hardship. So to fill the need, we take things that don't really matter or affect us and pretend like they are life and death struggles. This is how the entire internet works. So basically, everything is happening exactly as it should and nothing is really concerning here.
I think it's fine. People generally accept small, undiscussed changes to... actually basically everything, because it comes to them as a fait accompli, and in any case the changes almost never really matter. People flip out about small changes when asked for input because modern western society is extremely rich and comfortable, and humans are only really built for lives of actual struggle and hardship. So to fill the need, we take things that don't really matter or affect us and pretend like they are life and death struggles. This is how the entire internet works. So basically, everything is happening exactly as it should and nothing is really concerning here.
>>6787
Hmmm, that's a rather compelling philosophical argument, but also rather blackpilling...
Still, I feel like the atmosphere on /qa/ has gotten tenser over the years. How do you think that that could be fixed?
Hmmm, that's a rather compelling philosophical argument, but also rather blackpilling...
Still, I feel like the atmosphere on /qa/ has gotten tenser over the years. How do you think that that could be fixed?
>>6788
Yes it was. I still hold to that. It was completely uncalled for. The difference being we worked it out and he doesn't twist the dagger about the situation, we moved on. Staff is better for moving past it and working things out.
Yes it was. I still hold to that. It was completely uncalled for. The difference being we worked it out and he doesn't twist the dagger about the situation, we moved on. Staff is better for moving past it and working things out.
>>6789
Nigger, he just openly stated "we change things when we want, and you accept it, cuz you're too simple to do anything about it".
Ffs man
Nigger, he just openly stated "we change things when we want, and you accept it, cuz you're too simple to do anything about it".
Ffs man
>>6790
Hey, Pupper and I first got at odds because I was opposing Lotus' abuse of users. However y'all decided to rationalize this is on you
Hey, Pupper and I first got at odds because I was opposing Lotus' abuse of users. However y'all decided to rationalize this is on you
Anonymous
No.6793
>>6791
I said it was 'compelling'. I didn't say I agreed with it, let alone accepted it.
In fact, I do disagree somewhat, but I'm too tired to type up an articulate counter-argument right now.
I said it was 'compelling'. I didn't say I agreed with it, let alone accepted it.
In fact, I do disagree somewhat, but I'm too tired to type up an articulate counter-argument right now.
>>6791
The changes that have happened since you left have been changing the policy screen to no longer read Atlas, per your and a couple other anon's request, despite Atlas returning after his temporary leave, the emoji things that are of no consequence, and the work on the new version of the code with no set date it will be ready as Pupper still has a lot of work to do on it.
There has been no major staff legislation to alter any part of the site nor has there been action against users that did not clearly break rules, such as spam or cp.
>>6792
Cool. I will rationalize that the loss of a staff member that has made amends is foolish. If only you would do the same.
The changes that have happened since you left have been changing the policy screen to no longer read Atlas, per your and a couple other anon's request, despite Atlas returning after his temporary leave, the emoji things that are of no consequence, and the work on the new version of the code with no set date it will be ready as Pupper still has a lot of work to do on it.
There has been no major staff legislation to alter any part of the site nor has there been action against users that did not clearly break rules, such as spam or cp.
>>6792
Cool. I will rationalize that the loss of a staff member that has made amends is foolish. If only you would do the same.
Anonymous
No.6797
>>6783
>You both have massive post histories. You aren't kikes.
Well, considering that, I'm no longer oppose OP, but I don't support it either.
I'm neutral.
>You both have massive post histories. You aren't kikes.
Well, considering that, I'm no longer oppose OP, but I don't support it either.
I'm neutral.
>>6745
That's a good idea
>>6771
Hopefully you learned your lesson
>>6739
>Namefagging like it matters
>>6789
I'm not entirely certain that it has gotten tenser. But if you want a serious answer, the only way, I think, would be if we all struggled and suffered together as we worked towards a common cause... which may be difficult without an external threat to our community. So really I say it's just best to accept that a tense, hostile environment is just going to be a part of using the internet in the 2020s.
>>6755
>>6768
>>6788
>>6792
This argument was asinine and childish when you raised it a year ago, and it's even more tired and irrelevant now.
>>6799
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qump1X6OrEc
That's a good idea
>>6771
Hopefully you learned your lesson
>>6739
>Namefagging like it matters
>>6789
I'm not entirely certain that it has gotten tenser. But if you want a serious answer, the only way, I think, would be if we all struggled and suffered together as we worked towards a common cause... which may be difficult without an external threat to our community. So really I say it's just best to accept that a tense, hostile environment is just going to be a part of using the internet in the 2020s.
>>6755
>>6768
>>6788
>>6792
This argument was asinine and childish when you raised it a year ago, and it's even more tired and irrelevant now.
>>6799
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qump1X6OrEc
>>6800
Ah, the gaslighter in chief
>this argument
This argument is at the heart of the conflict actively going on on site right now, and your efforts to downplay it have only prolonged the issue.
It pertains to the willfulness to do a very small set of things under a very small set of circumstances, and the absolute abdication of responsibility in any other context.
You made this bed Lotus, because you were more concerned with having another feather to stick in your cap than you were with organically participating in and reacting to the site and users.
Ah, the gaslighter in chief
>this argument
This argument is at the heart of the conflict actively going on on site right now, and your efforts to downplay it have only prolonged the issue.
It pertains to the willfulness to do a very small set of things under a very small set of circumstances, and the absolute abdication of responsibility in any other context.
You made this bed Lotus, because you were more concerned with having another feather to stick in your cap than you were with organically participating in and reacting to the site and users.
>>6837
>conflict actively going on on site
Excuse me, but don't think an obsessive poster qualifies for a conflict. You are blowing it out of proportion.
>conflict actively going on on site
Excuse me, but don't think an obsessive poster qualifies for a conflict. You are blowing it out of proportion.
Anonymous
No.6850
>>6749
this thread seems tangentially related to mine, and ironically there's an interesting thread over in /mlp/ about minting coins that basically boils down all of this clusterfuck to the same kind of situation. chaos and ego. There is an argument to be made that design by committee in its most literal sense can cause problems like this. But then, you wouldn't want someone who acts like a faggot to have executive power either. Also I like anime.
this thread seems tangentially related to mine, and ironically there's an interesting thread over in /mlp/ about minting coins that basically boils down all of this clusterfuck to the same kind of situation. chaos and ego. There is an argument to be made that design by committee in its most literal sense can cause problems like this. But then, you wouldn't want someone who acts like a faggot to have executive power either. Also I like anime.
File (): DAE07D6849DA7216A83CDD6AA2BCCFE4-56563.jpg (55.2 KB, 894x894, thinking_aryanne__emoji_scrap__by_aryannehoofler_dc4gcat-pre.jpg)
>>6747
>When did staff 'feelings' become the principal concern when directing the site, I wonder disingenuously cuz I know the answer?
as much as I seeth about the site's staff, I find that kind of executive authority to be a breath of fresh air. as mentioned in the coin thread, sometimes you don't want too many cooks spoiling the pot, and in general democratic institutions and "popularity" contests is a drain on a site like this. It's not like we're bringing in any income unless the staff here keep black books and accept (((deals))). Given the relative unimportance of /mlpol/ even if I assume the worst I can't imagine they get paid a whole lot doing that either. With so little money on the line why would you want things to be tied up in explosive beurocratic shitposting? marecon was specifically created because that kind of seething and pointless bickering is cancer.
>When did staff 'feelings' become the principal concern when directing the site, I wonder disingenuously cuz I know the answer?
as much as I seeth about the site's staff, I find that kind of executive authority to be a breath of fresh air. as mentioned in the coin thread, sometimes you don't want too many cooks spoiling the pot, and in general democratic institutions and "popularity" contests is a drain on a site like this. It's not like we're bringing in any income unless the staff here keep black books and accept (((deals))). Given the relative unimportance of /mlpol/ even if I assume the worst I can't imagine they get paid a whole lot doing that either. With so little money on the line why would you want things to be tied up in explosive beurocratic shitposting? marecon was specifically created because that kind of seething and pointless bickering is cancer.
File (): FDFAFCB139A1FAF00C8743E0F6576D4B-1397103.png (1.3 MB, 1640x1470, 1617312698176.png)
>>6842
As someone who actively has contempt for the staff you aren't doing a whole lot to engender a lot of neutral people to your side. This is kind of the same reason the staff and posters in general where getting the riot act from bystanders to my nearly incoherent shitpost about a mlp blue board. You being so tilted is acting against your own interest in convincing people to your side man.
As someone who actively has contempt for the staff you aren't doing a whole lot to engender a lot of neutral people to your side. This is kind of the same reason the staff and posters in general where getting the riot act from bystanders to my nearly incoherent shitpost about a mlp blue board. You being so tilted is acting against your own interest in convincing people to your side man.
>>6853
when I was 10 or so I stormed away from my friends over something I cant even remember, I'll never forget the feeling of shame and longing that came from hanging around just out of sight of them in the neighborhood picking at a bush and trying to pretend I didn't care. given how people act once I reached adulthood I have little belief you or anyone are any more emotionally mature than this
when I was 10 or so I stormed away from my friends over something I cant even remember, I'll never forget the feeling of shame and longing that came from hanging around just out of sight of them in the neighborhood picking at a bush and trying to pretend I didn't care. given how people act once I reached adulthood I have little belief you or anyone are any more emotionally mature than this
Anonymous
No.6855
>>6799
>I'm no longer oppose OP, but I don't support it either.
Well, what I want is to fascilitate community engagement and create an atmosphere where we can talk about the site without fighting. I hope you'd support that, but neutrality is good enough.
If you're referring to the blue board thread I made a few hours prior to this one, i don't even really have a strong opinion about that, but since other anons felt strongly about it, and it seemed like a valid idea, I felt like it was worth discussion (also it was shitting-up my Roe v. Wade thread).
>>6837
>>6839
>>6842
>>6851
>>6852
Ffs, can you get another thread for this argument? This isn't helping. This shit has leaked it's way into almost every /qa/ thread I've made that got more than 5 replies.
Your points and opinions are valid and warranted, but that's not what this thread is about.
Or maybe I'm the one who's overreacting this time... Idk anymore...
>>6800
>That's a good idea
Cool. I think simply putting it to a vote/petition could be a decent idea for settling discussions for trying temporary site changes. I might make a few soon.
>without an external threat to our community
See, it's ironic if that's the case, because a lot of discussion is recieved as if it's an attack by off-site detractors, when in reality most of the people who cared to fuck with us left 4 years ago.
> accept that a tense, hostile environment is just going to be a part of using the internet in the 2020s
I'm a bit more optimistic than that, and I think it needs to be fixed for the good of this board nd the community.
>I'm no longer oppose OP, but I don't support it either.
Well, what I want is to fascilitate community engagement and create an atmosphere where we can talk about the site without fighting. I hope you'd support that, but neutrality is good enough.
If you're referring to the blue board thread I made a few hours prior to this one, i don't even really have a strong opinion about that, but since other anons felt strongly about it, and it seemed like a valid idea, I felt like it was worth discussion (also it was shitting-up my Roe v. Wade thread).
>>6837
>>6839
>>6842
>>6851
>>6852
Ffs, can you get another thread for this argument? This isn't helping. This shit has leaked it's way into almost every /qa/ thread I've made that got more than 5 replies.
Your points and opinions are valid and warranted, but that's not what this thread is about.
Or maybe I'm the one who's overreacting this time... Idk anymore...
>>6800
>That's a good idea
Cool. I think simply putting it to a vote/petition could be a decent idea for settling discussions for trying temporary site changes. I might make a few soon.
>without an external threat to our community
See, it's ironic if that's the case, because a lot of discussion is recieved as if it's an attack by off-site detractors, when in reality most of the people who cared to fuck with us left 4 years ago.
> accept that a tense, hostile environment is just going to be a part of using the internet in the 2020s
I'm a bit more optimistic than that, and I think it needs to be fixed for the good of this board nd the community.
File (): F51B5736C676F53EA2BEFBAEF04EE889-627516.png (612.8 KB, 2248x1657, 6036790.png)
>All of the vitriol in this thread and >>6719 →
Dude, chill the fuck out. This is a website about things we are interested in. The whole point of being here is supposed to be about discussing things and having experiences that you enjoy and want to remember. There is nothing worth being upset over, or else, why are you here? I think we all have things we could be doing IRL that are worthwhile, so let's all make our time here worthwhile.
Dude, chill the fuck out. This is a website about things we are interested in. The whole point of being here is supposed to be about discussing things and having experiences that you enjoy and want to remember. There is nothing worth being upset over, or else, why are you here? I think we all have things we could be doing IRL that are worthwhile, so let's all make our time here worthwhile.
And if ANYONE is wondering how things got to where they are, here's a reminder.
This passes as 'administration', in some people's minds.
>>6867
This passes as 'administration', in some people's minds.
>>6867
File (): 4432BDFF4D66F0A6A34F238ADC26ED46-290906.jpg (284.1 KB, 1100x1100, cMeB3wy.jpeg)
>>6892
maybe sooner, mlpol is coming up a lot more offsite in the circles I'm around so I keep getting reminded you queers exist.
maybe sooner, mlpol is coming up a lot more offsite in the circles I'm around so I keep getting reminded you queers exist.
Anonymous
No.6894
File (): D7BEB4838A224B921F7277A735D492FA-36857.jpg (36.0 KB, 1024x768, d64514e.jpg)
File (): 9A6C06EBAD0CA75CCA6DE7177EAEDF05-3180218.png (3.0 MB, 3865x3113, 576848 (99%).png)
>>6865
>Cool. I think simply putting it to a vote/petition could be a decent idea for settling discussions for trying temporary site changes. I might make a few soon.
Since it was my idea that became the catalyst for this change I would be remiss if I didn't suggest we use the miss /mlp/ style of vetting voters with quizzes of pone knowledge. admittedly this might be harder for some of the /pol/ focused users to understand and answer, a voting system without accounts is just asking for outsiders to swing the polls. The only way around that I can see is if lotus/anyone admin side checks the IPs against post count here. This would also be imperfect but I really would recommend against an unrestricted poll
>Cool. I think simply putting it to a vote/petition could be a decent idea for settling discussions for trying temporary site changes. I might make a few soon.
Since it was my idea that became the catalyst for this change I would be remiss if I didn't suggest we use the miss /mlp/ style of vetting voters with quizzes of pone knowledge. admittedly this might be harder for some of the /pol/ focused users to understand and answer, a voting system without accounts is just asking for outsiders to swing the polls. The only way around that I can see is if lotus/anyone admin side checks the IPs against post count here. This would also be imperfect but I really would recommend against an unrestricted poll
Anonymous
No.6899
>>6897
>Since it was my idea that became the catalyst for this change
Hey, hey, hey, no so fast.
There is no change, I don't think a change is necessary. It is fine like it is.
>Since it was my idea that became the catalyst for this change
Hey, hey, hey, no so fast.
There is no change, I don't think a change is necessary. It is fine like it is.
Anonymous
No.6900
File (): F4ABEA3854F9D2269952BB6D3D9B55D1-148495.png (145.0 KB, 598x1024, 1574940764845.png)
File (): 45D37ED8DBB6E00CC98E5AA4F49AD754-600201.png (586.1 KB, 715x869, 45D37ED8DBB6E00CC98E5AA4F49AD754-600201.png)
>>6891
>Detractor is an off-boarding faggot who doesn't actually use the site
Every fucking time. This is why I don't take drive-by criticism seriously
>Detractor is an off-boarding faggot who doesn't actually use the site
Every fucking time. This is why I don't take drive-by criticism seriously
Anonymous
No.6908
File (): 69845543FEF45BBC40DD463076B1DCDB-3703573.gif (3.5 MB, 480x480, faggot.gif)
Hot Mare Tail
No.6909
File (): 163B013009FE5F3BDF427928399D283F-239338.png (233.7 KB, 333x600, a3dxgsdg65.png)
File (): 1B3E2890FF53E6CBF42DCDC362C97666-142376.png (139.0 KB, 386x417, When it glows, its shows.png)
>>6901
>every fucking time.
wasn't my idea to make these threads. these threads where almost certainly also made by regulars, or at least the first one was. I freely admit I am not one. I come here rarely, because I know that to create a world worth living in I need to do more than destroy, but to create. this is why the jews make it so hard to create. go ahead and keep crossing your arms and reeing over news articles though. that will teach those jews.
>every fucking time.
wasn't my idea to make these threads. these threads where almost certainly also made by regulars, or at least the first one was. I freely admit I am not one. I come here rarely, because I know that to create a world worth living in I need to do more than destroy, but to create. this is why the jews make it so hard to create. go ahead and keep crossing your arms and reeing over news articles though. that will teach those jews.
Anonymous
No.7044
>>6897
>miss /mlp/ style of vetting voters with quizzes of pone knowledge
This is actually a good idea, imo. I like how it was full of /mlp/ memes, to keep our the derpibooru tourists.
>miss /mlp/ style of vetting voters with quizzes of pone knowledge
This is actually a good idea, imo. I like how it was full of /mlp/ memes, to keep our the derpibooru tourists.
>>6736
I'll add another element to this initial query, and this is largely ubiquitous to site discussion/changes, other projects (such as the 4cc team), et al.
Discord
I make the case that there is too much reliance on discord in the discussion phase of many/most site-related activity. While the implementation phase makes sense, I propose that alot of anons don't want to have to become less anonymous when offering suggestions, opinions, or input, nor do they necessarily want to be part of a committee (which is what alot of the discords end up functioning as).
As a consequence of this, the 'outside-of-committee' discussion/threads can be (and readily ARE, as can be seen) maligned as insincere, lacking commitment/credibility/sincerity, and, and a whole host of others.
The end result is, 'committee'members can grow to resent 'casuals' (read: on-boarders only) and the anons can grow to resent the 'committee' for keeping everything on their 'super sekret discord'.
Neither perception of the other is either authentic or fair, of course.
I'll add another element to this initial query, and this is largely ubiquitous to site discussion/changes, other projects (such as the 4cc team), et al.
Discord
I make the case that there is too much reliance on discord in the discussion phase of many/most site-related activity. While the implementation phase makes sense, I propose that alot of anons don't want to have to become less anonymous when offering suggestions, opinions, or input, nor do they necessarily want to be part of a committee (which is what alot of the discords end up functioning as).
As a consequence of this, the 'outside-of-committee' discussion/threads can be (and readily ARE, as can be seen) maligned as insincere, lacking commitment/credibility/sincerity, and, and a whole host of others.
The end result is, 'committee'members can grow to resent 'casuals' (read: on-boarders only) and the anons can grow to resent the 'committee' for keeping everything on their 'super sekret discord'.
Neither perception of the other is either authentic or fair, of course.
>>7052
>there is too much reliance on discord in the discussion phase of many/most site-related activity.
Oh, certainly. It's not something that most Anons agreed to when this site was made, but it became the go-to medium out of convenience.
>alot of anons don't want to have to become less anonymous when offering suggestions, opinions, or input, nor do they necessarily want to be part of a committee (which is what alot of the discords end up functioning as)
I can agree with that too. I didn't even have a discord before /mlpol/, and I only made one because I eventually felt like it was necessary for site matters.
I think it's something that needs to be figured out.
>there is too much reliance on discord in the discussion phase of many/most site-related activity.
Oh, certainly. It's not something that most Anons agreed to when this site was made, but it became the go-to medium out of convenience.
>alot of anons don't want to have to become less anonymous when offering suggestions, opinions, or input, nor do they necessarily want to be part of a committee (which is what alot of the discords end up functioning as)
I can agree with that too. I didn't even have a discord before /mlpol/, and I only made one because I eventually felt like it was necessary for site matters.
I think it's something that needs to be figured out.
Anonymous
No.7054
>>7053
Again, theres no conyest to its utility in implementation, but discussion should reasonably occur on site. Shit ideas will still be shit whether or not one is anonymous, as will good ideas, and screennames become irrelevant, as does any consequential exclusivity
Again, theres no conyest to its utility in implementation, but discussion should reasonably occur on site. Shit ideas will still be shit whether or not one is anonymous, as will good ideas, and screennames become irrelevant, as does any consequential exclusivity
File (): 377CAC641EEF92672FBF70D87CFC2EA8-274737.jpg (268.3 KB, 1830x665, 0canyouhearthemnow.jpg)
I dunno were to put this, potentially critic shitstorm
>>>/1ntr/3864 →
https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/87026228
>>>/1ntr/3864 →
https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/87026228
File (): 16BA46B1226579511D01C514DE9F8141-52044.jpg (50.8 KB, 525x525, img-1633937-1-3t7rhk.jpg)
Anonymous
No.7060
>>7059
Dude, what did I say to offend you? If you'd elaborate, I'd really appreciate that. All I actually want to to have /qa/ threads that don't devolve into shitflinging every time.
>OP, btw
Dude, what did I say to offend you? If you'd elaborate, I'd really appreciate that. All I actually want to to have /qa/ threads that don't devolve into shitflinging every time.
>OP, btw
>>7055
So, the age of chans is over and we're going back to the age of private PHP forums?
Maybe a forum where you have to create an account to post, but every thread is anonymous, like no face attached to the post and users have no public post history, so only mods/admins can see who posted what.
And if glowies wanna join-in and spam the community, they simply can't because it's a private forum and you need to get an invitation to join.
And if they want to data-mine the users posts to draw some complex psychological profile or whatever...Just create a panic button that literally deletes everything from user's post history, so only the threads remain but users aren't linked to the posts.
I know it's easier said than done, but i'm just saying there are solutions.
So, the age of chans is over and we're going back to the age of private PHP forums?
Maybe a forum where you have to create an account to post, but every thread is anonymous, like no face attached to the post and users have no public post history, so only mods/admins can see who posted what.
And if glowies wanna join-in and spam the community, they simply can't because it's a private forum and you need to get an invitation to join.
And if they want to data-mine the users posts to draw some complex psychological profile or whatever...Just create a panic button that literally deletes everything from user's post history, so only the threads remain but users aren't linked to the posts.
I know it's easier said than done, but i'm just saying there are solutions.
Anonymous
No.7062
>>7061
>So, the age of chans is over and we're going back to the age of private PHP forums?
Fuck, I hope not. Private servers have swallowed enough of this fandom already.
>So, the age of chans is over and we're going back to the age of private PHP forums?
Fuck, I hope not. Private servers have swallowed enough of this fandom already.
Anonymous
No.7084
>>7055
>they spam CP all over your shit and use it as justification to seize the servers
I've been aware of this for a while. It's also why I'm so adamant about the importance of timely removal of CP spamposts.
>they spam CP all over your shit and use it as justification to seize the servers
I've been aware of this for a while. It's also why I'm so adamant about the importance of timely removal of CP spamposts.
Anonymous
No.7087
/mlpol/ was doing well until drama came back. That's poison and poners fled.
F
F
>>7088
Horseshit. The site has been slowly losing posters for years now. Whether those users could have been retained is an argument of hypothesis, as little/nothing was done in light of this slow bleed, and who knows if it's too late for anything to be done. Attention, focus, and effort went to projects (at the expense of the site) like Ponerpics which "seemed like a good idea at the time" but played out as one of a half dozen other opportunist sites that flooded the market with effectively the same content.
Its been 3 years since any changes were made to staff, because Pupper cant/wont update the code.
On the one hand this is/was due to Lotus demanding his attention for Ponerpics. See above.
On the other hand, Pupper (not exclusively) is experiencing what alot of individuals do when they find themselves in a position of control; the perception that any change or deviation from what they have come to see as normal/correct as causing a LOSS of control.
If one were to equate users/content with profit, /mlpol/ has been operating in the red for far longer than any responsible manager/administrator would have allowed without enacting corrective measures.
But we dont have those, and /mlpol/ doesnt operate from a profit motive, so from the viewpoont of staff:
As long as its comfy, who cares if it's bleeding out, right? Because if EFFORT is any gauge, the interest has NOT been to develop and gradually improve the site (ya know, an EMERGENT model), and instead has been focused on individuals maintaining their (unelected, unmandated, and without oversight) staff control/positions.
>/mlpol/ was doing well until the drama came back
And this is the user attitude that allowed it to go on for so long. Seriously, I'd love for (you) to go over site statistics and try to make the same argument.
Horseshit. The site has been slowly losing posters for years now. Whether those users could have been retained is an argument of hypothesis, as little/nothing was done in light of this slow bleed, and who knows if it's too late for anything to be done. Attention, focus, and effort went to projects (at the expense of the site) like Ponerpics which "seemed like a good idea at the time" but played out as one of a half dozen other opportunist sites that flooded the market with effectively the same content.
Its been 3 years since any changes were made to staff, because Pupper cant/wont update the code.
On the one hand this is/was due to Lotus demanding his attention for Ponerpics. See above.
On the other hand, Pupper (not exclusively) is experiencing what alot of individuals do when they find themselves in a position of control; the perception that any change or deviation from what they have come to see as normal/correct as causing a LOSS of control.
If one were to equate users/content with profit, /mlpol/ has been operating in the red for far longer than any responsible manager/administrator would have allowed without enacting corrective measures.
But we dont have those, and /mlpol/ doesnt operate from a profit motive, so from the viewpoont of staff:
As long as its comfy, who cares if it's bleeding out, right? Because if EFFORT is any gauge, the interest has NOT been to develop and gradually improve the site (ya know, an EMERGENT model), and instead has been focused on individuals maintaining their (unelected, unmandated, and without oversight) staff control/positions.
>/mlpol/ was doing well until the drama came back
And this is the user attitude that allowed it to go on for so long. Seriously, I'd love for (you) to go over site statistics and try to make the same argument.
File (): DE519AA3F08A23D9049B5453349B4D99-12452405.gif (11.9 MB, 300x300, medium.gif)
>>7090
>but played out as one of a half dozen other opportunist sites that flooded the market with effectively the same content.
Not trying to justify my sperg out last year. But it was legitimately surprising to find users arguing about fash art being allowed at all on their collab. or whatever the fuck that was
>but played out as one of a half dozen other opportunist sites that flooded the market with effectively the same content.
Not trying to justify my sperg out last year. But it was legitimately surprising to find users arguing about fash art being allowed at all on their collab. or whatever the fuck that was
Anonymous
No.7114
>>7092
>it was legitimately surprising to find users arguing about fash art being allowed at all on their collab
Really? That's surprising.
>it was legitimately surprising to find users arguing about fash art being allowed at all on their collab
Really? That's surprising.
>>7090
>If one were to equate users/content with profit
Content more than users, tbh.
If you compare us to other obscure pony imageboards, there are a few boards with only a fraction of our userbase that still manage to generate consistent content every week (art, greentext, new pony threads, etc), just because they got the ball rolling for user engagement, and the ones who run them are not only content creators themselves but are also well-connected and invite ther friends consistently too. It could also be an organizational struggle that might discourage posters from posting the "low quality" threads that fuel /mlp/.
That being said, traffic is still important. /mlpol/ has always upheld the virtue of quality above quantity, but that comes with the risk of ending up with neither if content creators go away due to lack of engaged posters to see it.
>If one were to equate users/content with profit
Content more than users, tbh.
If you compare us to other obscure pony imageboards, there are a few boards with only a fraction of our userbase that still manage to generate consistent content every week (art, greentext, new pony threads, etc), just because they got the ball rolling for user engagement, and the ones who run them are not only content creators themselves but are also well-connected and invite ther friends consistently too. It could also be an organizational struggle that might discourage posters from posting the "low quality" threads that fuel /mlp/.
That being said, traffic is still important. /mlpol/ has always upheld the virtue of quality above quantity, but that comes with the risk of ending up with neither if content creators go away due to lack of engaged posters to see it.
>>7123
>there are a few boards with only a fraction of our userbase that still manage to generate consistent content every week (art, greentext, new pony threads, etc)
YES, there ARE! What do they have that we lack I wonder?
>because they got the ball rolling for user engagement, and the ones who run them are not only content creators themselves but are also well-connected and invite ther friends consistently too
You mean, its not the work of a few fags lording on discord? The hell you say!
>/mlpol/ has always upheld the virtue of quality above quantity, but that comes with the risk of ending up with neither if content creators go away due to lack of engaged posters to see it.
Or, creators go away simply because the site doesnt represent whag it purports to?
>there are a few boards with only a fraction of our userbase that still manage to generate consistent content every week (art, greentext, new pony threads, etc)
YES, there ARE! What do they have that we lack I wonder?
>because they got the ball rolling for user engagement, and the ones who run them are not only content creators themselves but are also well-connected and invite ther friends consistently too
You mean, its not the work of a few fags lording on discord? The hell you say!
>/mlpol/ has always upheld the virtue of quality above quantity, but that comes with the risk of ending up with neither if content creators go away due to lack of engaged posters to see it.
Or, creators go away simply because the site doesnt represent whag it purports to?
>>7124
>its not the work of a few fags lording on discord
Nah, it usually still is. It's just that often the fags are the main content creators, and the site only lasts so long as they're still willing to create content, usually with some ongoing project.
/mlpol/ has some of that too though. We all like Elway's Glimmerposts.
>the site doesnt represent whag it purports to?
It depends on what you mean by "purports to".
>What do they have that we lack I wonder?
That's a good question.
I would say organization + user engagement facilitated by community-driven decisions? It's just a guess though. I've only recently begun observing 'competing' boards to answer that question.
>its not the work of a few fags lording on discord
Nah, it usually still is. It's just that often the fags are the main content creators, and the site only lasts so long as they're still willing to create content, usually with some ongoing project.
/mlpol/ has some of that too though. We all like Elway's Glimmerposts.
>the site doesnt represent whag it purports to?
It depends on what you mean by "purports to".
>What do they have that we lack I wonder?
That's a good question.
I would say organization + user engagement facilitated by community-driven decisions? It's just a guess though. I've only recently begun observing 'competing' boards to answer that question.
>>7125
Okay, thats a fair point. The 'fags' are on discord regardless of whether its site related or not.
But that begs the question of where the /mlpol/ fandom 'is', if its more on discord than on site.
>Wym it "purports to" precisely what is implied. The site does not authentically operate under the premist it did/has.
Tht premise being, that it is:
1. Alternative to 4chan
2. Community driven
3. Representative of what /mlpol/ used to be
None of those points are true.
Okay, thats a fair point. The 'fags' are on discord regardless of whether its site related or not.
But that begs the question of where the /mlpol/ fandom 'is', if its more on discord than on site.
>Wym it "purports to" precisely what is implied. The site does not authentically operate under the premist it did/has.
Tht premise being, that it is:
1. Alternative to 4chan
2. Community driven
3. Representative of what /mlpol/ used to be
None of those points are true.
>>7126
>But that begs the question of where the /mlpol/ fandom 'is'
Trying to pinpoint gathering points / poners location.
Try to be a bit more subtle.
>But that begs the question of where the /mlpol/ fandom 'is'
Trying to pinpoint gathering points / poners location.
Try to be a bit more subtle.
>>7126
Each of those are 100% true. It doesn't have to be to your liking to be an alternative. It is 100% community driven as the posts on the site come from the community, not bots. 4chan can't claim as such, reinforcing the alternative nature of /mlpol/. It is also representative of what /mlpol/ used to be in that it is ponies and politics, by definition what it was.
Your personal rating of how well these have been done can't speak to the truthfulness of these points as they are fully present as defined, just not to the standard that you approve of.
Each of those are 100% true. It doesn't have to be to your liking to be an alternative. It is 100% community driven as the posts on the site come from the community, not bots. 4chan can't claim as such, reinforcing the alternative nature of /mlpol/. It is also representative of what /mlpol/ used to be in that it is ponies and politics, by definition what it was.
Your personal rating of how well these have been done can't speak to the truthfulness of these points as they are fully present as defined, just not to the standard that you approve of.
>>7128
>Trying to pinpoint gathering points / poners location.
What does that even mean?
>>7129
Eh, I wouldn't say 100%.
>100% community driven as the posts on the site come from the community, not bots.
This is indeed a strongsuit of /mlpol/. It doesn't distinguish us among other altchans, but it's definitely a strongsuit.
>It is also representative of what /mlpol/ used to be in that it is ponies and politics, by definition what it was.
I don't think that's what anon meant. I think he meant had the same feeling as the April 1st 2017 board, which might be a bit of an unrealistic ambition, but an ambition nonetheless. 4/mlpol/ was more than just ponies and politics; it was the fusion of ponies and politics in an neverbefore seen explosion of content and creativity, and a revival of old-tier 4chan humor on a scale that none of us had seen in years before. I always considered that to be what I was aiming for as a poster and community member, although it's not easy to come up with.
>>7126
>1. Alternative to 4chan
>2. Community driven
>3. Representative of what /mlpol/ used to be
>None of those points are true.
You could say that that's somewhat true, although it's really a matter of perspective. I do feel like the general atmosphere has changed in the past 5 years, although idk what exactly caused it.
>Trying to pinpoint gathering points / poners location.
What does that even mean?
>>7129
Eh, I wouldn't say 100%.
>100% community driven as the posts on the site come from the community, not bots.
This is indeed a strongsuit of /mlpol/. It doesn't distinguish us among other altchans, but it's definitely a strongsuit.
>It is also representative of what /mlpol/ used to be in that it is ponies and politics, by definition what it was.
I don't think that's what anon meant. I think he meant had the same feeling as the April 1st 2017 board, which might be a bit of an unrealistic ambition, but an ambition nonetheless. 4/mlpol/ was more than just ponies and politics; it was the fusion of ponies and politics in an neverbefore seen explosion of content and creativity, and a revival of old-tier 4chan humor on a scale that none of us had seen in years before. I always considered that to be what I was aiming for as a poster and community member, although it's not easy to come up with.
>>7126
>1. Alternative to 4chan
>2. Community driven
>3. Representative of what /mlpol/ used to be
>None of those points are true.
You could say that that's somewhat true, although it's really a matter of perspective. I do feel like the general atmosphere has changed in the past 5 years, although idk what exactly caused it.
>>7128
>paying attention is 'trying to pinpoint'
Lol, its been a couple years since that one (purported argument(. Keep on, it'll pan out, I promise
>>7129
Oh? And how is the site community driven? Please, indicate where community has been allowed to contribute?
4/mlpol/ had people jumping out of the woodwork to provide content. How long since a comparable level of content can be said to have been provided by mlpol?
>hurr, more people
Then it's different, and any attempt to do anything without adequately and accurately assessing the board is wishful thinking based on a previous and definitively different set of criteria, innit??
One can't progress where they want to go until they start with where they are.
>Your personal rating of how well these have been done can't speak to the truthfulness of these points as they are fully present as defined, just not to the standard that you approve of.
Its easier to say
<I disagree
(just saying, cant argue that)
>paying attention is 'trying to pinpoint'
Lol, its been a couple years since that one (purported argument(. Keep on, it'll pan out, I promise
>>7129
Oh? And how is the site community driven? Please, indicate where community has been allowed to contribute?
4/mlpol/ had people jumping out of the woodwork to provide content. How long since a comparable level of content can be said to have been provided by mlpol?
>hurr, more people
Then it's different, and any attempt to do anything without adequately and accurately assessing the board is wishful thinking based on a previous and definitively different set of criteria, innit??
One can't progress where they want to go until they start with where they are.
>Your personal rating of how well these have been done can't speak to the truthfulness of these points as they are fully present as defined, just not to the standard that you approve of.
Its easier to say
<I disagree
(just saying, cant argue that)
>>7128
>Trying to pinpoint gathering points / poners location.
>Try to be a bit more subtle.
See, this is exactly the paranoid, vitriolic attitude I was talking about in the OP.
Even if Anon is being a pessimistic/cynical/contentious faggot, his intentions are clearly no more insidious than that. You're responding as if he's some undercover glownigger trying to dox you, which he clearly is not. If you don't like him, just call him a faggot. There's no need to get all schizo about it.
>Trying to pinpoint gathering points / poners location.
>Try to be a bit more subtle.
See, this is exactly the paranoid, vitriolic attitude I was talking about in the OP.
Even if Anon is being a pessimistic/cynical/contentious faggot, his intentions are clearly no more insidious than that. You're responding as if he's some undercover glownigger trying to dox you, which he clearly is not. If you don't like him, just call him a faggot. There's no need to get all schizo about it.
>>7132
>You're responding as if he's some undercover glownigger trying to dox you
Well, as I said, anon should paraphrase his ideas better.
>You're responding as if he's some undercover glownigger trying to dox you
Well, as I said, anon should paraphrase his ideas better.
>>7130
You can't guarentee the spirit of a community to be present through policy. All you can do through policy is to allow for it in the policy, which /mlpol/ does. As for the community encouraging it, that is what needs work, but that has to be done by the people present. If you are looking for some leader to do it for you, it will be their show. This would damage the nature of the board being community driven. Simply, we each need to work on it.
>>7131
You post. That's the contribution to further posting. If you don't post, that takes away the potential for further posting. How is it not community driven? We have our own writing projects, video projects, fanfiction reviews, discussions, dives into history, religion, roleplaying games... this is community driven content and has shaped what the site is and does.
What is it that you desire to be added?
You can't guarentee the spirit of a community to be present through policy. All you can do through policy is to allow for it in the policy, which /mlpol/ does. As for the community encouraging it, that is what needs work, but that has to be done by the people present. If you are looking for some leader to do it for you, it will be their show. This would damage the nature of the board being community driven. Simply, we each need to work on it.
>>7131
You post. That's the contribution to further posting. If you don't post, that takes away the potential for further posting. How is it not community driven? We have our own writing projects, video projects, fanfiction reviews, discussions, dives into history, religion, roleplaying games... this is community driven content and has shaped what the site is and does.
What is it that you desire to be added?
>>7132
>You're responding as if he's some undercover glownigger trying to dox you, which he clearly is not.
There's no way you know that is not the case.
Better safe than sorry.
>You're responding as if he's some undercover glownigger trying to dox you, which he clearly is not.
There's no way you know that is not the case.
Better safe than sorry.
Anonymous
No.7136
>>7133
It was clear to anyone not being deliberately disingenuous (read: a liar) that I was drawing distinction between operating on board versus the 'necessity' of operating on discord.
Like, if one wanted to participate in and around tea time, fo example. Yes, discord is useful as an aggregator location. No, it was never, should never, and is never to be a centeal hub for /mlpol/.
It was clear to anyone not being deliberately disingenuous (read: a liar) that I was drawing distinction between operating on board versus the 'necessity' of operating on discord.
Like, if one wanted to participate in and around tea time, fo example. Yes, discord is useful as an aggregator location. No, it was never, should never, and is never to be a centeal hub for /mlpol/.
>>7134
>through policy
I don't think either of the other guys were talking about policy here yet, although I guess I did necrobump a weeks-old conversation. I think the other guy is moreso just generally disatisfied with the the staff, although I can't speak for him.
>As for the community encouraging it, that is what needs work, but that has to be done by the people present. If you are looking for some leader to do it for you, it will be their show.
You know, I've been one of the bigger posters on this site for a while now. I don't mean that in a bragging sense, but in an observational sense. For a while, there were often times where I was making more than half of the political threads and a quarter of the pony threads, and on months where I took breaks content just... dried up; as if nobody wanted to take my place.
Of course, I could always be doing more for the board, but sometimes I wish I had some dedicated partners to make content with me, so it didn't feel like I was posting to myself.
>>7135
How is that "safe"? Glowniggers don't go away just because you're rude to them. All that does is discourage people from civic engagement through discussions on /qa/. Chill the fuck out.
>>7137
And don't provoke him either. That's counterproductive.
>through policy
I don't think either of the other guys were talking about policy here yet, although I guess I did necrobump a weeks-old conversation. I think the other guy is moreso just generally disatisfied with the the staff, although I can't speak for him.
>As for the community encouraging it, that is what needs work, but that has to be done by the people present. If you are looking for some leader to do it for you, it will be their show.
You know, I've been one of the bigger posters on this site for a while now. I don't mean that in a bragging sense, but in an observational sense. For a while, there were often times where I was making more than half of the political threads and a quarter of the pony threads, and on months where I took breaks content just... dried up; as if nobody wanted to take my place.
Of course, I could always be doing more for the board, but sometimes I wish I had some dedicated partners to make content with me, so it didn't feel like I was posting to myself.
>>7135
How is that "safe"? Glowniggers don't go away just because you're rude to them. All that does is discourage people from civic engagement through discussions on /qa/. Chill the fuck out.
>>7137
And don't provoke him either. That's counterproductive.
Anonymous
No.7139
>>7138
>as if nobody wanted to take my place
Thank you very much poner.
I wish bread posters would have enough autism as Flat Earth's OP.
>as if nobody wanted to take my place
Thank you very much poner.
I wish bread posters would have enough autism as Flat Earth's OP.
Anonymous
No.7140
Wow, back-handed compliments.
A wonder that all of former staff is adversarial to to the site
A wonder that all of former staff is adversarial to to the site
>>7138
There have been threads that have called for building teams to make content and they have largely fallen off, only interested in the results and not participation. This is simply the nature of most users. You don't get to summon replacements; they are encouraged to join or form out of being previously an observer. I can attest to this in my own failure of my video project. I am now stuck trying to do it myself as no one was going to volunteer as I need to prove the project and inspire participation. Until I can do that, no one will join.
This is the impact of community driven content. Since we aren't large, you don't get easy replacements because the reality is that only a tiny percent will make content, and a tiny percent of a tiny base means not many options.
There have been threads that have called for building teams to make content and they have largely fallen off, only interested in the results and not participation. This is simply the nature of most users. You don't get to summon replacements; they are encouraged to join or form out of being previously an observer. I can attest to this in my own failure of my video project. I am now stuck trying to do it myself as no one was going to volunteer as I need to prove the project and inspire participation. Until I can do that, no one will join.
This is the impact of community driven content. Since we aren't large, you don't get easy replacements because the reality is that only a tiny percent will make content, and a tiny percent of a tiny base means not many options.
File (): 49BAA14A8E2C6D6D7E5BDAFD5EB60A49-4153.png (4.1 KB, 333x289, 1456761.png)
>>7141
Tbh, I don't make even one tenth as many posts/threads as I used to back in 2017, or even half as many as I did as recently as 2020. I could always get back to it, but I've had so much on my plate in meatspace lately and it feels like I'm tired all of the time...
I was never a huge content creator on 4chan, but i tried to be on /mlpol/ because I wanted to site to stay alive. At some point I was so desperate that I sockpuppeted entire conversations (yeah, it was super cringe in hindsight), or copy-pasted hundreds threads and distilled comments/arguments/jokes from 4chan, but I only ever wanted to get the ball rolling so that other anons would pick it up and I could finally be the lurker I wanted to be... It's a bit selfish, but I'm not the same tireless shitposter I was back in 2017...
If i felt like there were more posters making things themselves, i'd feel encouraged to pick things up, I guess.
I had that west marches pathfinder project I wanted to dedicate to this board, although posters didn't show as much initial interest as I hoped, and life got in the way of planning it... I'm still working on it, but it's slow.
Tbh, I don't make even one tenth as many posts/threads as I used to back in 2017, or even half as many as I did as recently as 2020. I could always get back to it, but I've had so much on my plate in meatspace lately and it feels like I'm tired all of the time...
I was never a huge content creator on 4chan, but i tried to be on /mlpol/ because I wanted to site to stay alive. At some point I was so desperate that I sockpuppeted entire conversations (yeah, it was super cringe in hindsight), or copy-pasted hundreds threads and distilled comments/arguments/jokes from 4chan, but I only ever wanted to get the ball rolling so that other anons would pick it up and I could finally be the lurker I wanted to be... It's a bit selfish, but I'm not the same tireless shitposter I was back in 2017...
If i felt like there were more posters making things themselves, i'd feel encouraged to pick things up, I guess.
I had that west marches pathfinder project I wanted to dedicate to this board, although posters didn't show as much initial interest as I hoped, and life got in the way of planning it... I'm still working on it, but it's slow.
>>7142
It is perfectly understandable. You can't work at full steam all the time, and things have been discouraging as of late. However, I feel you have discounted the userbase too easily. Though they are slow to make more content, they come out of the woodwork when it counts. We just need to stick around for when they do.
It is perfectly understandable. You can't work at full steam all the time, and things have been discouraging as of late. However, I feel you have discounted the userbase too easily. Though they are slow to make more content, they come out of the woodwork when it counts. We just need to stick around for when they do.
Anonymous
No.7145
>>7143
>We just need to stick around for when they do.
At least post some more random ponies in the meantime.
>We just need to stick around for when they do.
At least post some more random ponies in the meantime.
Anonymous
No.7146
>>7143
>keep 'this' up until they 'do'
Assuming that when they 'do', their position has changed,(previously noted as "fuck /pol/, fuck /mlpol/' on the /mlp/ side, and 'fuck /mlp/, fuck /mlpol/' on the /mlp/ side)
what exactly are you waiting for?
Dont answer, it was rhetorical.
>keep 'this' up until they 'do'
Assuming that when they 'do', their position has changed,(previously noted as "fuck /pol/, fuck /mlpol/' on the /mlp/ side, and 'fuck /mlp/, fuck /mlpol/' on the /mlp/ side)
what exactly are you waiting for?
Dont answer, it was rhetorical.
Anonymous
No.7147
File (): 4BCE7780CD3394BE936AC219A4183640-190417.jpg (186.0 KB, 618x960, 8AEB7DEDB9BFF0FDB53603EF8441A286-190399.jpg)
File (): AF49FD97CAAAE403D1D32039BFD7A46C-688626.png (672.5 KB, 1280x1280, AF49FD97CAAAE403D1D32039BFD7A46C-688626.png)
File (): E6472B53D351C3CC182CCA886D0625E6-356561.png (348.2 KB, 1024x1026, GottagetmystuffrightedE6472B53D351C3CC182CCA886D0625E6-356561.png)
