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)
59 replies and 16 files omitted.
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.
[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] [101-109] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
109 replies | 29 files | 20 UUIDs | Page 4