/qa/ - Questions and Answers

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

>>6868
I would like you stop antagonizing and instead post ponies.

>>6867
I see nothing's gotten better since the last time I was here lol, see you faggots in a year

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>6893
>queers
Just say faggot, you peaky blunders' nigger.

>>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

>>6901
I wonder why I left.

>>6907
>poor victim
And yet, you're back.

>>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.

>>6957
Youre surprised? The fish rots from the head

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

I dunno were to put this, potentially critic shitstorm

>>>/1ntr/3864 →
https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/87026228

>>7055
Noted. Thanks anon.

>>7055
Everything begins to make sense now.
Saved.

>>7055
This... changes everything.

>>6736
With my most utter disgust.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>7061
The modern equivalent (kinda) you're looking for is ActivityPub (Mastodon, Pleroma etc)

/mlpol/ was doing well until drama came back. That's poison and poners fled.
F

>>7088
When did we not have drama?

>>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.

>>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

>>7092
>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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)

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.

>>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/.

>>7135
Shall I tell them your name?

>>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.