Hi anon! We reformed the rule set! Check it out here
https://mlpol.net/policy
>What was wrong with the old set?
So very, very many things
To start off, it was not made on mlpol.net. It was made on April 2, 2017, on the merged board of 4chan. It was never made for this website, nor any independent site, and it has no reflection to our situation. The vast majority of people who participated in that thread on 4chan are not here now, and do not use mlpol.net. Several of the rules in the old set were added by staff over the years and were never voted on.
Second, it has no bearing at all to rules as enforced and probably never has. The number one violation for which we issue bans is and long has been spam. Those little cyrilic bot posts with the ultra-low-resolution images. Tell me where in the old rule set it says "do not spam?" Pro-tip: it doesn't. A majority of all of our moderation enforcement has been against something that isn't even listed as against the rules. There is also no rule in it against off-board raiding - even though that is clearly the spirit of several of the rules - and off board raids have long been one of the dominant reasons for bans.
It worked the other way as well. The rule against "generals" was discarded in practical enforcement in the first year when we decided to allow Syria General to post on /mlpol/. Not long after this, anonfilly was invited after being kicked off of /mlp/. There's also that unstated rule 1 and rule 2. "Don't talk about /mlpol/." We realized within a month of April 2 that not advertising the board - which now was off of 4chan and was it's own website - was a bad idea.
The rule set had absolutely no rule against insufferable and obnoxious posters, and that was a rather big issue.
And you can't tell me it wasn't ungainly and long. It was two typed pages. That isn't useful.
The rule set was prone to misinterpretation, or at least, to give the wrong impression to newcomers. I met with a friend who didn't know I had anything to do with mlpol, and asked him what he thought about the altchans. He told me that mlpol.net and /poner/ was hampered by its banning of generals. A rule we have enfored... once? Ever? Back in the summer of 2017?
And yes, the rules lawyering around the "striped" thread was a factor. Rather than arguing actually relevant issues like whether or not the zebras having sex with twilight were a part of fetish, or posted with a deliberate intent to disrupt the board, instead time and energy is wasted arguing with people who in some cases had never used the board before that day over what degree the my little pony porn resembled some kind of thread that was spammed on the /pol/ board many years ago. That's not helpful.
>Why now? Why not after a long, lengthy process?
It should have been overhauled years ago. I have wanted to overhaul the rules for years. The primary reason we have not is because we didn't have an idea for how to codify a moderator response to what we considered to be edge cases - posters who seemed to be acting in good faith, but who were so horrifically and consistently obnoxious it ruined the experience for everyone around them. It wasn't until this year that I figured out the blanket term "disruptive" captures the essence of these edge cases, but also posting types we ban anyways, like off-board raiders and spam.
>But why now specifically?
Because now is the time that reforms that have been long put off are most needed.
>Why these rules?
I wanted the rules to do three things. One, to reflect actual enforcement and the needs of moderation. Two, to be rather limited, allow most posts to be permitted, and maximum freedom to posters. And three, be short and easy to understand. What we came up with, I think, does capture most circumstances where moderation action is needed, and does so in a succinct and easy to understand manner. Some of the rules could easily be split up into smaller rules, but still, it is a short list of rules.
>Why does the policy page say that the rule set is "under construction"?
Because that part of the policy page is probably going to be modified to include a description of the boards and any rules that might be specific to the board
>But shouldn't the community discuss the rules?
Well, this is the thread. Discuss it now. As stated, the rules were written to reflect actual enforcement. These are things that we have already discussed endlessly, including last year when there was a proposal to add a "lurk more" rule. And besides, if you haven't noticed, who the "community" even is right now is in a state of flux. The newcomers need a very simple set of rules that they can read, understand, and not misinterpret, and they need it now.
>Does this mean that /poner/ is not getting rules on porn?
Not necessarily. We've decided that we will give that a little more time to decide what to do. It's very unlikely that we are going to make /poner/ a completely blue board, but it's far from out of the question that we will add rules like no NSFW in the OP, no porn dumping, or require spoilers. If this is added, it will not be listed on the global rule set. It will be under the board specific rule set, which as of now has not been added.
>You're a faggot
no u
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
239 replies and 50 files omitted.
divine rule overhaul on hitlers birthday
>TL;DR - Don't be a cunt
Seems fair.
Seems fair.
>>9386
Good rewrite. GR2 is exactly what we needed.
>no NSFW in the OP
No, we want lewds in the catalog. The catalog is the first line of defense - the thin-skinned faggots nope out right there and close the tab.
Let's think back to the past. The old mlpchan system would detect #Mature in the OP and hide those threads by default. There was a checkbox in settings for your preference. Anything posted outside of that would need to be spoilered.
It was a surprisingly decent system, but quite frankly, it doesn't fit the current needs of this site.
>no porn dumping
Sure, to encourage actual discussion. I would have no problem with porn dump threads if there was any discussion. But on average, you'd be lucky to get more than 100 words out of the entire thread.
>require spoilers
No, this is retarded. If you must censor the thumbnails, then add an NSFW specific toggle. If you're not going to put in the effort, then don't bother in the first place.
mlpol already has a good working system. It isn't /trash/. With actual moderation kicking out bad faith dumpers, sliders, and shills, it will probably never be /trash/. The new GR2 is a relieving sign of this.
It all comes from the top, and the top back on 4chan was irredeemably bad.
[Read more] Good rewrite. GR2 is exactly what we needed.
>no NSFW in the OP
No, we want lewds in the catalog. The catalog is the first line of defense - the thin-skinned faggots nope out right there and close the tab.
Let's think back to the past. The old mlpchan system would detect #Mature in the OP and hide those threads by default. There was a checkbox in settings for your preference. Anything posted outside of that would need to be spoilered.
It was a surprisingly decent system, but quite frankly, it doesn't fit the current needs of this site.
>no porn dumping
Sure, to encourage actual discussion. I would have no problem with porn dump threads if there was any discussion. But on average, you'd be lucky to get more than 100 words out of the entire thread.
>require spoilers
No, this is retarded. If you must censor the thumbnails, then add an NSFW specific toggle. If you're not going to put in the effort, then don't bother in the first place.
mlpol already has a good working system. It isn't /trash/. With actual moderation kicking out bad faith dumpers, sliders, and shills, it will probably never be /trash/. The new GR2 is a relieving sign of this.
It all comes from the top, and the top back on 4chan was irredeemably bad.
>>9386
>"erm the rules werent made on mlpol so that makes it okay to turn into the second coming of jewish racebait threads and unfathomable garbage" -- Tranny
You're literally being a faggot pussy who got trvthnvked into hell for your blacked kink, so now you're acting like a pissy monarch who got their feewings huwt and fundamentally changing the site's character to destroy the culture. Not only that but you are outright lying and saying that people weren't calling out the striped thread for being an obvious fucking disruption and we ALL saw you defend that fucking thread. If Atlas was here you would have been fucking booted off this site the hour it happened for outright allowing the site to be disrupted, and then for defending it, and then antagonizing people further by telling them to be "creative" in their disruptions instead of just doing your fucking job. It's beyond obvious that its your personal kink and you just got assblasted when everyone shat on it. You have already sewn the seeds for the doom of the site and proven that you have zero interest in the community, you should step down and return the site to as it was so that people who actually know how to handle a literal fucking rulebook can moderate.
TLDR everyone should go to NHNB instead
>"erm the rules werent made on mlpol so that makes it okay to turn into the second coming of jewish racebait threads and unfathomable garbage" -- Tranny
You're literally being a faggot pussy who got trvthnvked into hell for your blacked kink, so now you're acting like a pissy monarch who got their feewings huwt and fundamentally changing the site's character to destroy the culture. Not only that but you are outright lying and saying that people weren't calling out the striped thread for being an obvious fucking disruption and we ALL saw you defend that fucking thread. If Atlas was here you would have been fucking booted off this site the hour it happened for outright allowing the site to be disrupted, and then for defending it, and then antagonizing people further by telling them to be "creative" in their disruptions instead of just doing your fucking job. It's beyond obvious that its your personal kink and you just got assblasted when everyone shat on it. You have already sewn the seeds for the doom of the site and proven that you have zero interest in the community, you should step down and return the site to as it was so that people who actually know how to handle a literal fucking rulebook can moderate.
TLDR everyone should go to NHNB instead
>>9386
Gut reaction is unease, change in rules or policy are uphill and to see it just be something different with no warning is unsettling.
On the other hand each rule is written in metaphorical blood, both new and old.
I get with the whole displaced refugee situation having rules which deal with the situation.
However.
There's no subclauses which explain the spirit and culture of the rule(s).
One has no frame of reference of what constitutes a post that breaks server host tos.
If we're assuming everyone has no clue at all.
Rules are for new fags to become old fags and to keep the peace.
Something that all staff can wear that it isn't personal, but part of the larger scope made by us all for protection of both staff and users.
I don't think we need an excessive lawyer like document spanning hundreds of pages able to be read by any 60 IQ knuckle dragger.
We do need something that autists, retards, faggots, regular users new and old and staff can reference easily to either report (for users) or take action (for staff).
Or inversely say there is no action needed.
So going down point by point.
>Rule 1. Ponies.
Incredible, you know what it means, we know what it means. Everyone else doesn't.
I have to get back to you all later, thanks love and have a happy easter
[Read more] Gut reaction is unease, change in rules or policy are uphill and to see it just be something different with no warning is unsettling.
On the other hand each rule is written in metaphorical blood, both new and old.
I get with the whole displaced refugee situation having rules which deal with the situation.
However.
There's no subclauses which explain the spirit and culture of the rule(s).
One has no frame of reference of what constitutes a post that breaks server host tos.
If we're assuming everyone has no clue at all.
Rules are for new fags to become old fags and to keep the peace.
Something that all staff can wear that it isn't personal, but part of the larger scope made by us all for protection of both staff and users.
I don't think we need an excessive lawyer like document spanning hundreds of pages able to be read by any 60 IQ knuckle dragger.
We do need something that autists, retards, faggots, regular users new and old and staff can reference easily to either report (for users) or take action (for staff).
Or inversely say there is no action needed.
So going down point by point.
>Rule 1. Ponies.
Incredible, you know what it means, we know what it means. Everyone else doesn't.
I have to get back to you all later, thanks love and have a happy easter
Bring back no cuckshit, 90+% of the time racemixing posts are just cuckshit fetish/demoralization posts so it would cover instances where it's a problem (almost all of them). Posting in good faith and not being disruptive, while being good ideas, are so vague that actual enforcement could come down to however moderation is feeling in the moment and be an excuse to delete posts or ban posters that mods disagree with. For the sake of clear enforcement and rule of law, rules by their nature need to be clear and well defined or they might as well read "don't piss off those in power".
>>9386
>but it's far from out of the question that we will add rules like no NSFW in the OP, no porn dumping, or require spoilers
Come on, we just had a vote with the majority wanting either a red board or at the very least the option to have separate nsfw and sfw threads. We dont want /mlp/ with a new skin.
>but it's far from out of the question that we will add rules like no NSFW in the OP, no porn dumping, or require spoilers
Come on, we just had a vote with the majority wanting either a red board or at the very least the option to have separate nsfw and sfw threads. We dont want /mlp/ with a new skin.
>>9399
agreed. porn is both a feature and a shield to /mlpol/. /mlp/ tourists need to find another place to make a hug box.
the recent vote manipulations campaign is evidence we need more porn to keep out concern trolls. even if I agree that I prefer threads that are strictly sfw over mixed ones. /mlpol/ must preserve it's shield.
maybe keeping the nsfw OP images unspoilered would be a good thing in that sense.
agreed. porn is both a feature and a shield to /mlpol/. /mlp/ tourists need to find another place to make a hug box.
the recent vote manipulations campaign is evidence we need more porn to keep out concern trolls. even if I agree that I prefer threads that are strictly sfw over mixed ones. /mlpol/ must preserve it's shield.
maybe keeping the nsfw OP images unspoilered would be a good thing in that sense.
on porn dumping
I mean having one guy make 25%-50% of a thread himself could help traffic, but it really depends on what the mod staff determine as porn spam.
>>9398
>banning cuckold and striped
I agree most cuck/stripe threads are just bad actors trying to push racemixing/demoralization, or more realistically for /mlpol/ just "trolling nazis with black cock"
however I still believe in freedom for a board like this. some zigger smut is in good faith. perhaps there is compromise we aren't thinking of.
I mean having one guy make 25%-50% of a thread himself could help traffic, but it really depends on what the mod staff determine as porn spam.
>>9398
>banning cuckold and striped
I agree most cuck/stripe threads are just bad actors trying to push racemixing/demoralization, or more realistically for /mlpol/ just "trolling nazis with black cock"
however I still believe in freedom for a board like this. some zigger smut is in good faith. perhaps there is compromise we aren't thinking of.
>>9400
I dont care about the shield part. I just want discussions to be able to shift naturally towards porn talk without everyone needing to make a new nsfw thread or posting outside links like a cuck.
I dont care about the shield part. I just want discussions to be able to shift naturally towards porn talk without everyone needing to make a new nsfw thread or posting outside links like a cuck.
>>9400
>Calls it vote manipulation for hugboxes when the bigger vote manipulation was for porn everywhere
The votes went up for the porn, but the activity dropped on the board. If porn votes represented real votes then there would have logically been an increase of activity, but that's the opposite of what happened.
>Calls it vote manipulation for hugboxes when the bigger vote manipulation was for porn everywhere
The votes went up for the porn, but the activity dropped on the board. If porn votes represented real votes then there would have logically been an increase of activity, but that's the opposite of what happened.
Fucking hilarious of people to call for new rules whilst immigrating on mass.
>>9406
I already screenshoted that too while smirking at the management for saying they prefer a slow board.
The Pony Gods had spoken.
KEK
I already screenshoted that too while smirking at the management for saying they prefer a slow board.
The Pony Gods had spoken.
KEK
>>9410
>because I'm a smart boy
Nope. Actually I smirk because I love this board more than any of (you).
Faggot.
>because I'm a smart boy
Nope. Actually I smirk because I love this board more than any of (you).
Faggot.
>>9406
>>9409
This is PPH, not UID count and not an reliable measurement of immigrating. UID is only accessible info to site admins
While you think there's a correlation there's a big chunk of PPH being inflated by faggots from the /soc/ central of !tripniggers from 4chan's /b/ and /trash/ that set up camp in >>>/poner/ who won't shut the fuck up for 5mins, just nonstop off topic discord like chat and won't integrate with the rest of the site.
/opg/ also set up camp in >>>/vx/ days ago and have a style that's very active too.
>>9409
This is PPH, not UID count and not an reliable measurement of immigrating. UID is only accessible info to site admins
While you think there's a correlation there's a big chunk of PPH being inflated by faggots from the /soc/ central of !tripniggers from 4chan's /b/ and /trash/ that set up camp in >>>/poner/ who won't shut the fuck up for 5mins, just nonstop off topic discord like chat and won't integrate with the rest of the site.
/opg/ also set up camp in >>>/vx/ days ago and have a style that's very active too.
>>9391
could not have said it better myself anonski
he didnt have to go out of his way to defend racebait like he did and now he is forever the stripedcuck janny kek
could not have said it better myself anonski
he didnt have to go out of his way to defend racebait like he did and now he is forever the stripedcuck janny kek
>>9403
Welcome to chanboard manipulation.
>>9409
You're very disingenuous. I think what you MEANT to say - if you were being honest that is - is that management said they would prefer a slow site to compromising about free speech. I swear, I never get tired of mentioning that they arent sending their best
Welcome to chanboard manipulation.
>>9409
You're very disingenuous. I think what you MEANT to say - if you were being honest that is - is that management said they would prefer a slow site to compromising about free speech. I swear, I never get tired of mentioning that they arent sending their best
>>9386
asking about the server hosting situation here
>12. Lolicon / Shotacon Pornography is not allowed.
>Due to the TOS of the hosts of the server, this content is not allowed. Sorry.
asking about the server hosting situation here
>12. Lolicon / Shotacon Pornography is not allowed.
>Due to the TOS of the hosts of the server, this content is not allowed. Sorry.
>>9391
Darling. Bro.
Take a step back from the computer. Take a deep breath. Drink some water. Go outside. Get some air. Look around you at the clouds or the night sky. When you come back inside, fap to cute lewds of zebra mares, take whatever meds you are prescribed and go see a psychiatrist for what you aren't, and calm down. It's pictures on the internet of 2d animated striped donkeys having sex. It's silly. It's not something to take seriously.
Darling. Bro.
Take a step back from the computer. Take a deep breath. Drink some water. Go outside. Get some air. Look around you at the clouds or the night sky. When you come back inside, fap to cute lewds of zebra mares, take whatever meds you are prescribed and go see a psychiatrist for what you aren't, and calm down. It's pictures on the internet of 2d animated striped donkeys having sex. It's silly. It's not something to take seriously.
>>9395
>There's no subclauses which explain the spirit and culture of the rule(s).
This may be fair
>One has no frame of reference of what constitutes a post that breaks server host tos.
That rule is the same as the "Do not post illegal content" you see in the 4chan rules, and the rules of basically every website or service anywhere on the internet. It is true that it isn't obvious exactly what is illegal or against the terms of service of the host, or even which jurisdiction applies, but that kind of ambiguity is something even site moderation has to deal with. Usually you can just use your common sense, because things that are illegal to post are usually fairly obvious.
>>9398
>Posting in good faith and not being disruptive, while being good ideas, are so vague that actual enforcement could come down to however moderation is feeling in the moment and be an excuse to delete posts or ban posters that mods disagree with. For the sake of clear enforcement and rule of law, rules by their nature need to be clear and well defined or they might as well read "don't piss off those in power".
It would be nice in abstract theory to have a set of rules that are so perfectly codified and lacking in anything resembling ambiguity that they could not possibly be misinterpreted, but there is no such thing. There is a reason the United States has many series of appellate courts dedicated to interpreting the law and applying it to situations - anything can be ambiguous. We did not have a rule against off-board raisers, and such a thing is not easy to precisely define, besides saying it is deliberate disruption.
Some things can't be precisely and perfectly articulated and quantified. Sometimes you see people who are repeatedly and consistently being such insufferable faggots that a ban is necessary. And you could make a rule saying "don't be a Chris Chan-iter lolcow" but it would be hard to articulate exactly what that is. As Justice Jackson of the Supreme Court once said in a decision, "you know it when you see it." Having some room for interpretation and flexibility in moderation is kind of necessary.
Users are going to have to use their common sense and apply it to posting - don't be massively disruptive of the posting of others. And tell me, please, is there any circumstance or scenario anywhere in life where pissing off the people who have power over you is a wise thing to do? Where it is even neutral? I don't believe so.
>>9409
>management for saying they prefer a slow board
No one in management ever said that
>>9412
>UID is only accessible info to site admins
We don't actually have any way to measure that that isn't also visible to users.
>>9413
Well it's hardly my fault that zebras are so sexy.
>>9417
Let me confer with the rest of staff and get back to you on that.
[Read more] >There's no subclauses which explain the spirit and culture of the rule(s).
This may be fair
>One has no frame of reference of what constitutes a post that breaks server host tos.
That rule is the same as the "Do not post illegal content" you see in the 4chan rules, and the rules of basically every website or service anywhere on the internet. It is true that it isn't obvious exactly what is illegal or against the terms of service of the host, or even which jurisdiction applies, but that kind of ambiguity is something even site moderation has to deal with. Usually you can just use your common sense, because things that are illegal to post are usually fairly obvious.
>>9398
>Posting in good faith and not being disruptive, while being good ideas, are so vague that actual enforcement could come down to however moderation is feeling in the moment and be an excuse to delete posts or ban posters that mods disagree with. For the sake of clear enforcement and rule of law, rules by their nature need to be clear and well defined or they might as well read "don't piss off those in power".
It would be nice in abstract theory to have a set of rules that are so perfectly codified and lacking in anything resembling ambiguity that they could not possibly be misinterpreted, but there is no such thing. There is a reason the United States has many series of appellate courts dedicated to interpreting the law and applying it to situations - anything can be ambiguous. We did not have a rule against off-board raisers, and such a thing is not easy to precisely define, besides saying it is deliberate disruption.
Some things can't be precisely and perfectly articulated and quantified. Sometimes you see people who are repeatedly and consistently being such insufferable faggots that a ban is necessary. And you could make a rule saying "don't be a Chris Chan-iter lolcow" but it would be hard to articulate exactly what that is. As Justice Jackson of the Supreme Court once said in a decision, "you know it when you see it." Having some room for interpretation and flexibility in moderation is kind of necessary.
Users are going to have to use their common sense and apply it to posting - don't be massively disruptive of the posting of others. And tell me, please, is there any circumstance or scenario anywhere in life where pissing off the people who have power over you is a wise thing to do? Where it is even neutral? I don't believe so.
>>9409
>management for saying they prefer a slow board
No one in management ever said that
>>9412
>UID is only accessible info to site admins
We don't actually have any way to measure that that isn't also visible to users.
>>9413
Well it's hardly my fault that zebras are so sexy.
>>9417
Let me confer with the rest of staff and get back to you on that.
We'll start this off slowly
>>9395
>gut reaction is unease
yes, well, you'll have to have been here for more than 15 minutes to get over that.
>there's no subclause
There is actually. It's not as well worded as when they penned it - for me - but it's there.
>we need
STFU, there is no "we". If you want there to be a we, than acknowledge what the people who are responsible for making and keeping this place have done, and instead of trying to be like "Ackshually", consider lending a hand
>>9395
>gut reaction is unease
yes, well, you'll have to have been here for more than 15 minutes to get over that.
>there's no subclause
There is actually. It's not as well worded as when they penned it - for me - but it's there.
>we need
STFU, there is no "we". If you want there to be a we, than acknowledge what the people who are responsible for making and keeping this place have done, and instead of trying to be like "Ackshually", consider lending a hand
"I came here expecting to be catered to and accommodated to every extent of my whims! This isn't 4chan, and this isn't the privileged version of 4chan I think I'm entitled to and I'm not satisfied!"
Well then FUCK OFF
Well then FUCK OFF
#not staff ^_^
>>9386
Honestly pretty based overall. Having nitpicked and also been involved in giving feedback on rulesets a bunch of times because I'm autistic (e.g. on altboorus and some altchans), I can sympathise full well that crafting "the perfect set of rules" can feel so easy to onlookers but is basically impossible to do in a watertight way, so I appreciate the approach you took here.
And as a new migrant, I can tell you that for example the no generals rule was indeed very confusing. I could obviously see counter-examples on the board so I could deduce that enforcement wasn't strict, but I was still quite uneasy about potentially making threads literally going against an explicit global rule, especially lacking the historical context to know why any given exception might have been allowed to stay.
The new rules are quite to the point and clear IMO.
>>9401
>on porn dumping
>I mean having one guy make 25%-50% of a thread himself could help traffic, but it really depends on what the mod staff determine as porn spam.
Then it should go on /mlpol/ imho. I am very much not opposed to nsfw on /poner/ and I don't really care whether it's spoiled or not or whatever, but the danger with a red board has always been that it would become a "porn board", where people just treat it as a pony version of /h/ (and/or /d/ lmao) rather than actually discussing things normally.
The only difficulty in making a rule like that is distinguishing between porn dumps due to intent vs. threads that always were rather slow and pic-dump focused, like various waifu threads consisting of at least 70% of just images of the pony. Now if some of those pics are porn, where do you draw the line for it being a "porn dump"? And on the flip-side, /mlp/ had fetish threads even in the SFW environment, basically serving the same purpose as porn dump threads but instead of just posting porn pics it was either technically sfw fetish images, cropped images, or a focus on autistically discussing the fetish; I'm not sure where that should fall under the no-porn-threads rule.
>>9419
>Well it's hardly my fault that zebras are so sexy.
Impeccably atrocious taste.
[Read more] Honestly pretty based overall. Having nitpicked and also been involved in giving feedback on rulesets a bunch of times because I'm autistic (e.g. on altboorus and some altchans), I can sympathise full well that crafting "the perfect set of rules" can feel so easy to onlookers but is basically impossible to do in a watertight way, so I appreciate the approach you took here.
And as a new migrant, I can tell you that for example the no generals rule was indeed very confusing. I could obviously see counter-examples on the board so I could deduce that enforcement wasn't strict, but I was still quite uneasy about potentially making threads literally going against an explicit global rule, especially lacking the historical context to know why any given exception might have been allowed to stay.
The new rules are quite to the point and clear IMO.
>>9401
>on porn dumping
>I mean having one guy make 25%-50% of a thread himself could help traffic, but it really depends on what the mod staff determine as porn spam.
Then it should go on /mlpol/ imho. I am very much not opposed to nsfw on /poner/ and I don't really care whether it's spoiled or not or whatever, but the danger with a red board has always been that it would become a "porn board", where people just treat it as a pony version of /h/ (and/or /d/ lmao) rather than actually discussing things normally.
The only difficulty in making a rule like that is distinguishing between porn dumps due to intent vs. threads that always were rather slow and pic-dump focused, like various waifu threads consisting of at least 70% of just images of the pony. Now if some of those pics are porn, where do you draw the line for it being a "porn dump"? And on the flip-side, /mlp/ had fetish threads even in the SFW environment, basically serving the same purpose as porn dump threads but instead of just posting porn pics it was either technically sfw fetish images, cropped images, or a focus on autistically discussing the fetish; I'm not sure where that should fall under the no-porn-threads rule.
>>9419
>Well it's hardly my fault that zebras are so sexy.
Impeccably atrocious taste.
>>9386
I proposed amending the rules years ago, and was met with quite vicious response. I agree that they need to be amended, or at least dressed up (rules 1 and 2 being blank just look bad).
However, we are also in a stage where we have a lot of refugee "tourists", and we don't know how many of those refugees will stick around after 4chan goes back up; only permanent board users should be involved in the decision making process, so I believe that we should wait a few weeks before making any decisions so that only the users interested in staying long term make decisions involving the future of the site.
I proposed amending the rules years ago, and was met with quite vicious response. I agree that they need to be amended, or at least dressed up (rules 1 and 2 being blank just look bad).
However, we are also in a stage where we have a lot of refugee "tourists", and we don't know how many of those refugees will stick around after 4chan goes back up; only permanent board users should be involved in the decision making process, so I believe that we should wait a few weeks before making any decisions so that only the users interested in staying long term make decisions involving the future of the site.
>>9428
>rules 1 and 2 being blank just looks bad
If you don't know the lore, sure. But, the deliberate absence of them was a statement in it's own right. The rules are ammended, but for any newfaggots, here's the basic gestalt.
The absence of rules 1 and 2 - in line with this site being founded offsite and separate - was where we started to say "fuck these rules, this isn't 4chan, we do what we want"
>rules 1 and 2 being blank just looks bad
If you don't know the lore, sure. But, the deliberate absence of them was a statement in it's own right. The rules are ammended, but for any newfaggots, here's the basic gestalt.
The absence of rules 1 and 2 - in line with this site being founded offsite and separate - was where we started to say "fuck these rules, this isn't 4chan, we do what we want"
This of course led to a long and drawn out period where we argued about how much authority the rules have, both in a traditional AND a practical/applicable sense. We realized that NOT talking about Mlpol was a BAD idea, and so those two rules were sent to pasture.
>>9386
Could we make a rule preventing people from using the shill accusation to shut down discussion? Unless it is something obvious like "invest in enron" or "breed with niggers" then that accusation serves no function other than to shutdown an argument.
Also can we make it a rule that anons posting news screencaps have to provide a link? I have seen fake screencaps used to push bullshit on 4chan and the rule would allow anons to see where the information is coming from.
Could we make a rule preventing people from using the shill accusation to shut down discussion? Unless it is something obvious like "invest in enron" or "breed with niggers" then that accusation serves no function other than to shutdown an argument.
Also can we make it a rule that anons posting news screencaps have to provide a link? I have seen fake screencaps used to push bullshit on 4chan and the rule would allow anons to see where the information is coming from.
>>9430
>>9429
The "lore" for rules #1 and #2 are "Do NOT talk about/mlpol/", twice: a copy of Internet rules #1 and #2 which are "do not talk about 4chan". Those rules were quietly removed in favor of fishing trips to spread the word about this community when activity was dwindling.
It's rule #10 that was a "secret" rule, which is to dump porn in detractor threads until they hit bump limit.
>>9429
The "lore" for rules #1 and #2 are "Do NOT talk about/mlpol/", twice: a copy of Internet rules #1 and #2 which are "do not talk about 4chan". Those rules were quietly removed in favor of fishing trips to spread the word about this community when activity was dwindling.
It's rule #10 that was a "secret" rule, which is to dump porn in detractor threads until they hit bump limit.
>>9432
>a rule for everything I dont like
The policies page is gonna have the charm of an end user agreement if you had your way.
>a rule for everything I dont like
The policies page is gonna have the charm of an end user agreement if you had your way.
Back in the earlier days, the practice was not to call anon a fed/glowie/shill, the practice was to lob horsepron at them. And, if that didn't work, you could throw the gay pony shit.
>>9427
>Honestly pretty based overall The new rules are quite to the point and clear IMO.
Thank you
>Impeccably atrocious tastes
:(
>>9428
It really could not have waited. It was doing active harm. See the post above you. The rules were not changed, the policy page was changed to reflect what we’ve been doing for many years at this point, so that newcomers could have some understanding of how the board was moderated.
>>9432
>rule against shutting down discussion with baseless shill accusations
Honestly, this might be necessary.
[Read more] >Honestly pretty based overall The new rules are quite to the point and clear IMO.
Thank you
>Impeccably atrocious tastes
:(
>>9428
It really could not have waited. It was doing active harm. See the post above you. The rules were not changed, the policy page was changed to reflect what we’ve been doing for many years at this point, so that newcomers could have some understanding of how the board was moderated.
>>9432
>rule against shutting down discussion with baseless shill accusations
Honestly, this might be necessary.
>>9437
Oh, I see now that the rules have already been updated.
>It was doing active harm.
Yeah, tbh. Especially the "no generals" rule that I believe has repeatedly prevented general communities from migrating here.
>>9432
I don't think that a rule against shill accusations is practical on a /pol/ board, but a rule against derailing threads with tangents could be useful.
Oh, I see now that the rules have already been updated.
>It was doing active harm.
Yeah, tbh. Especially the "no generals" rule that I believe has repeatedly prevented general communities from migrating here.
>>9432
I don't think that a rule against shill accusations is practical on a /pol/ board, but a rule against derailing threads with tangents could be useful.
>>9438
>I don't think that a rule against shill accusations is practical on a /pol/ board
I think it is long overdue and would improve the quality of discussions.
>but a rule against derailing threads with tangents could be useful
This is a good idea too.
>I don't think that a rule against shill accusations is practical on a /pol/ board
I think it is long overdue and would improve the quality of discussions.
>but a rule against derailing threads with tangents could be useful
This is a good idea too.
>>9434
I'm not asking for rules against everything I dislike. I think encouraging intellectual honesty on a political discussion board is something that will improve the quality of discussion. Is that really such a crazy suggestion?
I'm not asking for rules against everything I dislike. I think encouraging intellectual honesty on a political discussion board is something that will improve the quality of discussion. Is that really such a crazy suggestion?
1745250611_1.jpg (299.4 KB, 540x779, 46E72CCFFE249836920DE869C24B66CD-306592.jpg)
1745250611_2.jpg (300.6 KB, 538x776, 10815BA33BFA6B6CAE41D66CAF4BE56A-307760.jpg)
1745250611_3.jpg (314.5 KB, 540x772, 53B761F3FF2E01822AEF8CBBF7EF671A-321998.jpg)
1745250611_4.jpg (218.5 KB, 540x564, 305423A4C7005B867421B7A2BE261459-223758.jpg)
>>9419
>illegal is pretty obvious
That it is.*
>>9417
>>9419
That's the TOS that came up every once in a blue moon. Usually with new visitors unknowingly posting that.
*Nobody knows if there's weird edge cases, but that comes up when it comes up.
Most of the old rules fall into the new rule 2, coming from the counter-intellegence shit slide of the four chins.
Is happened here maybe four or three times. Half of them broke via the users and the others just never posted again. It's been years between those rare happenings, thanks to staff.
As I've said before do what you need to do the community will tell you when/if you fuck up, and if any staff wants reassurance the comminutity will be right there behind you all. Staff will say when a user fucks up.
>on the stripped posts
It was a transitional period.
1 Ponies.
2 Post in good faith, and do not be massively disruptive of the experience of others.
3 Do not spam, please check the catalogue before posting a new thread, and have some respect for board topicality and posting quality.
4 Do not post anything that will either get usin trouble in trouble with our server host, or an FBI warrant.
5 All users must be over the age of 18 to use this site.
* possible changes, such as the addition of board specific rules, to come in the near future.
Rule 2 and 3 covers the transition from four chungus pretty well.
Rule 1 also implicitly covers politics.
Rule 5 always existed and that's just fine.
Potentially losing a piece of shared cultural history didn't sit right with no warning. And you are correct that new people need to know how moderation here works without the lurking.
So far it's fine.
Personally, I like examples, but that's not needed.
>>9432
Technically both are covered in rule two for user etiquette to have a meaningful discussion.
[Read more] >illegal is pretty obvious
That it is.*
>>9417
>>9419
That's the TOS that came up every once in a blue moon. Usually with new visitors unknowingly posting that.
*Nobody knows if there's weird edge cases, but that comes up when it comes up.
Most of the old rules fall into the new rule 2, coming from the counter-intellegence shit slide of the four chins.
Is happened here maybe four or three times. Half of them broke via the users and the others just never posted again. It's been years between those rare happenings, thanks to staff.
As I've said before do what you need to do the community will tell you when/if you fuck up, and if any staff wants reassurance the comminutity will be right there behind you all. Staff will say when a user fucks up.
>on the stripped posts
It was a transitional period.
1 Ponies.
2 Post in good faith, and do not be massively disruptive of the experience of others.
3 Do not spam, please check the catalogue before posting a new thread, and have some respect for board topicality and posting quality.
4 Do not post anything that will either get us
5 All users must be over the age of 18 to use this site.
* possible changes, such as the addition of board specific rules, to come in the near future.
Rule 2 and 3 covers the transition from four chungus pretty well.
Rule 1 also implicitly covers politics.
Rule 5 always existed and that's just fine.
Potentially losing a piece of shared cultural history didn't sit right with no warning. And you are correct that new people need to know how moderation here works without the lurking.
So far it's fine.
Personally, I like examples, but that's not needed.
>>9432
Technically both are covered in rule two for user etiquette to have a meaningful discussion.
>>9438
>a rule against derailing threads with tangents could be useful.
That's just the "no off-topic" that every chan has, basically.
>a rule against derailing threads with tangents could be useful.
That's just the "no off-topic" that every chan has, basically.
A lack of a rule against thread derailment is an oversight. That should be in the rules.
I’m certainly open to something to improve the quality of political discussion. All it takes is one guy with a Mossad or USAID stipend calling everyone in the thread a “shill” and nothing can be done.
I’m certainly open to something to improve the quality of political discussion. All it takes is one guy with a Mossad or USAID stipend calling everyone in the thread a “shill” and nothing can be done.
>>9447
>A lack of a rule against thread derailment is an oversight. That should be in the rules.
Technically it's covered by "not being disruptive". Of course that's a very wide rule that gives a lot of freedom to the admins, but it's always a tradeoff between adding too much rules lawyering versus leaving a lot down to admin interpretation.
I think we mostly trust you guys (and I say this as a 4refugee already).
>I’m certainly open to something to improve the quality of political discussion. All it takes is one guy with a Mossad or USAID stipend calling everyone in the thread a “shill” and nothing can be done.
That would probably fall under "derailing", but if a more specific rule is desired, how about something like "political arguments must at least attempt to be intelligent"? Then repeated ad-hominem, back and forth exchanges of "you're a shill! no u!" or "whiter than you! no you, mutt!" would all fall off.
The counterpoint to that is that if someone comes in with actual malicious intent to disrupt arguments - basically, posting shit which steers clear of the line of being off-topic or clearly inflammatory, but is geared towards being relatively low-effort to come up with and in turn requires more effort to respond to and can thus steer the discussion and force users trying to have a genuine argument to waste a ton of time and effort - they don't even have to be "paid shills" or anything, just retards trying to stir shit up. Anyway only allowing "intelligent" argumentation gives those types of bait the power to continue unchecked because nobody is allowed to call them a retard shill anymore.
The counterpoint would be that people should just ignore posts like that if they don't feel like responding, if that can work in practice.
[Read more] >A lack of a rule against thread derailment is an oversight. That should be in the rules.
Technically it's covered by "not being disruptive". Of course that's a very wide rule that gives a lot of freedom to the admins, but it's always a tradeoff between adding too much rules lawyering versus leaving a lot down to admin interpretation.
I think we mostly trust you guys (and I say this as a 4refugee already).
>I’m certainly open to something to improve the quality of political discussion. All it takes is one guy with a Mossad or USAID stipend calling everyone in the thread a “shill” and nothing can be done.
That would probably fall under "derailing", but if a more specific rule is desired, how about something like "political arguments must at least attempt to be intelligent"? Then repeated ad-hominem, back and forth exchanges of "you're a shill! no u!" or "whiter than you! no you, mutt!" would all fall off.
The counterpoint to that is that if someone comes in with actual malicious intent to disrupt arguments - basically, posting shit which steers clear of the line of being off-topic or clearly inflammatory, but is geared towards being relatively low-effort to come up with and in turn requires more effort to respond to and can thus steer the discussion and force users trying to have a genuine argument to waste a ton of time and effort - they don't even have to be "paid shills" or anything, just retards trying to stir shit up. Anyway only allowing "intelligent" argumentation gives those types of bait the power to continue unchecked because nobody is allowed to call them a retard shill anymore.
The counterpoint would be that people should just ignore posts like that if they don't feel like responding, if that can work in practice.
>>9386
>>9447
We're going to need another rule about furry ASAP, just GR1 with ponies is not enough, just posting with good faith is not enough. Because it's being used to shit up the board the same way that striped was "UUNF ITS SO HOT" >>>/poner/5428 →
To elaborate:
Note the tone and language used in >>>/poner/5493 → → to defend this offboard shit is intentional to piss refugees of /mlp/ off, even when no images is used, "Feral" was common schism for stoking flames and starting fights on /mlp/ was calling ponies just feral furry, and /mlp/ majority rejecting it, same here as well.
Today this attempt to sew division and badmouth mlpol for allowing furry again in "theres no rule for not having it" exploit's like how Striped concern troll / 'genuine fetish' striped spam was. While at the same time using a bbc like post of astroturfing via fetish demoralization (posting disgusting furry porn gens) and a narrative that hes potentially a normal user among friends,
This comes days after striped bait isn't getting the you's they want anymore, and after the striped shill narrative was defeated. This is creating another NEW problem to drive people off mlpol and increase the narrative it's just /trash/2.0
[Read more] >>9447
We're going to need another rule about furry ASAP, just GR1 with ponies is not enough, just posting with good faith is not enough. Because it's being used to shit up the board the same way that striped was "UUNF ITS SO HOT" >>>/poner/5428 →
To elaborate:
Note the tone and language used in >>>/poner/5493 → → to defend this offboard shit is intentional to piss refugees of /mlp/ off, even when no images is used, "Feral" was common schism for stoking flames and starting fights on /mlp/ was calling ponies just feral furry, and /mlp/ majority rejecting it, same here as well.
Today this attempt to sew division and badmouth mlpol for allowing furry again in "theres no rule for not having it" exploit's like how Striped concern troll / 'genuine fetish' striped spam was. While at the same time using a bbc like post of astroturfing via fetish demoralization (posting disgusting furry porn gens) and a narrative that hes potentially a normal user among friends,
This comes days after striped bait isn't getting the you's they want anymore, and after the striped shill narrative was defeated. This is creating another NEW problem to drive people off mlpol and increase the narrative it's just /trash/2.0
On the topic of the policy page, has anyone else noticed the typo on fallenPineapple's entry?
Add info about what the server host and law forbids. It can be general, but we need to understand what can be reported and what should not be. Someone posted bestiality in a thread only last week. Then there is gore and other topics. >>9419
"Usually you can just use your common sense, because things that are illegal to post are usually fairly obvious."
On a red board, where people are all some combination of weird, horny and edgy, common sense is not enough.
You need a balance between specific and generalized rules. Going too far in either direction confuses and spooks users. The old rules were obsolete, but the new ones are too general. Also, what are the punishments that can be expected for different rule breaches? Sometimes perma-bans are needed, other times temporary IP bans are a better call. There have been times where jannies didn't ban or censor anyone but humiliated the guilty party to make a point. We don't need a thicc tome of law, but a general idea would be good.
Board-specific rules are good too. I don't think striped threads should be banned outright, but maybe limited to /poner/ and banned off /mlpol/, or maybe allowed only on /sp/. Possibly allow dedicated threads on any board and ban it outside those threads, but I don't like that solution. Also, this is just a specific example; there are many different fetishes and other interests that are broadly unpopular yet are part of /mlp/.
>>9400
That shield used to work but I don't see it as important now. This is an independent site and bad-faith actors are easily singled out. Sometimes I like to read this imageboard in public and I'd rather not be caught in 4k having hoers pussy on my screen. Usually though if I'm at an airport I have a specific thread up that won't usually be NFSW.
.t been here since 2017
>>9453
Let's ban anything that is not either in the MLP franchise or a "fan" race (that is, broadly accepted by /mlp/, not just by some random person). It allows a good variety but keeps out actual furries.
[Read more] "Usually you can just use your common sense, because things that are illegal to post are usually fairly obvious."
On a red board, where people are all some combination of weird, horny and edgy, common sense is not enough.
You need a balance between specific and generalized rules. Going too far in either direction confuses and spooks users. The old rules were obsolete, but the new ones are too general. Also, what are the punishments that can be expected for different rule breaches? Sometimes perma-bans are needed, other times temporary IP bans are a better call. There have been times where jannies didn't ban or censor anyone but humiliated the guilty party to make a point. We don't need a thicc tome of law, but a general idea would be good.
Board-specific rules are good too. I don't think striped threads should be banned outright, but maybe limited to /poner/ and banned off /mlpol/, or maybe allowed only on /sp/. Possibly allow dedicated threads on any board and ban it outside those threads, but I don't like that solution. Also, this is just a specific example; there are many different fetishes and other interests that are broadly unpopular yet are part of /mlp/.
>>9400
That shield used to work but I don't see it as important now. This is an independent site and bad-faith actors are easily singled out. Sometimes I like to read this imageboard in public and I'd rather not be caught in 4k having hoers pussy on my screen. Usually though if I'm at an airport I have a specific thread up that won't usually be NFSW.
.t been here since 2017
>>9453
Let's ban anything that is not either in the MLP franchise or a "fan" race (that is, broadly accepted by /mlp/, not just by some random person). It allows a good variety but keeps out actual furries.
>>9457
>Also, what are the punishments that can be expected for different rule breaches?
4chan never specified duration and wideness (board/site) of bans. I dunno why it should be different now.
>Also, what are the punishments that can be expected for different rule breaches?
4chan never specified duration and wideness (board/site) of bans. I dunno why it should be different now.
>>9449
>The counterpoint to that is that if someone comes in with actual malicious intent to disrupt arguments - basically, posting shit which steers clear of the line of being off-topic or clearly inflammatory, but is geared towards being relatively low-effort to come up with and in turn requires more effort to respond to and can thus steer the discussion and force users trying to have a genuine argument to waste a ton of time and effort - they don't even have to be "paid shills" or anything, just retards trying to stir shit up. Anyway only allowing "intelligent" argumentation gives those types of bait the power to continue unchecked because nobody is allowed to call them a retard shill anymore.
I think we should just use reason and evidence to get them to fuck off. Most of what shills want to push like black pill and race mixing can be shut down pretty easy with statistics from mainstream and government sources. This a politics discussion forum and we people should be able to defend their positions. Besides the purpose of debate is never to persuade the opponent, but the audience and this site just got a larger audience
>The counterpoint to that is that if someone comes in with actual malicious intent to disrupt arguments - basically, posting shit which steers clear of the line of being off-topic or clearly inflammatory, but is geared towards being relatively low-effort to come up with and in turn requires more effort to respond to and can thus steer the discussion and force users trying to have a genuine argument to waste a ton of time and effort - they don't even have to be "paid shills" or anything, just retards trying to stir shit up. Anyway only allowing "intelligent" argumentation gives those types of bait the power to continue unchecked because nobody is allowed to call them a retard shill anymore.
I think we should just use reason and evidence to get them to fuck off. Most of what shills want to push like black pill and race mixing can be shut down pretty easy with statistics from mainstream and government sources. This a politics discussion forum and we people should be able to defend their positions. Besides the purpose of debate is never to persuade the opponent, but the audience and this site just got a larger audience
>>9457
Banning all non MLP IP means
>No TFH
>No wildmanes
>No mermico
>No filly funtasia
>No Ico, last unicorn
>No Spirit
>/opg/ is a gray area, it's ponies but not the IP
Over reaction of moderation is what the trolls can be aiming for, creating more balkanization. All of the things listed above had fans in /mlp/
Banning all non MLP IP means
>No TFH
>No wildmanes
>No mermico
>No filly funtasia
>No Ico, last unicorn
>No Spirit
>/opg/ is a gray area, it's ponies but not the IP
Over reaction of moderation is what the trolls can be aiming for, creating more balkanization. All of the things listed above had fans in /mlp/
>>9464
Those are all accepted by /mlp/ (the community, not the board jannies). That's why I gave those criteria.
Those are all accepted by /mlp/ (the community, not the board jannies). That's why I gave those criteria.
1745257635.mp4 (576.9 KB, Resolution:1280x720 Length:00:00:03, Fluttershy - you re going to love me!.mp4) [play once] [loop]
>>9457
And to see lotus' point just go look at 8kun. There is a thread suggesting that the schizophrenia voices are real and people calling bullshit are being called shills. There accusation is obviously used by bad actors.
And to see lotus' point just go look at 8kun. There is a thread suggesting that the schizophrenia voices are real and people calling bullshit are being called shills. There accusation is obviously used by bad actors.
Why do I have a feeling Atlas is going to start fucking with me now?
>fallenPineapple: Genius code merchant and former /mlp/, was instrumental to make all the beauty happen when it all began
Hey it's been updated.
>fallenPineapple: Genius code merchant and former /mlp/, was instrumental to make all the beauty happen when it all began
Hey it's been updated.
>>9463
Go re-read the "gradually I began to hate them" passage.
Arguing something in bad faith with mediocre arguments is always easier than trying to genuinely win a debate. And it's usually relatively easy to formulate your posts just well enough that it doesn't come off as complete shitposting, but putting in near zero intellectual effort, and ignoring the majority of valid points your opponent produces. Cracking down on that is nearly impossible unless you want to actually make the jannies into debate moderators or something.
And even if eventually you put in so much effort that the shitposter's position becomes inarguably untenable and he has no more way around it and is forced to admit defeat lest he out himself as openly contrariant - well, the next day he can just come right back and start all over again. Or even the same day, but with a different topic.
Debates are good when both parties are debating in good faith, but it's pretty much always trivial to abuse a genuine debate if your only goal is to waste the other party's time.
[Read more] Go re-read the "gradually I began to hate them" passage.
Arguing something in bad faith with mediocre arguments is always easier than trying to genuinely win a debate. And it's usually relatively easy to formulate your posts just well enough that it doesn't come off as complete shitposting, but putting in near zero intellectual effort, and ignoring the majority of valid points your opponent produces. Cracking down on that is nearly impossible unless you want to actually make the jannies into debate moderators or something.
And even if eventually you put in so much effort that the shitposter's position becomes inarguably untenable and he has no more way around it and is forced to admit defeat lest he out himself as openly contrariant - well, the next day he can just come right back and start all over again. Or even the same day, but with a different topic.
Debates are good when both parties are debating in good faith, but it's pretty much always trivial to abuse a genuine debate if your only goal is to waste the other party's time.
>>9468
the extent of my fucking with you will always be simple reply harassment, we at mlpol do not condone or tolerate mod abuse, if I did anything to even edit your post I would be struck down by the others
thank you for helping us improve mlpol
dick
the extent of my fucking with you will always be simple reply harassment, we at mlpol do not condone or tolerate mod abuse, if I did anything to even edit your post I would be struck down by the others
thank you for helping us improve mlpol
dick
>>9467
Might be an unsolved problem on /mlpol/ and /vx/, but on other boards that shit can be quickly cleaned up as offtopic/derail.
Might be an unsolved problem on /mlpol/ and /vx/, but on other boards that shit can be quickly cleaned up as offtopic/derail.
>>9465
Well that's debatable, there are people who want none of it and just MLP and each of those had raging about it as their fans became more established. See tamers and wild manes threads for this kind of example, the same people that either rage about g5 and eqg, or have some sort of brain worm that gives things a free pass and other things must be destroyed.
Spirit is the only outlier, as it had no real fans on /mlp/ I can remember and under the umbrella of furry/zoo more than the rest like lion king furries.
Well that's debatable, there are people who want none of it and just MLP and each of those had raging about it as their fans became more established. See tamers and wild manes threads for this kind of example, the same people that either rage about g5 and eqg, or have some sort of brain worm that gives things a free pass and other things must be destroyed.
Spirit is the only outlier, as it had no real fans on /mlp/ I can remember and under the umbrella of furry/zoo more than the rest like lion king furries.
>>9437
>the policy page was changed to reflect what we’ve been doing for many years at this point
*sensible clearing of throat*
>>9442
*another sensible clearing of throat*
>>9444
>1 Ponies.
>2 Post in good faith, and do not be massively disruptive of the experience of others.
>3 Do not spam, please check the catalogue before posting a new thread, and have some respect for board topicality and posting quality.
>4 Do not post anything that will either get us in trouble in trouble with our server host, or an FBI warrant.
>5 All users must be over the age of 18 to use this site.
>* possible changes, such as the addition of board specific rules, to come in the near future.
>Rule 2 and 3 covers the transition from four chungus pretty well.
>Rule 1 also implicitly covers politics.
>Rule 5 always existed and that's just fine.
Can we make these global ruiles for the internet like 4chan? What? 4chan isn't around to object. Too soon?
[Read more] >the policy page was changed to reflect what we’ve been doing for many years at this point
*sensible clearing of throat*
>>9442
*another sensible clearing of throat*
>>9444
>1 Ponies.
>2 Post in good faith, and do not be massively disruptive of the experience of others.
>3 Do not spam, please check the catalogue before posting a new thread, and have some respect for board topicality and posting quality.
>4 Do not post anything that will either get us in trouble in trouble with our server host, or an FBI warrant.
>5 All users must be over the age of 18 to use this site.
>* possible changes, such as the addition of board specific rules, to come in the near future.
>Rule 2 and 3 covers the transition from four chungus pretty well.
>Rule 1 also implicitly covers politics.
>Rule 5 always existed and that's just fine.
Can we make these global ruiles for the internet like 4chan? What? 4chan isn't around to object. Too soon?
>>9473
Tamers, Wild Manes, G5, EQG, and Spirit are all peripheral but fans of those are not the furries we want to exclude.
Tamers, Wild Manes, G5, EQG, and Spirit are all peripheral but fans of those are not the furries we want to exclude.
>>9469
>Debates are good when both parties are debating in good faith, but it's pretty much always trivial to abuse a genuine debate if your only goal is to waste the other party's time.
And how do you determine whether someone is "just trying to waste time" or simply disagrees?
>Debates are good when both parties are debating in good faith, but it's pretty much always trivial to abuse a genuine debate if your only goal is to waste the other party's time.
And how do you determine whether someone is "just trying to waste time" or simply disagrees?
>>9471
Welcome mate. If I spot any more typos I'll let you know. I'm not contributing to the discussion of the rules and policies because as far as I see it, it's not my realm. I am a guest here, (though I will probably be staying even if 4chan does return) and thus don't have a hat to throw in this ring. I can make suggestions, certainly, but without a fundamental understanding of the establish culture they would be without merit.
Zebras are cute, but if people don't like them use the filter. Simple as.
Welcome mate. If I spot any more typos I'll let you know. I'm not contributing to the discussion of the rules and policies because as far as I see it, it's not my realm. I am a guest here, (though I will probably be staying even if 4chan does return) and thus don't have a hat to throw in this ring. I can make suggestions, certainly, but without a fundamental understanding of the establish culture they would be without merit.
Zebras are cute, but if people don't like them use the filter. Simple as.
>>9465
To be fair you said "fan races", which I assumed to mean shit like bat ponies (arguably), moth ponies, plones, etc.
Those are just different franchises.
>>9473
There's a balance to be struct between rules lawyering and keeping things pony. I think if you're gonna restrict things that were allowed on /mlp/, you should just go on nhnb, it's literally what it's for. But outright furshit stuff is much more iffy and frankly unncessary.
On the other hoof it can also probably be banned under "disruption" or "offtopic" if it's clearly bait. So anyone going "unffff I love dogfucking, dog pussy so much hotter than horsepussy" doesn't need a dedicated rule if we wanna get rid of him.
IMHO, the question then becomes whether casual posting of furshit if it comes up in genuine conversation should be restricted. Like say a thread is discussing a former fandom artist and someone mentions they moved to furshit and posts an example art saying "look at the garbage they're shitting out now lmao". Should that be deleted or allowed?
Personally, as much as I don't want to look at furshit, I think the spirit of allowing as many posts as possible says that such a post should not in fact be banned. The main argument for banning it would be "I don't want to see that!" but so far this argument has not been considered good enough to ban things like anthro and eqg for example.
tl;dr: I think "lol ponies are just furries" or "come fap to furshit porn it's so good" and similar things can be covered well enough with the no-disruption/no-bait rule(s), and I don't think a dedicated rule specifically disallowing any appearance of furshit is necessary.
[Read more] To be fair you said "fan races", which I assumed to mean shit like bat ponies (arguably), moth ponies, plones, etc.
Those are just different franchises.
>>9473
There's a balance to be struct between rules lawyering and keeping things pony. I think if you're gonna restrict things that were allowed on /mlp/, you should just go on nhnb, it's literally what it's for. But outright furshit stuff is much more iffy and frankly unncessary.
On the other hoof it can also probably be banned under "disruption" or "offtopic" if it's clearly bait. So anyone going "unffff I love dogfucking, dog pussy so much hotter than horsepussy" doesn't need a dedicated rule if we wanna get rid of him.
IMHO, the question then becomes whether casual posting of furshit if it comes up in genuine conversation should be restricted. Like say a thread is discussing a former fandom artist and someone mentions they moved to furshit and posts an example art saying "look at the garbage they're shitting out now lmao". Should that be deleted or allowed?
Personally, as much as I don't want to look at furshit, I think the spirit of allowing as many posts as possible says that such a post should not in fact be banned. The main argument for banning it would be "I don't want to see that!" but so far this argument has not been considered good enough to ban things like anthro and eqg for example.
tl;dr: I think "lol ponies are just furries" or "come fap to furshit porn it's so good" and similar things can be covered well enough with the no-disruption/no-bait rule(s), and I don't think a dedicated rule specifically disallowing any appearance of furshit is necessary.
>>9477
>>9469
people arguing in bad faith is always a hard thing to moderate for, generally we try not to interfere with discussions at all provided it's not one person spamming "HA HA YOU'RE A FAGGOT" 50 times or something, a very slippery slope towards only allowing a single line of thought on a website, even particularly retarded opinions bydisgusting fucking commie scum people I don't like are allowed
>>9469
people arguing in bad faith is always a hard thing to moderate for, generally we try not to interfere with discussions at all provided it's not one person spamming "HA HA YOU'RE A FAGGOT" 50 times or something, a very slippery slope towards only allowing a single line of thought on a website, even particularly retarded opinions by
>>9477
You don't, that's my point. Users must sort this out among themselves, and hence me playing double's advocate in that calling someone a shill or nigger baiter can be justified to easily dismiss an argument if you feel like it's going nowhere and the other person is just wasting your time in bad faith.
At the same time I don't necessarily believe that this usecase alone is enough to justify allowing such ad-hominems globally because they're equally easy to abuse even when unnecessary, and render all attempts at genuine discussion or argument useless by just spamming "shill" accusation at any genuine post.
And hence my point earlier that in an ideal world, when people feel like an argument is just being made in bad faith they'd simply ignore it rather than feeling the need to reply to it.
>>9479
You don't, that's my point. Users must sort this out among themselves, and hence me playing double's advocate in that calling someone a shill or nigger baiter can be justified to easily dismiss an argument if you feel like it's going nowhere and the other person is just wasting your time in bad faith.
At the same time I don't necessarily believe that this usecase alone is enough to justify allowing such ad-hominems globally because they're equally easy to abuse even when unnecessary, and render all attempts at genuine discussion or argument useless by just spamming "shill" accusation at any genuine post.
And hence my point earlier that in an ideal world, when people feel like an argument is just being made in bad faith they'd simply ignore it rather than feeling the need to reply to it.
>>9479
>>9476
Not all content GR15'd ends up with any fans, like that ugly 3d unicorn movie.
The issue is that you're using a grandfather like clause that only things already that have previous fans of can be allowed.
TFH was swapped from ponies to non ponies and there was a lot of seething about it, even though over the years there was real TFH fans it didn't come with welcome opened arms despite Faust making the designs
Snowponies popped up with momentum, despite the rage about how chestfluff was seen as too furry and yet they have a shit ton of whats bitched about being in the 'furry' race category. It could have been rejected if it wasn't started from a drawthread requested.
Wildmanes also dropped on /mlp/ out of nowhere, but wasn't part of the IP and nobody on the board made it. So that means if another peripheral show/game/movie/whatever comes out then it would be banned before it has any traction. Mermico being the newest one
[Read more] Not all content GR15'd ends up with any fans, like that ugly 3d unicorn movie.
The issue is that you're using a grandfather like clause that only things already that have previous fans of can be allowed.
TFH was swapped from ponies to non ponies and there was a lot of seething about it, even though over the years there was real TFH fans it didn't come with welcome opened arms despite Faust making the designs
Snowponies popped up with momentum, despite the rage about how chestfluff was seen as too furry and yet they have a shit ton of whats bitched about being in the 'furry' race category. It could have been rejected if it wasn't started from a drawthread requested.
Wildmanes also dropped on /mlp/ out of nowhere, but wasn't part of the IP and nobody on the board made it. So that means if another peripheral show/game/movie/whatever comes out then it would be banned before it has any traction. Mermico being the newest one
>>9485
We AREN'T discussing TFH in a ruleset change thread, the silly line is here, and you want to cross it, so no
We AREN'T discussing TFH in a ruleset change thread, the silly line is here, and you want to cross it, so no
>>9482
>>9480
this actually ties back to the reasoning for allowingfilthy commie bastards people with different political opinions, we don't want to say WHAT ponies are allowed, ponies are allowed, period. it's not about the porn it's about the ponies, therefore pone puss is demanded encouraged. plus it keeps the cia niggers away. but that doesn't make this a bestiality furry shit website.
>>9480
this actually ties back to the reasoning for allowing
>>9487
Because it's you, I'll allow you to lecture. I know the rules. That cutting board hasn't given up on you, has it?
Because it's you, I'll allow you to lecture. I know the rules. That cutting board hasn't given up on you, has it?
>>9490
Yes duh, but TFH isn't relevant to this discussion
>tfw you try and eliminate irrelevant topics and anons fixate on them
Yes duh, but TFH isn't relevant to this discussion
>tfw you try and eliminate irrelevant topics and anons fixate on them
>>9487
Yes but what is a pony? It's clearly more than just MLP:FiM, else we'd be NHNB. We've already got EqG, and there's been no word that e.g. Ico or The Last Unicorn would be banned. Is Spirit a pony? Anthro is allowed on /poner/ currently, so can I go to furaffinity and find equine furfags and say that they're (anthro) ponies? Probably not, but can I post an equine anthro if it's relevant to the discussion? For example, imagine if hypothetically, in case a thread was on /mlp/ I'd post it as a catbox link, does that mean I can post it in clear here? Assuming it's not bait or done in bad faith.
And it's not just about equines either. Are plones ponies? Are griffons ponies? Is posting Harry the Bear ponies? What about bear porn? There's a meme called Flutterzoo Friday, and Fluttershy is a pony so Fluttershy fucking a bear is probably fine, but what if you remove Fluttershy from the equation and it's just Harry or Winona porn? (I assume someone has made that at some point.) Or what about diamond dogs, or dragons, etc.
There has to be SOME line, and just "ponies" is not good enough as a line.
The thing is the answers to most of my questions are relatively obvious to anyone who isn't trying to intentionally bait and/or isn't a complete normalgroid newfag furry that just wandered in. So in 99% of cases, I do believe that the rules against baiting/disruption would be good enough to remove offending posts.
But I'm still not clear on what if the discussion genuinely allows for some "bestiality furry shit" to be posted, not as bait, not as an attempt to disrupt, but as an actually on-topic post in good faith - whether it'd be allowed due to not being explicitly banned (after all, anthro is allowed too for some reason!), or whether it should be banned and deleted because it's still furry shit.
[Read more] Yes but what is a pony? It's clearly more than just MLP:FiM, else we'd be NHNB. We've already got EqG, and there's been no word that e.g. Ico or The Last Unicorn would be banned. Is Spirit a pony? Anthro is allowed on /poner/ currently, so can I go to furaffinity and find equine furfags and say that they're (anthro) ponies? Probably not, but can I post an equine anthro if it's relevant to the discussion? For example, imagine if hypothetically, in case a thread was on /mlp/ I'd post it as a catbox link, does that mean I can post it in clear here? Assuming it's not bait or done in bad faith.
And it's not just about equines either. Are plones ponies? Are griffons ponies? Is posting Harry the Bear ponies? What about bear porn? There's a meme called Flutterzoo Friday, and Fluttershy is a pony so Fluttershy fucking a bear is probably fine, but what if you remove Fluttershy from the equation and it's just Harry or Winona porn? (I assume someone has made that at some point.) Or what about diamond dogs, or dragons, etc.
There has to be SOME line, and just "ponies" is not good enough as a line.
The thing is the answers to most of my questions are relatively obvious to anyone who isn't trying to intentionally bait and/or isn't a complete normalgroid newfag furry that just wandered in. So in 99% of cases, I do believe that the rules against baiting/disruption would be good enough to remove offending posts.
But I'm still not clear on what if the discussion genuinely allows for some "bestiality furry shit" to be posted, not as bait, not as an attempt to disrupt, but as an actually on-topic post in good faith - whether it'd be allowed due to not being explicitly banned (after all, anthro is allowed too for some reason!), or whether it should be banned and deleted because it's still furry shit.
>>9492
The reason TFH was brought up was >>9457
>Let's ban anything that is not either in the MLP franchise or a "fan" race (that is, broadly accepted by /mlp/, not just by some random person). It allows a good variety but keeps out actual furries.
In the earlier days TFH wasn't broadly accepted by /mlp/ and told to fuck off to /v/, but wasn't allowed to post on /v/ leading to back and forth clashing until people stopped. TFH was raged against as furries, since it brought non MLP + non pony + non horsepussy
I am not advocating for the furfaggot posting the ai loona, it's not even remotely in the same category. I'm saying that it's counter-intuitive to only create a whitelist of content allowed, which if it was already a thing then all of >>9464
would have never had a piece of pie in the fandom.
The reason TFH was brought up was >>9457
>Let's ban anything that is not either in the MLP franchise or a "fan" race (that is, broadly accepted by /mlp/, not just by some random person). It allows a good variety but keeps out actual furries.
In the earlier days TFH wasn't broadly accepted by /mlp/ and told to fuck off to /v/, but wasn't allowed to post on /v/ leading to back and forth clashing until people stopped. TFH was raged against as furries, since it brought non MLP + non pony + non horsepussy
I am not advocating for the furfaggot posting the ai loona, it's not even remotely in the same category. I'm saying that it's counter-intuitive to only create a whitelist of content allowed, which if it was already a thing then all of >>9464
would have never had a piece of pie in the fandom.
>>9494
*sighs*
Let's put a pin in this right now.
If you want to argue the line as to whether anthropomorphic horses count as anthropomorphic animals, we can DEFINITELY have that argument. Trust me you no wanna.
*sighs*
Let's put a pin in this right now.
If you want to argue the line as to whether anthropomorphic horses count as anthropomorphic animals, we can DEFINITELY have that argument. Trust me you no wanna.
>>9497
>whether anthropomorphic horses count as anthropomorphic animals
That sounds unrelated because what is an anthropomorphic animals seems irrelevant to me.
In any case, again, my question is not about "what is REALLY pony-related?" because the userbase and admins here are good enough to draw the line properly without endless bikeshedding to produce a legal document. My question is, "for things which aren't in fact pony related, but are really rather furshit or other similarly distasteful stuff, is there or should there be a blanket ban on those or not?".
>whether anthropomorphic horses count as anthropomorphic animals
That sounds unrelated because what is an anthropomorphic animals seems irrelevant to me.
In any case, again, my question is not about "what is REALLY pony-related?" because the userbase and admins here are good enough to draw the line properly without endless bikeshedding to produce a legal document. My question is, "for things which aren't in fact pony related, but are really rather furshit or other similarly distasteful stuff, is there or should there be a blanket ban on those or not?".
>>9449
We really could just boil the entire set if rules down to just “don’t disrupt the board and it’s threads, and don’t get our board taken down.” The detail is only there for clarification.
>>9453
When moderating, we look to context, intent, and the actual reception of the posts. We don’t look just look at a post and go “oh it’s that thing, let’s delete it” unless it’s CP, Cyrillic spam, or a soyjack thread. People who are actually trying to engage with the board and the threads get the benefit of a doubt.
I don’t think I’d want to make it that every instance of furry porn is necessarily a cause for intervention by moderation. There actually is a valid reason for this post, specifically that it’s a point of comparison for types of porn and drawing of anatomy. It’s topical to the subject of the thread. And the posters are responding pretty well by telling the poster that hazbin hotel AI porn is disgusting. Moderation doesn’t need to do anything. If there were a slew of posts, or if it were posted in a thread where it was not relevant to the point of discussion, then perhaps it would be removed. But for the specific context of that post, removing it would force one of those awkward situations where someone would have to link to a separate website or board to talk about it in the on-topic conversation, and that’s just awkward and something we could avoid.
>People are going unf to it
If you’re posting on /mlp/ or /mlpol/, there’s about an 80% chance you’re a sexual deviant if some kind. Get enough people and we’ll have every form of degeneracy under the sun represented. I don’t see why anyone would be surprised.
When the board rules for /poner/ come, it will probably include a rule restricting furry or general non-mlp porn, and probably a “spoil your fetishes” rule.
>>9464
We’re taking kind of a broad approach to horse-related media. A lot of people here like horse related media, and discussion for those things doesn’t really have anywhere else to go. And if people don’t care to discuss those things, well, that’s fine, too.
[Read more] We really could just boil the entire set if rules down to just “don’t disrupt the board and it’s threads, and don’t get our board taken down.” The detail is only there for clarification.
>>9453
When moderating, we look to context, intent, and the actual reception of the posts. We don’t look just look at a post and go “oh it’s that thing, let’s delete it” unless it’s CP, Cyrillic spam, or a soyjack thread. People who are actually trying to engage with the board and the threads get the benefit of a doubt.
I don’t think I’d want to make it that every instance of furry porn is necessarily a cause for intervention by moderation. There actually is a valid reason for this post, specifically that it’s a point of comparison for types of porn and drawing of anatomy. It’s topical to the subject of the thread. And the posters are responding pretty well by telling the poster that hazbin hotel AI porn is disgusting. Moderation doesn’t need to do anything. If there were a slew of posts, or if it were posted in a thread where it was not relevant to the point of discussion, then perhaps it would be removed. But for the specific context of that post, removing it would force one of those awkward situations where someone would have to link to a separate website or board to talk about it in the on-topic conversation, and that’s just awkward and something we could avoid.
>People are going unf to it
If you’re posting on /mlp/ or /mlpol/, there’s about an 80% chance you’re a sexual deviant if some kind. Get enough people and we’ll have every form of degeneracy under the sun represented. I don’t see why anyone would be surprised.
When the board rules for /poner/ come, it will probably include a rule restricting furry or general non-mlp porn, and probably a “spoil your fetishes” rule.
>>9464
We’re taking kind of a broad approach to horse-related media. A lot of people here like horse related media, and discussion for those things doesn’t really have anywhere else to go. And if people don’t care to discuss those things, well, that’s fine, too.
>>9500
Reasonable.
I would argue that that post is specifically not made for comparison, it was made explicitly as bait. The dogfucker anon did not post it going "hm and here are some dog genitals for reference as my informed contribution to this intellectual discussion about cartoon genital shapes", he posted it going "unf unf feral furry pussy feels so good bros". That's bait.
I see your stance is that people are telling him it's disgusting and that he's not spamming it, so it's not disruptive. I personally think it is disruptive, because now instead of discussing horsepussy shapes, the thread had to take a detour to tell the furfag to fuck off in no uncertain words, which is not related to the topic at hoof. Again, if it had been a genuine attempt at a new avenue of discussion it would have been one thing, and people might've for example also been more inclined to ignore it, or if not, answer it at least somewhat constructively (even if the essense would've still been "that's disgusting"). But with it phrased the way it was it was clearly fishing for angry replies and got them exactly as desired, and the result did not contribute to the actual discussion in any meaningful way.
In particular
>for the specific context of that post, removing it would force one of those awkward situations where someone would have to link to a separate website or board to talk about it in the on-topic conversation
I believe this is objectively false because it doesn't look like anyone actually wants to talk about that. It's the baiter anon forcing everyone to look at it so he can laugh at the angry (You)s he's getting. And removing it would not force it to be linked off-board, rather removing it would just allow the thread to get back to talking about horse pussy.
Again it would've been different if it hadn't been clearly phrased as bait, but it was.
That being said, I do find your stance of "if it doesn't cause too much disruption moderation shouldn't take action" at least understandable and also not unreasonable. We just have different thresholds of what is "too much" disruption but if this is what you guys are going for, I'll live with it, and thanks for clarifying.
[Read more] Reasonable.
I would argue that that post is specifically not made for comparison, it was made explicitly as bait. The dogfucker anon did not post it going "hm and here are some dog genitals for reference as my informed contribution to this intellectual discussion about cartoon genital shapes", he posted it going "unf unf feral furry pussy feels so good bros". That's bait.
I see your stance is that people are telling him it's disgusting and that he's not spamming it, so it's not disruptive. I personally think it is disruptive, because now instead of discussing horsepussy shapes, the thread had to take a detour to tell the furfag to fuck off in no uncertain words, which is not related to the topic at hoof. Again, if it had been a genuine attempt at a new avenue of discussion it would have been one thing, and people might've for example also been more inclined to ignore it, or if not, answer it at least somewhat constructively (even if the essense would've still been "that's disgusting"). But with it phrased the way it was it was clearly fishing for angry replies and got them exactly as desired, and the result did not contribute to the actual discussion in any meaningful way.
In particular
>for the specific context of that post, removing it would force one of those awkward situations where someone would have to link to a separate website or board to talk about it in the on-topic conversation
I believe this is objectively false because it doesn't look like anyone actually wants to talk about that. It's the baiter anon forcing everyone to look at it so he can laugh at the angry (You)s he's getting. And removing it would not force it to be linked off-board, rather removing it would just allow the thread to get back to talking about horse pussy.
Again it would've been different if it hadn't been clearly phrased as bait, but it was.
That being said, I do find your stance of "if it doesn't cause too much disruption moderation shouldn't take action" at least understandable and also not unreasonable. We just have different thresholds of what is "too much" disruption but if this is what you guys are going for, I'll live with it, and thanks for clarifying.
>>9483
>Users must sort this out among themselves, and hence me playing double's advocate in that calling someone a shill or nigger baiter can be justified to easily dismiss an argument if you feel like it's going nowhere and the other person is just wasting your time in bad faith.
See it sounds like that is just an excuse to be intellectually lazy and dismiss any disagreements as bad actors and ironically enough actors will take advantage of those kinds of people to destroy a community or to push bullshit like in the example of 8kun. I know many in the /pol/sphere like to pretend we are immune to propaganda, but we are not. Look how successful the red deer psyop was on 4/pol/. Part of the reason it was so successful is because anyone who called bullshit was labeled a shill and simply gave up.
>Users must sort this out among themselves, and hence me playing double's advocate in that calling someone a shill or nigger baiter can be justified to easily dismiss an argument if you feel like it's going nowhere and the other person is just wasting your time in bad faith.
See it sounds like that is just an excuse to be intellectually lazy and dismiss any disagreements as bad actors and ironically enough actors will take advantage of those kinds of people to destroy a community or to push bullshit like in the example of 8kun. I know many in the /pol/sphere like to pretend we are immune to propaganda, but we are not. Look how successful the red deer psyop was on 4/pol/. Part of the reason it was so successful is because anyone who called bullshit was labeled a shill and simply gave up.
>>9500
People will absolutely not want to post along seeing furshit porn or they would have used /trash/. It matters little over if they're genuine or not. /trash/ was awful dregs it's in the name. Do you want mlpol to have the same culture and reputation? Because you're giving even fuel to the fire that mlpol is just /trash/ with this far more than just your neutrality of striped.
Even 8moe has an obvious line of furshit being disallowed, and infact you would be hard pressed to find a singular mlp board on alt chans that ever was cool with sharing space with them. It's exactly like going to /a/ and posting 3dpd porn in a weeb space. This is one of the most retarded takes I've seen in a while
People will absolutely not want to post along seeing furshit porn or they would have used /trash/. It matters little over if they're genuine or not. /trash/ was awful dregs it's in the name. Do you want mlpol to have the same culture and reputation? Because you're giving even fuel to the fire that mlpol is just /trash/ with this far more than just your neutrality of striped.
Even 8moe has an obvious line of furshit being disallowed, and infact you would be hard pressed to find a singular mlp board on alt chans that ever was cool with sharing space with them. It's exactly like going to /a/ and posting 3dpd porn in a weeb space. This is one of the most retarded takes I've seen in a while
We need to disallow furshit if we are to survive as a pony board. Pony spaces that allow furshit become furry spaces.
>>9505
>When the board rules for /poner/ come, it will probably include a rule restricting furry or general non-mlp porn, and probably a “spoil your fetishes” rule.
At least /poner/ will be spared but I have a feeling the lax rules can allow it to spread like a weed in other boards
>When the board rules for /poner/ come, it will probably include a rule restricting furry or general non-mlp porn, and probably a “spoil your fetishes” rule.
At least /poner/ will be spared but I have a feeling the lax rules can allow it to spread like a weed in other boards
>>9503
lol on you posting
that right before >>9504
>>9501
You know, it’s possible you’re right, and the guy was trolling. But maybe some light trolling is good sometimes. Obviously there is a limit. It can easily become a dumpster fire. But sometimes some banter or light trolling is just fine.
>>9505
>>9506
Dude. It’s been eight years. There’s a thread on /qa/ somewhere from 7 years ago where someone asks “are furries allowed?” and Atlas responds “all are whalecum.” We haven’t been overrun by furries in the time since. It’s gonna be alright. Being trolled by a single hazbin hotel AI abomination isn’t going to kill off the community. The /qa/ spammers who successfully wiped the board in 2017 failed. That goon who infiltrated, made it to admin, and helped orchestrate that board wipe didn’t kill it. The multiple attempts to spam by soyjack party over the past few years haven’t done it. It’s gonna be alright.
Furry threads will be gassed on sight outside of /sp/. You’ll be alright.
[Read more] lol on you posting
that right before >>9504
>>9501
You know, it’s possible you’re right, and the guy was trolling. But maybe some light trolling is good sometimes. Obviously there is a limit. It can easily become a dumpster fire. But sometimes some banter or light trolling is just fine.
>>9505
>>9506
Dude. It’s been eight years. There’s a thread on /qa/ somewhere from 7 years ago where someone asks “are furries allowed?” and Atlas responds “all are whalecum.” We haven’t been overrun by furries in the time since. It’s gonna be alright. Being trolled by a single hazbin hotel AI abomination isn’t going to kill off the community. The /qa/ spammers who successfully wiped the board in 2017 failed. That goon who infiltrated, made it to admin, and helped orchestrate that board wipe didn’t kill it. The multiple attempts to spam by soyjack party over the past few years haven’t done it. It’s gonna be alright.
Furry threads will be gassed on sight outside of /sp/. You’ll be alright.
>>9500
>it will probably include a rule restricting furry or general non-mlp porn
Does this include anthro pony porn?
I make sure to spoiler it, but it would be a shame if I couldn't post it anymore. Although I can understand the sentiment, considering anthro was never allowed on /mlp/ in the first place.
>it will probably include a rule restricting furry or general non-mlp porn
Does this include anthro pony porn?
I make sure to spoiler it, but it would be a shame if I couldn't post it anymore. Although I can understand the sentiment, considering anthro was never allowed on /mlp/ in the first place.
[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] [1-100] [101-200] [201-300] [301-339] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
339 replies | 73 files | 78 UUIDs | Page 1
[Add to Thread Watcher]