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
289 replies and 60 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?
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-339] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
339 replies | 73 files | 78 UUIDs | Page 1
[Add to Thread Watcher]