/qa/ - Questions and Answers

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