[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / anon ] [ rp / art ]

/site/ - Site Issues

The board for discussing site related issues, questions, concerns, and suggestions.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags
Password (For file deletion.)

Site maintenance in progress! Posts made now may be lost.

Ponychan-MLPchan Merger >>>/site/15219

File: 1381181033271.png (659.57 KB, 1000x667, 55694__safe_lyra_bonbon_ponies…)

Ask an admin Sersys!CyQeb5KTDM 11385Locked

We ask stuff from Macil here

Anonymous 11386

>>11384
I can't make a new thread.
Apparently .jpg, .png, and .gif are not supported file extensions.
An image is required for a new thread.

Sersys!CyQeb5KTDM 11387

From the last thread:

I wasn't banned and I don't want to get banned over whining poster who pretends to be offended by anything I say. What do I do? Not talk to him? Why don't he just ignore me? Why is it me who has to avoid him? Because I laughed at him? I found enjoyment in his self inducted mental pain so I'm the bad guy? It wasn't me who got offended and made a scene.

And you don't need to struggle to put it more simple just answer the questions.

Anonymous 11389

>>11387
The OP of
>>11314
should really give you all the answers you need.

Certain. Mods. Don't. Follow. Rules.
They. Are. Unfit. For. Their. Job.

If you don't like it, usurp them or leave.

Holy. Fuck.

Anonymous 11391

>>11387

>I admit to harassing a user personally for my own enjoyment!

>Why was I warned?? I'm the victim!!

It's like I'm actually on /q/.

Anonymous 11392

>>11391
We should delete /site/.

Anonymous 11393

>>11389

I think in actuality it's that certain boards have very different cultures and thus the different rules are enforced…differently. All I know is the mods on /site/ have always been helpful and the mods on /anon/ are total bros in the rare occasion that they even post.

I think you're overreacting.

Anonymous 11394

>>11393
It's a board specific problem.
And yes, this really is like /q/ because mods post on here anonymously without a #Mod capcode.
Mods are biased and they deliver bans based not on the rules, but on how they personally feel about the poster, regardless of rules.
I feel like I have explained this thoroughly enough on this board today.
This is not an overreaction.
This is a fact.

Macil!/5s/Techmk ## Mod 11395

File: 1381182071867.jpg (17.3 KB, 188x215)

>>11386
Images aren't required for threads, but it looks like there's some cases that error will be triggered anyway. I'll fix that in a second.

>>11389
As far as I can see, the linked posts are of… mods applying the rules. If you continue and don't successfully elaborate on whatever you're trying to communicate, I'm going to ban you from /site/ for indecipherable trolling.

>>11391
iknowrite

>>11387
If you can't find obviously non-harassing ways to talk to someone, then yes, you should avoid talking to them. Everything else on this subject has been well covered in previous threads.

>>11394
>And yes, this really is like /q/ because mods post on here anonymously without a #Mod capcode.
I almost always use my tripcode on this board, and always when I'm talking from any position of authority.

Anonymous 11396

>>11393
Furthermore.
>/site/
>/anon/
This is hardly what I am referring to.
I refer more to /oat/.
What is your experience with /oat/?
None?

Anonymous 11399

>>11395
I'm already banned from /site/ for the exact problem I am referring to.
I was posting in /site/ about the website and told to stop abusing the report function when people were posting personal attacks on my character.
Unfortunately, I cannot post the image.
http://someimage.com/aMwwEZr

>I almost always use my tripcode on this board, and always when I'm talking from any position of authority

I'm not referring to you.
Did you issue this ban?
I assume it was from Tom or Mellowbloom.
Those two seem to be the biggest offenders.
Also, the admin of this site. The owner.
He has done the exact same thing.(USER WAS SENT AWAY FROM /SITE/ FOR THIS POST)

Sersys!CyQeb5KTDM 11400

File: 1381182382479.png (144.17 KB, 900x688, dat_lyra_by_iamthegreatlyra-d4…)

I see I'm going to have a hard time here.

>>11389
I don't care if the mods breaks the rules or unfit for masturbating. I want to know how can I have an argument with a person who pretends to get offended about everything I say, and tends to exploit the fact that mods will jump on me if he pretends to be offended and reports me for harassment before I can make a point or prove him wrong.

>>11391
Being rude or having an argument is hardly harassment. Personally I blame those who get offended over some random fag like me making silly comments about their behaviour. I also find it silly if they do get angry and explain them that they deserve to be angry if they are such a douche bags to get offended over petty comments of a pseudo anonymous poster. I'd say they should ignore me if they don't like it, and I shouldn't be restricted to reply to them.

>>11395
Ok. So why am I the one obligated to avoid talking to them and why aren't they are the one obligated to ignore me?

Anonymous 11401

>I don't care if the mods breaks the rules or unfit for masturbating. I want to know how can I have an argument with a person who pretends to get offended about everything I say, and tends to exploit the fact that mods will jump on me if he pretends to be offended and reports me for harassment before I can make a point or prove him wrong.
Then you really understand nothing.
I'm not going to repeat myself if you didn't get it the first time.

>Being rude or having an argument is hardly harassment. Personally I blame those who get offended over some random fag like me making silly comments about their behaviour. I also find it silly if they do get angry and explain them that they deserve to be angry if they are such a douche bags to get offended over petty comments of a pseudo anonymous poster. I'd say they should ignore me if they don't like it, and I shouldn't be restricted to reply to them.

I'm not going to repeat myself if you didn't get it the first time.

>Ok. So why am I the one obligated to avoid talking to them and why aren't they are the one obligated to ignore me?

I'm not going to repeat myself if you didn't get it the first time.

Sersys!CyQeb5KTDM 11402

File: 1381182767768.png (30.27 KB, 197x200, lyra_is_sceptical_of_your_cool…)

>>11401
At least use a keys mash as a name because I don't know which post you refer as "first time"

Anonymous 11403

>>11402
The one you replied to here
>>11400
As in
>>11389
I've stated this a couple times.
You are on a website with corrupt mods.
Good luck finding one without that.
Because humans who want to be website moderators are almost always corrupt.(USER WAS SENT AWAY FROM /SITE/ FOR THIS POST)

Sersys!CyQeb5KTDM 11404

>>11403
And how do you support those accusations?

11405

>>11387
Sersys, you're a cunt. Grow up before somebody decides to ban you.

Anonymous 11406

>>11400

>why aren't they are the one obligated to ignore me?


Because you are the one initiating the argument by insulting/harassing them.

I'm not trying to start a religious discussion but it's kinda like how the burden of proof is on the believer, but in this case "believer" means "person who started the meaningless argument."

It is true that I don't know much about /oat/, but maybe if you stopped personally attacking people and tried to have more civilized debates, you wouldn't get in trouble.

I don't understand what you don't get about all that.

Sersys!CyQeb5KTDM 11407

>>11403
>>11404
forget that. Even if they are corrupt, what I doubt, they work along a guideline. If sucking his dicks will allow me to call someone stupid who calls himself stupid then that's what I want to know.

Anonymous 11409

Also sorry for the whole hijacking thing in the /mlp/ ad thread, I don't really know what I was thinking. This is ridiculous, we're going in circles, and I don't even post on /oat/.

Macil!/5s/Techmk ## Mod 11411

>>11399
I see who you are. You've been trolling ancient threads here and reporting yourself. I'm inclined to agree with that ban. I've re-applied it to you.

>>11400
You did happen to be the one that brought them into the conversation in that thread. Anyway, the rules are against making harassing posts, not against reacting to harassing posts. Just make sure not to do that and you're fine.

>>11403
I told you that if you don't manage to coherently elaborate on whatever you're talking about, I was going to ban you from /site/ for trolling. Please email us if you wish to dispute coherently.

Anonymous 11417

I just want to say that as an anonymous user it is very helpful when the mods use their mod capcode thing when posting, because I haven't memorized which tripcodes belong to mods and which don't, and I have seen people who aren't mods talk as though they have the authority of mods…

Anonymous 11418

>>11415
uh huh.(USER WAS SENT TO THE MOON FOR BAN EVASION)

Sersys!CyQeb5KTDM 11420

File: 1381185356137.png (191.73 KB, 818x1348, harass.png)

>>11405
says the dead man

>>11406
Ok. There is a guy Z. He is constantly whining about that nobody remembers him because he's insignificant. I mention his name in one of my replies to another poster then he gets pissed off, I tell him if he got pissed off just by as much as a mention of his name he is an idiot, he gets more pissed and I get warned.

>>11411
I didn't do anything harassing this time either or you are not telling me what is harassive about 3 posts:
1 mentioning his name in a reply to another poster.
2 accusing him of things I made up
3 calling him a nut job for getting pissed off by random accusations.

OR

Let me make a guess here. He always whines about how everyone forgets about him because he is so insignificant. If he is allowed to say that I should be too. I tell him everyone forgets about him because he is so insignificant and doesn't like it. He realizes how stupid he is for always whining about it. Gets pissed. I tell him he is the one who said that and tells me that I'm a pathetic bully for repeating what he said. I explain him that he is the one hurting himself if he gets pissed off over hearing from others what he said about himself. He realizes that he is stupid and exploits the inconsistency in the rules, and reports me for harassment to get rid of me without dealing with me.

If, however, he never reported me then it's ok because you couldn't know he was a twat who always complained and I just told him what he said about himself.(USER WAS SENT AWAY FROM /SITE/ FOR THIS AND OTHER POSTS)

Tom' the /♥/ bringer ## Mod 11421

This board is not meant for appeals.
Not only do appeals only concern the mod who gave them and the member, but making those discussions public makes people defensive and exposes the discussion to troll comments like >>11389 .

I'll give the OP a chance to tell me why this is worthy of being public in any way, otherwise this is being deleted.

Anonymous 11422

>>11421
Can't handle the criticism? Please go fuck yourself.

http://someimage.com/xt2n3P6(USER WAS SENT TO THE MOON FOR THIS POST)

Macil!/5s/Techmk ## Mod 11424

>>11420
I don't know how more clear I can be about "just remember not to harass people". You've made a ton of non-constructive posts on /site/ lately. I'm banning you from the /site/ board for a few days.

>>11422
You've been citing posts of mods applying the rules exactly as they should as evidence for them being corrupt. I told you that I would ban you for trolling unless you made a more coherent argument. You ignored that post, therefore ban.


This is easily the most bans I've given to different people in a single day. Granted most of them were only from /site/ which is a bit stricter, but really. Did someone put something in the water today that made everyone yearn for getting banned? I don't think I've been unfair in any of these.

Anonymous 11431

>>11421
Before this gets out of hand, I would like to present an amicus curiae on behalf of the OP.

As has been well established, this site is governed by a number of rules. However, as this case and a small handfull of others have demonstrated, there are times when their interpretation and implementation seem opaque to those whom they govern. In these times, and in all others, previous cases are used as reasoning for the ruling. This reasoning is justifiable because the rules have undergone little, if any, modification since the site's inception and a persistent stance with regard to moderation is required to ensure fairness to those who abide by the rules. In this sense, the site implements a common law system of jurisprudence. In such a system, all statements made by those who interpret the rules are a secondary body of rules. If any part of such a corpus were to be deleted or otherwise destroyed, it would make it more difficult for the governed to present a fair and rational case to the interpreters when new grievances arise. Thus, any thread with a capcode on /site/ should never be deleted since it is part of the site's extended policy.

Macil!/5s/Techmk ## Mod 11433

>>11429
Er, no, you linked to a bunch of posts where mods appeared to have applied rules as they're plainly stated on the homepage, and then failed (and still continued to fail) to back up anything about your argument. You did not explain how the mods were failing to uphold the rules, and you did not explain if you personally disagreed with any of the rules. Your arguments are currently nonsense.
And stop evading to dispute your ban here. This is the last time I will bother to address you here like this while you're banned.

>>11431
Kinda maybe? The community and the exact way we deal with the rules evolves over time, so I think it's inaccurate to think we stick to old judgments exactly. I'd rather people start threads here on /site/ with their specific questions or concerns than try to divine our leanings from old and often very convoluted cases.

Tom' the /♥/ bringer 11434

>>11431
>However, as this case and a small handfull of others have demonstrated, there are times when their interpretation and implementation seem opaque to those whom they govern
Now let me stop you right here
And I read the rest, but this is where your train of thought kind of stopped me.
This site's policy is to never, ever, ban without warning, unless it's some obvious form of child porn or ban evasion, or some very specific cases where the people obviously knew they were breaking a rule (Like someone posting pictures of penises in a thread about flowers, more or less)
That is so that anyone breaking the rules unknowingly can simply stop without any further harm being done. This has been - and still is - our golden rule, it was my express desire when we were deciding of the very foundations of how the site would work.

And well, the issue with rules is that people will always find loopholes in them. The more precise we are, the more people can act unacceptably while not crossing the limit and claim mod abuse when they get banned.

Take spam. What if I define spam as being the exact same message repeated multiple times in a thread by the same poster? Then how many times? If I put a number on it, people can just post a few times, stay under said number and claim they weren't spamming.
What matters is the intent. If a member damn well knows they're breaking a rule and keep doing so, then they are being toxic.

The 'always warn before banning' policy allows us to have very, very few unwarranted bans (I can only think of one, and it was us thinking a member was someone else ban evading, and that was a year ago)
Sticking to old judgements very exactly would only allow rule-breakers to find a month-old case with completely different circumstances to support their claim of mod abuse.

No rule abiding member has ever been banned on this site, thanks to both that system and our _very_ tight internal regulations of others' actions.

Anonymous 11435

>>11433
>>11434
I do not believe that there has been any wrongdoing in any of the cases presented, including the one with Sersys (especially since he wasn't banned at that time). I only care about the preservation of the record because I do believe it is informative and instructive. I believe my record shows that I have attempted to be a constructive citizen of the community, and I plan to continue to do so in the future. However, I stand by the statement that what appears to harassment to one is afterschool banter to another. , and it appears the OP was searching for the red line mentioned. Nothing further.

Tom' the /♥/ bringer 11436

File: 1381189172857.png (328.27 KB, 615x627, that looks delicious, why am I…)

>>11435
That's understandable and very reasonable.
However OP's behavior in the rest of the thread isn't.

The Vulture!3bqGraff0U 11534

So, since it sort've has been brought up anyway, isn't a post like >>11405 harassment?

This is essentially my worry that some mods might view some posters as having "deserved" if you will, the personal attacks.
Mostly because that is a matter of personal opinion and preferences.
I don't like Toy, and Toy doesn't like me. But I've got a warning before about harrasing him, yet Toy's perfectly fine throwing out as many personal attacks as pleases toward me.
Unless it is more a matter of who can take it, I suppose.
Though that still leaves opinion in heavy supply.

Anonymous 11572

File: 1381429151033.png (239.88 KB, 599x334, sweetjesuswhatareyoudoing.png)

>>11534
Are you implying the mod staff is biased in favor of Toybox?

The Vulture!3bqGraff0U 11586

>>11572
Less in Toy's favor than catoring to Toy's sensibilities. At least, in my direct perspective .
Special treatment, basically. Things you can say all you like to one poster, you can't to Toy.
Mostly, it seems to be a matter of noise. One poster might not care about constant personal attacks by another, but if said poster decides to return such actions, if the other makes enough noise it seems that it will be viewed as harassment against the person who started it.

Toybox is very aggressive, especially to anons, but whenever anyone fights fire with fire as it were, it seems to always end up with playing the victim.
Perhaps Toybox simply has a much thinner shell than others. Doesn't really matter, I would just prefer a level of equality.

Anonymous 11602

>>11586
I thought that issue was over now, I haven't seen toybox say or do anything lately.
If he has it was not reported.

The Vulture!3bqGraff0U 11611

>>11602
I don't think anyone bothers with reporting, but regardless; it still occurs now and again.
Unless you are referring to something else, of course.

Tom' the /♥/ bringer 11620

>>11611
As I stated in a previous post >>>/site/10763
If Toybox is to needlessly start an argument or be unwarrantedly harsh towards an user, measures will be taken. The same goes for the other side of the argument and people having fun poking at them and shitting up threads.

I have kept my promise, as as soon as I gave out that warning, both sides kind of stopped. So as I say, none was reported to me in about one month, if Toybox does harass you, report it and it will be dealt with appropriately.

The Vulture!3bqGraff0U 11815

>>11620
Ah, I see.
Sorry. I didn't know this.

Will we ever be rid of that stupid filter?

Anonymous 11818

>>11815
what filter?

11823

dear macil,
where the fuck is my pizza?
its been 30 minutes
–desert


Delete Post [ ]
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / anon ] [ rp / art ]