[ 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: 1362285663597.jpg (18.32 KB, 202x500, ruka17.jpg)

6193

Could you standardize the harassment rule? In my opinion it's too unspecific which makes it easy to abuse. Let's say that if someone makes more than 2 unwarranted posts at somebody they get a warning and if they do it again they get an hour ban and again? A day ban and so on.

Marisa Kirisame !LWitchfcEo 6194

File: 1362287598147.jpg (78.25 KB, 558x600, b4a980c963c6a8f686f81efefb9fdd…)

p sure this isn't going to happen, as harassment can take many different subjective forms. Having concrete rules on something like that will make it so people can game them, and just drop out of incriminating situations right before they cross the line. I should know, that's pretty much what I did on ponychan for a good deal of my early early posting career!

A few good guidelines by my estimate to follow, however:

- Don't try to start shit every time you see a specific person or group of people

-Don't spill arguments from one thread over to the next.

-Don't pursue arguments continuously after one party wants said arguments to have ceased. If it gets to a point where one person can not post in another thread because this happens, then there is a clear problem.

-If you have a beef with another poster that you absolutely positively can't bear, take it offsite. Email, Steam, Skype, AIM, w/e

Those are the basic criteria that I look towards. In the end, it's best kept to mod discretion, as the complexity of the situation prevents things from really being nailed down entirely. It would be like trying to list every last sexual position that could get an image deleted.

6201

Once you start controlling how people treat others it can get bad real quick, what is a good amount of moderation for some will be to much for others and will create even more drama then there is now.

Anonymous 6205

Here's an idea!

Just be civil… It's pretty easy.

Anonymous 6207

>>6194
>It would be like trying to list every last sexual position that could get an image deleted.
You know if his thing was spamming rude images instead of spamming rude comments he would literally ask -nay, demand- that you do exactly that. You know that right? Is he getting banned again?

6208

File: 1362326690919.jpg (89.31 KB, 690x975, ruka16.jpg)

>>6201
This wouldn't increase moderation, it would lessen the negative effects of favoritism.

6209

File: 1362327136614.jpg (117.08 KB, 752x1063, ruka2.jpg)

>>6207
The moderators here always have a reason for banning people. Even if I sometimes disagree with that reason, I would hate it to be any other way and so would you.

Marisa Kirisame !LWitchfcEo 6210

File: 1362331261319.jpg (638.48 KB, 600x814, 84236089f2c9b02a25d4ca24497043…)

>>6207

I was the one who unbanned Remember and came up with the terms of his unbanning. Since he has returned, I've had to discipline him once, and it was more of a warning to back off before things get worse than anything.

He is getting much more heavy punishment than most people are due to his history in the event of problems, but as a whole, since I parked myself in /b/ and friends after his unbanning, most of the conflict I've seen has honestly been people starting arguments -with- him, which is certainly not his fault. So no, for the umpteenth time, I'm not going to randomly ban a user unless they are openly breaking the rules.

>>6205

Good plan.

>>6208

Not really. As I've said many times on /meta/ as of late, the idea is to not affect people's posting or weigh down on their personality. Intervention only becomes a necessity when it becomes clear that the parties are affecting each other to a degree where it is messing up threads, becoming an issue of one person hounding another around the site, or in some very special cases, one person becomes a danger to the other.

It's not worth it to curbstomp how we think people should converse into others heads. Disagreements are a natural part of conversation, and some people can be naturally rude sometimes. Neither things are something we should hold against anyone until it becomes destructive and detrimental.

6214

File: 1362338485130.jpg (78.11 KB, 580x450, 30cfbc1ed69494600e966e06946b5e…)

>>6210
oh look you're the trixie mod right?
I been posting here for a while but never took the time to learn much of the moderation

Anonymous 6216

>>6210
A good gardener knows when to pull a bad weed. The thread was better when he was gone and it's worse now that he's back. You don't owe him a damn thing, or anyone else for that matter, but if your goal is a better board you'd have to be stone cold drunk to argue his presence has ever improved a thing.

!!Trixie ## Mod 6218

File: 1362340167587.jpg (62.49 KB, 640x506)

>>6216

I'm not a gardener, and users aren't weeds. His presence is insignificant in a grand scheme of things, much as most anyone else on the board's is (and that is not a negative thing, most people cannot contribute anything to the board as a whole beyond their own base personality.) I don't feel I owe him anything more or anything less than I owe anyone else on the site, so I don't understand why you keep seeming to suggest that this is some sort of moral conundrum that I'm suffering at the moment.

As I have said many times at this point, if he becomes obstructive he's going to be banned again. That's an -if-. Unless this occurs, he is free to post. If you can't deal with that then I honestly don't know what to tell you other than take a break and visit other threads, or wait until the user filter that's being made is finished. Do whatever you want, as long as it isn't trying to start arguments and fights every time you see a person.

>>6214

Yes

Anonymous 6219

>>6218
I never said it was a moral conundrum. I said getting rid of him would be an improvement, and it is.

6220

File: 1362341037002.jpg (852.53 KB, 1000x1000, ruka25.jpg)

>>6219
What are you talking about? My month absence was so boring.

!!Trixie 6221

File: 1362341136058.jpg (671.21 KB, 854x1000)

>>6219

In your opinion. In the opinions of some others, too, surely. The problem with that is that I don't operate on opinions. If I simply hammered out everyone that I, or some other people, thought were assholes or annoying, then this site would probably have about a quarter of the population it does right now.

Operating on passion and ousting people in favor of the words of some others are not a good way to run a site. Some people don't like others. Some people can be jerks to one another. That's just part of the natural circle of things, and it can't be avoided unless this site gets a lobotomy in the openness category.

I better the board not by being an arbiter of personal relations or a marriage counselor, I do it by clearing up rule violations. Unless he starts actively breaking the rules, I don't really care what people say or think of the guy, or anyone else on the board for this matter, because I'm not a terrible mod who bans people based on something other than the own actions that they are displaying. And in the end, this works out for you too. If he continues to behave and stay within the rules, he's not affecting you in any way. If he lives up to your expectations and does bad, then you're not going to have to worry about him much longer.

Just sit back and relax.

Anonymous 6227

>>6221
I'd like to believe a way exists for us to both be right. I understand all you've said, but he's not a rule breaker. He's a rule bender - the kind of poster who abuses a healthy rule system to be as disruptive and obnoxious as possible without getting banned. I know your memory isn't so short that you've forgotten his niggling over petty details the last time.

Rule breakers I can suffer easily. The ones who are obvious trolls or post content that's clearly against the rules. It's only the abusers who can't stand, especially one who constantly shits up the thread and then smiles innocently and cries any time the numerous people who hate him point it out.

I'm not saying you should ban him for no reason or a subjective reason or my opinion. You should ban him for demonstrated, repeat abuse of the rule system.

!!Trixie 6229

File: 1362354526875.png (1013.52 KB, 1000x824)

>>6227

The thing about this is, since he's come back, he hasn't displayed any sort of rule bending. And I've been keeping a close watch on him the whole time. He can be abrasive towards people sometimes and has this running gag about being the best and stuff, but generally its just slightly off color stuff that I wouldn't ban anyone for.

I see what you're trying to say, but I just haven't seen it displayed since unbanning him to a point where I'd have to do anything. In fact, in comparison, the most offcolor behavior I've seen is actually in opposition -to- him. Since beginning my monitoring, I saw several instances of people insulting him out of the blue without any real visible provocation in what seemed to be an attempt to start an argument. And, honestly, these altercations were all -much- more venomous than anything he'd done, to the point where I'd normally actually step in and pull people aside (and eventually had to). Things have been better since that point.

I can see where you are coming from. Remember has demonstrated problematic behavior in the past. This current period of unbanning is his last chance to not fall back onto that. And I would appreciate it -immensely- if you could, please, just ignore the guy if you really really really can't stand him. At least for now, until that filter script comes out. I swear to you that if he attempts to obstruct you, or anyone else in a manner consistent with harassment, there will be a ban. But he is getting this chance to prove that he can post without doing that.

Now, I really think this is all that I can say on the matter. If feel like I'm going in circles. If you really feel you would like to discuss this more with me, you can contact me on Skype at NotReaverbot, but that's all I'm going to say here.

Anonymous 6230

>>6229
You fixed something that wasn't broken, and when he screws up I'll be right here to tell you I told you so.

6240

File: 1362403916835.jpg (30.78 KB, 473x323, ruka44.jpg)

Why can't my /site/ threads ever stay on topic?

!Pipes is a little squid 6242

>tfw i am exempt from all rules :3

Tpwpfluttershy 6245

I recall 'thony saying that the rules are intentionally vague so people can't play "I'm not touching you" with the staff.

>>6242
You're that annoying insect we keep in the garden because it keeps away more harmful insects.

6267

File: 1362508387279.jpg (151.16 KB, 600x850, ruka47.jpg)

>>6245
I lol'd irl, that's a strange way to justify a shitty rule set.

!Pipes is a little squid 6271

File: 1362586265468.png (175.57 KB, 500x581)

Remmy 6291

>>6271
Worst best poster

6341

File: 1362734634643.jpg (2.48 MB, 2854x3520, 1356784877090.jpg)

Hey my ip changed for some reason and I can't delete this now pointless post. Sorry.


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