Because people insisted on keeping it around, for some reason.

It's not a dead /oat/, it's a fast /good/.

>>159346
What a waste of space. They're most likely bitching about "muh communities" when in fact, /chat/ has as much shitposting as /oat/ does.

Technically, it serves as a pony-free zone.

people have argued that ponychan needs a place where you can post without encountering pony threads.

and people are attached to /chat/ enough to not have it taken away.

Because deleting a board on Ponychan is sacrilege. I.e., it requires too much effort, requires dealing with too much response, and requires someone willing to actually make the decision.
Besides, Ponychan collects boards like some people collect Twilight plushies. And then gets just as attached to them.

/chat/'s hardly the big issue, though.

/collab/ - 1 post in 3 days
/fic/ - 2 posts in 2 days
/good/ - 3 posts in 3 days (all about how /good/ should be deleted)
/vinyl/ - 2 posts in 3 days
/merch/ - 7 posts in 3 days
/int/ - 5 posts in 2 days
/art/ - 7 posts in last 2 days
/g/ - 20 posts in 3 days

Ponychan has 17 boards. (If you don't count /irc/ and /arch/). 8 of these boards accrued roughly 50 posts in the last 2-3 days combined. (Unless there's some hidden mass of activity going on in some saged thread off the front page.) There has got to be a more condensed and even distribution of activity and population that can be made.

Then again people have been saying this for almost 3 years now, and instead of less boards than then, there's more. :

Last edited at Mon, Jul 21st, 2014 05:16

Are we working are way back into a I don't like this board, mods please get rid of it wave again?

>>159365
ty for the invalid strawman argument brah we appreciate it. nice to know regardless of what point or arguments are made, how many of them or how valid, it'll all be boiled down into an easy to digest and unassailable counterpoint of 'u just don't like it lmao u mad bro'
>Are we working are way back into...
our*

Last edited at Mon, Jul 21st, 2014 07:44

>>159362

>ponychan needs a place where you can post without encountering pony threads.

This.

People who don't give (that much of) a shit about MLP would have no place to chill if /chat/land were to be deleted.

tbh its slower than its ever been so i am getting to the point where i am failing to see a reason to keep it around "because people want a place to talk about non-pony stuff". there isnt much of an audience for that clearly and there are way better places on the internet to do that

besides, as it is /oat/ is basically 80% non pony at any given time anyway.

>>159367

>>159367
I don't care about horses anymore but I don't get all buttflustered about people posting horses. I don't think most people do either?

Except maybe the people who loudly and specifically hate MLP and take every opportunity to say it. But those aren't really people who don't care, they just care in te oopsite direction.

That said I liek /chat/land, glorius homeland

>>159364
^
Honestly this. I hate my little /mu/lite going but I'd delete it, /collab/, /art/, /merch/ and /fic/ before /chat/.

on one hand, if people really cared about it's existence w/ the whole /chat/ will rise again, they'd obviously post more on /chat/ then on /oat/. so, seeing as thats not happening, you could purge /chat/, and i bet it wont cause that much of ruckus. nobody is making an effort to rise /chat/ anyway

but, on the other hand, it's not really hurting anyone by being there either. along w/ all the other useless boards on this site. you dont have to go there

also yeah lol @ either of the admins doing anything/ even bothering to be here

>>159371

This.. why are people here if they don't like ponies? It's PONYchan... duh.

Why is there even a pony free board?

If you don't like ponies, then go to a non pony chan. Fucking 2+2 equals..

>>159376

most boards that have a central topic have some manner of general offtopic board where people can talk about whatever they want

the problem is we currently have two. one of which not many people use at all

>>159377

Nothing wrong with offtopic but pony free? What about posting ponies? What about chatting about pony stuff that's non show related? Off topic is fine but not totally pony free. No place should be pony free. This is supposed to be the place to go where we can be pony fans without to worry about it... no harrassement, no non pony zones.. no non pony rules.. If ponies bother someone they should find a different home..

>>159378

it made sense at one point because /chat/ was the only place you could do that. if you posted about non-pony stuff in /oat/ you'd get moved

now it exists as a weird meaningless distinction where it's two boards that people basically post the exact same crap on, but on one of them if you post about ponies people will tell you to go away or whatever

>>159379

And people should not be able to tell anyone ANYWHERE on the chan to go away if they post about ponies. That's just wrong. It goes against the whole point of the chan.

The people complaining about ponies should be the ones being told to go away.

Like.. wtf???

>>159380
>The people complaining about ponies should be the ones being told to go away. Like...wtf??
+1

i dont think anyone should go away really, but i also dont see much of a reason for /chat/ to exist

>>159367
Have you seen /oat/ lately?

If you don't like ponies, go make your own damn non-pony thread.

>>159380
>The people complaining about ponies should be the ones being told to go away.
If the site had the capacity to do this, /oat/ wouldn't have been opened up and /chat/ wouldn't have been dead.

>Isn't it, like, a dead /oat?
/oat/ is pony topics /chat/ is non pony, so no.
I like /chat/land it is my home land fuck no we aren't deleting it.

>>159386
>implying you make decisions here

>>159386
There is only one pony thread on the front page of /oat/. Don't be stupid.

Last edited at Mon, Jul 21st, 2014 21:57

>>159371
Plenty of fan communites have members who don't care about the thing the site's about anymore and just stick around for the community.

/chat/ shouldn't be deleted because doing so won't give /oat/ more traffic (like everyone who makes a thread complaining about a slow board really wants to happen), it will just drive away the people who have no interest in /oat/. This also applies to other slow boards like /vinyl/ and /g/ (hell, especially /g/ whose regulars seem to dislike /oat/ quite a bit), who have also had threads requesting their deletion made multiple times.

Their existence isn't harming Ponychan, so just leave them be.

/good/ is, for the moment, still around pretty much just because of this:
http://falls.derpynews.com/bronies-for-good-summer-o-good/
It *might* see some sort of use soon.

Personally, I would love to see /chat/ removed, because it's completely redundant at this point, and I agree with the idea that this site should cater to pony fans over people who don't want to be around pony threads. But it's probably not worth upsetting people, and it's not up to me anyway.

>>159390
If they came for poni and stayed for the people, they can take a little pony while being around their community.
>>159393
>it's not up to me anyway
>mod
Then who, the admins? And you (and the other mods) have absolutely no say in what they decide to do?
i'm actually curious

>>159393
That's been up for like a month and a half and no one has seen it, and hasn't made anything happen.
>>159394
It's up to random fate.
>>159390
Maybe you could actually keep /chat/ if there weren't half a dozen other boards that fall within its purview, the only reason for their creation in the first place being the argument "/chat/ is too fast for these specific topics to thrive", which is clearly, to a laughable extent, no longer the case.

>>159394
The mods hopefully have some input, but only an admin could make the final decision, as only admins can make changes like deleting boards. Mods don't have access to those tools.

>>159396
>Mods don't have access to those tools
I knew that, but I imagine they have a voice in these kind of things - but then the line "it's not up to me" shows up and makes me question lots of things about how the site runs.

Like you said "The mods hopefully have some input".

>>159397
They have said innumerable times that it is up to them, but is not technically up to them, as an admin could theoretically tell them no (plus they can't do it without an admin as you the other said, no tools). Not like the admins come up with literally any decisions anyway, so the technicality, while correct, is moot.

>>159390
Lol, the community of /chat/ is exactly the same as /oat/.

>>159393

Why in the world would it be not worth upsetting people to enforce the chan's theme and make the WHOLE chan friendly to pony fans.

What in the utter fuck?

It's the REASON FOR the place.

There shouldn't even be any question about it.

Non pony fans should either deal with it or GTFO. Go somewhere where their interests are catered to.

I'd like to see people go to an anime chan or pokechan or any other themed chan and go hey, I don't like anime or whatever.. give me an anime free space now cos I like talking to some people here. The reaction wouldn't be pleasant.

So why is it happening here?

It's stupid. I know it's not up to you but it's up to somebody and they should be doing it.

I do think that there should be a section for non-pony discussion. Pretty much every forum or chan site has an off topic or random board. Personally I think that we should combine /pony/ and /oat/ and then make /chat/ it's separate thing, but apparently /pony/ is allergic to /oat/ because muh serious discussion (which I think is silly).
>>159400
>I'd like to see people go to an anime chan or pokechan or any other themed chan and go hey, I don't like anime or whatever.. give me an anime free space now cos I like talking to some people here. The reaction wouldn't be pleasant.
But like I said, having a /chat/ isn't nearly out of the ordinary, in fact it's extremely common. Off-topic boards are generally the fastest boards on the site.

>>159401

again, the problem is we have a place for non-pony discussion already that is more populated and it is called /oat/. most boards have an off topic section, but they don't usually have two off topic sections that serve exactly the same purpose except one is at large dead and yells "ponies gtfo" if you post a thread about pinkie pie or whatever

>>159402
Oh I completely agree. The way it's setup now is awful. But I don't think just deleting /chat/ would solve anything. We would just lose users for no reason. I think keeping /chat/ and merging /oat/ and /pony/ is the way to go. Though before that, I think we should concentrate on deleting the boards mentioned here
>>159364

>>159401

It's not the fact there's an off topic board. It's the fact people are saying to keep all pony off there cos they don't like pony.

Like I said, telling people to stop talking about anything to do with anime or whatever even in the offtopic board on those chans because you don't like it won't get you a good reception. It shouldn't here either.

People are free to make threads about whatever subject they like as long as it's within the rules. But they should be made to respect other's rights to do as well even if there's a non show discussion about ponies in another thread.

No pony free boards. If it bothers people so much to even have someone talk ponies in an entirely different thread just on the same board.. this isn't the place for them.

>>159403

How in the world would merging /oat/ and /pony/ solve anything? /pony/ is for show discussion.. /oat/ is for being an ass most of the time.

It would just make the situation FAR worse... like.. wtf?

Merge /chat/ and /oat/ and if the pony haters don't like it.. they can gtfo and find someplace else non-pony.

>>159405

>>159404
Methinks you're not getting the concept of an off-topic board. Off-topic would mean no ponies. Like I said, this isn't anything unusual. A pony-free board is perfectly fine and normal for even the poniest (this is a word now) of sites.
>>159405
The merging of /oat/ and /pony/ was under the assumption that it would be merging the silly pony and serious pony and not include /oat/s current non-pony use. It basically, there would be one pony talk board, and one non-pony talk board.

>>159407

I get the concept fine and again someone on an other kind of chan telling others to gtfo off the offtopic board cos they themselves don't like anime or whatever or whining to the mods to make an anime free zone isn't going to get a good reception. People are gonna go wtf.. no.. why are you even here if you don't like it?

The tail wags the dog too much on this chan.

And /oat/ is for pony AND non pony discussion and has laxer rules. Merging /oat/ and /pony/ makes no sense.

This chan was great when it was new and simple. You had your show discussions here in.. what was it.. /show/ I think... long time ago.. march 2011.... hard to remember.. then you had your socializing in old /oat/ or chat whatever it was. People got along fine and a great time was had. People were creative in their silliness and the entire place revolved around ponies as our common bond.

Then the micromanaging happened with more boards being added everytime someone came up with the idea that they could have their own fiefdom and thread moving was the mods' favorite pastime. It all went downhill from there.

/oat/ /chat/ /gala/ into one board. People can then make their own fun. People that don't want to see other stuff on their screen can just stick in one thread. There, all they see on their screen is their thread about their interest. Others that want to sample a wide range of topics can jump from thread to thread as they wish.

People that are so oversensitive that they can't stand the thought of music or anime or games or ponies on this board when they can easily avoid it by staying in a thread of their choice can just be told the exit is that way. If it means losing some posters to make most posters happy, so be it.

>>159408

we had /ep/ at the same time as /pony/ actually

/ep/ is probably the only good pony related discussion board we've ever had because it was people just talking about the show and their favorite moments and characters instead of trying to analyze every last bit of it like they're reading descartes

Last edited at Tue, Jul 22nd, 2014 11:58

>>159409

Sorry it's been a long time. There were just like. 4-5 boards when I first showed up there. It worked, was easier to mod and people were happier.

Once there started being a board for every single discussion topic it all went to hell.

>>159408
>And /oat/ is for pony AND non pony discussion and has laxer rules. Merging /oat/ and /pony/ makes no sense.
>>159407
>The merging of /oat/ and /pony/ was under the assumption that it would be merging the silly pony and serious pony and not include /oat/s current non-pony use. It basically, there would be one pony talk board, and one non-pony talk board.

>>159411

Doesn't matter if it's all pony or not..it just does not mix. One is show only and the other is social.

Merge the social boards into one. Like themes with like.

>>159412
How does silly pony and serious pony not mix? They're both pony. Imagine if old /oat/ and pony mixed, and then you had /chat/ the way it used to be. That's what I'm suggesting.

>>159413

Because one is show only topics and the other is social topics. Both pony but entirely different themes and purpose.

Merge the social boards and keep the show discussion board. That's the way it used to be.. and it worked!

All the silly, the politics, music, serials, etc were in one place.. there was something for everyone and it was busy and fun.

>>159414
/oat/ was only social because of derails, it wasn't inherently supposed to be social. It is now because it has allowed to be social. But if we had /chat/ as a social board like it used to be, we wouldn't have that problem anymore.

>>159415

The way it used to be we had pony show discussion board and then social board.

Call them pony and oat or show and chat or whatever. All that's needed.. it worked.

>>159416
So basically what you're saying is that we need a social board (/chat/) and a pony board (/pony/). That is exactly what I'm saying. I think we're in agreement and we don't even know it.

>>159417

We disagree on what boards to merge and whether or not there should be a no pony board.

>>159418
So what you want is an all random board that includes both pony and non pony random, and then /pony/, while I want a completely non random board with one totally pony board. Honestly both aren't terrible solutions. I just think that my solution has the least amount of collateral damage and people leaving.

>>159419

Mine is already proven. And the people leaving well.. like I've said before if it bothers them so much then this isn't the place for them. I have no sympathy for them.

The tail should not wag the dog.

Tolerance goes both ways. Their non pony threads are tolerated and they should tolerate pony random threads. It's only fair.

>>159420
>Mine is already proven
How though? When besides now has there ever been a time when there has been an off topic board that allowed both pony and non pony discussions? I would say if anything my way is proven because there's precedence of a totally non pony board and it working.

>>159421

Back when I first came here. Show or pony was strictly show discussion and chat or oat had discussions on pony waifus and other non show pony topics mixed in with the non pony randomness. It worked fine.

If ponies bother someone so much they can go elsewhere. 2 +2 =..

>>159422
Well I wasn't around here way back then, I didn't arrive until July 2011 so I can't comment on that.
I just think we shouldn't have to lose the posters if we don't have to. If we can find a solution that works just as well without losing posters, why not go for that solution?

>>159423

There is a solution. They can be tolerant in return.

Posters being told to gtfo cos they happened to talk about pony stuff on /chat/ is bullying. People that do that shouldn't be catered to, they should be being told to play nice and get along. Catering to their demands is not a solution in any way.

Harrassing people for talking about ponies on a *pony* chan should be an instantly bannable offense.,

>>159424
>There is a solution. They can be tolerant in return.
While that is optimal, that isn't likely to happen. You can't force people to do that.
>Posters being told to gtfo cos they happened to talk about pony stuff on /chat/ is bullying
Considering /chat/ is a non pony board, it makes sense. How is it ridiculous to tell someone to stop talking about ponies on a non pony board? Now I know you're saying that that non pony board shouldn't exist, but why not? Like I said earlier, most sites have an exclusive off topic section, so why should Ponychan be any different? Why should Ponychan's off topic have to include ponies?

>>159425

Can't force them no.. but can show them the door if they refuse to be.

This place was made to be a safe haven from harrassment for liking ponies and get away from your typical 4chan hostilties with a nice sfw atmosphere for everyone. Catering to people who don't like ponies and tell people to gtfo for talking about them goes directly against this so.. why do it? Why can't the non pony people give instead of the rest of the chan.

The fact there's a no pony zone itself is rediculous and people saying gtfo for talking about ponies makes it even more so.

Saying it again, go to an anime chan or such and see what reception you get if you tell people to gtfo for talking about anime in the offtopic board.

Mods should be focusing on getting new pony fans in here rather than worrying about offending the non pony fans.

I have literally never seen anyone get told to gtfo for talking about or posting ponies on /chat/. Hell, there's a drawthread in there right now that's nothing but pony drawings and requests.

>>159427

Awesome!

>bows to the Princess.

>>159427
Sounds like you're making the case pretty well that there's no functional difference between the two and one should be deleted.

>>159429
I didn't say that. /chat/ has a different atmosphere than /oat/. It's slower and calmer, less dramatic.

I mean, Ponychan could definitely use fewer boards. But deleting /chat/ is barking up the wrong tree when there are other boards less active than it.

Can we all agree that the real board that needs to go is /collab/? I mean, honestly, when was the last time we've actually used it?

>>159431
/collab/ does seem super worthless now.

deleting /collab/ or /good/ or whatever isnt really going to do anything noticeable, but i agree on principle that they should go

but again, shit aint gonna happen cause admins

>>159431
>>159432
>>159433
I've used it for my LoE thread. Haven't updated the project in a month though, since I'm busy with other stuff.
I think it serves its purpose as a place to have project threads that won't get buried every other day. It's just that there aren't many projects going on in Ponychan.

Last edited at Tue, Jul 22nd, 2014 15:37

>>159430
Hence my earliest point. >>159364

>>159430
>I didn't say that. /chat/ has a different atmosphere than /oat/. It's slower and calmer, less dramatic.
Slower is obvious. But calmer? Less dramatic? Haha wow, stop pulling off bullshit from nowhere. /chat/ is exactly the same, it's redundant.

>>159430

that's what /chat/ likes to think, anyway. but no, they're basically the same thing to the point where sometimes i forget which one i'm on when i post

Because more people than expected refuse to use /oat/ because. Ignore the fact that a board made for chatting has about two minutes worth of conversation a day~

But really, I kinda expected a merger after most of /chat/ stopped trying to hold out there.

>>159384
It has the capacity, i'd do it in a heartbeat if i had the ability / authority.

>>159398
>>159397
>It's up to me, it's not up to me.
Example: Orange removed a permaban after this extensive discussion about it with the team

[ORANGE]: any objections to letting [USER] back?
[MOD]: Not from me, I support you on it in fact
[ORANGE]: good enough for me, I unbanned him
[ORANGE]: here's the old ban, for posterity: [IMAGE LINK]
[MOD]: it says he has an appeal, so we could just call it that?
[ORANGE]: he made an appeal to empathy. it was super effective.

Two other mods supported it after the fact, while the rest of us were almost unanimous in our objections, if only for the fact it wasn't discussed at all.
Said "appeal to empathy "was not disclosed to the rest of us (Not that we asked for it, to be fair.) and naturally, our objections were met with the standard response of fuck and all.

So we can pretty much do what we want until one of the admins overrides us, does that clarify things?
________________

>Merging /oat/ and /pony/
Wouldnt work because /oat/ only has ponies as a secondary topic at best, in favor of more social topics.
Although /pony/ seemed to enjoy the time it was broadened to include silly threads for a week, the consensus seemed to be that it wasn't wanted 24/7 because of the risk that it would go the way of /oat/'s constant derails.

Personally, i think /oat/ and /chat/ need to be thrown together.
The only two things that make them different are the people who visit either board exclusively, and the fact that one allows ponies and the other doesnt.

>But the atmosphere!
As an outsider who has to judge everything equally, they're pretty damn close and more than similar enough to co-exist.
>But the speed!
PcX involves a feature that will automatically load new threads as you scroll, and /oat/ + /chat/ is, on average, not nearly fast enough to bump off threads completely unless they are abandoned for over 10 hours.
Only downside is slightly more scrolling, not a valid issue.
>But i dont like ponies!
Hide the pony related threads.
>But i dont like looking at pictures of ponies!
Then you should not be here in the sodding first place if you cant stand to see a Technicolor horse frequently.
It's like going to a whorehouse and being surprised about the amount of women that are dressed indecently.
>Delete other boards first!
No, i have a hard on for /chat/'s destruction, it must be the first to die.
In actual fact, the order that boards are pruned should not matter, as they would be dealt with all at once.
I made a thread in /good/ weeks ago asking if people wanted the board to stay and asked people 3 days ago to sell me on it's existence.
The only reply since then is from ember telling me to nix it.
I'll move onto making threads on the other boards if mods suddenly get the power to actually do something, but for now these small baby steps will suffice.

>>159447
Go down fighting, comrade.
You will receive the Order of Lenin for this.

>>159447

You... are awesome mod.

Just sayin..

Man I wish you had ended up running this place..

>>159447
>Wouldnt work because /oat/ only has ponies as a secondary topic at best, in favor of more social topics.
The assumption of merging /oat/ and /pony/ would that it would only be merging the pony aspect of /oat/ and not the off topic aspect. So there would be effectively one completely pony discussion board.
>Although /pony/ seemed to enjoy the time it was broadened to include silly threads for a week, the consensus seemed to be that it wasn't wanted 24/7 because of the risk that it would go the way of /oat/'s constant derails.
That's fair. The one thing I would counter with is that I think that removing /chat/ would lose some posters, while I don't think that merging /oat/ /pony/ wouldn't. Though I'm not 100 percent sure about that.
Though honestly like I said earlier, I think both are good solutions.
>>159449
Also seconding this.

>>159447
>does that clarify things?
It does, thank you.
>>159449
Thirding

>>159449

id say this but as i remember it when fen was in charge he, too, vanished for long periods of time

still cool though

>>159449
Fifthing. Only mod that I see that still has any kind of fire.

>>159398
>>159397
>>159447
I seriously doubt that Orange undeleting /chat/ is the reason /chat/ hasn't been deleted, so posting the Manley "conversation" just seems like stirring up shit, even if it's shit that needs to be stirred up. #BanManley

If we had a mod consensus or a user vote on the matter and brought the results to Inkwell, I'm sure he would do it. The issue is that some of our mods (namely me) won't be part of such a huge decision purely as a mod decision. There are definitely arguments against deleting chat, and even if I don't agree with them I'd rather see it put to a vote or something. Which we could do right here and now if you'd like.

>merging /oat/
I think the idea was to effectively split /oat/ into the pony and non-pony sections and merge those with /pony/ and /chat/. Whether ponies would be able to be posted and posted about on on the new /chat/ part of /oat/ would be part of the discussion if that decision was made. We came close to it earlier this year, right after I was modded, but it never fell through. Personally, I think that's our best bet rather than just deleting /chat/ and dealing with the consequences.

The people who moved to /oat/ from /chat/ have proven they don't really mind what the board is called as long as their friends are there so wouldn't mind returning to /chat/land, the old time /oat/ people who would be upset at /oat/'s destruction would probably be thrilled that the board they're moving to is full-pony, and at this point, /pony/ would just be glad for the activity. The fact that /pony/ didn't really -need- the activity at the moment was a major factor in delaying the decision until summer. Well, it's summer now, and they sure as shootin' need the activity.

>>159453
Fire is overrated.

Let's just ban everyone, and selectively let people in based on an application process, making the site seem like an exclusive club, like a hard-to-get-into nightclub with high-quality patrons and velvet everywhere and 20 dollar drinks and girls in skimpy clothes handing out cigars.

alternatively delete ponychan, delete mlpchan, delete efchan, remake one site with fenolio as community admin and macil as systems admin.

if you don't like either of these ideas you are a nazi and should be banned.

>>159455

Ummm.. isn't the draw of /oat/ it's lax moderation? If you split it up and put it into 2 boards without that lax moderation, what about the people that want that lax atmosphere?

And as for posting ponies... it's a pony chan.. what Fen said just maeks sense, if pics of ponies bother someone so much this really isn't the place for them. Catering to those types is just... rediculous.

>>159458
Well then ponies would be allowed in /choat/ I guess? Again, that's something I would rather leave to the actual discussion. We'd probably want to decide on doing something or not first.

>>159459

But what about the people that want that lax moderation?

Things were better when it was just here's your board for serious show discussion.. here's your board for everything else.. have fun!

>>159460
>fun

This is the future you chose, you could have prevented this, all you had to do was listen, etc etc etc ron_paul.jpg

>>159460
Well /pony/ would be loosened up as well, obviously. It would be a combination of what /oat/ was before it was opened up and /pony/.

>>159462

So there'd be no serious show discussion board? Anytime someone wants to discuss the show the thread would be derailed? I dun think that would go over well.

>>159461

The constant board splitting took all the fun out of it.

>>159463
This is the future you chose, you could have prevented this, all you had to do was listen, etc etc etc ron_paul.jpg

>>159463
I think you're overestimating the change. We did a trial run earlier this year on /pony/ and it worked out peachy.

>>159467

People must ahve behaved then. But I doubt it would stay that way.

It just makes so much more sense tho.. /pony/ show discussion.. merged /oat/ and /chat/ everything else.

But because it makes so much sense it won't happen.

>>159448
>>159449
>>159450
>>159451
>>159453
i-it's not like i want your approval anyway baka's.

>>159450
>The assumption of merging /oat/ and /pony/ would that it would only be merging the pony aspect of /oat/ and not the off topic aspect. So there would be effectively one completely pony discussion board.
So deleting /oat/ and pushing the pony topics to /pony/ and the social topics to /chat/, is what you're saying.
I've thought about that, but it would be a very tricky thing to balance so that the maximum amount of people get what they want out of it.

Not to mention there are more than a few people who tend to blur the hell out of the line between pony / social.
I'm pretty sure i'd be able to decide either way after a few seconds, but not everyone can do that.
A major shakeup like that requires that everyone knows what to do and what has changed.
Otherwise, you end up with the early /gala/ clusterfuck of threads going everywhere and being moved multiple times between boards because it was only vaguely defined before we settled on "All serials go here."

>while I don't think that merging /oat/ /pony/ wouldn't.
/oat/ as it is now, pushed into /pony/? There would be no survivors and my head would be shoved on a pike within the hour.
I'm only semi joking, some of the /pony/ regulars are a bit loco in the coco.

>>159452
That was mostly because all my spare time was spent dicking around with the site settings and seeing how stuff worked before !!Luna stole my admin hat.

>>159455
>Mentioning manley by name after i spent over a minute editing everything to make it completely anonymous apart from orange.
"fdshfsdfxkl"
The ----------------- was meant to seperate the two topics i was talking about, the first half was to clarify the mods and admin position for the anon, while the second half was unrelated and addressing the several posts about the topic.
And there's literally no point in doing any kind of vote on the matter until things can actually be changed.

"Hey, people want to change it! Now we just have to wait for one of the admins to get online and notice something needs doing."
On the other hand, if people dont want to change it, we'd be alright so it's a 50/50 gamble.

>>159467
I'm pretty sure that only worked out fine because we had /oat/ in addition to /pony/.

Which is what i suggest doing again if we end up doing that.
A) Gives users choice.
B) Doesn't upset either community by suddenly dropping a whole bunch of new people into their lives all at once.
C) The slow trickle of new blood would allow the board culture to evolve rather than be overwhelmed or have it's community turn hostile to the new people.
D) Easier to manage.
E) Keeps the board of "Anything goes." for those that want that.

>>159473
Kill them, Fenny.

Kill them all.

>>159473

Dude.. I've known you for ages... feel bad about not keeping in touch. You have always been fair to me and levelheaded and practical in general. Best mod.

You deserve your kudos.

You also like my art.. so bonus points!

>>159473
Sorry, I completely missed the Manley censorship. Muh bad.

The pre-line stuff seemed to suggest that if the mods got together and decided something, that the change still couldn't be implemented. Which isn't strictly true, since Inkwell would be happy to do something like that when he stops being busy for a few minutes.

>And there's literally no point in doing any kind of vote on the matter until things can actually be changed.
But that's what I'm saying. It's not like things can't be changed. If it's important enough, Inkwell will do it. I think something like this qualifies as important enough.

>Which is what i suggest doing again if we end up doing that.
Which is to say that /chat/ would allow pony topics, but they would be suggested to be made in /pony/, right? I think we might be arguing the same thing.

when was the last time inkwell actually did a thing. or even showed up? just curious

>>159456
I've said for a long time that the technical and community admin roles should be split. It divides the work up, and there's not necessarily any relationship between technical ability and skill in moderation and running a community (indeed, if there's any correlation it's probably negative). It would probably mean better decisions and less burnout, and things might have been different.

Unfortunately while the need for someone trusted to maintain the site is obvious, the need for a community admin is less so, and there's never been any decisiveness about it. Fen's appointment put someone in touch with the community in charge, but he was replaced in favour of someone technical again rather than remaining in that role.

>>159478
A lot of us have said that for a long time. My post there was tongue in cheek, but not entirely so. There's a reason it was adopted elsewhere, and was proposed in merger talks. Then again, it would be more fun to watch everything slowly burn, ne? And a lot less work, too!

>>159455
>If we had a mod consensus or a user vote on the matter

there have been multiple votes and discussions on the matter, the most that has ever come of it was opening up /oat/ to all subjects and leading to the retarded situation we have now

>>159479
Indeed. At least at one point, there was the attitude that collective decisions were best, but while everyone having input is important, lack of a unifying vision leads to a mess.

>>159474
Not yet, the meatsacks are occasionally useful.

>>159475
Stahp praising me, it feels weird.

>>159476
Pre line stuff was actually saying that mods can do stuff, but then an admin can just override it.
It's not a matter of can or can't do stuff, it's a matter of the very few things we're actually capable of being overridden and we can't do shit aside from complain to the other admin about it.

Which i did, and then absolutely nothing happened.
No orange saying sorry or explaining his reasons, no inkwell explaining what happened or his reasons for agreeing with orange or anything at all for that matter.

And let's not forget how long it took to get a "okay do it" from either of our two admins with the sexual thread policy change.
Over a month to just look at and agree to a simple proposal is absofuckinglutely ridiculous.

Dont get me wrong, i hope he would do it, i just dont expect it or make any detailed plans for that eventuality.

>I think we might be arguing the same thing.

Keep /oat/ as it is.
Open /pony/ to the silly pony topics like we did that one week.
/chat/ would be assimilated by /oat/.

That's what my argument is, as i consider it the most efficient setup that also has the most easily managed downsides.

>>159482
>Keep /oat/ as it is.
>Open /pony/ to the silly pony topics like we did that one week.
>/chat/ would be assimilated by /oat/.
I, as OP, completely agree

>>159482

Take iiiiiiiiit!


There's just one problem with this site.. and we know who it is.

Good luck with it all FenFen!

>>159482
Seriously, man. I There's no harm in taking a vote. We know where Inkwell lives.

>Keep /oat/ as it is.
>Open /pony/ to the silly pony topics like we did that one week.
>/chat/ would be assimilated by /oat/.
So yeah, totally the exact same thing. I took it from the angle that /oat/ would be "deleted" instead of /chat/ in the merge, but it is entirely semantics.

Those semantics would probably push people who prefer posting pure pone to /pony/ and allow /chat/ to at least be able to spam /chat/land will rise again, but overall it's a minor point.

>>159482
(>>159483)
(>>159485)
>Keep /oat/ as it is.
>Open /pony/ to the silly pony topics like we did that one week.
>/chat/ would be assimilated by /oat/.
one serious, one silly board
but I'm using neither so whatever

Last edited at Wed, Jul 23rd, 2014 17:33

>>159473
>/oat/ as it is now, pushed into /pony/?
No not as it is now of course not. Basically, merge old /oat/ with /pony/ with mod control on which threads can be derailed or not. Serious threads are monitored to make sure they aren't derails, silly threads are left be. Though admittedly I can see how that would be hard to constantly manage.
>>159482
>Keep /oat/ as it is.
>Open /pony/ to the silly pony topics like we did that one week.
>/chat/ would be assimilated by /oat/.
One problem I see with that is that there are two thread that again, serve similar purposes. One is only pony and slightly more serious than the other, while the other is pony that's slightly more silly than the other, but also allows nonpony threads. I think it would be better to just do this
>>159486

>>159485
Hey, you!

i know how it can feel, so...
I appreciate your work here just as much as Fen's.
Keep up the good work

>>159488
Thanks, but I get plenty of praise in other threads. I figure I'll let the lazy bastard have this one. I'm pretty self validating anyways.

>>159486
>>159487
Please actually check the boards before you guys start throwing off assumptions and making stereotypes from what other users think is true. Have you checked both boards within the last 10 minutes? They have as much seriousness as they do shitposting.

>>159490
On /pony/? Compared to /oat/? Not even close. Though /oat/ has had a lot less shitposting recently, which is good.

>>159490
I'm talking about what the boards are meant to be. If the users decide to screw around then let them.
(as soon as I hit reply and stood up, I knew this will be taken in all the wrong ways)

Last edited at Wed, Jul 23rd, 2014 18:17

>>159484
>
♥

>>159485
Except there is harm, in that it would be yet another example of our incompetence if people vote to change it and jack-shit happens because both of our admins are so busy.
Status quo is shit, but doing anything right now that requires admins has a greater chance of causing harm than it does benefits.

I have experienced several scenarios almost exactly like this several times, please just trust me on this.

And yes, those semantics were what i was going for.

Although a toggle to flip the board names between /oat/ and /chat/ would probably a few problems, perhaps with a setting that applies "pony thread" or "social thread" to the OP upon thread creation (Defaults to pony thread for the lazy.), and choosing /chat/ automatically hides every pony thread.

>>159487
The idea sounds do-able, but would be an absolute bitch to manage and would be a bit annoying for users.
We'd essentially be standing over them 24/7 and hitting them with sticks if they step out of line.

>>159486
>>159487
I initially suggested opening /pony/ to the silly because those threads almost always get derailed in /oat/ and because the /pony/ people dont go to /oat/ because of the derails.
We tried it for a week, and the results were positive.
With my idea, it's the best of both worlds.
People get to have their silly-pone threads in /pony/, and people get to have their social-pone in /oat/ as well as the silly-pone threads if they want.
Yes the board is technically redundant, but instead of the situation with /oat/ right now where it's just "/chat/ with ponies", it would be broadening the range of /pony/'s current topics, while still keeping the spirit of the board intact.
At least, in theory.

>>159489
>Lazy bastard
While normally true, i've had roughly 15 hours sleep over three day's because I've been so busy, hence why you've probably noticed that i give a lot less of a shit than usual.
I also cant take my sleep meds tonight because i have the dentist tomorrow and i'd end sleeping right through the appointment, so expect me to be even more cranky tomorrow.

>>159491
I thought you meant /chat/, not /pony/. Oh well.

>>159492
What they're meant to be and what they are are two different things. And please point to me where exactly does it say /chat/ must be more serious than /oat/. Because they're not. They're the same damn thing, they always were the same thing, and they always will be.

Last edited at Wed, Jul 23rd, 2014 18:18

>>159494
>And please point to me where exactly does it say /chat/ must be more serious than /oat/. Because they're not. They're the same damn thing
Uhm.. yes? I never said anything against that.
/dis/ is srs, not /chat/

>>159495
What? Now you're just confusing me.

>>159496
/chat/ doesn't have to be serious.

>>159493
>The idea sounds do-able, but would be an absolute bitch to manage and would be a bit annoying for users.
Yeah I can totally see that. From my totally not informed mod perspective, I do think it sounds a lot more difficult than it actually would be. Not every thread is going to be derailed and I think that with the /pony/ population, threads meant to be serious will remain more in line. At least I would hope. I'm not exactly an expert on /pony/, I only went there for about a month or two when the season was still airing.
>second thing
It sounds reasonable and all, but one of the knocks on Ponychan has been it's disorganization with boards. I mean I think the idea would go fine, but I would rather Ponychan be more organized. Organization is attractive to new posters.

So it's still happening?

>>159647

i dont think it was ever going to happen to begin with

>>159467
IIRC, it received mixed feedback, much of it having to do with a certain pink mod deciding to leave the fetish threads up and asking people not to let them get too fetishy.

PLEASE DON'T DELETE CHAT FOR PONYCHAN'S SAKE, IT WILL BE LIKE /ef/!!

>>159725
No, no it wouldn't be. /ef/ had a unique purpose and more than 4 people that actually wanted to post there.

I still think /chat/ should be given loosened rules on civility.

>>159733
Under a normal site or site culture that might be an acceptable outcome. It can't and doesn't work here because immediately the site is broken into two distinct camps; edgy, tryhard internet coolguys pushing the envelope and being assholes because now they can, and butthurt, whiny babbies who get perma-assdamage over them and then there's neverending conflict between the two. You can't do it on a site whose population is dominated demographically by children, manchildren, and people with zero social skills or abilities. It's why /ef/ devolved into what it did (as was warned by many), and why it still is the way it is.

>>159733
I think /chat/ should be given loosened rules on pony content. Make it and /oat/ even more similar.

>>159742
As far as I'm concerned, /ef/ only truly went to shit when it went off-site. Now the board's just a joke.

>>159765
Funny, most people think the same thing about you.

>>159766
Fuck off, #MeinForMod2014.

>>159766

apocalyptic ownage

>>159766
ow

>>159482
>>159485
>>159483
So, the opening of /pony/ won't be an excuse to send all pony content from the reformed /chat/+/oat/ away? I always thought that was the main plan.
Hmmm

I've always said that if people can convince /pony/ that this can work, it could be done.
i dunno, though, I did get the impression that /pony/ even after that silly week had its posters harshly voting against allowing silly topics.
And that doesn't even directly include oits reaction on fanon being allowed at large there.

>>159435
I have to ad on this, I do think that boards like /art/ or /fic/ or /collab/ shouldn't be removed because they're slow.
They're actually built around a certain functionality that can benefit from being slow.

Last edited at Sat, Aug 2nd, 2014 01:24

What we SHOULD do is restrict /oat/ to pony content and move all non-pony random to /chat/.

Then, if /oat/ dies, combine it with /pony/ like it was back in the early days.

>>159771

Well /oat/ was already dead previously, so that would also actually be the same thing as what other people said.

>>159771
Question. Would pony be allowed on /chat/ in your plan? I mean, it is a pony website, after all.

/oat/ has proven over and over that it cant survive entirely based on the premise of "ponies, except silly". it needs to branch out to get users. so that is basically not an option

if you wanna do anything, its either combine /oat/ with /pony/ or delete /chat/. one or the other

>>159774
You can make a case saying that a lot of the boards here can't survive on their current premises and would need to expand. If /oat/ pre-change would be considered "in need of change" then almost all of the boards are in the same boat.

Outside of the /croop/ guys. They're doing pretty swell, really.

>>159775

The problem with that line of thinking is that the current state of the boards is less related to the board's arrangement and more related to everything else ponychan has done in the past and how many people have split away from it.

Even during busier times though, /oat/ for silly ponies was a broken concept that died every time mods decided to try and clean up rp, off topic discussion, derails, and whatever else

>>159776
Fair point, agreed.

>>159771
>Imfuckingplying that boat hasn't sailed a long time ago.
The shitstorm would be cataclysmic, /oat/ is pretty much untouchable right now unless a majority starts wanting a change.

>>159774
>if you wanna do anything, its either combine /oat/ with /pony/ or delete /chat/. one or the other
I still say that just opening /pony/ to the pony related content of /oat/ would be the best idea.
People who want to talk about ponies would migrate until only the people who want to socialize stayed on /oat/ (For the most part) which would then enable a mostly painless merge with /chat/ so we'd have one "Talk about whatever the fuck you want." board.


>>159776
To be fair, most of the mods attempts to make /oat/ more pony were either sabotaged, we did the wrong thing or we did (What i think was) the right thing but didnt stick to it.
It was completely possible to make it fully pone, that's what makes it such a personal sore point for me since it's an almost constant reminder of how much i fucked up.

>>159778
Not only that but /oat/ is such an iconic name on this site. And the name itself holds such a high regard in the communities outside us that a deletion of that name would probably make those damages unrepairable. If you asked someone outside this site if they recall the names of any board here, they would likely mention /oat/ first, even though /oat/ isn't the most populated board here. Back in the heyday when the site was highly relevant towards the fandom, this wouldn't be a problem, but our lack of relevance nowadays no longer provides us the opportunity to change iconic board names on a whim. Doing so might be detrimental to the site's future, or whatever's left of it.

>>159779
>the name itself holds such a high regard in the communities outside us
>/oat/
>highly regarded in outside communities
I.. I can't... Wat

>>159780
I meant high regard relative to the rest of the imageboard. If there's any lack of relevance with this place towards the fandom nowadays, that is an inherent problem with the site as a whole.

>>159781
Even then, man. /pony/ and /chat/ largely hate /oat/.

And other than /pony/, /oat/ and /chat/, the rest of the site is either highly narrowly defined, specific purposes or dead.

>>159782
My point is, that if we ever merged /oat/ and /chat/ together, it would probably be best if that merged board took /oat/'s name rather than /chat/ because the name holds a greater appeal. I'm well aware of the problems outside the two, but that's not the topic of this thread.

>>159782
>/pony/ and /chat/ largely hate /oat/
Are we back in 2012 or something? /chat/ doesn't have a large enough userbase to hate anything, and /pony/ just kind of keeps to itself. Hell a lot of the /pony/ posters also post on /oat/, at least that's what I've been noticing recently.
>>159783
Yeah I agree with this. /oat/ has more name recognition (which isn't a lot, but we'll take what we can get) than /chat/. I really do think the solution is making one all pony board, and one non pony board. Second step would be to delete all of the other useless boards.

>>159784
If one was to make one non-pony board, wouldn't you name it /chat/, name recognition be damned?

>>159785
Not really. The bulletin board solution would be "ot" or "off-topic", and the imageboard solution would be "/b/".

/oat/, at least in reference to the show, is the definition of random!

>>159784
I disagree on this because not of my ban protest thread could be removed, but also we wouldn't discuss our problems.

>>159791
My ban protest thread is here:
>>40976044

>>159785
I don't really think it matters that much what you name it, but I think keeping the /oat/ name would help ponychan for some name recognition. But I think naming it /chat/ wouldn't be the end of the world either.
>>159791
wut

>>159805

Stop bringing this shit into threads that have nothing to do with it!

>>159806

Just ignore them. It's just an anon that can't seem to let go of a stupid ban they had from a totally different image board.

Last edited at Sun, Aug 3rd, 2014 12:28

On that note why does /dis/ still exist? Because of another thread I checked out the board and half of the front page threads haven't had a post in over a month, and the only post within the past couple days is a thread with no replies from a few hours ago.

It doesn't serve a function other than a kill board, so I was wondering if we can get rid of the idea that we have a functional board dedicated to mature discussion. While there would probably be more dumb responses the threads would most likely get more decent responses elsewhere, and of course the OP can request that it stay somewhat serious and people who continuously refuse to go with that... well we have mods to stop people from jumping in to screw up a thread.

>>160035
The threads mods would move to /dis/ would be those of questionable nature that do provide a soiurce for discussion, as an alternative to /nope/ing them.
On retrospect, just /nope/ing them could be better right now.

>>160043
Just /nope/ing them is what you're doing, and unless manually locked don't many of those kill boards last for a short time anyway?

So is /dis/ just a board where you can say you're not deleting threads while still killing them? In that case we can nuke the board and be honest about what's happening to the thread. They're not being moved to a place where it can be seriously discussed, it's dragging whoever's currently in it to drop a few more posts before it dies.

>>160045
Technically, /dis/ allows people to discuss a subject in proper setting.
It allows people with the desire to discuss a subject to discuss it. And there's nothing stopping people from taking up the subject and talking about it on /dis/
People interested in the subject get linked to /dis/ upon move.
And /dis/ allows the discussion to continue, which doesn't work on deletion board.

>>160067
No, it doesn't. There is no proper setting to a kill board. It's a quarantine zone. In theory it could, but it doesn't. That's what matter. It's intended to be what you say, but please, look over the board. Can you really tell me that it's serving more of a purpose than a kill board?

>>160072
The entire point of it is that people can post in it if they want to continue the sex-discussion-that-totally-isnt-just-an-excuse-to-talk-lewd.
Only those threads that have the potential of being discussion worthy get sent to /dis/ to at least give them a chance.
People abused the mods lax view on things, so shit got tightened up.
An argument was made for people that wanted to seriously talk about sex as mature adults, so the option was provided instead of taking a fuck everything approach.


This solution is literally wins all around unless you want to use the excuse of "But i dont want to talk lewd, i want to seriously discuss sex as an adult." to post softcore porn / ERP with an audience at which point i stop giving a shit about your(Not you specifically, just the imaginary 'you' in this scenario) opinion.

merge /chat/ and /oat/

>>160109
update never