>>161119
>/pony/ doesn't want crazy.

I won't comment on all the other stuff flying around right now, but I would like to remind everyone that we tested out a week of crazy being allowed in /pony/ and even though it was entirely allowed, nothing actually came out of it. There was so little desire for that kind of content that it continued to not exist, just like it does/did on /oat/.

>>161133
Which doesn't disprove my statements.

>>161134

Oh, sorry. My point was that no one on /pony/ actually minded and the end consensus was that everyone was totally okay with opening it up, but also didn't really see the point if it wouldn't bring in new threads anyway.

>>161135
Mmm. Thing is, I'm not sure if that'd be the result should they merge /oat/ with /pony/ and crazy threads actually ARE made.

I mean, if it won't hurt anyone, then let's merge /oat/ and /pony/ for all pony content and have /chat/ for off topic again.

>>161135
I remember differently. I was personally fine with opening up the bord at the time, but there were definitely more than a few votes against it.

But in hindsight, maybe those were just from /gala/ posters that didn't even really use the board to begin with. It was during the month that they decided to come back just to circlejerk and talk about how they miss the old days in every thread.

>>161142
>maybe those were just from /gala/ posters that didn't even really use the board to begin with

Considering how many threads have been made on /meta/ about merging/deleting/doing something with a board by people who have never even posted on said board before, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

>>161142
>>161143

Okay, there were some dissidents, definitely, but the overall vote was either okay with it or neutral. Initially there was a lot of opposition because, like me, people wanted /pony/ to be a super serious place where only serious stuff happened. Then we opened it up and the result was basically nothing so opinions got...less enthusiastic. And to this point, personally at least, I am only opposed to this opening on the grounds that it isn't likely to change anything at all.

And like you said, those nays may have been from people who only showed up to argue in the first place. We really do have too much of that on the site.

"/meta/ posters", I swear...

>>161133
There were about 5-6 threads (That went past ten posts) that would have otherwise been moved to /oat/ during that time.

It didnt disrupt normal proceedings, and it gave a place for topics that were, are and will likely continue to be getting strangled out by the random chatter on /oat/.

We'd have to try it for a longer period of time to gauge the long term effects, but the short term was a resounding success.

>>161152

>5-6 threads

I dunno, that's less than a thread a day, I think my initial comment stands. There wasn't much to go around.

Do you feel like pony threads are getting strangled on /oat/, though? I feel like they usually float near the top until they die out naturally. Might be interesting to see how it played out in a long term sense, though, for sure. On a slower board they'd obviously be visible for longer, so maybe more people would bump them up. Might actually infuse some extra bait conversation into the more serious threads, too, in theory.

Really, the most important part still is that it didn't really disrupt anything, so the worst case scenario is nothing happens. Neutrality isn't really a downside, so there's basically nothing to lose with further attempts.

>>161153
The threads themselves are usually top until they die, but they are usually filled with chatter aside from the initial pone and the occasional spurt of somebody new joining the thread via the OP.

And yes, that's one of my theories.
The most thoughtful topics tend to come from the stupidest sources.

And i agree on your most important part, hence why i called the lack of any huge reaction a resounding success.

>>161127
Some of this was addressed, but I'll address it myself anyway.

Orange is not currently an admin, he's just a site Dev, and there are plans for a rework to the staff structure right now, it's an ongoing discussion that inkwell posted about in /meta/.

The most any moderator can do to take it into their own hands would be to come up with some kind of plan that helps Inkwell with the running of the site on a day to day basis while still allowing him to be around for any major decisions since he is the site owner.

>let alone help run this site solo
Anyone running this site solo would be stupid, the best system IMO that leaves Inkwell where he is would be two admins underneath him to run the site day to day and help with any major decisions so all they have to do is get inkwell for a night and go "We want to ____" and he can give the yes/no/discussion of why to make it happen or not happen.

>>161160
The best system that you can imagine involves keeping Inkwell as admin?

>>161161
No, but it's a lot less work, and more likely to succeed when you convince someone to do something that overall makes their lives easier.

I don't really feel like there's a good chance that someone could convince inkwell to hand the entire site over to someone else.

>>161162
I'm pretty sure the only people capable of doing that are you guys. I mean, the guy doesn't post, so the only thing that is probably keeping him from being apathetic enough to hand it to any one of you is you guys putting up with this shit. Unless he just likes to feel important and has an unhealthy abundance of cash, in which case we are all fucked.

>>161163
I actually think he does have an unhealthy abundance of cash, I have no idea about the first one.

>>161119
Ember... that just isn't true. i only joined the voices for that after it had become quite a movement.

i admit i was the most visible figure for the movement, but let's not forget we put it to not one, but two separate polls where opening /oat/ took a strong majority over any of the other decisions, including an /oat/chat/ merger and the status quo.

i was not at all the only person who wanted it opened up, Ember.

Last edited at Sun, Sep 7th, 2014 18:48

>>161163
Inkwell is just a shell corporation that Zamoonda set up

>>161168

zamoonda would actually do things

>>161159
>And i agree on your most important part, hence why i called the lack of any huge reaction a resounding success.

I suppose I can see how that could be considered a success, yeah. I guess as one of the early decriers, I expected a huge reaction and thought that's really what people were going for, so from my side there was no huge reaction and that meant it failed, but because there was no huge reaction it also meant I was okay with it. Looking back on it now, though, a huge reaction would've pissed off me and anyone like me, so that's really what failure would've been. I think I was still upset about some more subtle pushes towards that sort of thing involving threads I can't quite remember now, so I was expecting something much different, like it was just open season for trolls and the whole board would move in the opposite direction of what anyone would've wanted.

>>161165
No, but you were a mod and pushed harder than anyone else.

>>161111
No, I see you've been trying to bring a good attitude, but others haven't been reacting in kind. You're not causing any problems. :)

>>161113
>But I would ask how you expect that to happen.
As I said, "we need to focus on changing ourselves first". It needs to be a change in the posters more than in the chan organization itself. If just a few posters put effort into changing the attitude of the place and post things that are creative and upbeat, then there could actually be a big change in this place.

>>161119
>>161165
>>161190
No, the members of /oat/ were getting very annoyed with the fact that the mods were moving their random threads, particularly when there was a fuzzy line as to whether it was pony related or not, and so the board itself pushed for the opening of /oat/. Moony just stood with the majority. Agreeing and allowing isn't pushing for something.


And all of this is besides the point...

---------------------------------

Why on earth did this become a "blame the mods for everything" fest? The mods are a minority group of people who's responsibilities include making sure there is no material against the rules of the board, and resolving out of control issues. They are a tiny group of volunteers who are trying to help out.

The mods are not the people who post porn. They don't make bad threads on your favorite boards. They aren't the ones who have a bad attitude about everything and begin creating conflicts wherever they go. We are. And they just so happen to end up in those places because that's their job, to try and fix it, even if the users involved are too stubborn or prideful to attempt to fix their behavior. And when the problem isn't resolved, everyone blames the mods. Stop blaming the mods and start taking responsibility for yourself!

Most of the problems on this chan are because of us not because of the mods. We need to change, and if we're not willing or able to see and admit that we have something we need to improve on or bad habits that we need to break, then we will never get this chan to be the way we want it to be and we will never have a good time here.

Seriously. The only thing that any of us can change is ourselves. How about we focus on doing that first, then we can worry about other things.

>>161191
>No, the members of /oat/ were getting very annoyed with the fact that the mods were moving their random threads, particularly when there was a fuzzy line as to whether it was pony related or not, and so the board itself pushed for the opening of /oat/. Moony just stood with the majority. Agreeing and allowing isn't pushing for something.

> there was a fuzzy line as to whether it was pony related or not

> Moony just stood with the majority.

Okay, two things.

1.
Pony related is any topic that involves My little pony: Friendship is magic, the previous generations of MLP and also filly funtasia because a couple guys asked for that.
This does not include "Posting pony pictures while chatting amongst yourselves."
If it was something like a "Vinyl thread", then such a derail would have been tolerated as long as people kept posting vinyl.
Please tell me where on earth this fuzzy line is, because it seems pretty clear cut to me.


2.
He was literally making threads for the sole purpose of chatting in them, despite the mods otherwise unanimously saying not to do that on /oat/ and despite at least one instance of him explicitly being asked not to do that.
If that's not pushing for a change, i need a new dictionary.

I'd comment on the rest, but as one of the aforementioned mods, i think it'd be inappropriate.

>>161195
>it seems pretty clear cut to me.
That was one of the issues. Everyone had a different perspective of where that line was. Your's is different than what some others thought, and when inconsistency was seen, people would complain, flames would start, etc. Not that there wasn't a clear established set of rules, but that there was more than one interpretation of them that was nearly undefinable in any clear cut way without arguments.

>He was literally making threads for the sole purpose of chatting in them, despite the mods otherwise unanimously saying not to do that on /oat/
So wait, the rules of /oat/ got even more strict since I left in April of 2012? Like, you couldn't even post a thread just for chatting? Wow. I see why it changed now.

>I'd comment on the rest, but as one of the aforementioned mods, i think it'd be inappropriate.
You mean bring up the fact that there were in fact bad mods? Yeah, there were, but for the purpose of what I was talking about, it wasn't generally the mods fault that things got out of hand on the chan.

>>161196
>Not that there wasn't a clear established set of rules, but that there was more than one interpretation of them that was nearly undefinable in any clear cut way without arguments.
Alternatively, people ignored the clear cut distinction of "pony related" in favor of arguing semantics, most likely because at least one mod at the time was allowing that by making threads that other mods had explicitly said were against the rules and thus giving the impression that those threads were okay since that mod was doing it.

>So wait, the rules of /oat/ got even more strict since I left in April of 2012?
....Why are you commenting on the things that went down as if you were there, when you dont know one of the core problems.
Are we talking about two different time periods here?

>You mean bring up the fact that there were in fact bad mods?
I mean, in general, bias and all that.

I mean, i could say mods fucked up, and that'd be true.
And i could say that users fucked up, which would also be the truth.
However, by being on the mod side of the fence, my perception of things is heavily skewed in favor of my own position, which makes it inappropriate for me to comment.

I can explain my reasoning around specific events, but i cant really comment on generalities because of any unintentional bias on my part.

I.E: I think i'm doing a decent job considering all you dingbats hardly just do as you're told without kicking and screaming the whole way down.

>>161199
>Alternatively, people ignored the clear cut distinction of "pony related" in favor of arguing semantics...
As I said, there might have been rules, but no one agreed on what they meant. That's always a problem.

>Are we talking about two different time periods here?
I left in April 2012, but kept track of the chan in the two years following until I returned, just to see what was going on, what rule/board changes were being made, who as doing what etc. I might have missed a few details, but the general idea was pretty easy to see.

>However, by being on the mod side of the fence, my perception of things is heavily skewed in favor of my own position
Well whatever position you're on, it's good to have an idea of what things look like from the other side. I was just trying to let people know that they can't just go thinking that it's only the people who aren't themselves that are wrong. I'm kinda tired of all the finger-pointing. It gets us nowhere and isn't productive in any way.

But yeah, I see your points.

Last edited at Mon, Sep 8th, 2014 08:42

>>161202
>That's always a problem.
Fair enough, although i once again attest that i see no problem (And have heard none) with the rule itself, just the users ignoring it and the mod that enabled that.

>I might have missed a few details, but the general idea was pretty easy to see.
Obviously not if you missed the fact that chatter threads weren't allowed on /oat/ and were primarily the threads that got moved during that time period, with the occasional roleplay thread going to /rp/ if it was following an established canon rather than being spontaneous.

>I'm kinda tired of all the finger-pointing.
Objection, etc.

>>161206
>just the users ignoring it and the mod that enabled that.
Well, can't really argue with the fact that that did indeed happen, but I wouldn't say that the mod that posted with the users was "pushing". The users pushed more than anyone else, and while they probably justified themselves by using the mod as an example, that doesn't make it the mod's fault. While you could say it did, I still say that the users were the one's using that as an excuse.

And either way, I wasn't on any "side" because neither side wanted anything cooperative. They just wanted their way and pushed for it.

>if you missed the fact that
I didn't miss those facts, for sure. If by chat thread you mean something that had zero-to-nothing to do with ponies, then yeah, I didn't miss anything. But if by chat thread you mean something that started pony related or was partially related to ponies that just became a general chat, then I missed some things.

>Objection, etc.
le gasp!

Last edited at Mon, Sep 8th, 2014 09:06

>>161208
The users pushed at the rules because, as has often been the case with boards, they didn't see /oat/ as a place to post pony-related threads as part of Ponychan, but as a community in of itself, and wanted to chat with their friends in that community. /oat/ posters didn't want to do their off-topic chatting in /chat/ because their friends weren't necessarily there. The administration's official position is usually that boards are divided up by topic, not community, and hence the conflict. This is why everything to do with board identities and content is so fraught.

>>161210
That is a very good way to put it. Hence /gala/ came into being to attempt to organize that need.

>>161206
That's not at all fair, Fenolio. The fact of the matter was, "pony-related" was not at all defined.

And some ponies who got a "Yes, that's pony related" from some mods were banned, and others who got a "no, that's not pony related" could still pass.

"pony-related" was all up to a mod's interpretation, and there was a huge amount of bias against certain ponies, and not against others.

The definition was never written down in any way, except the record player repetition of "pony related is related to ponies."

This ambiguity is literally what lead to the creation of mlpchan and the splitting of literally half of our user base. Opening /oat/ cured that ambiguity... and that's been really important for this site.

>>161191
Well that's admirable, but again, how? You can't just force people to change. A lot of posters don't want the attitude of /oat/ to change at all, many don't even think it should. Change can only happen if you want it to.
>If just a few posters put effort into changing the attitude of the place and post things that are creative and upbeat, then there could actually be a big change in this place.
Define a few. 2 or 3? /oat/ has like 60 or 70 posters, good luck doing anything. 9 or 10? Yeah I can see that happening. I feel like at least I've been trying to do my part. I think unlikeable pony has especially done a good job of creating pony related topics. I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom here, I just feel like /oat/ isn't united enough for this to really work. Not that I would discourage people from trying to be nice and have pony related discussions far from that.
>>161199
>Alternatively, people ignored the clear cut distinction of "pony related" in favor of arguing semantics, most likely because at least one mod at the time was allowing that by making threads that other mods had explicitly said were against the rules and thus giving the impression that those threads were okay since that mod was doing it.
I'm not really in on this discussion, but I will say that a major reason the rules were such an issue back then is because people actively tried any way to get around them by arguing semantics and technicalities. That and the fact that the mods weren't consistent in their enforcement, though I think it was a bit ridiculous that people thought that the mods would be perfect. So when people would get banned for these things, even if they broke the rules, they would call nazi mods. I should know, I was one of those people.

>>161208
>>161210
This is just what i mean. The users push against the rules because the rules are so poorly defined, and so unnecessarily restrictive.

What good, exactly, does it do us to ban people who don't fit -exactly- into a vague definition of "pony related?"

It extends a mod's control, sure. But it scares users away. Ponychan is a community, not a country! And the staff are supposed to be the janitors, and not the judiciary.

What we did was abolished fun, and banned innocent posters for not wanting to adhere to strict rules; the strict rules of which literally resulted in more hemorrhage of posters than anything else in our site's history.

the audacity that you have to pin that on "one moderator" makes me rather flustered.

Last edited at Mon, Sep 8th, 2014 10:20

>>161206
And for Celestia's sake, if you couldn't hear the complaints of users concerning the ambiguous "pony-related only" policy, you must not have been paying much attention.

I don't understand how this argument has anything to do with the thread topic. It looks like a lot of old grudges, to me. The whole pony-related vs. not pony-related bit seems entirely irrelevant at this point, and going forward.

it is, and you are right, Admiral. but, if i don't speak up for myself, ponies start to actually believe what Fenolio is saying.

i won't speak up on these topics if they aren't constantly brought up while i'm not looking.

>sigh

i think i will apologize for getting a little feisty in this thread. ...sorry. i'll try to sit myself out of this one, and just stick to the OP as the conversation continues.

it's not really fair for me to be flustered in this way over something small when there are real issues that do need solving. it is better for me to work towards the solution, than be a roadblock.

>>161219
What's wrong with agreeing with Fenolio? His ideas and opinions are much more realistic and correct than the others in this thread.

EDIT:
>i won't speak up on these topics if they aren't constantly brought up while i'm not looking.
So what makes you the Czar of What Gets Discussed On Ponychan? No offense, but that line there screams entitlement.

Last edited at Mon, Sep 8th, 2014 11:47

>>161225
sorry, i mean things specifically involving me. like, referencing my name, you know?

i know, you have often asked for moderation concerning what you feel is besmirching of your own name. i've been overreacting, i admit that. But still, i hope you of all ponies might understand why i felt that way.

As for Fenolio's ideas, i have no comment. He's a smart pony, but i don't personally agree with his ideas, though i can see the merit of them.

>>161226
That makes more sense. Still, you have to own up. You did, as a mod, push for opening /oat/ up to non-topic discussion. You can't really sugarcoat that.

>>161228
i didn't mean to sugarcoat that. As a moderator, i was certainly pro-opening /oat/, and i believe that's well known. i take responsibility for a lot of drama that happened in that discussion.

This having been said, the threads i made at the time which did get moved were not politically motivated. i will admit though, that the moving of those threads did help me to become more and more pro-opening.

i was not the only mod for it though, and a supermajority of users ultimately decided it was for the best.

if you have more questions Ember, i would be happy to answer them in private. not to save face; you're welcome to post our conversation later... but simply because i did say i would stop talking about this stuff in this thread, and it is not fair to the thread, or to Fenolio, for me to continue in this way.

>>161212
>and there was a huge amount of bias against certain ponies, and not against others.

I have to ask here if when you say "ponies" you're referring to people or if you're referring to whether certain ponies from the show were allowed as topics.

>>161216

It's way off-topic, but it naturally segued and the original topic was completely shot down as anything important or meaningful. This isn't an uncommon occurrence.

The fact that it's about old grudges and personal problems rather than actual site direction could be seen as an issue, though. We're arguing semantics from the past instead of finding a path for the future, which is the only important thing here. I get that Moony thinks he's been besmirched and he's got a right to defend himself when that happens, but ultimately I don't think this discussion serves much purpose.

>>161239
i meant certain posters, sorry

and... yes. this discussion really doesn't help.

>>161216
>>161239
>t's way off-topic
In one way yes, and in another no. This thread is about how the community needs to learn to get along and making a plan to be able to bring that about. This discussion is bringing up the major incident that caused most of the issues, and it's bringing up other issues that need resolved.

Sure they're old wounds, but there is plenty we can learn from them.

>>161221
It's no problem Moony. I understand. Misunderstandings and bias occur all the time. We just have to be patient and try to see the truth for what it is. It's hard, requires that we set our own biases aside for a moment. I technically don't agree with Fenolio's perspective on the matter either, but he does bring up some interesting points and has presented some valid points regarding what happened, and will happen if we're not careful.

I guess if I had to summarize this post, it would be, Forgive, but don't forget, for if we forget history we're bound to repeat it.

I just want us all to get along and leave the past in the past without neglecting to learn from it.

We need to be considerate of the opinions and perspectives of others and seek to help everyone see a good solution to the issues at hand. And from what I've seen, the only thing that will get us through this is if each of us takes responsibility for our own actions, stops holding grudges against others, and tries to have a good friendly time. It's simple. Difficult, yes, but simple.

>>161251
thank you piercing. this is a very reasonable post. i see the merits in Fenolio's posts, too... i really do. i hope that whatever happens, we can all work together to do what is best for our family

Basically, as for infighting how to resolve it is imho much akin to how it's already handled in the world at large. Punish both parties who do wrong, and be twice as hard on instigators. This discourages people from starting shit and proportionally discourages retaliation as well. This is the only thing that's ever seem to work, as if you punish both parties equally, you end up with people trolling just for giggles or doing things just to get others in trouble. It's fair, tested, and economic and puts all the things which can bring a board down into one pot. It will cause some upset at first, but it's one of the few ways to deter fighting. People will always dislike each other, disagree, and have strong emotions and/or opinions over small minute things that they feel are important. It is human nature and you won't change it. Social order and justice that is practical and well tested in the world at large seems the best answer to me. I realize there are some who like to treat online different than real life and that's fine. But the line is becoming less and less blurred what with that kid jailed for comments he made while angry on facebook over a league of legends game, or the NSA literally tracking you everywhere you go and smarter and smarter ways to decide who you are and what you do with your online time. Real world consequences are already finding their way online. And in my most humble opinion, we have a system that works already in the world at large so why not borrow from it. Punish fighting parties, but punish instigators to a greater degree. Simple.

>>161499

>>161499
I think a big issue to consider is what can be considered as instigating.

Cause if we have to consistently crack down on every comment people make, people will start avoiding ponychan, because a small joke can get them banned.

I find it funny that ponychan started because of that sort of stuff happening in the first place, something to do with 4chan I believe, It's a bit ironic that now ponychan is on the brink of breaking up because of the same things that started it.

>>161502
Ponychan was started because people would get banned for posting ponies on 4chan.

>>161503
Granted, doesn't mean there wasn't already infighting.