>>161542

And yet geldon is still here. Cherrypicking isn't becoming of a moderator.

Lots of people have done this, i'd say half of /pony/ is guilty of it, but if you're going to start banning without even a loose concept of a system of rules and consequences, than really anyone is capable of being a mod and we should just all be mods and ban each other. Since apparently both dialect and a system of rules and consequences have both become antiquated in your eyes.

>>161542

Wow, ok, if being constantly annoying on /pony/ is banworthy, than you might as well just shut down the entire board. There's only a handful of users who don't do that on a regular basis. You know as well as i do that geldon is at least as annoying and confrontational, but he's still not banned, same as mami, saikr, 441, shuckle and myself just to name a few examples. Either apply the rules indiscriminately, or not at all.

I mean seriously, look at this thread, look at all the sadistic jerks who showed up just to eat popcorn at dulset, people i know for a fact have been at least as vicious and annoying as dulset ever was.

At least describe in the rules what the process is for getting immunity to the rules, because clearly the site isn't being run with any kind of professional conduct or coherent set of rules. Least you can do is make whatever unspoken rules there are out there spoken. At least then whatever ridiculous code is lurking under the surface could be communicated to everyone.

So, what is Dulset definitively being blamed for? I can vouch personally for Dulset being a very productive person in every thread I have seen him in, and being respectful of opposing people's opinions.

I mean, besides all that, the main issue that exists here is really the lack of any real accusations. I understand it's not like it's easy to track down single aggravating/malevolent posts but isn't that the least that can be expected with being banned from a community? I can kind of see why people might be annoyed with Dulset consistently enough to want to ban him, because he can give off a condescending air when replying to what he (and I think most sensible folk would as well) considers silly, but that. is. literally. all.

I do not think for one second that a lack of any singular purposefully negative post to point to as evidence of his utter badness (that he merits banishment from our little community) is enough to perma ban somepony. It sounds even more ridiculous when you compare to how other major perma bans (Dulset is a quite decently known poster) have happened to my memory, the last one I recall being of Manley, which if I, again, recall correctly, was only banned after months of persistently causing drama, and after a somewhat particularly bad post. I think we just need to hold some semblance of justice.

I don't know if I'd regret not saying something or saying something more. I'm probably gonna piss off a lot of people on /pony/, who are finally getting a chance to breathe and enjoy the peace and quiet for the first time in eons.

I've never known a more contrarian, argumentative, narcissistic, negative, and frustrating person than Dulset Tarn. I've stormed out of bed at 5 in the morning, stomping to my PC because of him. Arguments on the Internet must be won, after all.

I do however know the panic, regret, sadness, and helplessness of being banned here, and elsewhere. I know how getting hyper invested and caught up with every aspect of the show and the fandom can lead to emotionally driven decisions, simply for short term satisfaction, and completely without concern for any consequences. The prospect of not being able to engage with your peers again, during once in a lifetime events, like premieres and major breaking news, is terrifying to a super fan.

I'm not asking you mods to reverse your decision immediately, or at any point before you're comfortable, but please, for the love all that is holy, do not turn a compassionless blind eye to Dulset if he asks to come back to /pony/. I know all too well from my past what it feels like to plead and beg multiple times for a modicum of empathy, faith, and kindness, from an admin, and gotten nothing but scorn and indifference in return. Don't be like that when its time to consider bringing Dulset back. There must always be a path towards redemption. There must always be a way to earn your way back from a ban.

Last edited at Thu, Sep 25th, 2014 01:09

>>161795

That's why i've always had respect for you man, you're not dismissive, you know how devastating that attitude is to everyone involved.

>>161783
I stand with !!wifehorse on this, and here's a list of reasons for why you are banned from /pony/:

1. Mods and Admins think you should be banned.

As you've spent this entire thread describing your opinion that the mods are immoral jerkwads, you should find this list 100% valid.

>>161789
>Either apply the rules indiscriminately, or not at all.
Alright.

>>161792
>I can vouch personally for Dulset being a very productive person in every thread I have seen him in, and being respectful of opposing people's opinions.

And i can vouch personally for the opposite.

>>161795
Manley was allowed back after he got permabanned from the site entirely, it's a semi-common joke that ponychan's permabans are like revolving doors.

>>161808
>revolving doors.
well if they're really like revolving doors
isn't it time he's unbanned from /pony/~?

>>161810
He could go talk about how much he doesn't watch the show there instead of /oat/!

>>161810
We stuck a picture of kelpie porn on the doors as a distraction, this plan is foolproof.

Well, /meta/'s been busy tonight...

If I can just add my own idea, there does exist a general don't be a dick/don't cause drama intentionally rule.
As far as I know, that rule is sort of held on the mod's discretion, as being strict about this will force mods to ban a lot of people for simple comments. I also think mods do consider the big picture before reacting to it. Usually if your posting starts to cause a lot of riots and you're not exactly playing nice, mods should take action and warn you or ban you if warnings are ignored.

I don't think mods should ever intervene just because you don't share an opinion that the thread promotes or that you argue for that opinion.
But you should argue about the facts of that opinion and don't lash out at people or argue against individuals (in the first place) and maybe even groups.

If there's a thread saying "Rainbow Rocks is amazing", mods shouldn't stop you from pointing out all the reasons why rainbow Rocks isn't amazing at all. However if you're gonna argue like "It's people like those in the thread that shows me the fandom is getting filled with folks who don't know 2 shits about quality entertainment" or "hey, you, who posted that. If you really think that that post is true, you should get yourself checked for autism, cause that post reeks of it", those comments are really not necessary and don't contribute to the discussions at all. That's the stuff I don't think you can fault mods for acting upon.

as a poster, I really don't wanna lose you, but I don't think mods should pardon you for being consistently fierce and personal in your discussion style on /pony/. a shame, though, you can make pretty thoughtful threads.

>>161729
I was actually there the day Moony did that, and it left me kind of confused...
about Moony, I mean.
I like Moony lots, but he was wrong in that instance.

>>161808
Funny. I was permabanned under another name and was let back in. I knew I was trolling pretty hard, though. I'm not sure if it was on purpose, though. I changed internet providers and moved.

>>161824
>saying that you're ban evading
do you even try

>>161792
My ban is for not apologizing for the things I was accused of.

>>161820
>However if you're gonna argue like "It's people like those in the thread that shows me the fandom is getting filled with folks who don't know 2 shits about quality entertainment" or "hey, you, who posted that. If you really think that that post is true, you should get yourself checked for autism, cause that post reeks of it", those comments are really not necessary and don't contribute to the discussions at all. That's the stuff I don't think you can fault mods for acting upon.
Are you aware that not only have I never done anything of the sort, but that what landed me here is specifically speaking out against the people who do that in /pony/ every day? That's literally all I was doing when they burst in and accused me.
I was the one person speaking out against that.

Last edited at Thu, Sep 25th, 2014 07:55

>>161828
I don't honestly know what exactly transpired.
I know you can make comments on people sometimes too, at least earlier this year.
Can't vouch for these days, though, since now I have been sticking to /oat/ again for a longer while.

>>161829
Here's what happened.
http://www.ponychan.net/chan/ep/res/46656+50.html

>>161830

Yeah, I figured it might've been in that thread.

All the other threads I've seen you in make you appear pretty rational and normal, but you were definitely and unquestionably intentionally starting drama. Using satire as part of an argument with someone you're standing next to and speaking to is really over the line on hostility and contributes to an culture of hostility that we've really wanted off of /pony/ for a long time because it tends to scare people away. That is absolutely against the rules, and while I wouldn't say breaking the rule is grounds for a permaban, arguing that you have in fact done nothing wrong and stating that you will not stop performing those actions is pretty much begging for it.

In Ms. Tarn's overdue defense, I will say that we get a little overly spirited and elitist at times on /pony/, and this may have caused a bad first impression that inspired her to act overly dismissive in terms of the opinions of others. Exceptionally, in fact. There are those who are so determined to save face that they would make excellent plastic surgeons. I would get a nosejob from Dulset Tarn any day. She would remove my nose entirely and deny it ever existed, but the craftsmanship would be exceptional.

It's not okay. I think that the dividing line is to remember that, while sharing headcanon is great, insisting on headcanon is not. As strongly as we might feel about our opinions, we need to be careful not to allow those opinions to impugn upon the opinions of others. In practice, this is a very fine line, because a number of /pony/ visitors love this show and their personal interpretation of the world of Equestria is so dear to them that they cannot help but lash out at others who have a differing interpretation. Thus, the respecting-others-headcanon line is crossed regularly on almost every thread where there is the slightest degree of passion.

Other times, worries about the future of the show overflow, lending to a streak of trollposting that can (as in this case) last the duration of a season. Sometimes, I wonder if perhaps we should impose a general negativity restriction, because fandumb [tvtropes.org] is as cancerous as it is inevitable, and multiple times I've watched it ravage the userbase of /pony/ simply in the spirit of free speech. I can't blame them, their concerns are very real to them, but they are being needlessly disruptive and it can last for over a year as it did in the case of Fluttershutter converting every thread into a "Twilicorn is bad and only by doing this will Hasbro know" thread. Fandumb is bad, there might be a place for it (maybe this is what /ef/ should have been) but it simply sours anything good that could have come from /pony/.

>>161789
Glass houses and rocks and such. Personally, I think I'm just misunderstood, because I write in such a way that few can be bothered to read and fewer still to interpret as I originally intended.

Last edited at Thu, Sep 25th, 2014 10:34

Since Dulset kept asking for proof of his wrongdoings, here's a couple I found from the /ep/ thread.

>admitting that he's going to keep harassing people about a certain subject

>>161836
>calling his actions a "crusade"
>admitting that it's supposed to annoy people

If this isn't "inflammatory posting", I don't know what is.

>>161836
>admitting that he's going to keep harassing people about a certain subject
That's a bad way to look at the post.
It's just a reminder that whatever criticism is being thrown at EqG can also be applied to season 4, but it gets overlooked everytime.
>>161837
Also here, if the crusade consists of pointing out stuff in an objective fashion, it's his right to do and to continue.
It may sound like he's saying he's gonna keep trolling everyone, but it's not out of line if he's not trolling in the first place.

>>161838
He's purposefully entering threads just to post dissenting opinions strewn with inflammatory remarks, with the intent of "annoying" people.

Also known as: Trolling.

>>161827
is it ban evading if I'm not trying to evade?

Last edited at Thu, Sep 25th, 2014 11:13

>>161839
If it's a thread about discussing EqG, he can enter to talk about EqG if he wants.
That's what the thread is about.
If opinions are in topic of a thread, even if others don't like those opinions and even if he knows, it shouldn't be an offense.

>>161841

>Intentionally going from thread to thread looking for an opportunity to give out a certain opinion that you know is going to aggravate people

I don't think he should be banned, but if you don't think this is something not to tell someone to knock off, I don't know what you're smoking. It's just trying to cause trouble.

>>161842
>Intentionally going from thread to thread looking for an opportunity to give out a certain opinion that you know is going to aggravate people
>>/oat/39435387
>>/oat/39435386

>>161843

thats the joke simpsons man.jpg

I skip out on /meta/ for a week, and what the fuck is this. Srs court, management changes, all sorts of things.

>>161845
I blame you. It only happened because you looked away.

>>161844
Well then, knock it off
>>161845
ikr

I think the main point here is that professing ignorance of opposing viewpoints doesn't fool everyone forever.

As far as being a flame warrior [www.flamewarriorsguide.com] goes, this has always been Ms. Tarn's shtick.

>>161846

>>161849
I hope you're happy.

>>161850
Actually I am.

>>161853
Well then, ok. That's good.

>>161841
No, apparently if you speak out against people shitting on others too much, the mods come and threaten you.

As many people here have ignored and so I will reiterate one more time, I never spoke out against anyone else's opinions in my metaphorical "crusade". I only jumped in specifically when I saw those same users badmouthing the people who enjoy Equestria Girls. Apparently that was harmful to the atmosphere of /pony/, but daily circlejerks shitting on other fans is exactly what the mods want on /pony/.

I can't wait to see where things go from here.

>>161857
Two wrongs don't make a right.

>>161860
That picture...
your... your horn...

>>161857
I used to badmouth Packrat when I saw him bullying fans of S2. In the short term it was immensely satisfying. In the long term it was just another regrettable chapter in a sad relationship with the fandom. It's not worth it. Not by a mile.

>>161860
But three rights make a left!

>>161857

In that case, report them, and they will be dealt with separately.

>>161862
But I don't badmouth anyone.

>>161864
They were not. The mods like that stuff.

>>161867
Right, but you said
>I only jumped in specifically when I saw those same users badmouthing the people who enjoy Equestria Girls.

I'm telling you it's not worth jumping in, just like it wasn't worth me jumping in on Packrat.

>>161868
Well I'm not going to sit and let it go unchallenged every single day. If reporting doesn't work, pointing out their hypocrisy is my next best approach. If I'm expected to just leave it be forever, so say the powers that be, then honestly I'd rather challenge that than stay.
You gonna add me on skype?

>>161869
skype name is the same ^

>>161837
What, so people don't have a right to be slightly annoying in this world anymore? Answer that for me, please.

And I still feel like the mods haven't presented much to base their decision on. Just "Everyone knows you're bad, stop pretending otherwise," and... pretty much that's it actually. Oh! and I think I did see one or two pics posted of vaguely explained context and meaning supposedly proving the allegations. Mods, you should seek to emulate how Mooney acted more when he was here, because with the lack of any organized presentation of evidence it sounds very much like you all just don't personally like Dulset, and are acting on that and justifying yourselves based on the fact a lot of other ponies don't, either.

I love that I specifically call my actions a "silly little crusade" and the mods actually take the word crusade at face value, claiming that it's "language quite revealing about my intentions".

>>161860

Be nice if the mods actually came down on some of the actually toxic posters instead of just the vocal critics.

Seriously, the mods come down on dulset, but let people like geldon and nostalgiaschmaltz, who insult their fellow posters far more often than dulset has, run wild. The mods are acting more like bouncers letting their friends get away with anything rather than act like harbingers of any moral or even rule-based authority. Some professionalism on the part of the mods could really do us all some good.

>>162048
I'm honestly considering flooding the mods with perfectly legitimate reports until the place is clean.

Reporting doesn't work and we all know it. I remember a time titanium dragon told people with a certain opinion to kill themselves, the post was reviewed, and given the A-OK. Until the mods abide by a stricter standard of conduct and follow a more orderly and stringent set of rules, reporting will do nothing if you're on the mod's friend list.