That sounds like an overcomplication. If somebody has an issue with something regarding the site, they bring it (or are redirected) to /meta/ where the site staff that is equipped to deal with it will see it. Private messaging and email should only be necessary for private matters. /meta/ exists for ease of access and interaction with the staff.

I see how limiting activity would in turn limit negative activity, but that's a pretty toxic way to approach the situation. You're cutting off the nose to spite the face. If a board is adequately serving its unique purpose then it should not be tampered with. Forcing people to turn to PM and email does not sound like a good idea, and I fail to see how that is a reasonable response to a potentially developing "meta community".

"Questions and suggestions relating to the site" is one of the most well defined and fulfilled purposes that any board has on this site.

The board is fine as is for a general purpose site discussion space, and your post seems to be riddled with personal misgivings that are likely born from your own experiences rather than being any sort of accurate representation of the current state of the board.

>>162402
The PMing and e-mailing was only for private affairs; i.e., sorting through your bans, and that sort of drama.

It is more or less already the existing policy right now, only with not always enforced.


Site wide issues would still be posted on /meta/, whilst board specific issues would be addressed to the board, and not to /meta/.

i can see where the oversimplification comes in though when one wants to talk about a board wide subject to the mods, as opposed from the mods to the users.

How would you handle this proposal and tweak it?

I agree that a /meta/ community makes no sense, but its mostly a myth and I'd rather have a place to put all the threads complaining about site features where other staff members and I can see them than have to watch the front page of /oat/ just in case someone wants to talk about site features.

Email or skype could and does work for some things, but I prefer having all discussions take place in the open, allowing for more transparency, accountability as well as opening up every discussion to more points of view.

/meta/ serves a purpose. A purpose more or less only it can serve. It's got stickies that are both useful and would clutter up any other board. If Ponychan was to be reduced to five boards, /meta/ would be one of them.

Not liking the board culture is no reason to take it out on the site's infrastructure.

Also, private messages will create the exact opposite of an inclusive feeling, trust me. Few things are worse as an imageboard poster than knowing all sorts of things are happening behind some kind of magic curtain in a web of PMs, skype groups, steam groups and mailing lists that you have no way to get into.

Furthermore, reducing the number of topics on the board by, say, deleting topics addressing individual grievances wouldn't only be unnecessarily difficult to enforce, but wouldn't do anything to reduce the number of "/meta/ posters".

>>162404
I think board specific issues are fine on meta, since this is where the staff is most likely to see it, and the topic of those issues technically fall under this board's description. On top of that, the users that are concerned with issues surrounding the boards and the site as a whole already frequent meta.

If you're suggesting that we get rid of threads such as "Why was I banned for doing this but THAT thread gets to stay up" then I fully support that.

>>162406
>Few things are worse as an imageboard poster than knowing all sorts of things are happening behind some kind of magic curtain in a web of PMs, skype groups, steam groups and mailing lists that you have no way to get into.

you are right. it seems like scaling back /meta/ in this way isn't going to be at all a good idea.

this is the best possible time, while meta is quiet, to propose reform for meta to fix it for when if it does become trouble again... and yet, it does seem like maybe things are different.

>>162407
>"Why was I banned for doing this but THAT thread gets to stay up" then I fully support that.

i am in favor of keeping those out of /meta/, but at the same time, those have to go somewhere. Ponies need to see that sort of thing too... even if it creates drama.

it is a risky thing to think about, balancing the right of a pony to speak on their issues, while also preserving the site from unnecessary drama.





...my OP ideas were sort of halfbaked, and i appreciate the thinking we've been doing together. it feels like maybe it is back to the drawing board, but a wiggly feeling remains that /meta/ could use some tuning while there is time to tune.

>>162406
>Few things are worse as an imageboard poster than knowing all sorts of things are happening behind some kind of magic curtain in a web of PMs, skype groups, steam groups and mailing lists that you have no way to get into.

Literally the worst.

Ultimately, though, I totally understand where you're coming from Moony, but not only would it be difficult to enforce limits on strange and suspicious behavior, but things have been at an all time low recently, and I think it's a phase that isn't really gonna come back.

>>162409
The rules surrounding that are clear though. If you feel like your ban was unwarranted then you appeal it and save it. If you feel that another thread is breaking the rules then you report it. If you feel that the state of affairs surrounding these issues are unfair and have instances and pieces of evidence to show for it, THEN you make a thread on /meta/. If you display a lack of reading comprehension and/or maturity then... well that's up to the site staff on how they want to deal with it.

Every board has unfavorable content. If a specific instance gets too bothersome then there may be reason to bar that person from /meta/.

In short, delete /meta/ maybe? Replace with /help/?

No but really.

The thought and idea of sweeping away /meta/ entirely with fresh start and making something new and calling it /site/ or /help/ dates back to !!Soarin. It never happened, things got orders of magnitude worse and really only isn't as bad now because everything's so small and insignificant at this point and most of the things that could happen has already happened. So what's matter much now, I guess.

To address your /meta/ clique worries, that was a problem in the past because of the varying circumstances which include: the hidden identities, the web of private conversations that only a few were privileged too and the fact that those few had a much larger say compared to people who weren't in the know.

In the present day:
1) I dont give a fuck who tells me what, and i have several means of communication open that i'm present on at least once a day.
2)!!Cadence can counter or rescind anything i do.
3)I can counter or rescind anything !!Cadence does.
4)It would be incredibly fucking difficult to influence us both towards a particular thing without it being apparent.
5)What !!wifehorse already said here: >>162405 >>162406

>>162412
>>162413
Maybe, although at most i'd just change the board name because laziness.

>>162413
>and really only isn't as bad now because everything's so small and insignificant at this point and most of the things that could happen has already happened.

Y'know, I mentioned this a few weeks back in an unrelated thread, but the site's been really low on drama lately, and people are usually quick to complain about reduced activity, but don't take the time to see any upsides. The fact is, a lot of the activity I remember, even from way back in 2011 when a lot of people thought everything was super amazing, was drama. It was arguing about this or that, it was weird relationship stuff, people posing as other people for one reason or another...that was what all the big super active threads were really about. And those threads are pretty much gone these days, and that can be directly linked to reduced activity. I think that both the lack of drama has turned down activity and the lack of activity has dampened the drama. And you can complain about how slow the site is these days, but I think I'm happier with things as they are, if the alternative is everyone being angry all the time, or plotting weird stuff in /meta/ cliques, or god even knows what kind of weird stuff could be going on.

Sorry if that's kind of a random paragraph, I just felt it worth mentioning.

>>162415
And a lot of people here loved watching delicious drama unfold.

>>162417

They did, exactly. Or causing it, or otherwise taking part in it. It was really a defining Ponychan feature, which brought activity, but not necessarily quality content, even from the people that stuck around to post other things after the drama died down.

eery time i think back to "meta cliques" i cant actually take it seriously. the first one was just a bunch of dudes who wanted to fuck each other really bad and the second was like degeneration x lead by a depressive gay israeli man

>>162422
implying he was really gay
implying it wasn't more like NWO

4LYFE

>>162422
>a bunch of dudes who wanted to fuck each other real bad
>Degeneration X

Aren't those the same thing?

>>162423

he was a huge homo. and the only similarity to the nwo is that people should have been throwing trash at it at all times

>>162424

good point

>>162425
I have literally fucked a brony in the ass and cum in his mouth, and as a certified faggot I am here to tell you that guy is not gay.

Also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHqBPw5HYDU

I don't like the idea of having all issues spread among the boards that they affect. Meta is a sort of logical distintion that allows the site not to be bogged down with talking about the site.

Granted, any sort of major issues should always be visible to the boards they pertain to, but visibility and the location of data should always reasonably be viewed as separate issues. In a lot of ways, imageboards seem to treat these two things as one, which I believe is one part of why there's so much chaos about what content goes where, and how much people are using what boards. Granted, I tend to think of things more in the way a forum or content-producer's website would be arranged, which may just make it hard for me to see how communities like these optimally work.

>>162415
>>162417
If you ever need some fresh drama, you know who to call.

>>162447
I think I may still have their Skype contact now that you mention it....

I think the last time /meta/ had a clique was like, a year and a half ago. And if we're talking the original clique, yeesh, we died out in like, spring of 2012. Sparkling Lime, Soldier, Hipster, Ion Sturm, that dude who always posted Gilda and answered technical questions... It was just people who wanted to help at any rate. If there was any secret Illuminati aspect to it, I have a feeling that had more to do with the secret identities, absent leadership, and lack of overall structure.

But yeah, whatevs, current administration seems to have things under control, as has been stated.

>>162510
I didn't always post Gilda. It just happened more and more as I burnt out.

Unless there's another dude who also posted Gilda and answered technical questions, in which case, good on you, whoever you were.

And no, I'm not back.

The only thing that irks me sometimes is when site stuff gets moved to /meta/. Sometimes when something affects /oat/ or /oat/ users are questioning something, it's good to have that thread be allowed on /oat/. Feels like a way to stifle discussion by banishing it to another board sometimes.
But that's something that seems rarer nowadays so it's not a huge complaint.