i'm sorry ponies, but i literally do not have the steam to keep going.

i'm not such a confrontative pony, i really am not; this takes literally every drop of energy i have to do.

i find these problems to be self-evident though, and find this thread to be an illustration of why these are problems.

In closing, i guess i'm not sure why i expected this to work. An appeal to better nature, i suppose. Yet, i also feel pretty darn naive. Expecting to come here, to propose taking away power from the very ponies who have the most to gain from keeping it... well, perhaps my optimism got the best of me.

A lot of you anons are probably very consistent posters here on Ponychan. Maybe you are an /oat/ poster i love very much. or a long time roleplayer i've not talked to in a year. Or maybe you're from /pony/, and you justed posted in my thread.

Or, maybe not. maybe not. Whomever you are, at least try to have fun then. /meta/ isn't the world. Neither is Ponychan. Maybe this is the lesson i must take away from this thread, if any at all.

>>163079
You should've tried and made this thread as anon and without pics, if only as an experiment

>>163077

I think making the moderator and admin actions more transparent should be considered, if nothing else.

>>163079

... y'know, if it weren't for the name "Moony" being attached to this post and knowing that Moony is a friend to all living things and would never do such a thing, I'd swear this post was nothing more than an attempt at appealing to others' emotions and trying to shame them for using reason instead.

And if the person who posted that wasn't Moony, I'd probably call them a dick for it.

I'm going to suggest a radical counter idea. Instead of forced names, why not forced anon instead?

>>163083
>>163084
Also mentioned it here >>163053

WELL MOTHERFUCKERS, ARE WE GOING /ANON/ARCHY?

>>163080
that's an interesting idea!

>>163082
>>163083
...goodness, so harsh. it's not some madeup persona; i really do my best to be the best me i can be.

i'm not always so clear minded! it takes a lot of energy to focus like this and be very careful... otherwise, i am very much a brain drifter.

i understand the world better in emotions than in any other way. i really feel like emotions are important. i'm not trying to twist anypony's arm. i am an almost purely emotional person though; it is how i see the world and relate to it.

>>163086
yea nigga

>>163085
anonymous goes in all fields

>>163088
ur mom goes in all fields.

>>163089
I go in all ur mum's fields.

>>163054
>But some things are necessary to bring up, and should be addressed. It is the worst solution to remove the voice entirely from all posters.

The way I figure it is if the staff is getting enough private complaints about a problem that they think they might need to take action to change something then they can start their own thread on their terms for them to get opinions from the site's users. Then people can argue all they want, with the admins ready to use and implement ideas as they see fit based on what seems to be best for the site.

>>163077
>On the flipside, amonisis could put forth an objectively great idea, and some people would shit all over it because it's him putting it forward.

Oh, god, I still remember when he suggested sarcasm tags...

>>163081

On one hand I agree, but on the other hand I think they're fairly transparent? I know there have been problems in the past with "secret" bans, which obviously weren't very secret at all, but there was no ban message attached or post made about anything going down, and that's totally something I've always been against. I think lately, though, people are actually posting and explaining what's happening. I dunno, though, maybe I'm just missing things.

>>163080
>>163086

It's a great idea, but obviously it won't work now, if you just make the post again we'll know it's you, silly.

And as a final word, Moony's persona isn't made up at all, that's really what he's like. This is Moony, you're seeing him as he is.

>>163079

Now, the comments on this post are somewhat accurate. I think you're being a bit dramatic, Moony. As the posts lay, there just aren't enough people who agree with that the problems you mention exist, nor that your proposed solution would solve those problems even if they did. You presented an idea, and that's great, ideas are good. Not all ideas float, though, god knows how many ideas I have that turn up duds. I think, at the very least, people will be keeping an eye out for this problem now, because you mentioned it. So if it does pop up more then people will think back and say "Oh, yeah, Moony was talking about this once. I wonder who else has noticed this as a problem?"

That time just isn't here yet.

>>163090
you faggot

Last edited at Sun, Dec 21st, 2014 19:33

>>163085

Sounds good to me.

>>163092
>stuff from 4 years ago actually having any implications on a person today
pls

>>163092

I meant that it was the final word to my post, but then I typed another paragraph, so I'm still wrong.

Activated it, lets see if these options work properly.

>>163097

>>163097

If I'm looking at this right, it deleted my name and left my tripcode.

>>163097
works for me, as my name was not 'kek'

>>163098
>>163097
Does quick reply bypass it?

>>163097

>>163102

Look at how anonymous I am, guys.

>>163104
ur mom is anonymous.

>>163105

How can you tell when you don't even know who I am!?

>>163101
Shit, it might be bypassing it because i logged in recently, somebody else use the quick reply in a post because i cant be arsed reseting my browser completely.

>>163106
u mad bro?

>>163107

Okay.

>>163101
I only use QR

but it's broken anyway, so.. eh

>>163109
>>163110
Sweet, now i just need to convince a tech pony to include " hide tripcodes" into the option and we're golden.

Now only mods can attention whorse!

So if I'm understanding this correctly, all this petition and drama and changes are being made because if OP being afraid of people samefagging as anon?

...Can't mods just view peoples' IP addresses and see that it's the same person/people?

>>163125
>So if I'm understanding this correctly ...
You aren't
I don't think anyone understands what's going on now

>>163125
They can, but the users should be able to judge people for themselves according to OP.

>>163126
Youtube embeds almost certainly work in there buddy.

No more derail, since the anon tag issue was related to the thread, while the associated stupid i caused wasnt.

>>163132
thank you, i guess.

>>163133
Your welcome nigga

>>163134
You're*

>>163135
u mad bro?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I27cLsLMxK8

>>163069
Just saying. You're pretty much wrong.

95% of the people posting in this thread are not using proxies and have an entire post history. The only people who need to be able to hold them accountable are the staff members when they break a rule, and I can hold them accountable for pretty much anything they say right now.

>>163083
Faith and feelings are the slow suicide and poison of those who fear the thinking and rational mind.


In short, users wanted to be able to associate everything everyone says with an identity on meta is pretty dumb. It doesn't matter if you are an anon or a trip fag or some person speaking broken english who I can barely understand. The only thing that matters is the quality of the idea and/or post.

Also making everyone be anon makes more sense then making everyone have a trip.

/2cents

Do people who don't post on Ponychan really come here to argue anonymously? That is the most autistic thing I've heard all day

>/Meta/ should be a place where each person's words are held accountable
You're trying to deal with a small issue by alienating a large portion of the userbase, something that you've claimed to be worried that the staff would do at every single turn. Please think about that.

>Prevents bandwagoning of opinions
I disagree. Most of the posters popping their heads into threads just to say "I agree with THIS opinion and have nothing of actual value to contribute to the discussion" have had names and/or trips. If you're proposing that we ban "^THIS^" posts on /meta/ then I think that's actually not a bad idea.

>Anons can be people from whenever or wherever, with agendas we cannot hold them accountable for through their posting habits
It just sort of sounds like you want the ability to judge the person behind the words and not the words themselves, and apart from special cases (most of which would be dealt with by the staff as ban evasion), that's not really conducive to a more positive environment.

The ability to post anonymously can be taken advantage of and bring about issues, sure. Enforcing identities is not a practical solution to any of these issues.

Bad Moony. People post without a name, it's okay to post without a name despite your inability to to look outside your own point of view on this one.

>seems ligoical that if you wish to post on site issues
WRONG
People post without names, people like having conversations not be based on who they are so they don't pick up a name. A lot of people pick up names here, it's common culture here, but it's always been common to have those who don't.

If you need a name to trust to judge the content of a post, you shouldn't be making judgements on it at all. Sorry but... damn Moony. You've run this into the ground but it's like you just have this massive fear of strangers you're trying to rationalize and push on other people.

What exactly are we accountable for other then following the rules, my post history is between me and the moderators.(poor mods) No matter how much presumed pros you add to the list this all comes down to preference

Testan something.

And wahey crikey it does keep your ID. Clever. I wonder if it's an IP thing or what? Because what if I post from another device or something? Is my ID still the same?

Last edited at Fri, Dec 26th, 2014 14:50

>>163167

nope, its diff

>>163167
>>163166
It's an IP thing, anything more that that would probably require accounts or Pchan installing something on your computer.

And people always seem to reject my "Sun horse is watching you" posters for some reason, so i dont think either of those things will happen any time soon.

>>163170
>>163166
Oh yeah, meant to say something else.

>What exactly are we accountable for other then following the rules

This entire idea is so that everyone can know each others history and thus judge their posts by it.

To put it simply,
Imagine both moony and zamoonda(Sorry for bringing you up again bro but you're the easiest comparison here) proposed some sort of account system for the site with a list of pros and cons for it.

If zamoonda did it, the majority would assume he has ulterior motives.
If moony did it, the majority would take him at face value.

You can actually see it with this thread in fact, hardly anyone thinks moony has an ulterior motive here (Not saying he does), despite him being in a prime position to benefit from this type of thing should it come to pass, what with him practically being a cult leader for a moderate amount of people.

Example:
>This person wants to do something i do not like, i better tell my friends about it so we can stop it.
>"The evil /meta/ is trying to [do something he doesnt like] :c"
>"This, that and these users are bad because they argued for [something that happened around a week ago], dont listen to them little ponies c:"
Again, i'm not saying he would do that, but the fact that he could should have at least raised a red flag with this thread.
But it didnt, because it's moony who made the thread.

Weird how public image works, isn't it.

>>163171
It's swings and roundabouts, though. Yes, someone might have some underhanded motive for what they're saying, which could be inferred if you could see their posts together - but also, just because someone has a certain history or reputation doesn't inherently mean that their ideas are bad and that they should be ignored.

To continue the account/Zamoonda example, it would have been very difficult to continue working on the (optional) system that he had been part of the development of, because the whole idea was tarnished by association, even though the idea didn't start with him.

Or, for a less controversial example, if someone has a bad history with the mods, and then they raise a legitimate concern about moderation, it shouldn't immediately be ignored because it would make sense for them to have an axe to grind.

>>163172
I agree, with you i mean.

Ironically enough, this thread has done a better job of convincing me to force anon on /meta/ than it's intended purpose.

>>163014
This seems an odd position for someone who has, in the past, so ardently argued against authoritarianism and trading freedom for security. If a bunch of anons are coming in here and doing things that are disruptive or that you don't like, then they could be easily taken care of by mods enforcing the existing rules and standards.

If an anon comes here with a truly good argument, such an argument should be able to stand on its own. If they're coming here with their own personal garbage, I think Ponychan has shown itself capable of being able to effectively deal with such people in a way that quickly mutes whatever disruption they're causing.