Seconded.

i see what you're going for, and i'm all for a more hospitable /meta/ as i always am, but the problem is not that people are anonymous. if you did that, people would just make throwaway names anyway and do the same things

what /meta/ needs is to be watched very closely, and have personal attacks nipped in the bud if they occur. by doing this you'll accomplish the same thing that you're asking for. after all, people who post anonymously are just as much users of this site as you or i, right? and if someone is abusing anonymity, a mod can take care of that as well

tl;dr better moderation, not needless policy

Well I can't see that helping too much. For one, names can change very easily. Anonymity on the internet exists regardless of what is in the namefield. For two, you would be surprised at how many actual anons are on /meta/. Very few people take off their names just to post on /meta/. Many of the anons you see on /meta/ are anon all the time.

#personal opinions
#admin hat off

I am always anon these days. I can not recall the last time I used my name/trip.
I don't usually tend to get involved in things that is anything but clear cut.

A forced name/trip on /meta/ would just mean that I would not post here any longer.

>>163018
isn't that the point though, anon? No offense, but if you're only here to post on /meta/, is it really a good idea to be here at all?

i'm not suggesting we de-anon the rest of the site. Only /meta/. i just don't think it's right to have anons who are here only for /meta/ politics dictate how things should be run in a site they aren't a part of.

>>163017
>>163016
i think the biggest part of the anon problem is the accountability though. This policy should include preventing throwaways as well.

Each poster should have a name whose posts they should be accountable for here on /meta/. i will emphasize, no place else but here.

it's okay if it is a /meta/ only name. But we will at least know they are /meta/ only people, and we can react accordingly.

An untripped throwaway is the same as an anon for /meta/ purposes. Anons and anonymizing maneuvers shouldn't be allowed on /meta/.

It will help to preserve each pony's right to a fair chance at being heard, and help to make each pony on /meta/ accountable for their posts.

>>163015
thank you, psp. i feel like this was a long time coming.

>>163019
Let me correct myself. It would mean that I would stop posting on /meta/. Not ponychan as a whole.

I think you should remember that some of the anons who are here these days are old users too. Not all anons are scary bad people who wish to cause trouble.
With that I think I have given what little input I have on this.

>>163021
Thank you for your input anon, and i appreciate that.

i still think it is preferable for all ponies to be accountable for their meta actions though. It only seems fair, right? That if one is not willing to be accountable for their words, that it is unfair for the others who are to have to play guessing games.

Not all anons are scary, but frankly there's no way to tell who is and who isn't, and this is a big problem for /meta/.

I would say more, but I think Moony's covered the perceived holes in his idea in his responses.

Only problem I've noticed with /meta/ is how it seems to be constantly filled with tons of stupid joke threads, like "make me a mod" or some other dumb crap that belongs in /oat/, not /meta/.

>>163022
You're welcome.

I do not think that anonymity itself is the problem. I would probably be very much inclined to agree with marcy on this issue.

I think you can usually tell from their attitude. But I will leave the arguments to those who like to argue.
/out

Putting my trip on just to say that I disagree with this thread.

Banning anonposting on /meta/ because some anons cause trouble is like banning black people from jewelery stores because some black people steal stuff. Judge posters by the quality of their posts, not by what's in their namefield. If an anon is stirring up shit or vendetta-seeking, ban him. Don't spoil it for those of us who post as Anonymous for comfort or security reasons.

>>163026
Today's argumentative anon is tomorrow's nonargumentative anon. The problem isn't so much the argumentativeness, or the agenda making; the problem is accountability.

>>163025
meta can be too silly sometimes, and that is not necessarily good. There was an effort to stop that before. it's a good point, but respectfully not one for this thread.

>>163027

As Moony said, the name could function as a /meta/-only name.

If you are posting in /meta/, it's a good idea to be held accountable for your actions. I doubt that anons that "stir up trouble" would be banned for doing so, either.

>>163027
>Banning anonposting on /meta/ because some anons cause trouble is like banning black people from jewelery stores because some black people steal stuff.
I believe it would be more similar to banning people wearing full face masks from jewelery stores.

>>163027
>>163027
>Judge posters by the quality of their posts, not by what's in their namefield. If an anon is stirring up sh*t or vendetta-seeking, ban him

And then what happens when they return on a proxy, Starshine? This is not a problem that can be solved with bans; it must be solved with accountability.

Banning anon posting on meta is like banning wearing masks in banks. Not everyone who wears a mask is robbing a bank, but there's no harm in removing your mask in a situation where allowing masks greatly increases liability.

This is not at all like black people in a jewelry store. Anons can still freely post with a name they use for meta. Again, if they only post here anon on /meta/, and don't use the site, why are they telling the site how it should function?

They shouldn't be. There needs to be accountability for /meta/, and this is an important issue. No more non-ponychan anons messing with Ponychan. If you post, be accountable for your post.

Judge posters by the quality of their posts? How about the content of their character? Anon posting is still allowed anywhere else, but /meta/. This is a change that is a long time coming.

Not going to happen, anon is the Imageboard thing, and to throw it away because of a couple of asshats is missing the point of anonymous entirely.

Will read /respond to the thread properly when i get a minute.

>>163032

Not on the whole site, just /meta/.

>>163032
i would like to voice my concern for this quick rejection.

The fact of the matter is, this is not a small problem. This is a large, long lasting, and intrinsic problem of /meta/.

The triple threat of unaccountability, bandwagoning of opinions, and nonposters dictating policy for posters will be solved by this suggestion.

If we are not to remove anons from /meta/, what is the better option? i am open to suggestions as well, but we have already abandoned numerous "imageboard" values: one such is having a /meta/ to begin with. i see no reason why this should be the chief reason for holding us back from a positive, useful change.

>>163029
>the name could function as a /meta/-only name
What's the point, then? It's essentially the same thing as being anonymous on /meta/, except that posters can see who you are rather than just the mods. Posters shouldn't be the ones enforcing the rules anyway.

>I doubt that anons that "stir up trouble" would be banned for doing so, either.
Well, they should be. That's why we have a ban function. As for accountability, that's why moderators can see posters' IP addresses. We need the mods to do their jobs, not an extra rule demanding that people attach a name to their opinions.

If someone posts a suggestion that nobody likes or agrees with on /meta/, they invite themselves to ad hominems and witchhunts. The most specific example I can think of is an incident back in the days of /ef/, when an anon made a thread saying the board should be deleted because it encourages people to be shitheads. When their identity was eventually revealed, they attracted the ire of an awful lot of people who were a little bit less than kind about disagreeing with them.

I didn't want /ef/ deleted, but I also didn't want to see Ponychan become a much more uncomfortable place for that individual to post. Unfortunately, both of those things ended up happening, the latter of which could probably have been avoided had they remained anonymous.

People take this site very seriously, far too seriously. If you make a suggestion about the way the site should be run that most people strongly disagree with, you have the potential to incite way more nerd rage against you than is necessary.

>>163031
>And then what happens when they return on a proxy, Starshine?
The same thing that would happen when they return on a proxy with a different name.

>Again, if they only post here anon on /meta/, and don't use the site, why are they telling the site how it should function?
They shouldn't be. But it's just as easy for them to come to /meta/ with a name on. Accountability, whether we like it or not, is just not something that can be done 100% on an imageboard. That, again, is why we have mods.

>Judge posters by the quality of their posts? How about the content of their character?
The only metric we have over the internet for the content of one's character is the posts that they make. If someone is making nothing but off-topic, inflammatory posts, that reflects poorly on their character.

>Banning anon posting on meta is like banning wearing masks in banks
>>163030
>I believe it would be more similar to banning people wearing full face masks from jewelery stores.
A valid point, but that's also not quite accurate. Being anonymous is an integral part of imageboard culture (and, to an extent, internet culture in general). Wearing masks is not an integral part of most IRL cultures.

I should probably just stop using analogies...

>>163035
>what is the better option?
Hide bandwagoning nonposter threads
Ignore bandwagoning nonposter posts
Do not reply to bandwagoning nonposters

Better yet, report them.

While I see the point that you're raising and what you're trying to do, I'm failing to see how adding in names would fix the problem. If they can't be anonymous, what's stopping them from just using the name "Anon" or something equally arbitrary? Even if we force people to use a name, we can't force them to use the same name every time. Even if we were to require an account, which would be dumb, people could still just make a bunch. Trying to stop anonymity isn't as simple as requiring a name.

Plus, there are plenty of users who remain anonymous for reasons other than to be jerks. Some users just don't like having a name associated with them, regardless of whatever their reasons might be, and so they remain anonymous. If we force them to use a name, this could be more upsetting to them than the users that go anonymous to be mean or who don't really use the site.

I love you, Moony, and I really get what you're trying to do here. But this is like shutting down the elevator and making people take the stairs. Instead of being able to post anonymously, now they just go by a generic/random name, possibly even changing it every time they post in a new thread. It's the same result, but they don't have the luxury of an empty name box. I honestly don't think it'll stop anything, and has the potential to cause problems with several of our honest users who prefer being anonymous. Even if it's just on /meta/.

>>163038
Doesn't 4chan use some sort of poster ID? Wouldn't that solve the problems you bring up?

It wouldn't matter what names people make up if we can see that posts are made by the same person, and the IDs wouldn't be visible on any other board, so regular users who want to go anon for a /meta/ thread can still do that.

>>163018
>I am always anon these days
>I can not recall the last time I used my name/trip
>I don't usually tend to get involved in things that is anything but clear cut
>A forced name/trip on /meta/ would just mean that I would not post here any longer
>>163021
>It would mean that I would stop posting on /meta/. Not ponychan as a whole.
>some of the anons who are here these days are old users too
>Not all anons are scary bad people who wish to cause trouble
All of this
100% my view on it

/keeps reading thread

>>163039
I was about inches away from posting that.

Though, I have to add that I see what kind of issues are talked about here, but in the grand scheme of things, I can't readily think of many cases where such a measure would have been required.

>>163039
I could get behind the idea of poster IDs on /meta/. That doesn't solve the problem of people coming back with a new dynamic IP or proxy, or the problem of people who don't actually post on the rest of the site trying to dictate how it should work, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

>>163039
>>163041
>>163042
As far as I recall, the user IDs on 4chan only apply to /b/, and they're renewed with each thread. The problem with that is that I'm pretty sure it would have to be based off of the poster's IP. Even if we assign an ID to each user, what would stop them from just using a proxy or changing their IP to get different IDs?

I like the idea and all, but I don't see any way to do anything more than make it inconvenient to remain anonymous. With the way that the internet and its users work, I don't think there's a sure-fire way to make this work. We'd be making changes that would hinder our honest anons, but only be par for the course for the people we'd be trying to deter.

This thread's gotten a decent number of posts, so I assume it's been said, but forced names aren't really going to help. Names are very easily changed and we're all really already sort of anonymous. It's nigh impossible to track anyone because all the anons that are actually going to cause problems are liable to use proxies, and a lot of the people that cause problems here already use names anyway, unafraid of any accountability.

I do understand where you're coming from, I hate a lot of things about how /meta/ has been in the past. I do think it's better than it used to be for a variety of reasons, and I don't think that your suggestion will actually fix the problem, if it does exist right now.

>>163042
i would be for this proposition as well; it's imperfect, but it is better than no accountability at all.

>>163036
>It's essentially the same thing as being anonymous on /meta/, except that posters can see who you are rather than just the mods. Posters shouldn't be the ones enforcing the rules anyway.

It gives accountability for that poster's posts, at the very least. The anons will not blend together; we can tell that this one pony is this person, and this other pony is this person.

The alternative is a hard ban on anons; it's less desirable, but perhaps also necessary for the very reasons you mention.

>>163040
>>163021
If you're "old posters" that don't post on anywhere but /meta/ though, then you've become a part of the problem, and not a part of the solution.

This is exactly the sort of dynamic this initiative aims to avoid; old posters with no connection to the present site determining what is good for users they don't even know

>>163038
>But this is like shutting down the elevator and making people take the stairs. Instead of being able to post anonymously, now they just go by a generic/random name, possibly even changing it every time they post in a new thread.

Let me be clear: that is not the suggestion.

We are not asking them to take a random name for each thread. They are being asked to pick a tripcode and stick with it for meta, and that non-tripcoded, not recognized names be reportable and IP scannable for proxy posting on /meta/.

Again, we are trying to bring accountability to the individual behind the computer with this petition.

>>163045
So the suggestion is to, essentially, have the users pick a name and/or tripcode, and then we add those names to a list of trusted names. And then names that are not on that list are to be questioned until verified, if given any reason? Am I understanding that right?

>>163045
>>163043
It's never a perfect solution, but it's a step in the way of the goal.
I mean, people can ban evade easily in the same way too, that doesn't mean bans should not be applied.

Anyways, again, just wanted to pick up on the point, since i'm not sure which stance to take on its necessity.

>>163045
>If you're "old posters" that don't post on anywhere but /meta/ though, then you've become a part of the problem, and not a part of the solution.
...ouch

also you're wrong, i do post outside of /meta/

>>163044
>It's nigh impossible to track anyone because all the anons that are actually going to cause problems are liable to use proxies

And so, if they do, their posts should be deleted and they should be banned; if it is found what their main account is, that account should be perma-banned from /meta/.

The end objective is to clean up meta, and make it a more productive, more accountable, and less bandwagoning place.

i understand you all want to preserve anonymous posting here; the primary argument i keep seeing is that it "won't help" because they will keep coming back.

Well, by that logic, neither do permabans work, as posters can keep coming back.

The issues of accountability, preventing bandwagoning, and preventing non-users from determining what the site is going to be need to be handled.

If not this, then what?

>>163048
i never said that you only posted on /meta/. Only that if one is an old poster who posts -only- on meta, that they are a problem.

You post elsewhere, allegedly. As such, you are not a part of the problem, in that regard. You are still not accountable for your posts, or your posting habits, on /meta/. In that sense, the potential for harm exists; not that you will do anything bad, of course.

>>163045
>>163046
>>163049

That cuts a dangerous swath. What if fairly new posters who do only post anonymously, but post nonetheless, show up? /meta/ isn't a VIP board used to control site direction. It is a tech help board with some suggestions on the side.

My suggestion? Immediately delete any thread that contains a complaint. Complaints should be sent privately to the staff, not posted publicly for people to argue about. That's not the purpose of the board, and it's not something we need. If multiple people have a complaint, then multiple people can send in private complaints. Maybe they can sign a petition or something. Ultimately, I don't think site direction in general is an issue right now at all.

>Well, by that logic, neither do permabans work, as posters can keep coming back.

They don't work. It's been a major problem lately. Very frustrating.

>If not this, then what?
I have the perfect solution, since the problematic anons are people that largely or only post on /meta/. Why not require at least 50 or 100 posts on your current IP outside of /meta/, and for every post you make on /meta/, you require 10 posts outside of it?

"But anon-sama, what if I have a bug report, technical, etc...?"

Simple. Split /meta/ in half. /help/ and /meta/. Any /meta/-related topics in /help/ get truncated.

>/Meta/ should be a place where each person's words are held accountable
Except that will also subconsciously make other people judge the former anon's posts by their history instead of the posts individual merit.

You for instance can literally just make a thread with " c: " and it'd probably hit autosage, while anon or somebody else has a much less chance of that happening.

>Prevents bandwagoning of opinions
>/meta/ should not be a popularity contest

You want to implement forced tripcodes, and you dislike the idea of the board being a popularity contest.
I dont see how you arrived at the conclusion of "everyone having an identity means there would be no popularity contest" since thats usually the opposite of what happens.

>We don't know, and while i agree that everyone must have their fair say, having tons of these anons tips the scale of fairness.
Except it doesnt.
If people samefag, they get called out.
If the anon has only a single post to their name and it's on /meta/ agreeing with somebody else, they will more than likely get called out.

Hell, i lost my tripcode when i got a new HD and have just been going by "Fen" all this time, you yourself thought i was getting impersonated when i went on my whole heil Hitler thing a couple days ago.

>>163033
>>163035
I was actually thinking of making /meta/ pure anon with ID's, since you dont really need an identity to talk about site issues, while thread ID's would help prevent samefagging.
So pretty much the complete opposite of what your thread is suggesting.
Reasons i havent asked techponies about it is because i keep forgetting, anon samefagging isnt really a big issue, the function is more than likely broken given this sites track record and because the obessive samefags would get around the ID's anyway.

>The triple threat of unaccountability, bandwagoning of opinions, and nonposters dictating policy for posters will be solved by this suggestion.

>unaccountability
Double edged sword, the anon's post must be judged on it's own merit, and not the fact it was made by somebody with history, i point again to yourself as an example of this, since you're practically a cult leader.

>bandwagoning of opinions
Bandwagons are discouraged, agreeing with somebody because they have a good point is not a bandwagon.

>nonposters dictating policy for posters
Except they dont 'dictate' anything.
They make suggestions, they give their own viewpoints, etc.
It's site staff that ultimately decides to do whatever.
Just because a person doesnt use the site does not mean their opinion is invalid, since an outside perspective is often quite valuable.

----
>Talk about ID's
See above.

>>163051
>Delete complaints.
Might steal that idea.

>>163051
>What if fairly new posters who do only post anonymously, but post nonetheless, show up?

Then they should be showing up on other boards -first- and not directly to /meta/, no? This is easily checkable.

Furthermore, if they really are a new poster with a new poster question, isn't this easily checkable too? These threads don't carry the same dangers as site policy threads.

It is as easy as a moderator using his most basic discretion; an act of reason which takes a few seconds. i do not see this as a major obstacle, in so much as it is a grasp at straws.

>My suggestion? Immediately delete any thread that contains a complaint. Complaints should be sent privately to the staff, not posted publicly for people to argue about.

This makes the problem -worse- not better. The staff must be held more accountable too. i agree that not everything should be aired in public; this defeats the point.

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.

>>163052
This seems reasonable, but it only solves one of the three problems. It solves only the non-site posters determining how the rest of the site acts.

It doesn't address either the accountability issue, nor the preventing of bandwagons, as the anons that remain will still be unaccountable for their posts.

>>163050
I saw the 'if', but still

>You are still not accountable for your posts
My IP is still there for all the mods to look at, they can make their judgement from that.
>but the regular users!
Even if I had a name right now that I use only for /meta/, you couldn't tell where or what I post outside of it, so what does it matter

>>163056
>1.) Dynamic IPs/cookies/etc. If you use don't use cookies or have a dynamic IP, how are those posts going to be tracked and the number kept?

Tough luck. They can email their complaints.

>>163051
As one of Moony's /meta/'s ideas, I'd really prefer that one.

Last edited at Sun, Dec 21st, 2014 17:58

>>163058
>implying new people ever post on /meta/
That sounds like an excuse. perhaps you're one of the people who spends all their time on PC on /meta/?

>>163053
Seconded with regard to unaccountability, bandwagoning of opinions, and nonposters dictating policy for posters.

Especially since the people taking and implementing the suggestions are also the ones who can see the anon's posting history. Ignoring the fact that ideas should have merit on their own, independent of the people making them, and couldn't get popular or be implemented without the support of actual frequent posters.

>>163061
Are you trying to say I smell?

>>163053
>Except that will also subconsciously make other people judge the former anon's posts by their history instead of the posts individual merit.

Which is exactly what should happen, isn't it? This will help the common posters sort out who has an agenda, who has a plot, who is not from the site, and who is a poster they post with often.

>You want to implement forced tripcodes, and you dislike the idea of the board being a popularity contest.
I dont see how you arrived at the conclusion of "everyone having an identity means there would be no popularity contest" since thats usually the opposite of what happens.

This has nothing to do with a popularity contest; don't strawman the argument.

The argument is, removing anons will increase accountability, prevent bandwagoning of opinions, and removing nonusers or meta only users from determining how the rest of the site should function.

Of course those who actually post should have more say in the places they post in then some anon from a different chan who has dreams of taking over. Why shouldn't they? Are you telling me that it's better if users that stick only to meta, and go nowhere else, should decide what everypony should agree on?

>Double edged sword, the anon's post must be judged on it's own merit, and not the fact it was made by somebody with history, i point again to yourself as an example of this, since you're practically a cult leader.

Wholly disagree. Let us judge them based on both the content of their post, and the content of their character. This is the way the law functions in real life. This is the way that people handle other people in real life. Don't muddle the issue with ad hominems. History is very important

i wouldn't toss anything Zamoonda says worth a stone's toss because i know he's got nothing but himself in his mind. He doesn't deserve the same weight in his posts as mondo, and we'd be daft to pretend he should.

We can pretend this is a democracy, and that everyone gets their fair shake. But even in a democracy, everyone knows who's raising their hand to speak. It makes no sense that we have to judge solely on a post, and not on who's posting. Of course we should be allowed to judge based on who is posting, as it only provides more context, and more information, about the post. To say otherwise is to deprive knowledge, and remove accountability.

>Bandwagons are discouraged, agreeing with somebody because they have a good point is not a bandwagon.

Bandwagoning is an invisible presence, because nopony on the bandwagoning side thinks they're on a bandwagon. i've lead them before, without knowing, and you've called me out for them. Everyone thinks they have a good point; when you see the same three posters and five anons determine every single issue on meta, then its a cadre, and not an honest process.

>Except they dont 'dictate' anything.
They make suggestions, they give their own viewpoints, etc.
It's site staff that ultimately decides to do whatever.

Then let's even the playing field, and give everyone the opportunity to be held accountable for their speech. Give the users the power to see what drives the moderator decisions so that we can speak up if we disagree with the motives and intents of a poster, instead of just having to agree with the words they type.

Words can be honest or dishonest very easily. Intent speaks volumes. The users should be able to see who and what drives the mods to make the decisions they do, and from whom these suggestion are coming from.

If it turns out it's all just users from the site, then fine, there's no harm; everything's as it was, just like you claim it is.

If it turns out, the suggestions being taken are all coming from non-posters or "old guard" from 2011 who've long abandoned the site and post nowhere, well, then maybe there's a problem, isn't there?

If there's no problem, then this reveals nothing, and we're a-okay. If there is a problem, the users have a right to see and determine for themselves.

>Delete complaints.
>Might steal that idea.
i highly advise against this. This whole thread is a way to give the posters of the site a bulwark of accountability against mods, anons, and other users. The worst idea possible would be to further remove the ability of the users to speak out against potential wrongdoing.

>>163056
The three problems are:

1) Accountability; posters should be held accountable for their words and decisions. Users should know who is addressing them, who they are agreeing with, and who they are disagreeing with.

2) Bandwagoning; a lack of accountability allows the same few users to determine the policy in whichever direction they want. By allowing visibility, we can see whether bandwagons are real or not.

3) Non-users determining policy for the whole site.; tying into both numbers 1), and 2), a lack of accountability and the danger of bandwagons means that it is possible for a few non users or meta exclusive posters to determine the status quo for the rest of the site. Ideas they don't agree with can be shut down, and they cannot be held accountable for their actions.


If none of this exists, when we implement this change, absolutely nothing should change. If this all does exist, the this change will definitively solve these issues.

It is a no loss situation.

>Or, if you have a name, but would rather the content of your post be what is taken into consideration rather than who you are, or what people think of you, or what preconceived notions and biases people might have against you (or for you, for that matter) your voice also has no value - in Moony's vision.

It merely has the value you ascribe to it. If you don't have the courage to stand accountable for the words you speak, why should we have to stand behind your words too?

>>163062
Please refer to post >>163064

I thought about it

As much as I hate Moony and as much as I agree with Fen (both things I can say because the names are real, by the way) I'd say let's just try it for a month or two, see how it goes, if it doesn't work out then go back to the old ways and forget about it (like with /ef/~)

What's the worst that could happen?

>Why.. Or for that matter, the opposite has just as much value and importance - that a person's statements, ideas, opinions and words are judged with no bias, preconceived notion, or popularity/infamy.
Since we cannot source anything? We have to judge everything on face value. The agenda of a person matters. If a common user enjoying the site as is says something bothers him, that's one thing. If another person says something is bothering him but with an agenda, it's quite different.

Take for example this scenario: A moderator punishes user X, who was anon at the time. Anon X comes to /meta/ and says he's never seen this kind of moderator behavior anywhere and that this mod is that and it's that and bla bla bla.

We can think of one of three things:

1) legit anger, mod was being silly
2) user can't accept he's done something wrong
3) user has a grudge against mod, thinks everything he does is against him.

Because the user is anonymous, people are very unlikely to think of option C. They are in most cases likely to think options A or B. In both cases, it's the moderators' responsibility to make sure the situation doesn't explode into flames and to practice tact. If there's an outrage about a moderator, even if he's right, chances are he probably presented himself wrongly, too brazenly, and so on and so on. People still discredit the user, but in your head you tick another "mod has angered yet another user".

In truth, this user was actually banned many many times by the moderators, and holds a huge grudge and a desire to get one of them fired. So he throws a shitstorm. It doesn't fool the mods, but the other users browsing it don't actually know it's a grudge, and think the moderator, whether right or wrong, drew his ire. If we can by ourselves judge, hey, this guy actually got in trouble a lot of times without having a moderator explicitly be forced into the awkward position of saying, "Hey, this guy is actually this guy, and you all know into how much trouble he gets with most mods."

It (rightly) discredits the anon as a troublemaker. You don't and shouldn't force people to take a troublemaker's opinions with the same weight as a standard user, because they have an agenda and throw things out of proportion, which many people wouldn't notice.

There are a lot of anons posting at this moment who cannot be held accountable for their opinions or statements.

>>163069
Darn tootin'.

>>163071
^anon noticed me

>Unless it is - in which case, it doesn't matter who brought it up, because it was an actual, existing problem, and is and will be seen in all the other users supporting such in the thread, and staff seeing the issue themselves.
It could be completely valid, that's not the point. The point is weight. If a guy from another site comes down and says this site sucks, repeatedly, pointing out (quite correctly) glaring flaws, but doesn't point out the opposite, people might think, "oh, this is some new user from a new site and we might be really narrow-minded..."

Or, perhaps, the critic is actually narrow-minded, because he's actually one of the people who quit at point X because of Y and now holds a grudge against the entire site. The point is that a person with a grudge, with a "spotty profile" should not be given the same platform as a spotless new person with a new and innocent outlook. It gives further credit to misleading posts rather than valid or invalid posts or opinions.

>>163071

Yes, it may in fact, be important. Being accountable for your action should be the bare minimum requirement of posting on this board. Being an anon essentially makes you impossible to confront about any of your statements or opinions.

>>163066
while i am sorry i have earned your hate, i am grateful that you will be willing to give this a try, at least.

i miss /ef/. but i miss here, too. Say what you will, but i've only ever acted out of love for the site, anon.

>>163067
That's just it; there are no bad guys. There are different people though, with different intentions, who come from different places.

i am only asking that we all have a chance to see who those people are, behind the masks.

Why: The words of a post are only one part of a three legged stool. The anon above hates me, because he knows who i am. He has formed an opinion of my character, and my threads, and attributes those feelings towards me. The other two legs of the stool are present: context, and history. He knows who i am, he knows my history, and thus he is able to craft a proper opinion. In this case, he hates me. But that's okay; this is a working system, even if i do not like to be hated.

>that a person's statements, ideas, opinions and words are judged with no bias, preconceived notion, or popularity/infamy.
i will ask you the same question. Why? Why should we judge only on their words, but not on the content of their character?

>If you feel that strongly, you might as well force names on /pony/ as well - according to your logic, people should know who they are agreeing/disagreeing with and who is addressing them in any serious discussion.
/pony/ does not determine the site's direction. /pony/ is just a board for /pony/ discussion. where the acts of users can reverberate across the entire site however, accountability becomes important.

It is the same reason why a masquerade party allows masks, but a bank doesn't. A mask has its time and place, and this is not the place for masks.

>In this hypothetical, the only possible 'bandwagon' would be the result of samefagging or sockpuppeting.
Not necessarily; other instances of bandwagoning exist. To name a few, there's mod baiting; agreeing with mods in hopes of earning their favor, there's ad hominem attacks, where everyone focuses on how much they hate the poster instead of their points, thus driving them away.

There are many times when the issue itself is not discussed, or even given an opportunity. Everyone disagrees right away, and then looks to try and find ways to justify their disagreement. It isn't a discussion then; one side gives an idea, and that idea is immediately shut down and everyone looks for why it should be. This strikes me as being a bandwagon, not a discussion in any earnest sense.

>Staff determines policy for the whole site. Using whatever ideas they think will work best for the community based on their experience, understanding of that community, and best intentions. Irrespective of where that idea or thought comes from.
If this is true, then deanonymizing will only reveal this to be true, won't it? What's the harm, if so?

>Except you haven't actually shown any example of this issue.
Each example depends on who feels the example is true.
i highly suspect none of the examples i bring up would be ones you could relate with simply because you are not on the receiving end.

As i mentioned in the bandwagon post earlier, nopony in a bandwagon tends to believe they are in one; strictly pertaining to meta, i mean. i know, i was in one.

>Because people like you exist, who don't think before spending all this time crafting a 'petition' to throw the baby out with the bathwater for inflated claims of a problem you can't define or prove, or even show example of.

i've defined it multiple times now. This will be the... seventh time?

Here it goes:
1) /meta/ should be a place where each person's words are held accountable
2) Having unaccountable posters encourages bandwagons
3) Ponies not from the site should not determine the site's policies
Why?
The content of each post only tells so much; the history and the poster themselves tell the other two thirds. Meta is a place that determines how the whole site functions. If meta cannot be held accountable, it affects the site: anyone can shut down change, or push through change, with an adequate number of unaccountable anons following through with their agenda.

This has happened a few times. i cite the pony show name change, in which the voice of /pony/ was largely shut down. i was in the mod staff at the time. the staff decided, made the decision without consultation or thought, and then backpedaled to cover its tracks by making up reasons after it happened.

i cite the /gala/ change, as i was partially responsible, and inadvertently used the bandwagon phenomenon to shut down discussion. i realize this in hindsight, and now i fight to prevent it from happening further.

Finally, the site has been utterly rife with oldguard interference; old posters from the bygone TKC era who still cling to whatever influence they have in shaping a site they are not a part of anymore.

For my own protection, i'm not going to cite anything for this one. i suppose i will, if i'm pushed. that's a can of worms though, and i'm still friends with many ponies who were a part of those myriad situations.

>noble tripcode wielding "real" posters
There's no need to be harsh, anon. If you post all over the site as anon, then fine. Just use some made up name for meta. You can still be anon everywhere else.

But, if you don't post anywhere else, why should you determine what happens for everypony?

i go around the site often. i know most ponies. And i will tell you right now, there are more anons in this thread alone then there are in like all of /oat/. Hyperbole, maybe, but here's the deal: /meta/ belongs to the anon, but the rest of the site doesn't.

This is not a pro-tripcode, anti-tripcode issue. This is an issue of accountability. And if you have a way of solving this without removing anon status, i am all for it.

i have nothing against anons. i dislike the idea that we should just accept everything an anon says prima facie instead of considering the content of their character.

Credibility is an important part of any cross-examination. If we're going to have serious, site changing talks, this is only keeping the floor even.

>>163069

What does "held accountable for their opinions or statements." mean, exactly?

>>163064
>Which is exactly what should happen, isn't it? This will help the common posters sort out who has an agenda, who has a plot, who is not from the site, and who is a poster they post with often.
Um, no. Thats exactly what should not happen.

You could put forth an objectively terrible idea, and some people would go with it because it's you putting the idea forward.
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.

>This has nothing to do with a popularity contest; don't strawman the argument.
But you are the one who mentioned that!
How is it a strawman when you are the one who made the comparison?

>Of course those who actually post should have more say in the places they post in then some anon from a different chan who has dreams of taking over. Why shouldn't they? Are you telling me that it's better if users that stick only to meta, and go nowhere else, should decide what everypony should agree on?
Oi, dont accuse me of strawmanning and then do the same thing.
I never said or implied any of that.
All i said was that an outside opinion could be valuable.

>i wouldn't toss anything Zamoonda says worth a stone's toss because i know he's got nothing but himself in his mind. He doesn't deserve the same weight in his posts as mondo, and we'd be daft to pretend he should.
Right, and what if by some unholy miracle of hell that you're mistaken?
Today it's zamoonda that you dont trust, tomorrow it's mondo because he said something that caused you view on him to change, and so on and so forth until the only people whose opinions you trust are those who share your own opinions?

>This is the way the law functions in real life.
Witness protection programs.
Journalistic protection of sources.
Keeping your name anonymous during trial.

Three things off the top of my head that are completely legal and i dont study law.

>Give the users the power to see what drives the moderator decisions so that we can speak up if we disagree with the motives and intents of a poster, instead of just having to agree with the words they type.
What.

>"Shit, they have a good point i agree with, i need something about them to disagree with!"
Because i dont see why you would agree with the words they type unless you think those words are a good point.

>>163075
Of course I won't be able to help the site once Anonymous is eliminated from /meta/ ;)

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.