>>165349
People probably stopped reporting it as much so the "community" dynamic changed.
Probably a reason they're shifting towards merging with the other chan now.
The people who cared left.

Ponychan has turned into a degenerate crowd of lawless hooligans

>>165353

How long ago would you say this change started to take place?

>>165354

(( Heavy Breathing ))

I've been up all night and I'm not entirely sober but I'll try to answer this. Someone else can feel free to give another perspective on it, but...

I'd say that 2+ years ago staff probably had a bit more of a black and white policy of banning people who posted lewds as a way to send a message about the rules rather than an attitude of just removing the pics and moving on. Bans used to just be the go-to solution to a rule violation. We were a lot less experienced with running a community back then.

I've probably been simply deleting semi-lewds for a good two years+. Though staff has tried to stay consistent, it's always been difficult to do with semi-lewds, and some staffers were more zealous in their enforcement of this than others. I believe at one point there was a thing about talking to people a bit more before just banning them.

What really sucks about banning someone for semi-lewds is that you have to follow up and do it again next time if they post overly-borderline stuff again. It can put some people on the slippery slope to facing long bans over simply having a crappy ability to interpret what's pushing boundaries.

People do still report them, some people even report just when they think something might be questionable, which leads to the mod trying to make a decision on the spot usually. I have to ignore a lot of reports which can be hard to do because it makes you feel like you are avoiding work or whatever. But obviously not all of them really need to be acted on.

>>165355
I wouldn't know, I was one of the people who left.

>>165356
It's been pretty obvious on my short return visit that enforcement has changed pretty drastically from the standards set from enforcement in Dec 2011, and if there weren't the chan merger upcoming I'd ask for a re-clarification of the now 3 and a bit year old rules and what actually is allowed/unallowed.

Last edited at Sun, Feb 8th, 2015 11:12

>>165357
The rules have been updated within the past 3 years, more than once I believe

>>165358
The lewd content one is pretty much the same as when !!Twilight of then posted, and I'd say even broader in the "not okay" selection as then, but that's not whet I see in enforcement which is what is giving the confusion.

>>165359
I see what you mean, those are the same guidelines. Though that does specify violators will just have their images removed and a short ban, which I talked a bit about my reasons for no longer bothering with short bans in many cases. I'd be curious if you could point to any examples of inconsistent enforcement which are causing this confusion?

Sorry for edit.

>>165360
Sure, I could start reporting again, or would you just like public links?

>>165361
either one

>>165362
Alright then, maybe public links so people can chime in and there can be more discussion, since I do think the community has just changed along with the moderation and that's why it's different.

>>/oat/39676360 under "depiction of sex acts"
>>/oat/39676594 under "depiction of genitalia" (borderline) (and ensuing discussion of the pic down the thread)
>>/oat/39676552 under "linking to rule breaking stuff - exposed genitalia"
>>/oat/39675413 under "thread on sexual topics"
>>/oat/39674285 under "thread on sexual topics"
>>/oat/39671749 under "thread on sexual topics"
>>/oat/39674351 under "depiction of sex acts"

Other random things
>>/oat/39669380 under "gore"
>>/oat/39675177 under "site etiquette" and "sex acts"

That's just what I've seen in the few hours I've poked around just on /oat/ that I would have reported back in 2011/2012, I can continue looking to see if it's just a biased sample.

Last edited at Sun, Feb 8th, 2015 12:06

>>165363
I am curious what other people think about this so I welcome further commentary.

However, out of all of those, I think only the first (and third) one is a valid example. I could see deleting that pic and perhaps in that pic being left alone you do have a point about standards changing a bit. That said, it was never reported.

The link is a grey area because it's a link to the front page of a tumblr I didn't even see any lewd there at a quick glance.I clicked the wrong tumblr link. I need sleep. The threads on sexual topics are pretty nonspecific and don't seem "intended to arouse" which was one metric we have tried to go by for awhile now.

The ebolachan pic does have a bit of blood but I don't see it as a graphic depiction of gore. Certainly you could show that on television just fine, and we've had pics with just as much blood go untouched in the site's distant past. This is in the archive on /80/ for example: http://www.ponychan.net/chan/80/pony/thumb/129889287244s.jpg

That last one you linked is way over the top, I get the feeling it might be copy pasta. Either way he's obviously joking around, punishing people over that sort of thing was never really intended by our rules.

>>165364
>That said, it was never reported
Which goes back to the point I made in >>165353

The rest is just opinion, and as a mod it is your right to pass judgement based on the spirit rather than the letter of the rules (I'm much more by the letter type).

Edit: I should clarify my first post as BECAUSE of a community change, not that the lack of reporting caused the community to change.

Edit 2: Here's a thread that causes some confusion as well, why was >>/nope/25581569 moved? Or pretty much most of the threads on the front page of /nope/? It seems like the 3 I linked are about equal.

Last edited at Sun, Feb 8th, 2015 13:23

>>165363
1: Deleted
2: Nothing, image is a play on the moniker for anthro sharks, that being "Shark-tits"
3: Should have been marked NSFW
4: Nothing, potential for humor*
5: Moved to /nope/, no potential for humor without massive derail.
6: Nothing, potential for humor**
7: Nothing, sexual intent of picture destroyed by merging it with ayy lmao meme
8: Nothing, while the image contains blood i think it falls outside the term "copious" i love you ebolachan
9: Nothing, copy pasta on par with gorilla warfare.

#Personal take

  >>165349
A recurring offense in the legal sense,doesn't mean you are told every time somebody catches you or does something about it.

It can often be the government listing every time they caught you doing it.That is how you deal with uh competent adults.

Juveniles should be warned/punished every time they do something,if it is applicable.

Let's just enact capital punishment on Ponychan.
And by that I don't mean permabanning. I mean going to their houses and executing the law. And them.