The current state of MLPforums

[ConcorDisparate 385]

Yeah sure that's the "definition", but being able to use it in a way that's constructive SHOUDLENT be hindered, and admins SHOULD take this into consideration before blindly assuming abuse.

 

Your mistake is to ask them to follow very strict ideas, and then to ask them to take subjective and contradictory feelings in consideration before acting.

 

Administration and bureaucracy was always about making compromises. We can always improve, but you are only blaming things you'd find anywhere else. We can't be perfect, we have to work around that, not blame ourselves not being perfect.

 

If you expect interesting and efficient changes, don't provide your own personnal opinion, expecting others to take it into account with hundred of other opinions, to make the perfect choice. Instead, think about the overall situation, and your own claimings, so that you can give a clear and efficient idea which might actually be put in place.

 

You claim that some people using aggressiveness in a debate without a bad intent, is enough to justify slowness and even more personal decisions from admins. Though you never talk about the side effects, which might clearly bring a lot of bad stuff, much worse than banning persons with borderline behaviour.

Edited June 9, 2016 by ConcorDisparate

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Your mistake is to ask them to follow very strict ideas, and then to ask them to take subjective and contradictory feelings in consideration before acting.

 

Administration and bureaucracy was always about making compromises. We can always improve, but you are only blaming things you'd find anywhere else. We can't be perfect, we have to work around that, not blame ourselves not being perfect.

 

If you expect interesting and efficient changes, don't provide your own personnal opinion, expecting others to take it into account with hundred of other opinions, to make the perfect choice. Instead, think about the overall situation, and your own claimings, so that you can give a clear and efficient idea which might actually be put in place.

 

You claim that some people using aggressiveness in a debate without a bad intent, is enough to justify slowness and even more personal decisions from admins. Though you never talk about the side effects, which might clearly bring a lot of bad stuff, much worse than banning persons with borderline behaviour.

 

Consideration of intent is not a strict, nor a difficult idea to implement... its simply asking the admins to treat us like people.... with feelings ,and subjective ideas rather than mindless robots.

 

I know it cant be perfect, but when I can be suspended over saying someone's post makes no sense, then its a lot more than imperfection that's the problem.

 

If I do not put in my own opinion, and if others do not put in there personal opinions a general consensus, that best meets the average community member cannot be assessed, and changes cannot be effective. Again, we are people, and our opinions are important.

 

Like what? give specific examples.

[ConcorDisparate 385]

Consideration of intent is not a strict, nor a difficult idea to implement... its simply asking the admins to treat us like people.... with feelings ,and subjective ideas rather than mindless robots.

 

Then users need to implement it too, towards them.

 

 

 

I know it cant be perfect, but when I can be suspended over saying someone's post makes no sense, then its a lot more than imperfection that's the problem.

 

Because you shouldn't attack your neighbours to prove that their army is weak. We should accept more ways of thinking/talking, but when you are considered too aggressive, you should be able to master your emotions and adapt too.

 

 

 

If I do not put in my own opinion, and if others do not put in there personal opinions a general consensus, that best meets the average community member cannot be assessed, and changes cannot be effective. Again, we are people, and our opinions are important.

 

It is a false idea, since we don't have access to the "average" part when ideas are not compatible. It is the case here, when you want to make such changes, you need to consider that it will contradicts with another user's ideas. And sometimes, there is no average.

"I want his fork and knife, so I can eat properly !"

"I want to keep my fork and knife !"

"Well, one has the knife and the other has the fork !" Result ? No one is happy, because some ideas can't be reduced to an "average" level. Allowing more agressivity and making slower decisions is one of those ideas.

 

 

 

Like what? give specific examples.

 

Acceptance of more aggressivity because there are always borderline cases which you don't take into account here.

Slower decisions when a user is aggressive to another, leading to longer fights, more users involved, bad moods, more aggressivity. Exponential process. Only because, sometimes, an aggressive post wasn't meant to hurt.

 

 

EDIT: I don't want to claim that you are wrong, I understand your idea. But it needs to be well-thought, not just "like any human would do", otherwise it's not going to be implemented, because it is much too risky, and probably contradicts a lot of other opinions, and can't be "averaged".

Edited June 9, 2016 by ConcorDisparate

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Then users need to implement it too, towards them.

 

 

 

 

Because you shouldn't attack your neighbours to prove that their army is weak. We should accept more ways of thinking/talking, but when you are considered too aggressive, you should be able to master your emotions and adapt too.

 

 

 

 

It is a false idea, since we don't have access to the "average" part when ideas are not compatible. It is the case here, when you want to make such changes, you need to consider that it will contradicts with another user's ideas. And sometimes, there is no average.

"I want his fork and knife, so I can eat properly !"

"I want to keep my fork and knife !"

"Well, one has the knife and the other has the fork !" Result ? No one is happy, because some ideas can't be reduced to an "average" level. Allowing more agressivity and making slower decisions is one of those ideas.

 

 

 

 

Acceptance of more aggressivity because there are always borderline cases which you don't take into account here.

Slower decisions when a user is aggressive to another, leading to longer fights, more users involved, bad moods, more aggressivity. Exponential process. Only because, sometimes, an aggressive post wasn't meant to hurt.

 

or I literally had no idea what they were saying, so I was spelling that out and asking for clarification..... Like any other confused human being would.

 

Your solution in this case is to serve Hamburgers.

 

Aggressiveness is not inherently bad, and saying it is excludes and demonizes an entire subset of the population, for something that is not within anyone's control.

Slower decisions tend to be better decisions, and if its that big of an issue a thread can be temporarily locked in order to assess a situation properly without problems escalating.

[ConcorDisparate 385]

@,

 

Well, I tried to show you my point of view upon the topic. If you didn't change you mind, well, that's fine. I don't see how I could add anything else without going farther than my English can handle, so I'm going to end this here. Have a good day.

Edited June 9, 2016 by ConcorDisparate

[Lonk Chase 255]

but I saw one user literally praise MLPforums staff for removing the unpopular opinions thread because apparently any disagreeable opinion shouldn't be voiced for the safety of the users here.

I blame the patriarchy.

jk

I get that this is a brony forum, and we're all supposed to be kind to one another, but this should also be a safe place to have friendly discussion. If what you are saying is true, we need to be able to face tough decisions and ideas to get a better understanding of other people and even ourselves. If you take away all the big questions, is there meaning to having discussions anymore? What would the debate pit be if every discussion was removed because it could have been "offensive"?

 

Safety and freedom are two different things. We can't have both.

 

Also, this topic probably better for the debate pit, IMHO.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Lonk Chase

[Guest]

I will say this:

 

Sometimes leniency is too forgiving and sometimes zero tolerance or low tolerance is too strict. I have seen users banned for policies that the staff has low tolerance on, but I have seen users who REGULARLY go about and cause trouble for people to the point where it becomes obvious they are just trolling in a subtle enough way to skeet past the moderation that are given too many second chances.

 

My main concern to this day and is still the mentality I hold to is that the intention of punishment should be to correct behavior. The focus should be on encouraging better behavior over just slapping someone for stepping out of line. When the staff DO use aggressive tones or behave in a manner that is aggressive to rule breaking, it makes the accused feel defensive and doesn't encourage behavior correction. It doesn't get them to understand or listen to reason, it just sort of puts a chip on their shoulder towards the staff.

 

I have had both good and bad encounters with the staff, but lately a lot of good. When a staff member approaches me with a polite demeanor, they are calm, understanding and tactfully explain what they are trying to do and why they are trying to do it, they get a far better response out of me than if they show up accusing me of crap, telling me to "knock it off" and just overall make me feel  disrespected. Fortunately since the last time I have complained about the latter, I have not had an encounter like that since, so clearly suggestions work.

 

What I think needs to happen though is that needs to be the system for all staff. If a staff member can't handle being polite, addressing a situation tactfully and trying to use wording, language and behavior that gets the user on their side, then that staff member should NEVER be sent as a first resort. The only time I think it's appropriate to send an aggressive staff member to a user is either on a final warning for something that is not an honest mistake or is clearly INTENDED to be offensive behavior, or to tell a user they are banned. However if you say get a warning and the first one you get ever is from a staff member who chooses to warn you in a manner that is just blatantly accusatory, rude and aggressive, you are just going to disregard that warning because no one even tried to see your side of things. They made you feel defensive.

 

On the same token though, I do think some users are being given TOO MUCH leniency as I see some people engaging in the same abusive, offensive and otherwise disruptive behavior regularly with little to no correction, so either the staff aren't talking to these people, or they are not giving them the message clear enough and they need to be a bit more assertive with them.

 

I think in the past few weeks I've seen personally a HUGE improvement with the staff, and I mean huge, but there is still work to be done. Steps have clearly been made, I am just hoping that we keep moving forward and don't regress backwards.

 

 

We walk a fine line with discussion. While we need to abolish and take down disruptive discussion topics, we have to be careful as what we label as disruptive, abusive, or offensive. Because as I have seen in the past with other forums, when users figure out they can end topics they don't want to see by behaving in a certain way, they will start to abuse that to the point where any time anyone disagrees someone comes in and screams "DRAMA!" in the hopes that the staff will show up and eliminate topics that make them have to think about alternate opinions or anything that makes them even minorly uncomfortable. I have seen this evolve on other sites and it's strange how it happens, but it seems to happen without anyone noticing.

 

I remember a site I used to frequent upon start up had virtually no banning on discussions. You could talk about whatever and if someone disagreed and got mad? They were told to block you. But as time went on more and more people started just whining that they were offended by someone else's opinion to the point where the staff started having to close topics because people would go into disagreeing opinion threads and purposely act offended to start a scene. Then the scene would get out of control and the staff realizing it was too much to simply delete offending posts just started closing threads entirely.

 

It got the point where the users figured this out so they knew to ALWAYS make a scene when they didn't like something and thus virtually any topic that people disagree on gets locked. The moment someone posts an opinion that someone else might even disagree with, the staff instantly show up to "remind" everyone to play nice before anyone even disagrees and then when disagreements happen they begin locking threads.

 

The users devolve into a mentality of not growing thicker skin and never using the block feature.

 

Honestly in my opinion, if a user insults you and unless the insult is severe, the staff should tell you to block them. There shouldn't be a warning unless this is a REGULAR thing or the insult was severe like calling them a racist term or something. But like if someone calls you an "idiot" for your beliefs, then I don't think that should be warn worthy or ban worthy. You should block that person or respond maturely. Whenever someone insults me in a debate I point out how insulting me doesn't prove they are right and move on.

 

We walk a fine line between keeping the atmosphere respectful and giving too much power to the easily offended. We have to walk that line carefully or we risk turning into a hug box. So far I'd say we MOSTLY walk that line in a good way with a few slip ups now and then, but it's too early to tell. I honestly sincerely hope the staff get a little more lenient in some areas, but stricter in others.

 

I would start to worry more if like we adopted some of the policies I saw at said site. One of the most damaging being how they redesigned the blocking system:

 

• When you blocked someone it not only prevented you from ever having to see their posts with no option to view anyways, it blocked you from seeing their posts.
• This is inherently a flawed system because the person blocking more or less is the one admitting they can't stand to even SEE your opinions, and yet you also have their opinions censored to you taking control of what you're allowed to see away from you.
• It literally just lead to users blocking anyone who disagrees with them so they can maintain a hugbox.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Guest

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

 INTENT should ALWAYS be taken in consideration, not just dictionary definitions, and bureaucracy.

I disagree. If you are being rude, hateful or abusive you should still face some consequences regardless of your intent. 

 

I know it cant be perfect, but when I can be suspended over saying someone's post makes no sense, then its a lot more than imperfection that's the problem.

I'm pretty sure you can't be suspended over saying someone's post make no sense. I mean, I've done it several times and I've never been suspended. 

. 

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

I disagree. If you are being rude, hateful or abusive you should still face some consequences regardless of your intent. 

 

I'm pretty sure you can't be suspended over saying someone's post make no sense. I mean, I've done it several times and I've never been suspended. 

. 

 

Those things cannot be fairly, justly, or meaningfully determined without considering intent...... Using this same logic, a man whom kills an armed intruder should experience the full force of the law, regardless of his intentions to protect his family.... Intention is important.

 

Well I was, and I am still utterly appalled by it.

[Jeric 46,835]

Those things cannot be fairly, justly, or meaningfully determined without considering intent...... Using this same logic, a man whom kills an armed intruder should experience the full force of the law, regardless of his intentions to protect his family.... Intention is important.

 

Well I was, and I am still utterly appalled by it.

 

 

Well, one of the Moderators here has a JD so this gets covered.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Well, one of the Moderators here has a JD so this gets covered.

 

What does a single staff member having a Doctorate of Law degree have to do with any of the points I have made?... I am honestly curious.

[Jeric 46,835]

What does a single staff member having a Doctorate of Law degree have to do with any of the points I have made?... I am honestly curious.

 

Intent is a significant aspect of legal studies.

 

---

 

This is not how decisions are made 'round these here parts.

 

 

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Intent is a significant aspect of legal studies.

 

I know, which is why I referenced law in my examples...... but having the knowledge and skills to do things, does not mean everyone of your piers, or you yourself use that knowledge and those skills. Hence why I'm making a deal out of this, and still infuriated I have 400 points on my record for what amounted to me telling someone their post made no sense.

[Jeric 46,835]

Since this is being made public, I'll continue to comment. 

 

 

 

but having the knowledge and skills to do things, does not mean everyone of your piers, or you yourself use that knowledge and those skills.

 

 

No, but it isn't a logical leap to suggest that a person would apply life experience and academic learning when managing the various aspects of this forum. In fact, it is probably more likely that one would. Also, I am not a peer anymore, which is partly why I get to be rather direct with my phrasing. Like this:

 

 

 

I have 400 points on my record for what amounted to me telling someone their post made no sense.

 

So this not your first warning then, and/or there were multiple concurrent issues, and/or it was far more significant than that? 

[DwhitetheGamer 867]

@, 

 

If I may interject here, is it the way your saying the posts make no sense that constitutes a warning from the staff?

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Since this is being made public, I'll continue to comment. 

 

 

 

 

 

No, but it isn't a logical leap to suggest that a person would apply life experience and academic learning when managing the various aspects of this forum. In fact, it is probably more likely that one would. Also, I am not a peer anymore, which is partly why I get to be rather direct with my phrasing. Like this:

 

 

 

 

So this not your first warning then, and/or there were multiple concurrent issues, and/or it was far more significant than that? 

 

I had zero waning point mere hours before I got them. the only other thing on the list also made no sense... essentially saying its abuse to say that a certain ideology is wrong.... and no it was not significant at all.... Its almost like it was a ploy to silence my arguments by means of shady forum politicsrather than debate.

@, 

 

If I may interject here, is it the way your saying the posts make no sense that constitutes a warning from the staff?

 

No. I said it in the way of a joke..... but the joke was found funny by the receiving party, and contains zero insults or explicit language.

[DwhitetheGamer 867]

@, 

 

That must have been the reason.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

@, 

 

That must have been the reason.

 

if so that makes it even more unacceptable and ludicrous.

[DwhitetheGamer 867]

@, 

 

I doubt it was the reason, but there are people who can't take a joke well, and I'm not bashing the staff because of it, but that might be the case for some of them.

[Guest]

 

 

I disagree. If you are being rude, hateful or abusive you should still face some consequences regardless of your intent. 

 

 

Not true. Someone can come OFF as rude without intending to. That should always be factored in.

 

 

I had zero waning point mere hours before I got them. the only other thing on the list also made no sense... essentially saying its abuse to say that a certain ideology is wrong.... and no it was not significant at all.... Its almost like it was a ploy to silence my arguments by means of shady forum politicsrather than debate.

 

No offense, but how do we know you're being 100% truthful here? I mean you could be taking advantage of the staff not revealing your disciplinary information in public to make it sound like you were completely innocent and just hit hard for doing nothing wrong when the evidence they presented you as to why you received the warning shows you were very deserving of it.

 

I mean no offense, but you're creating a your word vs. their word and expecting us to simply believe you in that they are the ones at fault here and not you with no evidence. We can't REALLY do that at face value because you haven't given us a reason to trust you over them. As it stands right now you could be exaggerating, but we will never know that.

 

 

 

No. I said it in the way of a joke..... but the joke was found funny by the receiving party, and contains zero insults or explicit language.

 

Did you appeal the warning? I got a warning once for a joke and I appealed it and it was removed because the staff member who reviewed it decided my intent was not to offend. 

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

Using this same logic, a man whom kills an armed intruder should experience the full force of the law, regardless of his intentions to protect his family.... Intention is important.

Now you're just comparing apples and oranges.

 

I think a more fitting comparison would be breaking someone's back so they can be in the paralympics. Sure, you did it because you wanted to "help" that person but at the end of the day you still broke someone's back.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

 

 

Not true. Someone can come OFF as rude without intending to. That should always be factored in.

 

 

 

No offense, but how do we know you're being 100% truthful here? I mean you could be taking advantage of the staff not revealing your disciplinary information in public to make it sound like you were completely innocent and just hit hard for doing nothing wrong when the evidence they presented you as to why you received the warning shows you were very deserving of it.

 

I mean no offense, but you're creating a your word vs. their word and expecting us to simply believe you in that they are the ones at fault here and not you with no evidence. We can't REALLY do that at face value because you haven't given us a reason to trust you over them. As it stands right now you could be exaggerating, but we will never know that.

 

 

 

 

Did you appeal the warning? I got a warning once for a joke and I appealed it and it was removed because the staff member who reviewed it decided my intent was not to offend. 

 

 

I'll try to appeal it. but I don't have any hope for it.

[Guest]

I'll try to appeal it. but I don't have any hope for it.

If you didn't even try to use the process put into place then you can't really claim the staff are pushing an agenda when you have not even tried to present your case. You can't claim a system you're not even trying to use isn't working.

[Veil 259]

Has the forum problems gotten any better yet?

[Jeric 46,835]

Has the forum problems gotten any better yet?

 

 

Not if you follow the the Ancillaries of the Faith. Seriously ... there is a difference between debate and prettying up (and sanctioning) racism. Not happy with what I have read today.