Critique on The Debate Pit of Tartarus

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,892]

8 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

While I'm happy with the 'no sassing others' rule, I am less sure with a rule against sassing world leaders. For example,  

I think calling a leader 'an idiot' and similar sass (provided it's non-profane etc) should be allowed. Not because it is fun (although it totally is), but because ridicule actually serves a purpose sometimes. Putin has created a cult of personality around himself and carefully crafted an image as a strong-man, which I find to be pompous - ridicule is a good way of cutting them down to size. The same goes for many figures at the top, and ridicule (eg caricature) of them is something most societies have in spades. So I want our pony debate society to also be allowed to do this! 

'Course I will accept the rule, but I think this one should change.

I think there is some ambiguity on this. Because in Jeric's thread announcing the re-opening of the debate section, he stated:

Quote

Public figures are NOT the community. You are able to speak your mind on them freely provided you do not use profanity (or absurd hidden versions of it). 
 

The system will stop you from posting if you use certain words and profanity. If you circumvent the filter, you will be banned from the debate pit until we have unanimous Admin approval to allow you back in. 
 

You say something like Fuck Trump or Fuck Biden … tossed from the topic on strike one. Phrasing is important.

And the current debate section rules do not cover how public figures can be addressed:

Quote

Debate Pit Rules! 

More coming … 

No Profanity 
Be cordial
No emoji / emoticons 
No passive aggressive behavior 
No overt Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Transphobia, Religious Practitioner Bashing*
No Pro Nazi posting/imagery

So with this...

On 2022-09-08 at 7:19 PM, The Wife of Levi said:

A reminder to everyone:

Do not refer to those in positions of power in this situation (Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, etc.) using insulting names.

This will not be tolerated and all offending posts will be dealt with accordingly.

...I am wondering to what extent a user can freely express their opinions on a given public figure. In the announcement post, it struck me that the only restriction was the use of profanity. Granted, many aspects of his announcement post may have been tentative measures, and I assume that the set of rules posted for the section is not meant to be exhaustive (to inhibit users who may be more interested in technically not breaking the rules instead of adhering to the overall intention of the rules). But I think it would be helpful to have some clearly defined rule on this; as of now, users may unintentionally break this implicit rule.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Luna the Great of all the Russias

[North Star 4,661]

2 hours ago, Luna the Great of all the Russias said:

Public figures are NOT the community. You are able to speak your mind on them freely provided you do not use profanity (or absurd hidden versions of it). 
 

 

D:

wait...

so is calling Putin an idiot and such against the rules @Jeric @The Wife of Levi? 

  

4 hours ago, Props said:

I think that the rule creates a better and more serious atmosphere.

happy for it not to get too jokey or shouty, but editing/removing posts for a bit of ridicule of public figures seems a bit OTT to me if the goal is to keep the debates reasonably serious.

[Jeric 46,844]

8 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

D:

wait...

so is calling Putin an idiot and such against the rules @Jeric @The Wife of Levi? 

I was waiting for this to happen. I have always been a proponent of transparency. 

I’ll give the rest of the staff time to chime in honestly before I give my input on what happened. Needless to say, you did not violate the intent or letter of the rule. You should not have been messaged or told you did anything wrong. 
 

I am moving away from moderation duties soon, because of this issue. I’ll be focused exclusively on site improvements and community events. 

[Jeric 46,844]

8 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

happy for it not to get too jokey or shouty, but editing/removing posts for a bit of ridicule of public figures seems a bit OTT to me if the goal is to keep the debates reasonably serious.

I didn’t want people to be “Fuck Trump”, “Biden is an asshole”. Calling Putin an idiot should be fine. I trust you guys to not go overboard. 

[Troblems 5,615]

I have a couple of things to add, but nothing groundbreaking. First, keep in mind that moderating in general can be mentally taxing. Especially with the more concentrated user base, even if you don’t know someone that well, you know their username. The debate pit is worse as you’re dealing with charged situations. We’re doing our best, this system is new and we’re all trying to learn the new ins and outs together. We knew the original was deeply, deeply flawed. @Jericput a lot of thought and energy into it. That doesn’t negate the current issues with it. Also props @Splashee, @Courageous Thunder Dash, and @The Wife of Levi. You three have been great with reports. 

I agree with posting resources for debating in general. You should always try to link sources for your arguments if you can. Fallacious arguments are going to be a part of debating, here or otherwise. Responding to them is hard because often you and the other person are not talking about the same topic. This is going to be something that I’m going to say time and again in this post and goes for anyone on the site, in life, and everywhere you go: be kind to one another. Treat others as you want to be treated. Remember that there is another person with complex thoughts and feelings on the other end of the debate. Don’t make it personal. Keep in mind that not everyone has the same knowledge with debates. In all cases, remember name calling weakens your own arguments.
 

For locked threads, I’m not sure if it’s possible, but having a timer on locked threads could be a possibility. Do not quote me on this. I don’t work on features. Keep in mind, threads get locked and unlocked as staff are available. 

 

We’ve been going through old bans a lot. There were a lot where we came across really heavy handed; myself especially. We try to start with suspensions while keeping the health of the site and the section in mind. We try to keep an open mind with bans and suspensions, and Jeric in particular is an advocate for second chances. Talk to us if you have a problem, if you disagree with a decision, if you want to get access to a section you’ve lost access to. Also keep in mind we can hide DP from your view if you need some time to cool off but want to continue to use the forums upon request. 

I’m hesitant to ban any use of conspiracy theories for a couple reasons. One is that the theories themselves (in their own topics) can be fascinating to discuss, and I wouldn’t want to take that possibility away. The second is I don’t want to censor what anyone says in the section. The key word is in the name of the position. We’re here to moderate, to keep it civil, not to censor. 
 

Some topics will inherently gather more discussion. We’ve stopped locking old threads. Should any disagree, I’m cool with it and would love to have a talk about it, but personally I’m not interested in letting threads stay locked because nothing new is being contributed. I also understand @SharpWit is saying, so a good compromise might be to lock threads but remake them so that not every post with hundreds of posts don’t have to be parsed through to continue discussion. 
 

The ability to post anonymously will not be removed at this time. It was fundamentally one of the reasons why DP was reopened. We want all users to be able to post with confidence without feeling targeted for their ideas. There will continue to be no emotes. There was a lot of tomfoolery before with them in the previous version of the section. 
 

I want to reiterate this: think about how the person on the other end of your debate. Attack arguments, not people. State disagreements, avoid calling names. Be mindful of what you say. Be kind. 

[Cheerilee 26,554]

@Con Mom

I am a lot more interested into the deeper natures of politics rather than the day to day things. There are a few specific issues that seem to constantly hog up the attention of that section and I admit that I am guilty of that. The reason why I will never use the anonymous feature is since my beliefs and what I express is part of who I am, and I will never not show the truth behind where I stand, and why I believe as I do - because that's apart of who I am. I know that the Anonymous Feature is a highly trivial matter, though.

As per locked threads, I personally don't have an issue with a thread remaining locked. In the locked threads in the Debate Pit currently, they were already well trodden enough, and nothing new ended up being discussed or added, and it started to go into this back and forth while nothing really new was brought to the table. 

I also personally disagree with the allowance for people to call leaders and politicians 'idiots', as I believe we are all better than that and can converse effectively without any kind of insults or name calling. I find that the moderation itself of the threads has been most excellent, and this is a much better version than the other one was. 

I believe it's important for users to watch their tone and attempt to converse as informally as possible. I do not know how successful I am at this, but, I try. 
 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Props

[Jeric 46,844]

17 minutes ago, Props said:

I also personally disagree with the allowance for people to call leaders and politicians 'idiots', as I believe we are all better than that and can converse effectively without any kind of insults or name calling.

This is a topic of legitimate discussion.

The public figures rule only came up because of internal confusion or disagreement of the rules. As communicated and my intent was to curb overly aggressive and inflammatory rhetoric while allowing some freedom to criticize a public figure.
 

Stopping at profanity was a reasonable first step. I did leave the rules open to bring amended, mostly because I wanted to carefully watch the tone and interest level. My other concern is that if you further restrict how you can criticize, the rule becomes more and more ambiguous and is opened to more and more concerning questions as people try and wrestle with how to communicate dissatisfaction. Is saying that someone is dangerous a violation? Does this apply up living AND dead figures? Are we to allot a level of similar protections to figures who are known at all levels of society and academia as villainous and sociopathic? 
 

Worse, it can have a chilling effect on conversation from the more level headed and genuine debaters. Why risk discussion when rules have proven to be nebulous with no clear boundaries? I don’t want Debate Pit to die of a thousand cuts, and I don’t want to scare off those who want to have make arguments supporting a claim about a public figure. 
 

Then there is the oft cited argument that I’ve heard over the many years from fellow staffers, who may have been well-intentioned, that boils down to, “Give a mouse a cookie.” 
 

One of the hardest parts of running a forum is to know when you should trust your community. I try to reject the slippery slope argument that some have. If we allow mild “name-calling”, I don’t assume that it will lead to more aggressive behavior. Most of us are adults with responsibility. We know how to act. If the general tone is reasonable, I feel that taking too much prevention can feel like we as community leaders are distrusting of the community. 
 

The found of this place believes, as do I, that the bedrock of forum engagement lies in the public activity of the staff. It’s why I chime in on the debates from time to time. I like to engage. That alone can help keep emotions in check. This is not an activity mandated, but some prefer to lurk in the shadows, but it is one I have encouraged. 
 

I think the current application of the rules has been mostly stellar, with the strong disagreement I have over the interpretation of a rule that is covered under “No profanity”.  That was NOT a personal preference. I’m from Philly and when you get me going … I can sound like Gordon Ramsay. But, it fit with the requirements that people be cordial. 
 

I had a very light hand on moderation in general unless it became so often that enough was enough. I usually sought agreement with the other staff, something that has slowly eroded away. The issue with calling Putin “idiotic” was not a settled report. If this was how the rest of the staff wanted to go, then it should have been communicated in the Throne Room and added to the listed rules in that section before we held people to that standard.
 

On a personal note, I also have a tendency to take on too much by myself, so stepping away from this element of Community Administration, for me, is a blessing … even if the catalyst was not. What happens with DP is no longer going to be something I focus on. I’d rather get stuff like Clubs, Events, and Movie Nights going again. You’ll see me in there discussion current events though  

 

[Cheerilee 26,554]

@Jeric

One of the primary reasons why I focus on the Debate Pit so much is that the other sections of the forums other than RP do not have much that truly engages my attention. Being in the debate pit for me, is a commitment to make, to regularly be active and to reply to posts relating to me. This is not the case in anything else other than the RP sections on the forums, for me. RP and Debate are two things I have done for several years, anyway. I would wager I've only gotten good at it this year, if not more recently - I still have a long way to go, and I try to adhere to decent personal standards whenever possible.

I do not have an issue with your take on this, and if that ends up being the way you want to go with it, I don't have a problem with it - it just strikes me that saying leaders are 'idiotic' would best be served by saying what makes them 'idiotic', without actually saying the word 'idiotic'. 



 

[Jeric 46,844]

2 minutes ago, Props said:

I would wager I've only gotten good at it this year, if not more recently - I still have a long way to go, and I try to adhere to decent personal standards whenever possible.

Personally, you have gotten much better at communicating your views with focus while being insightful. Props to you. (Don’t blame me, I’m a dad) 

[Cheerilee 26,554]

2 minutes ago, Jeric said:

Personally, you have gotten much better at communicating your views with focus while being insightful. Props to you. (Don’t blame me, I’m a dad) 

I personally don't consider anything that I have said before this year to be anything of relevant nature to me. I like the 'Props' puns. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Props

[Venomous 18,857]

Let me start things off by saying that I am neutral on the reopening of the debate area. 
I believe that being able to discuss real world issues and controversial ideas is important but I understand why some wish to steer clear from that sort of thing.

In regards to the main concerns from the OP:

1. I think that attaching sources for one’s argument is a good idea. However, I do not foresee staff mandating it. If you are making a big claim, you should provide a source. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s a big deal.

2. Yes, passive aggressive/snarky comments (along with all other rule breaking) should be caught by staff. However, this isn’t always possible. Keep in mind that we are not logged on 24/7 and cannot scour every fine detail in every post every day. Staff are people too and we sometimes miss things. We do rely on reports to help find things we may have missed. If you notice someone has made such a comment, don’t assume it has already been dealt with. Report it anyway. This is more helpful than you think.

3. Cool down periods tend to only last a few days, up to 3 or so. However, the timeframe depends on different things such as the reasoning for the cooldown, if any particular users had to do with the making of the decision to implement the cooldown, or even the topic of debate itself. We want to and will continue re-open debate threads in a timely manner and are well aware that a decompressing time should not be more lengthy than it has to be.

4. Whether or not a user is banned from the area also depends on various factors: history with receiving warnings, overall behavior, etc. The health of the debate area needs to be contemplated if a problematic user returns. I am sorry to say but to give permission to all previously banned user to return is not realistic. They were debarred for a reason.

I maintain the opinion that the rules applied to the grand re-opening have helped tremendously. 

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,892]

18 hours ago, Jeric said:

I think the current application of the rules has been mostly stellar, with the strong disagreement I have over the interpretation of a rule that is covered under “No profanity”.  That was NOT a personal preference. I’m from Philly and when you get me going … I can sound like Gordon Ramsay. But, it fit with the requirements that people be cordial. 

There is a question I have about this.

Was the "no profanity" rule intended as a strict general ban, or was it more to inhibit hostility between users? I think of specifically the case of mentioning a quotation that contains, shall we say, uncivil language or language no longer considered civil that furthers the argument one is making. There was one post I made contains a censored word due to that rule, but it was in the context of a certain people's attitudes towards another people within a certain time period; it was not directed at any users here (nor a roundabout way to do so with quotations). Ultimately, this is more of a minor point as I doubt this will inhibit any posts I will make in the section in the future; I assume a blanket ban is easier to moderate, and people who read said post would still understand what I was trying to convey.

[Cheerilee 26,554]

I believe there is something else that should be addressed. The use of reactions - it strikes me that the 'laugh' reaction is along similar lines to the usage of emojis. It reminds me a lot in the old debate pit how the laugh reaction was used quite frequently in uncivil debates. I believe the usage of the 'laugh' reaction should be banned in the debate pit, as it feels passive aggressive and adds nothing meaningful to discussions.

[North Star 4,661]

mod-ponies, can we be gentle with the debate pit ban hammer please  I know it's often just a temp ban, but unless a poster has gone totally toxic and genuinely needs a time out, can we just assume that most of us in the pit are pachydermatous ponies? Honestly, the debate pit is angelic compared to most places on the web addressing these topics  

[J.J 921]

8 minutes ago, abrony-mouse said:

mod-ponies, can we be gentle with the debate pit ban hammer please  I know it's often just a temp ban, but unless a poster has gone totally toxic and genuinely needs a time out, can we just assume that most of us in the pit are pachydermatous ponies? Honestly, the debate pit is angelic compared to most places on the web addressing these topics  

As true as your statement is, it was irresponsible of me to not keep track of my neurotic typing habits and that's ultimately why I was banned, I'm so censored on MLP forums compared to other sites, but I had the objective outline of what I could and could not do before me, what I was banned for was not malice or direct Ill intent in my words, but just like the real world even if you are just holding that pipe "for a friend" it was you that objectively had possession of it when it was found and unfortunately the law just like the rules are held to literal sentiments... 

I swore in a place I shouldn't swear, I deserve my time out, but at the same time yes, if some of you guys saw the content that was put into some of the other forums I attend you might be scarred by their words alone, let alone some of the imagery, and this is all on the regular web, there is content so brutal and disgusting in this world I just don't know how some people even go on with their day without being utterly furious or demanding a strict change from our internet providers, I am a man of free speech, but what I do more or less is meant to present that freedom of speech is harmless but way more complained about by the mass majority of individuals trying to present themselves as white knights, where are these so called white knights protesting animal cruelty, pedophilia, leniency in rape cases, people want to cry about racist or sexist memes when the reality of sheer cruelty in this world would rock these SJW babies, no you aren't a good person for trying to make someone shut up, you are a coward or just ignorant for not doing everything in your power to get involved WITH REAL INJUSTICE...

[North Star 4,661]

wait is swearing even banned in the pit *checks*

 oh my, so it is. um... I hope my last post was ok *meep*

I mean, I'm not much for swearing as it goes, but is that necessary? Same with the emoji thing (which I am much more guilty of ). Can't we just say 'using swearing/emojis in excess or in bad faith is bannable' rather than make it a strict rule like this?

On the other hoof I am happy for the use of snide personal phrases like 'have a nice day' in bad faith (which ok I am also guilty of) to be warnable. 

[Cheerilee 26,554]

I am glad that the Debate Pit has been moderated much more than the old one is. Now that we've had some more time with it, I have to say that it is good to see threads without the incoherent profanity the old debate pit had. I would argue that the current level of moderation is fine.

When reactions were allowed, I found it rather tedious when users would use it in a targeting manner. I do not agree with the idea of having it a free for all. The Debate Pit should be intended to be a serious form of discussion, without any sarcasm, jokes, profanity, or other such behavior. 

 

[J.J 921]

7 minutes ago, Props ValRoa said:

I am glad that the Debate Pit has been moderated much more than the old one is. Now that we've had some more time with it, I have to say that it is good to see threads without the incoherent profanity the old debate pit had. I would argue that the current level of moderation is fine.

When reactions were allowed, I found it rather tedious when users would use it in a targeting manner. I do not agree with the idea of having it a free for all. The Debate Pit should be intended to be a serious form of discussion, without any sarcasm, jokes, profanity, or other such behavior. 

 

The use of profanity doesn't take away from the integrity in the sentiment of someone's statements, especially if you use it contextually like did, I didn't call anyone an ***** name of refer to anything in a manner with the profanity that took away from the maturity of my general presence in the debate pit, it just makes people look more needlessly aggressive, that I can agree with, but you aren't any more mature or have more rational political perspective simply because you "don't use profanity", not from what I've seen, some people really need to get out there on the web and try to broaden their horizons if they think they are material for the "debate team" some people bring very structured manipulative arguments to the table and get shut down and made a fool of by fowl mouth bigoted assholes, sometimes in funny little quips and one liners even, the contextual use of the words really don't take away from the political/social awareness of an individual or the education they truthfully retain in reality ...

One just looks more appealing and friendly, but I know people that are very gutter mouthed that are way more friendly, understanding and open minded than some of the posh arrogance I've seen from people who falsely believe themselves to be worldly because of how they structure themselves in an online debate with people that don't even know them, yeah these are serious topics people should be talking about them anywhere in my opinion, but sometimes swearing shows just how serious someone actually is about these topics, not that they aren't taking it seriously, it is the arrogance of other debaters that refuse to take the perspective of another potential debater seriously because they swear, not the person swearing...

[Cheerilee 26,554]

It is a matter of decency and respect between both parties to not use profanity in serious conversation, such as the topics in the debate pit. Profanity erodes the value an argument has, though that depends on the context. No matter what political alignment someone may have, it is important to avoid insulting language towards anyone involved in the discussion.

There are better ways to express one's argument. We are all on an equal level here, and everyone is deserving of respect and decency. Profanity stands in the way of that respect. At least that is just the way I see it.

Let the arguments speak for themselves. 

[J.J 921]

57 minutes ago, Props ValRoa said:

It is a matter of decency and respect between both parties to not use profanity in serious conversation, such as the topics in the debate pit. Profanity erodes the value an argument has, though that depends on the context. No matter what political alignment someone may have, it is important to avoid insulting language towards anyone involved in the discussion.

There are better ways to express one's argument. We are all on an equal level here, and everyone is deserving of respect and decency. Profanity stands in the way of that respect. At least that is just the way I see it.

Let the arguments speak for themselves. 

The arguments can't speak for themselves if you censor the person trying to participate in them, but like I said "pish posh, to those swearing heathens" right? Lol 

"Erodes the value of an argument" that is the sentiment I am disagreeing with right there because that is just one person's arrogant opinion who would rather choose to hone in on the way someone verbalizes themselves and not what they are verbalizing themselves about... 

And "insulting language" sounds like you should have been debating on the old Twitter if "shit" offends you, because that's what got me banned ultimately, but yeah if you are offended by people using ass, or hell, or damn or the F word publicly you are very easily insulted 

And since I'm someone that ACTUALLY believes everyone is on an equal level and deserves that respect and decency, that includes the people that may use profanity by force of habit like myself, I will not condone directly insulting someone with derogatory terms or offensive slang in a place like this, but I can handle people having emotions, it's up to you if you want to hold yourself to a higher standard, obviously I have expressed I can communicate with or without swear words, but the internet is such a cesspool of profanity I'm not always conscientious about when I'm doing it, it's a force of habit with the way I communicate in some places, it's the internet it's not like I'm fowl mouthed at a church or around children, these are all  extended self manufactured perversions of who we want the world to see us as, not who we potentially are in reality... Like I said it can seem needlessly aggressive if someone interjects with profanity in an argument that didn't previously appear to be that emotionally driven, but from my perspective all arguments are emotionally driven, and you can sound equally as insulting without the use of profanity, kind of like when you tried talking to me like I was a child for having a right to an opinion... But we're past that part now, I'm not gonna battle to get profanity approved, I recognized I broke the rule and I accept it as a rule, but I won't recognize someone on a higher level of understanding or maturity for not using profanity, maturity is a sentiment that can only be proven by actions and the sentiments those actions serve, all words are empty at the end of the day, I can pitch you objective points from both left and right leaning perspectives on the same issues... How I or anyone else chooses to conduct their verbalization of said perspectives online is only meant to manipulate others into adopting rationale for our biased political perspectives or agenda, your lifestyle is a literal reflection of your political alignment and affiliation, your words are just a way to sway people toward that alignment, typically a man on welfare is an obvious democrat, watch how quick he becomes a conservative after coming into some money, rationale is determined by our inherent standing in the world, it's impossible to be wrong or right on many issues from a personal standpoint because that is merely circumstantial...

 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Uncle Bumper

[North Star 4,661]

On 2022-11-09 at 11:46 PM, Props ValRoa said:

When reactions were allowed, I found it rather tedious when users would use it in a targeting manner.

now reactions aren't allowed either?  I thought the sassing in reactions was kinda fun! Gave them an evil new meaning >:3 and a bit of welcome relief given you can't have emojis in the posts. Was the last DPoT so bad that this one has to be so soberly?

On 2022-11-09 at 11:46 PM, Props ValRoa said:

The Debate Pit should be intended to be a serious form of discussion, without any sarcasm, jokes, profanity, or other such behavior. 

on behalf of all pinkie-lovers who want to have a bit of friskiness in the Pit, can't it just be a lil more fun than that? Afterall, these topics are debated seriously all over the place, but this time they are debated by people with cute pony avs and sigs so the debate section is already kinda unintentionally a bit hilarious anyway. Ofc maybe I shouldn't have said that or there will be special sober debate pit sigs and avs. At least I've already got a head start on the black and white colour scheme...

Spoiler

 

 

 

On 2022-11-10 at 12:06 AM, Uncle Bumper said:

I know people that are very gutter mouthed that are way more friendly, understanding and open minded

so much this! Mean and immature people can still be mean and immature in nicey-nice or sobery-sober atmospheres.  

 

[Cheerilee 26,554]

@abrony-mouse

The “sassing” of reactions is something I saw as needless aggression. Because of it, I was inclined to post less. I do not come here to be involved in that kind of thing. The debate pit is for serious conversations, not for any kind of “cutesy pony stuff” like the rest of the forum, so that doesn’t make any sense to me to suggest such a thing.

For a lack of better word - I personally found it distracting and tedious. I really did not like the “laugh” reaction being used in there at all. It’s simply not funny. I believe the user base is better and more mature than using those reactions in an insulting manner and context. At least that is how it felt when they were used. 

There are better ways to converse and make your point heard in the debate pit.

[J.J 921]

9 hours ago, abrony-mouse said:

now reactions aren't allowed either?  I thought the sassing in reactions was kinda fun! Gave them an evil new meaning >:3 and a bit of welcome relief given you can't have emojis in the posts. Was the last DPoT so bad that this one has to be so soberly?

on behalf of all pinkie-lovers who want to have a bit of friskiness in the Pit, can't it just be a lil more fun than that? Afterall, these topics are debated seriously all over the place, but this time they are debated by people with cute pony avs and sigs so the debate section is already kinda unintentionally a bit hilarious anyway. Ofc maybe I shouldn't have said that or there will be special sober debate pit sigs and avs. At least I've already got a head start on the black and white colour scheme...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

so much this! Mean and immature people can still be mean and immature in nicey-nice or sobery-sober atmospheres.  

 

I disagree with the sentiment that someone is even necessarily mean or immature for using profanity or being playfully provocative, it takes a certain level of maturity to understand that not everyone has the same lifestyle, grew up around the same individuals, or has been taught in the same way... Someone isn't uneducated or immature for using profanity just unthoughtful... and to virgin eyes "insensitive". That is all I will say. 

[North Star 4,661]

5 hours ago, Props ValRoa said:

not for any kind of “cutesy pony stuff” like the rest of the forum,

blasphemy! cute ponies must be everywhere :3

ah well, you have a different idea to me on this  I enjoy the sassiness and you don't. but the Pit will continue kamarad Props, and it is doing so in a generally gentle, friendly way regardless of the fact I might have reacted to your last post using a derpy in a costume. What does that reaction mean? I couldn't say. But it is a pony. And it is cute :3

[Cheerilee 26,554]

@abrony-mouse

I think the way I do because I wish common decency and respect between all involved. Sassiness and emojis isn't the way to do that. The old debate pit allowed profanity and emojis, and it was a constant mess.