| If I might partake in the generous availability of @Ardanaz on this thread, I do have a question concerning the new rules. Specifically this clause in the Current Events: Controversial/sensitive topics liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse) must: b. use the title of the sourced article Does that mean that we must use the article's title as the thread title? |
 |
| Isn't this a controversial thread too? Why isn't it being locked? XD |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
Bayek said: If I might partake in the generous availability of @Ardanaz on this thread, I do have a question concerning the new rules. Specifically this clause in the Current Events: Controversial/sensitive topics liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse) must: b. use the title of the sourced article Does that mean that we must use the article's title as the thread title? Yes :) It's to prevent the clickbait, biased and offensive titles we've seen lots of lately |
nicethings said: Nyu said: Ban right wing people, but don't ban left wing people is what your post is saying.  Being a racist isn't "right wing", I'm pretty sure most rational people on the left or the right would be against racism. There are decent conservative people out there, you know. The alt right is not representative of most of conservatism, nor the right wing as a whole, they are an extreme, radical branch literally calling for segregation and racism lmfao. They are not "the right", just as SJWs are not "the left". Stop deflecting. You're just mad that the rule is calling out neonazis ("white idealitarians", the "alt right", racists) for what they are. Moreover stop targeting my posts if you're not going to read them. You can't come up with half a sensible argument, in anything... and I've really tired of it.. I've made it clear that I don't like you and I don't want to talk to you. Politics is racist, its different groups voting for their interests, and people only call people racist if Whites are voting as a Ethnic group for their interests. |
HyperL said: i would say because mods are using it so people can think they're listening and give people the impression that they can change their minds about things that are unpopular with users, but we're on page 3 now and they're still adamant about them so good luck.Isn't this a controversial thread too? Why isn't it being locked? XD |
YomiyukiApr 26, 2018 4:28 PM
 Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
| I'm not a fan of senseless extremist threads either but creating a rule that excludes a host of other topics along with it just doesn't make sense. One bad apple topic doesn't ruin the whole apple tree. A 'no off-topic' rule would ensure undesirable derailing doesn't spread into threads that would otherwise be perfectly fine. I wouldn't even mind how liberally the mods apply it to get rid of whoever they want (compared to this measure). If users don't like certain topics they won't even be exposed to them if they simply avoid them. A blanket restriction should not be a substitute for good modding and well-thought out rules. |
 |
| "proper modding" means more manpower something I doubt MAL can afford nor should prioritise political & inflamatory subjects & even blatant propaganda is already infesting CE, no need for it to spread anime site, main focus of topics should be anime |
Salvatia said: "proper modding" means more manpower something I doubt MAL can afford nor should prioritise political & inflamatory subjects & even blatant propaganda is already infesting CE, no need for it to spread anime site, main focus of topics should be anime But we're not allowed to talk about Anime in CE and CD. Perhaps it would be best if CE and CD were removed altogether, with "those types" of discussion happening only in clubs. Take away CE and CD for one month, and after that, start a petition to see if enough people want them back. If they don't, leave them gone. Simple as that. |
 |
Polarc said: traed said: You were the one doing it. They should have just banned you. You derail every thread you post in trying to turn it into about race and immigration for every topic. You're the one spamming the forums with every single irrelevant action by every tiny Neo Nazi group. Imagine if someone posted a thread on every single dog show that happens. I'm fine with spam and forum clutter like that being cracked down on, but simply posting threads on controversial topics like Nyu sometimes does should be fine. No one has to click the thread. No, reporting in CE on Neo Nazi terrorist attacks and arrests of their leaders and whatnot as they happen with legit sources isn't spamming just because you want to sweep it under the rug with how you share the same seniments as them in some subjects. Nyu derails other peoples threads with unrelated stuff all the time. He hijacks other people's threads. I've never really gone that far and try to keep off topic posts in other people's threads to a minimum and usually reply to other posts related to topic to keep on topic while I go a bit off topic while I reply to others who went off topic. I even sometimes try to steer them back on topic. Ardanaz said: Listing threads aren't banned though and ever since the character minimum, we've eased up a lot on locking them. Simple listing isn't allowed such as: "Favorite anime" or something along those lines as everyone just posts a little list without any discussion going on. Listing threads are fine if people discuss. The character minimum has helped make people explain their answers more. Whether you like the minimum or not, it does help with those threads a lot. How do the new rules shelter rule violators? Like I already said before, these people would often borderline troll, making it very hard for us to deal with. Now we're stopping it at the source before it can even start. I'm not sure what you mean with sheltering here. That's what I meant. I'm not saying it's good or bad just that more rules usually makes things feel less casual. I don't disagree with the concept just the implementation seemingly going further than it need be and it actually plays in the favour of these peple how it makes it so their views can go unchallenged. Sure they can't make their own threads but they still could post in other people's threads the same kind of stuff vaguelt relate it to the thread but others can't challenge that without breaking rules because then they themselves would be derailing. At least when a thread is dedicated to a certain topic everything can be adressed. Not that I think there shouldn't be some limits though. Ardanaz said: Ah I see what you mean now. That's a good point. Any idea how you'd word it to make it better? We've considered a blacklist for sources and a whitelist for sources. In the end we chose the white list, but we didn't give a full list of available sites. There are plenty of tools to determine on whether a site is biased or not, but I do agree that it'd be nice to make it a bit more clear. I'll keep this in mind and will discuss it with the team. "b. use the title of the sourced article but if this violates rule 5 it is preferred the title be altered to follow it, " Or since that's difficult to follow you could just not have that rule at all since rule 5 (hope I got that number right) already covers against severe bias and clickbait and whatever else so I don't see the point of the other rule as necessary unless that's just meant as a backup two stage precaution but it makes rules difficult to adhere to if that's the point. The problem with a white list is there are thousands of perfectly valid reliable local news sites for the numerous world cities and they can provide updates other larger sites don't from their loss of interest plus previous rules state it should come from the source, which often is a small local news source. There also are lesser known news sources that are quite factual. Black list makes more sense since they are much more obvious to be from an unreliable source even if you can't find info on the site because of lack of in article sourcing or fake sourcing and lack of evidence and all the stories being basically same thing and with a more than obvious bias that is same bias for each one. Not all sites for checking that are equal. I once found a Neo Reactionary run bias check site which of course itself increadibly biased to a far right authoritarian ideology. A lot of fact checkers basically have beef with eachother and each one says bad things about eachother. Ardanaz said: Yeah, that is frustrating. Apologies for that. I don't know who removed the thread and I haven't seen the thread itself, so if you can still find out, don't hesitate getting a 2nd opinion. It seemed like it was a fairly new user so I didn't remember their username even right after. There is nothing to find it wasn't locked it was deleted by a mod. Ardanaz said: We made it NSFM because a lot of people interpret NSFW differently. Some see it as only full on nudity, while others would include bikini pics for example. So we made NSFM and gave the definition of what we consider that to be. Writing NSFW above your spoiler button is perfectly fine and nobody on the team would complain about that. ^ This is also completely fine. It's just important that it's tagged in some way to be NSFW inside of that spoiler button. I know it's fine. I'm saying the rules don't reflect that it's fine and only mention posting NSFM above a spoiler only. Although I'm not sure how necessary it is to add since I doubt too many users would report that unless they aren't used to the internet. Just covering all bases. Ardanaz said: Any suggestions? What kind of threads about Japanese Nationals? I don't think that's really a controversial or sensitive topic though, so that should be just fine. I would have to think about it. I haven't written detailed rules before. I'm just pointing out some of the flaws as I go along so someone else might be able to figure out a resolution to it once it's pointed out. Well like Japanese whaling or how they eat dolphins or their bizarre interest in poo shaped things or asking if sexual assaults on trains really is actually more common than elsewhere and if that is due to culture or population density. All that makes it sound like it could be an attack based on nationality or ethnicity and the last so is about another topic deemed controversial but the question is purely factual questioning not controversy and all these things are true of the current culture or question the perception of it so it's not really steriotyping is it? It's not same as saying all Japanese nationals are like so and so. Besides that the rules made it sound like all topics that were listed below were what is considered controversial not that only controversial topics that are associated with those things are banned. If that is the case what scale is used to determine what is controversial? There isn't exactly a guidline if you actually do allow some topics. For example a user can't make a thread about feudalist Japan because it is a political ideology and historical event and it can't be made in CD nor CE either. I couldn't make a thread about the (il)legitimacy of political spectrums because it's about political ideology in general. One couldn't make a thread about pragmatism vs pure ideology because again political ideologies was specified. A user can't make a thread about who could be considered the most influential world leaders because topics about world leaders are banned. Can't make a thread of how Korea could be unified (although current evens are heading toward a peace treaty so it could be made maybe but it would be only semi related to the topic). Even when a thread can be made in CE if not CD it can only last two weeks without being locked according to the rules even if not actually controversial and highly debated it seems. I already have seen threads locked in CE that shouldn't since they don't actually violate even the new rules. Like the example I gave in post 55 on this thread. Ardanaz said: I will admit that I think we could've done a better job at dealing with derailment and I'll try to improve on that myself at least. That's good. Derailment is a bit tricky though since some derailment actually can relate to a topic so it's not good to be too strict if it just carries on a couple replies or is brought back on topic after going off it for a while. Also should be a bit more lax if the offender is the person who made the thread. Ardanaz said: Everyone gets a warning first though. Which is fair but some users seem to get away with it multiple times in same thread after being cleaned or in multiple threads one after another. Do other mods know when a warning is given? Since I sometimes see a thread cleaned by one mod then locked by another. Adanaz said: I don't disagree with that, but why does that need to be done here? There are plenty of places that either allow it or have also banned it. Although we haven't totally banned it, we've just put restrictions on it. Some people don't have time or energy to be posting on multiple sites. Basically if it's too strict some people will just leave MAL forums entirely and not just the pain the ass users but good ones. But entire topics are banned rather than just restricted as i pointed out earlier in this post. Edit: an afterthought I forgot to mention. Just because something is debatable or controversial doesn't automatically mean it produces a "toxic" environment in the thread and devolve into flame wars. Different topics create different reactions and responces from people. For example a thread about GMOs could be debatable but you aren't going to get people that agressive over it like you would in a thread about illegal immigrants aborting gay Nazi fetuses with guns. |
traedApr 26, 2018 10:46 PM
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| People still complaining about this? Nothing is gonna change even if it was reasonable. |
 |
Nyu said: lol funny xd this is kinda ironic...I support rule 7, the propaganda was getting to much. |
| Yeah right there is no way a doujin about vomit exists. Good song https://soundcloud.com/yeungkakit33/op4-hekireki-last-alliance Tsumino account is BigMaraIppo Another Good Song Listen to テスト by mukami #np on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/mukami/77a Ashita no Joe and Megalo box are disappointing anime. My reviews:https://myanimelist.net/profile/Botan-Chan45/reviews Best Naruto Op: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByCNZxOBVWM&list=RDByCNZxOBVWM&index=1 discord name: Chitoge Kirisaki#9564 https://discord.gg/nGKu6zx my discord server for plebs |
| Don't care as Feminist Fangirls can't make a thread of retardation again. (Also you can just create a club dedicated to this type of stuff you know right guys.) |
| Yeah right there is no way a doujin about vomit exists. Good song https://soundcloud.com/yeungkakit33/op4-hekireki-last-alliance Tsumino account is BigMaraIppo Another Good Song Listen to テスト by mukami #np on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/mukami/77a Ashita no Joe and Megalo box are disappointing anime. My reviews:https://myanimelist.net/profile/Botan-Chan45/reviews Best Naruto Op: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByCNZxOBVWM&list=RDByCNZxOBVWM&index=1 discord name: Chitoge Kirisaki#9564 https://discord.gg/nGKu6zx my discord server for plebs |
Neane93 said: crazy run ins and my meming them too. They are so sensitive too. One of their club forums were about a review and how they took critique as death threats and personal attacks.(the review was retarded too.) Then my friend and I started meming them with our troll club.Botan-Chan45 said: You referring to that club, what happened? I used to know about them way back like in 2012 or so.Don't care as Feminist Fangirls can't make a thread of retardation again. (Also you can just create a club dedicated to this type of stuff you know right guys.) |
| Yeah right there is no way a doujin about vomit exists. Good song https://soundcloud.com/yeungkakit33/op4-hekireki-last-alliance Tsumino account is BigMaraIppo Another Good Song Listen to テスト by mukami #np on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/mukami/77a Ashita no Joe and Megalo box are disappointing anime. My reviews:https://myanimelist.net/profile/Botan-Chan45/reviews Best Naruto Op: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByCNZxOBVWM&list=RDByCNZxOBVWM&index=1 discord name: Chitoge Kirisaki#9564 https://discord.gg/nGKu6zx my discord server for plebs |
Neane93 said: Wow! The more you know. These guys are cancer huh.Botan-Chan45 said: crazy run ins and my meming them too. They are so sensitive too. One of their club forums were about a review and how they took critique as death threats and personal attacks.(the review was retarded too.) Then my friend and I started meming them with our troll club. lol. they were created by the same guys who called the mods here Nazi Supporters as @Veneficia said on the first page. |
| Yeah right there is no way a doujin about vomit exists. Good song https://soundcloud.com/yeungkakit33/op4-hekireki-last-alliance Tsumino account is BigMaraIppo Another Good Song Listen to テスト by mukami #np on #SoundCloud https://soundcloud.com/mukami/77a Ashita no Joe and Megalo box are disappointing anime. My reviews:https://myanimelist.net/profile/Botan-Chan45/reviews Best Naruto Op: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByCNZxOBVWM&list=RDByCNZxOBVWM&index=1 discord name: Chitoge Kirisaki#9564 https://discord.gg/nGKu6zx my discord server for plebs |
traed said: No, reporting in CE on Neo Nazi terrorist attacks and arrests of their leaders and whatnot as they happen with legit sources isn't spamming just because you want to sweep it under the rug with how you share the same seniments as them in some subjects. Nyu derails other peoples threads with unrelated stuff all the time. He hijacks other people's threads. I've never really gone that far and try to keep off topic posts in other people's threads to a minimum and usually reply to other posts related to topic to keep on topic while I go a bit off topic while I reply to others who went off topic. I even sometimes try to steer them back on topic. You do much more than that though, and you even post threads about the sex life of people on "the Alt Right". Of course this kind of obsessive, toxic content will eventually be cracked down on. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's possible to bring up race and immigration in a way that relates to many different topics though. You not liking certain subjects being discussed doesn't mean any rules have been broken. Unfortunately, this new rule will probably fuck over legitimate threads from both of you in the future. nicethings said: I think that the problems at their roots are what need to be severed rather than the symptoms causing the disease that's plagued MAL for awhile. The problem with Rule 7 is that while in some degrees it's spot on, in others it really does sound like it goes too far (i.e. you could be hypothetically banned for calling someone "stupid"). Contrarily the old rules were rather poorly worded, and ill defined (bait especially was not well defined and could be applicable to non-bait posts). I really don't know. So it's fine to insult people? Personally, I think light things like that should be treated leniently, but if that is fine, then Nyu talking in a polite manner about race can't possibly be a problem. |
PolarcApr 26, 2018 8:49 PM
| Wait... So users can't make threads hating on women/gays or spreading Neo Naz-uh, I mean Alt Right politics? ...And people think this is a bad thing? XD It's about time the mods did this. You have my support and approval. |
| "Bang." -Spike Spiegal "Everything... is connected." -Lain Iwakura "Life is too short to watch bad anime. Long Live the 1st Episode Drop." -InkSpider "Anime fans make me embarrassed to be an anime fan." -InkSpider |
| @Polarc They were threads about court cases and I even provided court documents. Don't be so disingenuous. They dont even break new rules. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
traed said: @Polarc They were threads about court cases and I even provided court documents. Don't be so disingenuous. They dont even break new rules. Regarding your thread about the sex life of the French guy, should there be no threshold of pettiness beyond which the mods are justified in removing a thread? What if there is a court case somehow related to a dog show? I guess we better talk about it! So I agree, this new rule is unnecessary. The mods should simply apply the standards that they had before, and the fluff threads will be taken care of. Not all sites for checking that are equal. I once found a Neo Reactionary run bias check site which of course itself increadibly biased to a far right authoritarian ideology. A lot of fact checkers basically have beef with eachother and each one says bad things about eachother. This demonstrates the fact that "fact checkers" are a bullshit concept. Snopes is extremely biased towards the left, as I recall. Why is that biased site more valid than the far right leaning one? This also applies to the new rule saying the New York Times is somehow a paragon of journalistic integrity and we should link it rather than independent media. On what basis are these neoliberal MSM rags more valid? |
PolarcApr 27, 2018 5:54 AM
| I'm trying to understand about what are people still arguing. |
 |
Philosophers have used chickens to define humans. Scientists these days run tests on rats before they qualify something for humans. Comparison is of logic, not of connotation. But perhaps if you knew that you wouldn't be arguing for this rule. MyAnimeList isn't the only forum though. If people are desperate to discuss these topics, they can do that on another platform. No idea who that user is, but ever considered reporting them? You tell me you don't know who that is, and then go on quoting him in the same post reminding him that he should be the biggest opponent of this rule. I will not report him on point. He does not spam and he does have opinions, no matter how toxic. Even if he is baiting, I will still not ban him. As long as he's taking the care to argue for his point, no matter how horrendous, I don't consider him ban-worthy. But his actions don't align with your values, so by all means, go ahead and ban him. Don't be mistaken, however: I'm also free to point out whenever your actions contradict with your values. You want freedom of speech for 'appropriate speech' but then act in a way that bans all expression, not just the 'inappropriate one' (I know this from your response to the excerpt below). So tell me how talking about holocaust denial is making people get to know each other better and helping them make friends. That isn't a Casual topic. It's letting me know that my interlocutor hasn't really done his research, and if he has reason, then I should indulge him, otherwise he's not worth my time. You're banning people for having opinions, and I'm allowing them for having reason. I shouldn't have to point this out: You are worse than a holocaust denier when you act like a tyrant. At least the former can be innocent and will be able to change his mindset with a little dialogue. I wish everyone could discuss civilly. If people did that, we wouldn't need any rules at all. Sadly people aren't always civil. Common sense is no longer common. Teach them, that's what the excerpt said. Penalize disruptive behavior, tell them that they can't just spam ad hominems and expect to be taken seriously. Don't silence them entirely. They don't have a forum. What more of a reason do you need? Oh, I see they've upgraded to kitsu. But I'll leave this point here. You aren't really taking this discussion seriously, as much as you herald yourself as the regulator of discussions. Not trying to do that, but I wish people would stop treating this as some politics forum to spread their shitty views... The same tyrannical puerility is on display again. There are no shit views, only shit arguments. That is all I will tell you. I'm willing to humor even a pedophile if he can properly argue for his position. If I can't refute him in a debate, then that is a moment for me to reflect upon myself, my self-righteousness. Take some time to digest this. Ardanaz said: Nyu said: I support rule 7, the propaganda was getting to much. If you aren't joking then I am genuinely shocked. I expected you to be the most vocal about these changes. How cute. changelog_ said: I am wrong sometimes. This is one of them. I'm not sure what you mean by PPE, but if you are worth your salt, you'd know that your behavior here, or your approval of this step, is precisely the disease which allows every other disease to spread in society. You see people spitting stupid opinions? Educate them. Don't expect any fast results; your job is just to expose them to the accurate view. The rest is up to them. You're being way too arrogant in giving yourself the full authority to legislate based on what you judge as stupid. I'm willing to bet you're stupider than most people you dislike. I'm a right winger too. Don't you dare define this position with your racist, half-baked, bullshit. If it were my forum though, I will allow you to spew even your verbiage, but I will condemn it regardless. |
ThanakosApr 27, 2018 2:18 AM
traed said: That's what I meant. I'm not saying it's good or bad just that more rules usually makes things feel less casual. I don't disagree with the concept just the implementation seemingly going further than it need be and it actually plays in the favour of these peple how it makes it so their views can go unchallenged. Sure they can't make their own threads but they still could post in other people's threads the same kind of stuff vaguelt relate it to the thread but others can't challenge that without breaking rules because then they themselves would be derailing. At least when a thread is dedicated to a certain topic everything can be adressed. Not that I think there shouldn't be some limits though. But you can challenge their views. If you keep things civil, you can talk about a lot. I'm not really following your point here. If someone posts something vaguely related and that causes a derailment, they're usually at fault. "b. use the title of the sourced article but if this violates rule 5 it is preferred the title be altered to follow it, " Or since that's difficult to follow you could just not have that rule at all since rule 5 (hope I got that number right) already covers against severe bias and clickbait and whatever else so I don't see the point of the other rule as necessary unless that's just meant as a backup two stage precaution but it makes rules difficult to adhere to if that's the point. >Preferred the title be altered. This is too vague. Preferred, but not enforced? I guess we'll have to wait and see how things go regarding this rule. The problem with a white list is there are thousands of perfectly valid reliable local news sites for the numerous world cities and they can provide updates other larger sites don't from their loss of interest plus previous rules state it should come from the source, which often is a small local news source. There also are lesser known news sources that are quite factual. Black list makes more sense since they are much more obvious to be from an unreliable source even if you can't find info on the site because of lack of in article sourcing or fake sourcing and lack of evidence and all the stories being basically same thing and with a more than obvious bias that is same bias for each one. Not all sites for checking that are equal. I once found a Neo Reactionary run bias check site which of course itself increadibly biased to a far right authoritarian ideology. A lot of fact checkers basically have beef with eachother and each one says bad things about eachother. I agree that a blacklist makes more sense, but for every good site, there are 10 bad sites. We couldn't possibly blacklist all the bad ones, so that's why we chose for a few examples of good sites. It seemed like it was a fairly new user so I didn't remember their username even right after. There is nothing to find it wasn't locked it was deleted by a mod. Alright, that's a shame :/ I know it's fine. I'm saying the rules don't reflect that it's fine and only mention posting NSFM above a spoiler only. Although I'm not sure how necessary it is to add since I doubt too many users would report that unless they aren't used to the internet. Just covering all bases. It's just saying that you should have it in a spoiler tag and have it labeled. The i.e. is just one way to do it. You could also have the 'NSFW' just below the spoiler tag or all around it or whatever. I don't think we need to add every possible basis for that. I would have to think about it. I haven't written detailed rules before. I'm just pointing out some of the flaws as I go along so someone else might be able to figure out a resolution to it once it's pointed out. Well like Japanese whaling or how they eat dolphins or their bizarre interest in poo shaped things or asking if sexual assaults on trains really is actually more common than elsewhere and if that is due to culture or population density. All that makes it sound like it could be an attack based on nationality or ethnicity and the last so is about another topic deemed controversial but the question is purely factual questioning not controversy and all these things are true of the current culture or question the perception of it so it's not really steriotyping is it? It's not same as saying all Japanese nationals are like so and so. Besides that the rules made it sound like all topics that were listed below were what is considered controversial not that only controversial topics that are associated with those things are banned. If that is the case what scale is used to determine what is controversial? There isn't exactly a guidline if you actually do allow some topics. For example a user can't make a thread about feudalist Japan because it is a political ideology and historical event and it can't be made in CD nor CE either. I couldn't make a thread about the (il)legitimacy of political spectrums because it's about political ideology in general. One couldn't make a thread about pragmatism vs pure ideology because again political ideologies was specified. A user can't make a thread about who could be considered the most influential world leaders because topics about world leaders are banned. Can't make a thread of how Korea could be unified (although current evens are heading toward a peace treaty so it could be made maybe but it would be only semi related to the topic). Even when a thread can be made in CE if not CD it can only last two weeks without being locked according to the rules even if not actually controversial and highly debated it seems. I already have seen threads locked in CE that shouldn't since they don't actually violate even the new rules. Like the example I gave in post 55 on this thread. We'll have to see how things go to determine if changes need to be made and if so, which changes. The examples of posts you list indeed violate the new rule, but I don't see a problem with that. Those are the exact kind of threads we don't want. Why do we want a thread about poop shaped things? You can still have these discussions on other platforms if you want. Regarding what defines controversy, we have examples set in place. We'll be spending the next weeks/months/whatever fine tuning and getting as consistent as possible with these. I know it can seem vague, but we just can't list every possible controversy. That's good. Derailment is a bit tricky though since some derailment actually can relate to a topic so it's not good to be too strict if it just carries on a couple replies or is brought back on topic after going off it for a while. Also should be a bit more lax if the offender is the person who made the thread. Yep, that's exactly why it's tricky. Also when there's like a 6 page thread with tons of quotes of the derailment and whatever, it just becomes a total nightmare that ends up taking the whole evening to clean up. Which is fair but some users seem to get away with it multiple times in same thread after being cleaned or in multiple threads one after another. Do other mods know when a warning is given? Since I sometimes see a thread cleaned by one mod then locked by another. We don't see all of it though, so if you think someone is getting away with things too easily, please do report it. We can see who's been warned already yeah. We keep track of everything. Cleaned by one and locked by another mod shouldn't really happen unless they worked together on it. Some people don't have time or energy to be posting on multiple sites. Basically if it's too strict some people will just leave MAL forums entirely and not just the pain the ass users but good ones. But entire topics are banned rather than just restricted as i pointed out earlier in this post. We'll see how things go, but I've heard lots of people agreeing with the rules. Many didn't want to post anymore (myself included) because when I open CD for example, all I'd see is trump threads or other racist crap. It just creates such a toxic atmosphere. If you mean in CE, then those topics aren't entirely banned. Just get a good source for it and word it in an unbiased way. Edit: an afterthought I forgot to mention. Just because something is debatable or controversial doesn't automatically mean it produces a "toxic" environment in the thread and devolve into flame wars. Different topics create different reactions and responces from people. For example a thread about GMOs could be debatable but you aren't going to get people that agressive over it like you would in a thread about illegal immigrants aborting gay Nazi fetuses with guns. Agreed. That's why we added "liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse)" to the rule. Holy crap man, these long posts are difficult to format and keep organized. I wish quotes were colorized or something >__> ________________________________________________________ @Thanakos It's still a terrible comparison. You're implying that my logic is: "All anime should be removed because there are bad anime" You can only say that if we removed the forums entirely. You're just wrong here. And trying to insult isn't going to get you anywhere. Remain civil or I'm not going to bother arguing with you. I thought you were talking about Al-jazeera. I assumed this to be a user, but I'm guessing it's something else. If you think we're banning people for having an opinion, you're sorely mistaken. Calling us tyrants is also laughable. I am definitely taking the discussion seriously. If I wasn't, I wouldn't by replying here. Though I do think discussion with you isn't really getting either of us anywhere. You seem to have a very set in stone opinion on us and I doubt anything I say will change that. |
ArdanazApr 27, 2018 2:32 AM
| Be careful, op. You might get sniped for complaining about badmining. |
 |
| What makes you think MAL cares about user feedback? Just look at Rule 6. It's been over three years since it was implemented and it's still here |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Comic_Sans said: What makes you think MAL cares about user feedback? Just look at Rule 6. It's been over three years since it was implemented and it's still here Sounds like it's a pretty decent rule then :o |
Jack said: No, it isn't, most people hated it when it was first introduced and they still do. The only reason it's still here is because MAL won't listen to user feedbackSounds like it's a pretty decent rule then :o |
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
ClodRaker said: I agree with this right here, we even could meet in the middle and have a separate part for "controversial current events"I can understand why CD is being clamped down on, because controversial subjects tend not to be conducive to "casual" discussion. Pointing at and/or laughing at SJWs, the alt-right, w/e other scapegoat when you're talking about food chains is a bit like spiking a pot bowl with meth. I'd prefer the clamps to be eased on CE, however. Notable current events are, by their very nature, likely to spark heated and controversial discussion. |
Jack said: So, just because a rule (law) has been around for a while this means that is "pretty decent"? Following that logic I guess anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion laws were "pretty decent" and shouldn't have been gotten rid of?Comic_Sans said: What makes you think MAL cares about user feedback? Just look at Rule 6. It's been over three years since it was implemented and it's still here Sounds like it's a pretty decent rule then :o |
 I love Christine "If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau |
Comic_Sans said: Jack said: No, it isn't, most people hated it when it was first introduced and they still do. The only reason it's still here is because MAL won't listen to user feedbackSounds like it's a pretty decent rule then :o are you talking about the rule that is basically saying no porn? |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
hazarddex said: More like the rule that basically says no porn (including industry-related talk), no pedophilia, no masturbation, no sexual fetishes or preferences and sexual experiencesare you talking about the rule that is basically saying no porn? |
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
changelog_ said: but current events was made for this type of thing, with that logic any non anime related thread shouldn't exist.My final point stands: MAL is not the place for political or sensitive discussion, it was not made for that either. Before Rule 7 was implemented, TALKING ABOUT SENSITIVE MATERIAL WAS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT Now that privilege has been removed and the community has no right to forcefully want it back. You can say your opinions all you want but threads like the ones stated in Rule 7 are just full of toxic crap. Go to some other website if you want to rant about your politics. Also did I miss where anyone here was "forcefully" wanting it back, so far every thing people have done in this thread seems to be well within their rights |
Nyu said: nicethings said: Being a racist isn't "right wing", I'm pretty sure most rational people on the left or the right would be against racism. There are decent conservative people out there, you know. The alt right is not representative of most of conservatism, nor the right wing as a whole, they are an extreme, radical branch literally calling for segregation and racism lmfao. They are not "the right", just as SJWs are not "the left". Stop deflecting. You're just mad that the rule is calling out neonazis ("white idealitarians", the "alt right", racists) for what they are. Moreover stop targeting my posts if you're not going to read them. You can't come up with half a sensible argument, in anything... and I've really tired of it.. I've made it clear that I don't like you and I don't want to talk to you. Politics is racist, its different groups voting for their interests, and people only call people racist if Whites are voting as a Ethnic group for their interests. your mask fell off i see. so your finnally admiting to being a racisted. also no politics is not just about racism. thats a very small section that will go away as time passes as its completely pointless. not everything in politics is about race and not everything in life is about race ether. in fact a person can live there entire life without giving a shit about race. try it some time. and most rightwings don't support the alt right. |
GrimAtramentApr 27, 2018 1:28 PM
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
| The general idea of this rule is quite good I would say. The problem is on what is put under umbrella of controversial/sensitive, also what makes something liable to incite rule violations. I suppose some closer look at those is needed. Firstly what makes something liable to incite rule violations. Doesn't that include everything, lets say I come to forums with intend to troll, so existence of any topic gives me an initiative to violate rules, that doesn't seem right since some topics are allowed. So I suppose there is a hidden layer under it, what is it then? Any mods can answer this? On controversial topic, something is controversial when it involves some controversy in it. Merriam-webster define controversy as: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. In this case we can only discuss on things we all agree, it's absurd to belief that that's possible, at least some difference in opinion will happen. So any discussion topics are not allowed? Listing as well if my memory serves me right? So no topic are allowed? I will ignore controversy and focus on sensitivity further on. On the a, b, c thingy. Point a is quite self evident as sensitive, I agree that this seems like a good rule. Need better wording though, now to many things fall under it. Now point b is dynamic, everything can become highly debated social issue, it's also not sensitive in itself. There is nothing to imply that something highly debated would be sensitive be definition, global warming is highly debated topic, it's also not sensitive in it's nature. C same as B. Honestly this is absurd.... |
GhostOutOfShellApr 27, 2018 1:52 PM
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
Jack said: Comic_Sans said: What makes you think MAL cares about user feedback? Just look at Rule 6. It's been over three years since it was implemented and it's still here Sounds like it's a pretty decent rule then :o Divine right of kings was a law/rule for more than three years does that make it decent? What about capital punishment? Restriction of woman from voting rights? Your reasoning is absurd here. |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
| I just scrolled through CD, and I could pretty much report 70-80% of threads under rule seven, though OP's seems like a nice guys so i will not do that to them. (Edit: Or maybe I did some of that, who knows) But then again if this rule stay in power and will not be clarified instead of using blur lines of everything is basically part of this i will have to report every single thread to stay a good citizen of MAL and I hope mods will stay good law enforcer and delete all of them. Why not just remove CD? |
GhostOutOfShellApr 27, 2018 2:58 PM
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
ThrashMatto said: So, just because a rule (law) has been around for a while this means that is "pretty decent"? Following that logic I guess anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion laws were "pretty decent" and shouldn't have been gotten rid of? GhostOutOfShell said: Divine right of kings was a law/rule for more than three years does that make it decent? What about capital punishment? Restriction of woman from voting rights? Your reasoning is absurd here. Apples to oranges, the fact that you two can even think of comparing not being allowed to talk about naughty bits on a forum to actual real world problems is absurd. Anyone else want to try and make such a faulty comparison? |
Jack said: ThrashMatto said: So, just because a rule (law) has been around for a while this means that is "pretty decent"? Following that logic I guess anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion laws were "pretty decent" and shouldn't have been gotten rid of? GhostOutOfShell said: Divine right of kings was a law/rule for more than three years does that make it decent? What about capital punishment? Restriction of woman from voting rights? Your reasoning is absurd here. Apples to oranges, the fact that you two can even think of comparing not being allowed to talk about naughty bits on a forum to actual real world problems is absurd. Anyone else want to try and make such a faulty comparison? Your reasoning is absurd and that was my focus on that comment, I am all for rule 6, it's a good rule, but I was not talking about that. A moderator should be able to know why; what makes it important for CD, why is this rule even relevant, what exactly it fixed and so on. |
| Signature was not removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Tulip & Flower Guidelines. |
Jack said: I don't really care so much about that rule as I care about your insane logic of "Oh, it's older than 3 years. Must be good"ThrashMatto said: So, just because a rule (law) has been around for a while this means that is "pretty decent"? Following that logic I guess anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion laws were "pretty decent" and shouldn't have been gotten rid of? GhostOutOfShell said: Divine right of kings was a law/rule for more than three years does that make it decent? What about capital punishment? Restriction of woman from voting rights? Your reasoning is absurd here. Apples to oranges, the fact that you two can even think of comparing not being allowed to talk about naughty bits on a forum to actual real world problems is absurd. Anyone else want to try and make such a faulty comparison? |
I love Christine "If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau |
| i feel like this is a great rule and will reduce arguments and we'll all start holding hands and singing n shit or you can just take a cd thread and put it in ce instead of being a complacent bit- bad boy! i meant bad boy plz no baneronis... |
 |
Ardanaz said: But you can challenge their views. If you keep things civil, you can talk about a lot. I'm not really following your point here. If someone posts something vaguely related and that causes a derailment, they're usually at fault. Even if it becomes off topic from the other person leading it off? >Preferred the title be altered. This is too vague. Preferred, but not enforced? I guess we'll have to wait and see how things go regarding this rule. I said preferred because like I said the rule seems redundant of the intent of a similar rule before it. If it's enforced it should only be if the title is obviously misleading. You can't expect everyone would see a moderately biased title as biased or clickbait automatically. I do occasionally see articles using titles that don't even describe the event at all though because they tried to be caitchy or cute or edgey which seems more common on good sources than excessively biased clickbait. I agree that a blacklist makes more sense, but for every good site, there are 10 bad sites. We couldn't possibly blacklist all the bad ones, so that's why we chose for a few examples of good sites. Well if you're not changing it to a black list at the moment at least white list sites for major cities and have some broad sweeping ones such as allowing all local sites of major news sites without having to list them individually although some fake ones might exist but that is unlikely because using a trademarked and copyrighted brand risks them of being sued. Also the rules don't state what happens if a user uses a source that isn't always reliable but backs it up with another source that is very reliable. Also I hope the focus is accuracy of reporting rather than bias since there are no unbiased sources just more or less bias. Also users should be able to use sites not white listed if they or a mod can show some reason it's a good source since you couldn't expect to have a full list right away and it would seem ridiculous for users with good sources not white listed to get same treatment as users using sites that would have been blacklisted. There is one issue I forgot to mention. Sometimes on occasion I make a thread in CE with a questionable source or a source I can't find info on and can't find it mentioned on other sites and ask users if so and so actually took place. The new rules make it so that can't be done by anyone. It's just saying that you should have it in a spoiler tag and have it labeled. The i.e. is just one way to do it. You could also have the 'NSFW' just below the spoiler tag or all around it or whatever. I don't think we need to add every possible basis for that. Oh it just label? Before I thought it just said it has to be above. I guess saying labelled covers both above spoiler and on the spoiler so if that's the wording used that would be best to avoid confusion. We'll have to see how things go to determine if changes need to be made and if so, which changes. The examples of posts you list indeed violate the new rule, but I don't see a problem with that. Those are the exact kind of threads we don't want. Why do we want a thread about poop shaped things? You can still have these discussions on other platforms if you want. Regarding what defines controversy, we have examples set in place. We'll be spending the next weeks/months/whatever fine tuning and getting as consistent as possible with these. I know it can seem vague, but we just can't list every possible controversy. I don't see how. Reporting on racist events is in no way the same as reporting something with intent of supporting racism or being outright racist. If that is how it's enforced it silences the existence of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, religious bigotry and so on which plays in to the hands of bigots to shelter them from any disapproval and social accountability. So if we had a massive genocide MALs stance is to silence it like it never happened? So reporting terrorist attacks are also banned now even if the OP doesn't generalize a race or religion? If it's enforced like that then that's the most absurdist rule yet and has a pro right wing extremist bias. I hope that's not the case. Yep, that's exactly why it's tricky. Also when there's like a 6 page thread with tons of quotes of the derailment and whatever, it just becomes a total nightmare that ends up taking the whole evening to clean up. I would think it's possible to write a code that deletes all instances of a post you delete so long as the post ID number exists in the quote. That would have to be tested and perfected because if it is buggy it would be a disaster. We'll see how things go, but I've heard lots of people agreeing with the rules. Many didn't want to post anymore (myself included) because when I open CD for example, all I'd see is trump threads or other racist crap. It just creates such a toxic atmosphere. If you mean in CE, then those topics aren't entirely banned. Just get a good source for it and word it in an unbiased way. Yes but many people agreeing aren't seeing the flaws and are only agreeing to the general premise especially if they focus on it banning people who opposes their views. You saw that already with Nyu who is a major offender of these new rules agreeing to the rules not realizing it effects him. Though he's a bad example really but point is some people are just giving their knee jerk reaction not a thought out analyses and critique like I'm trying to do and a few others may be trying to do though I seem to be going into most detail but I haven't been reading every post. But to make such a thread would require a current event with new info on a subject or at least an article with an op-ed which is no older than two weeks so it's not far off from entirely banned which btw the rules seem to leave how an op-ed can be used so idk if that's not allowed now. Agreed. That's why we added "liable to incite rule violations (trolling, flaming, abuse)" to the rule. But how is liability of rule violations judged? Like I pointed out earlier sometimes how the OP is written influences responses. Shouldn't one at least wait for first few responses to get an idea of what kind of reaction people have to a thread if it isn't blatantly trollish or agressively hateful? Some topics don't get discussed often and on rare occasions topics never spoken of before can appear. You can have people be civil about really controversial topics or really agressive with really mundane topics. Like one could make people lose their shit over waifu tastes or taste in food or music if you call them as having shit tastes and being a sicko or a psycho although i suppose that violates older rules as is. Holy crap man, these long posts are difficult to format and keep organized. I wish quotes were colorized or something >__> Never seen that before on any site that I recall but it's possible to do but I imagine it would be buggy. Besides that you could copy and post the whole group of quotes and then get out of quick reply go to normal reply page post it then hit preview to help with finding things within by using "find" in your browser of series of words you're locating. |
traedApr 27, 2018 10:15 PM
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
| Woaw, you're not allowed to race/gender bait on MAL anymore? *Claps really hard* I can't wait to read further down that thread and read all the ancap/alt-right posters whining about their "free speech" (read: right to be an ass withoutconsequences) being taken Good thing, thx mods. |
Prophetess of the Golden Era  |
Clebardman said: Woaw, you're not allowed to race/gender bait on MAL anymore? *Claps really hard* I can't wait to read further down that thread and read all the ancap/alt-right posters whining about their "free speech" (read: right to be an ass withoutconsequences) being taken Good thing, thx mods. Actually I've been one of the people arguing against it as it stands but not to fully remove it like some users but to fix errors in it that throw the weed out with the bong water. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
More topics from this board
» Have you ever used a fake referral to get a job?fleurbleue - 7 hours ago |
10 |
by PrinceYuta
»»
28 minutes ago |
|
» any of yall got a car ( 1 2 )fbjim - Jan 17 |
72 |
by CeciliaAda
»»
30 minutes ago |
|
» Are you comfortable with dancing with someone?Deathko - Aug 31 |
28 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
47 minutes ago |
|
» Is there anything you tend to hate-watch?PrayToVeseveia - 2 hours ago |
3 |
by FanofAction
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » If you were offered to become a MAL moderator, would you accept? ( 1 2 )Shizuna - Aug 30 |
82 |
by pigdestroyer
»»
2 hours ago |