Posts
Search Results
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 49
Zaknel 
Ezekiel 33:11
@evan555alpha
Maybe. If the mods aren’t like they were on Derpi, and allowing some users to do this but not others.
Maybe. If the mods aren’t like they were on Derpi, and allowing some users to do this but not others.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 48
evan555alpha 
They may think it’s okay, but you seem to be getting really hung up on those people just saying “you are not allowed to comment on my stuff”
If that is not enforceable via the rules, then just tell them to fuck off if they do it!
Head Administrator
UwU Chwyasawis my waifu
But if there is no statement in the rules about this, they might think that it is okay.
They may think it’s okay, but you seem to be getting really hung up on those people just saying “you are not allowed to comment on my stuff”
If that is not enforceable via the rules, then just tell them to fuck off if they do it!
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 47
Zaknel
Ezekiel 33:11
@Zaknel
What if this site opts to not let users dictate who can and cannot reply to each other? People can still attempt to say “you can’t comment on my stuff” but there’s no way to force the site staff to enforce that kind of thing. And if a user continues to tell people that kind of thing, then there are already tools in place (reports) to deal with them.
But if there is no statemnt in the rules about this, they might think that it is okay.
I just don’t want a repeat of what happened on Derpibooru to EVER happen here.
@ChaosLlama
Okay, so then you’re arguing for a statement in the rules that if a user tells you to not reply to them, you should respect that?
@Boxless
Look, I really like you. I really do. But simply dismissing my reasons for why I think that this is such an important feature without providing any counter-arguments is not going to cut it.
I’ll say it again: Users on Derpi were SOMETIMEs (basically, only if the mods liked them) tried to enforce who could and could not respond to them, but never held themselves to that standard. If you don’t want a block button, you should prevent this by putting a statement in the rules stating that that is not acceptable behavior.
I just don’t want a repeat of what happened on Derpibooru to EVER happen here.
@ChaosLlama
Okay, so then you’re arguing for a statement in the rules that if a user tells you to not reply to them, you should respect that?
@Boxless
Look, I really like you. I really do. But simply dismissing my reasons for why I think that this is such an important feature without providing any counter-arguments is not going to cut it.
I’ll say it again: Users on Derpi were SOMETIMEs (basically, only if the mods liked them) tried to enforce who could and could not respond to them, but never held themselves to that standard. If you don’t want a block button, you should prevent this by putting a statement in the rules stating that that is not acceptable behavior.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 46
Cloppy Hooves
@Boxless
I’m not entirely sure how adding a block system would be “forcing wants on everyone else.” If you don’t want to block people, you don’t need to use the feature.
I know that on Derpi I had to deal with a lot of retards, like a dude who was actually slandering me and trying to spread lies to people about me not actually making my own art and stealing it. Meanwhile, the worthless Derpi staff would at most ban them for a day only for them to keep coming back. At that point, yeah, I’d say block features are kind of nice. We need to draw a fine line between free speech and just constant harassment.
I’m not entirely sure how adding a block system would be “forcing wants on everyone else.” If you don’t want to block people, you don’t need to use the feature.
I know that on Derpi I had to deal with a lot of retards, like a dude who was actually slandering me and trying to spread lies to people about me not actually making my own art and stealing it. Meanwhile, the worthless Derpi staff would at most ban them for a day only for them to keep coming back. At that point, yeah, I’d say block features are kind of nice. We need to draw a fine line between free speech and just constant harassment.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 45
Boxless
Mmm, Warcrimes
@Luzion
Furfags generally look upon the block system in place upon it as a shining fucking beacon of perfection.
@Zaknel
At this point, i’m not even mad, i’m just disappointed. Let it be a script and use it if you care enough to install it. Otherwise, please, for the love of fuck stop trying to force your wants on everyone else.
Furfags generally look upon the block system in place upon it as a shining fucking beacon of perfection.
@Zaknel
At this point, i’m not even mad, i’m just disappointed. Let it be a script and use it if you care enough to install it. Otherwise, please, for the love of fuck stop trying to force your wants on everyone else.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 44
ChaosLlama
Empress of Chaos
@Zaknel
Or you could just, ignore it and not worry about it, instead of creating a whole lot of drama for no reason.
Nobody is forcing you to have to read or reply to any person, so just don’t do it, just ignore it, just move on and look away, not that big a deal. There’s never been a block button because these sites have never been about community/social stuff, it’s been about archiving artwork and having a place for pony art to be. If someone bothered someone, they just ignored them and moved on, which is what you might just have to do now. Sorry, but that’s how life works mate.
Or you could just, ignore it and not worry about it, instead of creating a whole lot of drama for no reason.
Nobody is forcing you to have to read or reply to any person, so just don’t do it, just ignore it, just move on and look away, not that big a deal. There’s never been a block button because these sites have never been about community/social stuff, it’s been about archiving artwork and having a place for pony art to be. If someone bothered someone, they just ignored them and moved on, which is what you might just have to do now. Sorry, but that’s how life works mate.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 43
evan555alpha
Head Administrator
UwU Chwyasawis my waifu
@Zaknel
Yeah, the mods may not have cared about what Pearly did to me, but I didn’t really care about it, either. I thought it was funny. I laughed it off, and ultimately moved on. Let Pearly do her dumb shit to me; it’s not skin off my back. If it got that bad, I’d just hide het posts, and proceed to report any further DMs for harassment.
The staff here are different and will likely conduct things in a different manner. I’m tempted to say that you partially made a mistake when dealing with Derpy, but I figure that, at the time, you didn’t realise how much of a lying piece of work that guy is.
What if this site opts to not let users dictate who can and cannot reply to each other? People can still attempt to say “you can’t comment on my stuff” but there’s no way to force the site staff to enforce that kind of thing. And if a user continues to tell people that kind of thing, then there are already tools in place (reports) to deal with them.
Yeah, the mods may not have cared about what Pearly did to me, but I didn’t really care about it, either. I thought it was funny. I laughed it off, and ultimately moved on. Let Pearly do her dumb shit to me; it’s not skin off my back. If it got that bad, I’d just hide het posts, and proceed to report any further DMs for harassment.
The staff here are different and will likely conduct things in a different manner. I’m tempted to say that you partially made a mistake when dealing with Derpy, but I figure that, at the time, you didn’t realise how much of a lying piece of work that guy is.
What if this site opts to not let users dictate who can and cannot reply to each other? People can still attempt to say “you can’t comment on my stuff” but there’s no way to force the site staff to enforce that kind of thing. And if a user continues to tell people that kind of thing, then there are already tools in place (reports) to deal with them.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 42
Zaknel
My point is that if a site intentionally does not have a block button, then this is not acceptable. If a site is going to let users enforce who can and can not reply to them, then they should have a block button. Not a script that is not inherently integrated into the site. An actual block button. And if the site does not have a block button, then they should make it clear to their users that they not attempt to effectively enforce one by saying that they cannot reply to them.
It has to be one or the other, because as Derpibooru demonstrated to me, if you don’t have one or the other, there is this room for users and even mods to twist it to do what they feel like to whoever they feel like.
So no to the script. If you want a block button, it cannot be a script. It has to be integrated into the site. Or, if you do not want a block button, you have to tell users that they are not to try and effectively create one by ordering other users around.
Ezekiel 33:11
Looking back on this, I do not feel I did a satisfactory job explaining what the issue is. Before I explain further, I wanna just summarize two key points:
- @Marker, @Luzion are not good enough. It cannot be a script. It has to be a feature that is integrated into the site itself for it to be satisfactory. Also,
- Simply hiding comments/posts is not quite acceptable.
I usually save this stuff for the PTSD thread, but this is a thread dedicated to explaining what this site needs to not go the same route as Derpi. And in order to do that, we have to take note of some of what they did wrong and see how we can avoid doing that here. Let me start with my own personal experience.
It was a user named Chrys, who later changed her name to DreamSoda. She was in a foul mood for a month or two on Derpi. Constantly lashing out hard at people. And she told me that I was annoying. Incredibly annoying. And so she DEMANDED that to avoid being annoyed by me, I stop replying to her. Anywhere. And when I did not obey this command, she got more and more bitter and vitriolic. Meanwhile, no one around me said anything about how she does not have the authority to tell me what to do. In fact, one of the mods, Mikey, saw this and told me that I should stop replying to her. And so I did. For a few months. Then she decided that it was okay of her to reply to me. And when I told Mikey about this, he just said that she was not breaking any rules, and couldn’t think of anything else to say at all.
This upset me. She ordered me around like a mod for months, but when it came time to practice what she preached, she did not care, and neither did anyone else. I was so upset by this, I talked to Ciaran about it.
You’ll notice he didn’t really care. Like, at all.
This relayed to me that when users want to make up their own rules on the site, it’s up to the mods’ personal opinions on how that is handled. If they decide that that particular user is allowed to bend the rules and their lack of a block button, they will. And they will not apply this fairly to those that they enforce the rule upon.
And two years later, they still do not see the folly of this.
Here, a user decided that because she did not like someone, she should be allowed to enforce him to not comment on her art on the site. And the mods did not care about that one little bit.
My point is that if a site intentionally does not have a block button, then this is not acceptable. If a site is going to let users enforce who can and can not reply to them, then they should have a block button. Not a script that is not inherently integrated into the site. An actual block button. And if the site does not have a block button, then they should make it clear to their users that they not attempt to effectively enforce one by saying that they cannot reply to them.
It has to be one or the other, because as Derpibooru demonstrated to me, if you don’t have one or the other, there is this room for users and even mods to twist it to do what they feel like to whoever they feel like.
So no to the script. If you want a block button, it cannot be a script. It has to be integrated into the site. Or, if you do not want a block button, you have to tell users that they are not to try and effectively create one by ordering other users around.
Not him but I just don’t believe that a block button is required. DA has a block button, and people over there are supposedly more than willing to block people at the slightest of infractions
I agree. The block feature has been abused many times. But unless they do something that ensures people will not try and recreate it through other means (not a script), then what I showed above will happen, and that is even worse. I would rather not have a block button, but I would also rather have a block button than users being free to regulate who can reply to them and not vice versa.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 40
Anonymous #A691
@Boxless
Is this a reference to the oc dnp that happened? Or is it a reference to something I’m unaware of?
Is this a reference to the oc dnp that happened? Or is it a reference to something I’m unaware of?
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 36
Luzion 
Senior Moderator
pingus
@Zaknel
For now, just use the usersciprt some people have mentioned if needed. Which can be found here
You may have to slightly edit the script, or bug marker to update it, unless I’m stupid and am looking at it wrong, to include ponybooru
Which is done simply by adding an additonal line that reads
// @match https://*.ponybooru.org/*
I’m not 100% up with javascript and userscript formatting so if I’m wrong someone else please chime in.
For now, just use the usersciprt some people have mentioned if needed. Which can be found here
You may have to slightly edit the script, or bug marker to update it, unless I’m stupid and am looking at it wrong, to include ponybooru
Which is done simply by adding an additonal line that reads
// @match https://*.ponybooru.org/*
I’m not 100% up with javascript and userscript formatting so if I’m wrong someone else please chime in.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 34
Anonymous #A691
Is it the retard or the guy who hasn’t posted in two months.
our developer is also co founder
Is it the retard or the guy who hasn’t posted in two months.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 33
Luzion
Senior Moderator
pingus
@evan555alpha
@HeshieokFasla
Thanks guys, I can see your perspectives pretty well now, I was having a hard time understanding it earlier.
And Im inclined to agree with you.
Forgive me if my wording is a bit on the fence, some people seem to think what I say is law and written in stone, so im doing a bit of a balancing act trying to not come off as if Im making executive decisions in replies.
When I said before “ And I’ll certainly forward that to our developer.” I should have touched that our developer,is also co-founder of the site so he has a lot of weight when it comes to policy decisions. A block button certainly isnt just a feature, it also opens up a whole can of worms for policy as well. So I wasnt exactly saying that the feature would be added simply that the idea would be put on the table to consideration.
Our policy changes are not strictly decided by one person on the staff list either. We have discussions if and when necessary.
Im terrible at wording things, and its inevitable that this will be misconstrued or taken out of context by someone. please ask for clarification on anything ive said if you need.
@HeshieokFasla
Thanks guys, I can see your perspectives pretty well now, I was having a hard time understanding it earlier.
And Im inclined to agree with you.
Forgive me if my wording is a bit on the fence, some people seem to think what I say is law and written in stone, so im doing a bit of a balancing act trying to not come off as if Im making executive decisions in replies.
When I said before “ And I’ll certainly forward that to our developer.” I should have touched that our developer,is also co-founder of the site so he has a lot of weight when it comes to policy decisions. A block button certainly isnt just a feature, it also opens up a whole can of worms for policy as well. So I wasnt exactly saying that the feature would be added simply that the idea would be put on the table to consideration.
Our policy changes are not strictly decided by one person on the staff list either. We have discussions if and when necessary.
Im terrible at wording things, and its inevitable that this will be misconstrued or taken out of context by someone. please ask for clarification on anything ive said if you need.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 32
HeshieokFasla
King of the Heshieoks
@Luzion
Not him but I’d personally want to point out the concern that allowing for overarching blocking creates a circumstance where cliques and purity spiral-ing; things this booru I presume was made to oppose; are far easier to perpetuate. People shouldn’t just be able to press a button and remove opinions they dislike from their version of the public discourse, this is antithetical to the prime directive of this website.
Where I would say blocking ought be considered is in the form of a PM block feature, where users are able to prevent specific users from sending additional PMs to them. This way in case of PM abuse or harassment it can be solved without the need for immediate moderator intervention and, imo, any feature which makes it easier for the staff to do their job is probably a good one.
A universal block feature would likely cause drama over blocking on a much higher scale as well which would create circumstances which in my view would make it harder for the staff to do their job.
Not him but I’d personally want to point out the concern that allowing for overarching blocking creates a circumstance where cliques and purity spiral-ing; things this booru I presume was made to oppose; are far easier to perpetuate. People shouldn’t just be able to press a button and remove opinions they dislike from their version of the public discourse, this is antithetical to the prime directive of this website.
Where I would say blocking ought be considered is in the form of a PM block feature, where users are able to prevent specific users from sending additional PMs to them. This way in case of PM abuse or harassment it can be solved without the need for immediate moderator intervention and, imo, any feature which makes it easier for the staff to do their job is probably a good one.
A universal block feature would likely cause drama over blocking on a much higher scale as well which would create circumstances which in my view would make it harder for the staff to do their job.
Site and Policy » Before This Site Goes Public » Post 31
evan555alpha
Head Administrator
UwU Chwyasawis my waifu
@Luzion
I agree with @Boxless that there’s already a userscript alternative.
Not him but I just don’t believe that a block button is required. DA has a block button, and people over there are supposedly more than willing to block people at the slightest of infractions, which could be completely unrelated to anything between the person blocking and the person being blocked.
Having a block button here could mean a similar thing happening, where person A is blocked by person B because of one itty-bitty thing/misunderstanding/whatever that person A did. This leads to circumventing with multiple accounts, public calling out/drama, more misunderstanding, and a general hassle that I’m sure would add an otherwise unneeded workload to the staff.
The userscript available, whilst it allows for blocking, is also client-only, in that it doesn’t prevent the blocked person from performing certain actions. Could it be integrated into the site itself? Possibly, but at the same time I don’t think that it’s necessary, either.
If a user is being harassed by another user, then there are already tools available to them to report the harassment.
I agree with @Boxless that there’s already a userscript alternative.
Not him but I just don’t believe that a block button is required. DA has a block button, and people over there are supposedly more than willing to block people at the slightest of infractions, which could be completely unrelated to anything between the person blocking and the person being blocked.
Having a block button here could mean a similar thing happening, where person A is blocked by person B because of one itty-bitty thing/misunderstanding/whatever that person A did. This leads to circumventing with multiple accounts, public calling out/drama, more misunderstanding, and a general hassle that I’m sure would add an otherwise unneeded workload to the staff.
The userscript available, whilst it allows for blocking, is also client-only, in that it doesn’t prevent the blocked person from performing certain actions. Could it be integrated into the site itself? Possibly, but at the same time I don’t think that it’s necessary, either.
If a user is being harassed by another user, then there are already tools available to them to report the harassment.
Showing results 1 - 25 of 54 total
Default search
If you do not specify a field to search over, the search engine will search for posts with a body that is similar to the query's word stems. For example, posts containing the words winged humanization, wings, and spread wings would all be found by a search for wing, but sewing would not be.
Allowed fields
| Field Selector | Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
author | Literal | Matches the author of this post. Anonymous authors will never match this term. | author:Joey |
body | Full Text | Matches the body of this post. This is the default field. | body:test |
created_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation time of this post. | created_at:2015 |
id | Numeric Range | Matches the numeric surrogate key for this post. | id:1000000 |
my | Meta | my:posts matches posts you have posted if you are signed in. | my:posts |
subject | Full Text | Matches the title of the topic. | subject:time wasting thread |
topic_id | Literal | Matches the numeric surrogate key for the topic this post belongs to. | topic_id:7000 |
topic_position | Numeric Range | Matches the offset from the beginning of the topic of this post. Positions begin at 0. | topic_position:0 |
updated_at | Date/Time Range | Matches the creation or last edit time of this post. | updated_at.gte:2 weeks ago |
user_id | Literal | Matches posts with the specified user_id. Anonymous users will never match this term. | user_id:211190 |
forum | Literal | Matches the short name for the forum this post belongs to. | forum:meta |