>>64 Let's get discussion going. >You will not post NSFW on a SFW board. Does it mean images or discussion also should be SFW? What about greens?

>>65 To make things the most clear, it's "/mlp/-SFW" if that makes sense. Mainly means that images cannot be explicit. Greens and discussion can be though.

2. You will not post banned content: Artistic (guro) or photographic (gore) depictions of extreme or lethal violence What about ms paint level gore? Or edgy drawings? Slapstick violence? Cupcake? Feels like many unsure anons will get banned with this one. Considering the dark humor that tends to get posted

>>67 >ms paint level gore If it doesn't even resemble realistic gore, there's no problem. A pony-shaped scribble with a bunch of red lines on it isn't gore. Of course there are people genuinely spending 1000 hours in mspaint to create actual drawings, so if you can draw recognisable art in mspaint, that would be judged accordingly. >edgy drawings Well that's just a question of whether they're depicting extreme guro. There is, in fact, a lot of edgy art that would fall under that umbrella. For instance, most things tagged "reverse blowjob" in a booru would in fact not be allowed (except for those which fall under "modular", or hide the gorey parts to make it implied but non-graphic - the rule is about graphic gore, not general grimdark/death). >slapstick violence Depends on how graphic and serious it is. If the injuries are sufficiently stylised and cartoonish, it would be quite hard for it to be "extreme". If it's genuine gore played off as "slapstick 'dark humour', look his guts are everywhere that's so funny haha", then it's still gore. >Cupcakes The story would be just fine to post. A sufficiently edgy and detailed illustration could easily be not fine, however. Screenshots/gifs from the "Cupcakes HD" animation should be fine to post - I haven't watched it in a while but I'm pretty sure that all the actual gore shown is highly stylised and most of the worst "action" is actually off-camera. Good question, though, as it comes close to being borderline. The same shots but in a realistic artstyle might be too far, or the same show-accurate stylised style but with a stronger focus on showing the details of the mutilation might also get close to the line. In general, the point of the rule is that you can't post pictures with guts splattered everywhere. Not that you can't use dark humour, or discuss ponies being injured, or even post images of ponies dying in general, or things like that. >Feels like many unsure anons will get banned with this one. The general moderation policy is not to be tyrannical. If something can be interpreted as an honest mistake, a warning (or, in particularly mild/borderline cases, even just silent file deletion) can serve just as well.

>>68 Aight ty

Can we post uncensored japanese horse comics in clop?

>>70 Should be fine as long as it's relevant to the thread.

Verdict on a tulpa thread? It will bring traffic to the board, but tulpa threads get weird, autistic, and off-topic sometimes. Even pony tulpas might take unhooved forms from time to time. It'd be great to work out a more nuanced rule on tulpas to allow for discussion while preventing the overwhelming autism from damaging board culture.

>>78 >more nuanced rules Tulpa discussion isn't banned, and a tulpa thread would not be against the rules. That means discussion of tulpas, guides about tulpas, anons posting progress report on making tulpas or giving each other advice on tulpas would normally all be allowed. However: - tulpas posting as themselves is not allowed (no rp, GR14). You can talk about your tulpa, but your tulpa can't front and post for you. This may a slightly less intuitive interpretation of the global rules than the rest of the points below, but unfortunately it's impossible to reliably and accurately distinguish between a genuine well-developed tulpa and someone purely LARPing, so if the latter is to be banned as per GR14 (which it is), the former cannot be allowed either. - non pony related tulpas are not allowed; if someone mentions off-hand that they have non-pony tulpas that's not worth chasing up, but any discussion about them would be off-topic (GR2, GR16). - shapeshifting pony-based tulpas that have humanized shapes are only allowed insofar as they are a pony tulpa. Again, just mentioning that it can take a humanized shape isn't banworthy, but in-depth conversation where the humanisation isn't incidental (e.g. advice on how to visualise a humanised form) would also fall under GR2/GR16. Goes without saying that posting humanised images is an unambiguous GR2 ban. In short: tulpa discussion is allowed, but is not exempt from any of the global rules, which I would hope should be self-evident. For instance, aside from the specific points I mentioned above, someone going full schizo and posting incomprehensible ramblings would be moderated under GR5 (low quality posts). But this is also true outside of the topic of tulpas - just as all the other points I mentioned above are. I believe that hopefully, the global rules should be clear enough for this to be self-evident, and that the tulpa thread shouldn't need any special case rules. Anything that would be too low-quality, schizoid or otherwise against the rules everywhere would also be against the rules in the tulpa thread, and vice versa. Let me know if you disagree, and if you foresee anything that would be GR-compliant but you think could still cause a problem. Ultimately, the rules can always be revised if such issues are discovered. However, I'm hoping that the current rules are worded well enough that they should last a while without needing amendments, including both in tulpa threads and otherwise.

>>79 This all makes good sense, and it's about how I would moderate it too. I can't think of any exceptional cases right now, but tulpa stuff can sometimes be as fantastical or nonsensical as dream imagery, so your discretion with regards to incidentals like form is greatly appreciated. Tulpa stuff is a neutral skill, and like any tool it can be mishandled. A clear stance and a firm hand on your part should be all that's necessary.

Set a rule for being an obnoxious necro bumpfag, this is the definition of low quality posting and used to be bannable on /mlp/ and its only gone to shit since they stopped with hours going between shitposts just to necro bump it and keep it around the catalog. theres no fucking reason for this shit on a slow imageboard like nhnb >>>/fim/268 >>>/fim/203 >>>/fim/232 >>>/fim/268 >>>/fim/364 >>>/fim/434

>>94 I don't really get it either. Currently /fim/ is set to be 150 threads (*may be subject to refinement in the future). We have a while to go before reaching that. While I appreciate the enthusiasm I think the thread would be better served by posting more things actually relevant to the thread, that might draw more people in. In any case, I've removed the content-less bumps. Hopefully any future bumps will contain at least some amount of content or discussion.

>>94 >Set a rule for being an obnoxious necro bumpfag I think that's covered by "low quality posts". If the board ever becomes actually fast to the point of needing bumps, then it'll make sense (those are still mediocre quality posts but they'll at least server an actual purpose and be forgivable), but when there's zero reason to actually bump, it's just useless spam.

Propose to refuse posts that contain the following phrases: (...)oomer (...)pilled based beta boi chad chud cope cringe cuck debunked dilate finna fucking incel kek literally muh nigga nigger = roodypoo problematic reddit reeeeee seethe shill simp sneed soy sus tbh this thots unironically why yes, (...) yikes YWNBAW I'm fairly certain none of these will come up in a non-obnoxious scenario. and some fun wordfilters would be cool too shit = horseapples fuck = buck hell = hay god = celestia

>>98 I'd rather address things if they become a problem rather than just ban a ton of words outright. >wordfilters I've considered this. If I do actually add some they would need to be kept relatively few and must be relatively unobtrusive (In addition to being fun of course). I'll think about it.

>>98 That list is horrible. Some of these I can agree with, like "finna" or "chud", but banning "fucking" or "literally"? Banning "kek"? Fucking "this" is on your list - what the fuck is your logic that the word "this" can only be used in obnoxious contexts? Or adding a ponychan filter to "nigger". Or "reeeee" - I've never seen that used in "obnoxious scenarios", it's usually just used to express frustration, when you're too lazy to attach an angry reaction image. I will also vehemently defend sneed. If it gets used in low quality posts, those can be deleted, if it gets used in spam, that can be worth a ban. But trying to police the board to ensure only the highest-quality, well thought out posts are allowed is a surefire way to kill it instantly. Not everything that isn't a carefully written essay is detrimental to board quality; there is such a thing as "fun" as well.

>>100 Oops, "fucking kek", reee, and "literally this" aren't supposed to be on there. This is from an IRC message about frustrating nu-4chan slang. It got mixed up and separated when I ran it through an alphabetizer. Roodypoo used to be a /b/ filter.

>>103 >>98 generally an awful idea. only good for off board invasions from shills, and division based /qa/ shitposting. half of these are just born from the cancer that is /tv/ which mixed with reddit >chud, incel, seethe / seething, yikes all common lingo they use, and co-opted sneed but a good chunk of this is already less of a thing by banning no hooves, ponylife and g5 to a lesser extent since g5 isn't nearly as pure shitpost-material yet.

4. No trolling. No fun allowed then?

>>107 Quite the contrary, fun is mandatory. Rule is as stated to prevent trolling.

>>109 >Rule is as stated to prevent trolling. And what is trolling to you then? Its the same dumb excuse the 4whore mods use to remove things they dont like. Draconian bs. Nothing more. Sorry but I dont feel like walking on glass whenever I post.

>>110 You don't need to hit enter twice, you know?

>>107 >>110 There's a line between trolling and fun, just as there's a line between banter and insults - even if they might be using the same words. Of course, moderation can't be perfect. But if you're intentionally trying to derail a thread by making everyone in it mad, chances are the post will be deleted as it's only harming the thread. And as has been stated before, if you're just trying to post and enjoy yourself, you shouldn't live in fear of a ban. One thing I believe in is that strict moderation of discussion is the easiest way to kill free discussion. That being said, I've never felt like walking on glass on 4/mlp/. Sometimes jannies do remove things they don't like, but I've almost never gotten banned or even warned except when e.g. blatantly posting NSFW. And on NHNB, things we don't like have already been codified as part of GR2, so you can expect this to not be an issue.

>>110 Looks like >>112 did a pretty good write up. >And what is trolling to you then? I would probably define it somewhere along the lines of intentionally malicious and/or disruptive posting. Of course there will be a certain threshold required, this is mainly meant to target things that do become a genuine problem. On more minor offenses like these ample warning will be given if there's any ambiguity about it. >Sorry but I dont feel like walking on glass whenever I post. We hope for this not to be the case and as long as you're not intentionally trying to stir stuff, you should have no fear of it.

>>111 no u >>112 >intentionally trying to derail a thread >>113 >intentionally malicious and/or disruptive posting. Then please state this in the rule instead of just "muh trolling". Clarity and transparency is everything to some of us.

>>119 Trolling is intentional by definition. You can't "accidentally troll". In other words, >intentionally trying to derail a thread >intentionally malicious and/or disruptive posting are both pretty much definitions of trolling - whereas genuine discussion that's not intended to be disruptive is again by definition not trolling - so I don't believe the rule is ambiguous. Though we'll consider clarifying the rule to make understanding easier.

>>120 >You can't "accidentally troll". You'd be surprised, "comedy" can be very subjective to some. But I get your point. >Though we'll consider clarifying Tis is all I ask. I appreciate your candor regardless.

>>121 I've added these clarifications to the global rules. Update should show up in a bit.

>>122 Thank you. You're not as bad as you seem. >No trolling, i.e. you will not make intentionally malicious or disruptive posts. I put an "i.e." there. Mby you should too.

Yes, the rules overall are acceptable now. Less vague/tyrannical than before for sure. A decent middle ground. With that said I wont pester you anymore about them. I'll redirect some anons your way as a thank you. Gl hf mys_elf. Hopefully your site lives for atleast a year before you cancel it!

>>124 >I put an "i.e." there. Mby you should too. I probably should. I'll think on it for a little just to have a better chance of less rule revisions. Maybe when I do some other updates. >>125 >the rules overall are acceptable now. Good to hear. >I'll redirect some anons your way as a thank you. ^:) >Hopefully your site lives for atleast a year before you cancel it! Everything the site uses is already paid up for the next two years, so we have at least that long to make something of this place.

>>64 >16 global rules >every post ITT is just begging for even more rules >reinforced anti-"trolling" rules when "trolling" is the #1 most abused and misapplied rule on 4/mlp/ in the first place God damn, pre-2016 8chan really was the only 4chan spinoff that sought to actually be better than the place they splintered off. I'll give you kudos for choosing the lynxchan engine, but this is the kind of overmoderated shithole you're leaving. I don't see the point in using this site when it's exactly the same as nu4chan and current year /mlp/, just with different faggots at the reigns. Disappointed.

>>152 I dunno, how would you have it? The point seems to be to foster comfy and quiet discussion about ponies, without being troubled by all the barely pony related spinoff garbage 4/mlp/ is rife with. Which I can appreciate. How would you do it differently?

>>152 To be fair trolling is the #1 most favorite activity on any chan in general.

Yo, Mr owner. There's a lot of drama going on /mlp/'s fan site alternatives thread (https://boards.4channel.org/mlp/thread/37311680) because apparently you banned somebody for posting pic related because it isn't "FiM-related" or something like that. Can you say something about this here or there so they stop shitting up the thread?

>>155 EQG is not welcome on site, it's as simple as that. This is listed in the global rules and I would advise people to take a look at them before posting. >apparently you banned somebody for posting pic related Yes, EQG is against the rules here and even if he wasn't banned for that, the content of his post would have likely gotten him warned for trolling anyway. A warning was given and he was only actually banned when he immediately made another thread right after with text somewhere along the lines of "lol fuk u". I should also note that mods logs are public for every board, so you can easily verify this. If you are curious you can look through them and see any moderator action that has taken place. >Can you say something about this here or there so they stop shitting up the thread? What would you have me say? I'm not sure there's much I can do to help with the other thread.

>>156 barbieniggers try to infiltrate, get banned on sight and proceed to get absolutely assblasted about not having mod team protection like they do on /mlp/. Based admin. Based board. Keep it up!

i hope it should be obvious but despite this having ponies it doesnt belong and would still be banned here since it's only meant to stir shit. even got deleted on 4cuck. for once they did something right.

>>320 >what are the thoughts on frogs and wojaks? That's written right in the rules, dude.

Retards in pic related are posting conflicting information without providing any sources. What is the official stance on these five things?

>>405 For consistency sake, I will link to previous responses to these questions: >>365 >>351

>>406 Thank you.

>You will not announce reports or abuse the functionality of the site. This rule is nufaggotry but at least never ban sage. I'm personally curious how humans in pony situations are recieved. Not interested in really promoting it but /mlp/ exists for anon faggotry and what counts as acceptable there is good information to have

>>461 >I'm personally curious how humans in pony situations are recieved. Do you just mean Anon in Equestria stuff? I'm not quite sure what else you'd mean. We do have ongoing stories here involving Anon and they do seem to be fairly well received.

>>464 Maybe he means Megan Williams. A forty-something Megan in G4 World would be a blast, especially as she tries to discover why Applejack has forgotten all about her.

>>64 Is it possible to have foalcon banned on this site? That stuff tends to attract a certain unsavory under-age seeking element; the kind that are deserving of the highest disdain. Besides, content like that is stomach churning to most people (myself included). Thanks for the consideration.

>>490 I would like to see this too. It should be added on to the loli/shota rule under banned content. Quick and simple. The recent debacle on /mlp/ over ponepaste, and now FA/possibly Derpi has really been eye opening. It somehow devolved into a train of discussion that exposed just how many unironic pedophiles use that board who openly support that shit, with many more being in other corners of the fandom like discord circlejerks and the altboorus. Most of whom, to absolutely nobodies surprise, are barbiefags It's one of those groups where if you give an inch, they'll take a mile.

>>490 >>491 Whether the rule gets changed or not who does it even effect? No one even uses /clop/ so it can't be argued that foalcon attracts people to this site, and on the other side of that coin if it was banned no one would be missing anything. Still I find it an interesting discussion. The way I see it the fact that an individual is jerking off to a cartoon in the first place is already a "red flag" so to speak. It's tied to mental conditions that correlate with unsavory behavior (le tism). These things are caused by high mutational load so people with one degenerate kink are much more likely to have other phychological issues from a statistical standpoint. Obviously on a case by case basis some people are much more extreme and fucked up than others, but the basic point stands. I could potentially see the merit of an argument that if you draw a line it keeps the worst cases out, but it runs into issues. Ponies evoke neotenic traits. They already look childish from a phychological standpoint. In that sense trying to differentiate between foalcon and "normal" pony porn is an intelectual distinction but not so much of an emotional one. Also, anons here show a clear preference for anatomical correctness which is it's whole own thing. In a sense the most logically consistant argument is that we shouldn't be allowing NSFW at all. Watch this video this guy does a very good analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlOQdr4S95c

>>490 Extreme fetish content is banned under global rule 2. Specifically, >infantilization/diapers is included in the example list. I should note that the list provided is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is meant to be indicative of the types of things that would fall under the rule.

>>493 I think what your trying to say here is that while foalcon is not banned, bad behavior that Anon 97a94a associates with it is? I don't feel like it's a direct answer to the question. Pic tangentially related.

Would it be possible to change things so that it is possible to report a thread without having to click on it?

>>588 You can do this from the board index or the overboard.

>>589 Oh...right! I knew that.

Block bypass should definitely not be limited to only one post an hour. 4chan is making their shit worse by the week and if you want any hope of catching some of the userbase people will need to be able to post more often than that.

>>593 It's changed a few times over the years, currently a block bypass covers 10 posts or 8 hours. Whichever comes first.

>>594 That's interesting, I was only able to post once after filling out the captcha.

test to see if I can post more than once today