• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

Antvasima said:
Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?
Click to expand...
I would not be against it since the behavior relapsed twice, following the early release.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, honest logical arguments are fine, but arguing in genuine bad faith is not.
Click to expand...
Aye, but at that point we have to whip out our ESP devices (read: tin foil hats). If someone doesn't like a verse, and that distaste leads them to do a thorough investigation about it's ratings, is that a rule violation?

It shouldn't be, if it is. You've asked me to plenty of threads where I'd be banned for entering, if it was.

My opinion, their motive is relevant if they break other rules (spamming low quality CRTs, stonewalling, altered scans) and otherwise shouldn't be taken into account.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?
Click to expand...
Honestly, if three months don't work, hit him with six, minimum. It's not really an offense in of itself to call someone a wanker, just a rude and childish thing. But targeted harassment is a different matter entirely. Suffer not the unapologetic asshole.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Aye, but at that point we have to whip out our ESP devices (read: tin foil hats). If someone doesn't like a verse, and that distaste leads them to do a thorough investigation about it's ratings, is that a rule violation?

It shouldn't be, if it is. You've asked me to plenty of threads where I'd be banned for entering, if it was.

My opinion, their motive is relevant if they break other rules (spamming low quality CRTs, stonewalling, altered scans) and otherwise shouldn't be taken into account.
Click to expand...
In spite of hate/or malicious intent, that's report worthy, and that happened in the past, someone got banned couse of this, as it should be.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Hey dog, ban me then. Number one multi-year champion hater of Kingdom Hearts and anime (I have spoken on threads involving both a great deal of times, I am an unrepentant blasphemer).
Click to expand...
Nah, just saying it happened in the past and the user got banned (as it should always be).
In spite of hate/malicious intent to rage others/upset others. That can't go without a serious punishment.
Things out of spitefulness can't be allowed.

Anyways, let's drop this.
 
Last edited:
Mr._Bambu said:
Aye, but at that point we have to whip out our ESP devices (read: tin foil hats). If someone doesn't like a verse, and that distaste leads them to do a thorough investigation about it's ratings, is that a rule violation?

It shouldn't be, if it is. You've asked me to plenty of threads where I'd be banned for entering, if it was.

My opinion, their motive is relevant if they break other rules (spamming low quality CRTs, stonewalling, altered scans) and otherwise shouldn't be taken into account.
Click to expand...
Yes, that makes sense, but there is an enormous difference between genuinely arguing in bad faith, such as through misdirection, misrepresentations, outright lies, or what you mentioned above, and simply greatly liking or disliking a certain verse, but remaining faithful to our wiki's intended core ideals of accuracy and reliability above all else.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Honestly, if three months don't work, hit him with six, minimum. It's not really an offense in of itself to call someone a wanker, just a rude and childish thing. But targeted harassment is a different matter entirely. Suffer not the unapologetic asshole.
Click to expand...
Well, they weren't actually banned for three months the last time, as their block was lifted quite early on, as far as I recall.

Anyway, should we give them a three months block now then?
 
Antvasima said:
Yes, that makes sense, but there is an enormous difference between genuinely arguing in bad faith, such as through misdirection, misrepresentations, outright lies, or what you mentioned above, and simply greatly liking or disliking a certain verse, but remaining faithful to our wiki's intended core ideals of accuracy and reliability above all else.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think wires are getting crossed here. What you and Bambu are referring to are separate things. Bambu is just explaining that one's motivations for a downgrade are not per se material to whether or not the downgrade is valid. You're saying it's a problem if the arguments are dishonest that's a problem, which is true, but the two aren't mutually inclusive.
 
Deagonx said:
I agree, but I think wires are getting crossed here. What you and Bambu are referring to are separate things. Bambu is just explaining that one's motivations for a downgrade are not per se material to whether or not the downgrade is valid. You're saying it's a problem if the arguments are dishonest that's a problem, which is true, but the two aren't mutually inclusive.
Click to expand...
But if the user does it on spite of mocking, upsetting or "for the laughs "... doesn't matter how good their points are, is report worthy and that person should be banned.
Arguing in bad faith should be punishable.
 
God900 said:
But if the user does it on spite of mocking, upsetting or "for the laughs "... doesn't matter how good their points are, is report worthy and that person should be banned.
Click to expand...
You need to clarify exactly what you mean, because the first part of your sentence is very unclear. Are you speaking to their motivations or some action they've actually taken?
 
Deagonx said:
You need to clarify exactly what you mean, because the first part of your sentence is very unclear. Are you speaking to their motivations or some action they've actually taken?
Click to expand...
I'm talking in the case someone does it, along with their motivations.
Becouse there was a case months ago that similar, and the user got banned.

I just can't stand malicious intentions.


Anyways, I think we should drop this, I think I already have derailed the thread enough.
 
Deagonx said:
I agree, but I think wires are getting crossed here. What you and Bambu are referring to are separate things. Bambu is just explaining that one's motivations for a downgrade are not per se material to whether or not the downgrade is valid. You're saying it's a problem if the arguments are dishonest that's a problem, which is true, but the two aren't mutually inclusive.
Click to expand...
Yes. Agreed. Thank you for helping out. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?
Click to expand...
I was proposing it should be longer than 3 months even if just a little bit, but I suppose 3 months is fine but this time he will have to wait them out and I don't think we should believe the apology this time since that basically tells me his original apology might have been a lie. It also could technically be possible he was lying as he claimed we never warned him even though we clearly did unless he literally did forget all that. But he really wasn't supposed to forget those important incidents. Hence another reason to make it longer than 3 months, but 3 months is still a bare minimum.
 
LuffyRuffy46307 said:
I think that would make more sense, we don't know what will happen next, @Firestorm808, I think you better block him at all, these things are very complicated, this is something very serious, which should be received with a harsh and brutal penalty.
Click to expand...
You can't ping people unless you're staff or quote their message, btw.
Anyway yeah if he's just here to be an asshole narcissist and keeps harassing people like Firestorm then a perma seems adequate.
 
I wouldn't be against a permaban. The guy feels like he's malding and can't keep it to himself.
927.png
 
Firestorm808 said:
I wouldn't be against a permaban. The guy feels like he's malding and can't keep it to himself.
927.png
Click to expand...
You're living in his head rent-free, damn.

But yeah, I honestly don't believe the majority will think Permaban is too harsh. Harassment off-site while being banned here should not be tolerated in the slightest, imho.

Permaban all the way.
 
I also think that guy should be perma banned at this point. In start I was thinking 6 month ban should do (it was decided to be 4 months tho) but seeing his obsession being of this extent (going after ppls off site and intentionally targeting them) perma ban seems more reasonable.
 
Firestorm808 said:
Immediately after getting banned again, he goes after me off-site again. I would reconsider a longer duration.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Additionally, this one is not relevant to the vsbattle community. You can choose to block the individual in question, but this is not a sufficient reason to request an extension of time.
 
Dread, I completely disagree. It's one thing to punish people for stuff they do on other sites that is unrelated to the forum, but a user being banned here for harassing someone, and then immediately using another avenue to continue it, is absolutely relevant to their existing ban and is a good reason to extend it permanently.
 
This is incorrect. The staff member in question could have simply blocked the user as soon as they received a message from them. It is not necessary to accept a DM from someone who has previously harassed you.

It is also important to note that in order to DM someone on Discord, you must either be friends with them or be in a mutual server. Therefore, the staff member could have taken steps to prevent the user from contacting them alternatively. In any case, if someone were to spam my DMs, I would simply block the user and report them to Discord.

It is worth reiterating that we no longer punish individuals based on off-site conversations. If we were to start doing so, a significant portion of our community would be banned. As a result, this case will not be treated any differently.
 
ImmortalDread said:
This is incorrect. The staff member in question could have simply blocked the user as soon as they received a message from them. It is not necessary to accept a DM from someone who has previously harassed you.

It is also important to note that in order to DM someone on Discord, you must either be friends with them or be in a mutual server. Therefore, the staff member could have taken steps to prevent the user from contacting them alternatively. In any case, if someone were to spam my DMs, I would simply block the user and report them to Discord.

It is worth reiterating that we no longer punish individuals based on off-site conversations. If we were to start doing so, a significant portion of our community would be banned. As a result, this case will not be treated any differently.
Click to expand...
I'll be able to post the screenshot after work.

Second, I never said it was on Discord. The dude commented on my stuff from a different site

"You're a massive wanker Firestorm808, the Doom Slayer isn't even close to be ''Low Complex Multiversal'' level, he isn't even Universal, stop being delusional"
 
ImmortalDread said:
This is incorrect. The staff member in question could have simply blocked the user as soon as they received a message from them. It is not necessary to accept a DM from someone who has previously harassed you.

It is also important to note that in order to DM someone on Discord, you must either be friends with them or be in a mutual server. Therefore, the staff member could have taken steps to prevent the user from contacting them alternatively. In any case, if someone were to spam my DMs, I would simply block the user and report them to Discord.
Click to expand...
First, it's not "incorrect" simply because you have a difference of opinion. Second, we don't know if it was Discord or not, and it's entirely possibly that he was already in the official server. In any case, it's a moot point, the intent is what is critical here.

ImmortalDread said:
It is worth reiterating that we no longer punish individuals based on off-site conversations. If we were to start doing so, a significant portion of our community would be banned. As a result, this case will not be treated any differently.
Click to expand...
As I've already explained, it will be treated differently because the behavior is directly pursuant to an extremely recent ban for harassment on this very site. We don't need to pretend that this is some kind of slippery slope where people start posting private DM conversations here from other websites to get people banned. That's just not what's going to happen.
 
Firestorm808 said:
I'll be able to post the screenshot after work.

Second, I never said it was on Discord. The dude commented on my stuff from a different site

"You're a massive wanker Firestorm808, the Doom Slayer isn't even close to be ''Low Complex Multiversal'' level, he isn't even Universal, stop being delusional"
Click to expand...
And this is harassment for you? I suppose then. So, on that different site, you could not block him right away?
 
ImmortalDread said:
It is worth reiterating that we no longer punish individuals based on off-site conversations. If we were to start doing so, a significant portion of our community would be banned. As a result, this case will not be treated any differently.
Click to expand...
You're seriously saying that we should be letting persistent staff member harassment go because it's off-site, despite the fact that the person in question has been reported for this twice already, and them evidently continuing to do so after having already been banned is likely indicative of them not willing to change their ways about it, meaning they would most likely continue this line of behavior upon their ban being expired?

Yeah, no.
 
ImmortalDread said:
And this is harassment for you? I suppose then.
Click to expand...
Are you serious right now? "For you?" That's harassment for anybody and I have no idea why you're giving such an attitude about this?

ImmortalDread said:
So, on that different site, you could not block him right away?
Click to expand...
Good grief. He did. He already said that he did. The fact that he did it in the first place is what's being discussed here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
StarShooter80
Establishing Gap Needed for LS Stomps
Replies
13
Views
836
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top