• 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)

Firstly, let me rephrase by saying that we are no longer relying on evidence from off-site conversations to issue punishments.

Secondly, while I acknowledge that the language used may be insulting, I do not consider it to be harassment. However, I do understand that the recipient may perceive it differently. In any case, if necessary, I can simply block the user and move on.

Lastly, I will make a note of this case (bookmark it) and move forward. But it is interesting that we are now beginning to consider off-site conversations as evidence for potential punishments, or to increase the severity of an existing punishment. I may comment it later with a staff member on this matter.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Firstly, let me rephrase by saying that we are no longer relying on evidence from off-site conversations to issue punishments.
Click to expand...
Are you questioning the veracity of Firestorm's claim, or are you simply pointing out that he didn't provide a screenshot of it? I have no doubt he's telling the truth. Do you? If you do, make that clear and stand behind your stance, don't just make a vague allusion to that notion.

ImmortalDread said:
Secondly, while I acknowledge that the language used may be insulting, I do not consider it to be harassment.
Click to expand...
Your opinion does not determine the meaning of words. It's textbook harassment and following him off-site to do so tiptoes at the border of cyberstalking.

ImmortalDread said:
No, never as far as I am afraid.
Click to expand...
That's not true, strictly speaking. Off-site behavior has been used in the RVR before as supporting evidence.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Firstly, let me rephrase by saying that we are no longer relying on evidence from off-site conversations to issue punishments.

Secondly, while I acknowledge that the language used may be insulting, I do not consider it to be harassment. However, I do understand that the recipient may perceive it differently. In any case, if necessary, I can simply block the user and move on.

Lastly, I will make a note of this case (bookmark it) and move forward. But it is interesting that we are now beginning to consider off-site conversations as evidence for potential punishments, or to increase the severity of an existing punishment. I may comment it later with a staff member on this matter.
Click to expand...
Without talking about it directly ( I'd hate to stir drama especially in a thread like this ) I actually recall people getting infractions for this kind of stuff even when it was off site.
The general policy, it seems, is that it doesn't matter if it's on site or off, you mock someone and get clapped.
Even more so for people who mock staff.
Dunno if you agree with that, but I know most people do, so that's how they do it here.
 
Deagonx said:
Are you questioning the veracity of Firestorm's claim, or are you simply pointing out that he didn't provide a screenshot of it? I have no doubt he's telling the truth. Do you? If you do, make that clear and stand behind your stance, don't just make a vague allusion to that notion.
Click to expand...
I hope it's not this because there would be 0 gain out of lying to get this guy perma banned.
Especially when Firestorm seemingly has no history of doing this and doesn't seem to hate the guy or anything, they especially wouldn't think " heh it'd be funny if I lied on this guy to get his ban extended and piss him off further ", nobody does that.
 
ImmortalDread said:
And this is harassment for you? I suppose then. So, on that different site, you could not block him right away?
Click to expand...
Comment sections on other sites can't be blocked unless you block them all outright.

I blocked the guy on two other sites before it came to light to be the same guy from vsbw. Then he got banned. They guy "apologized" and got an early released. Not long after, his bad behavior relapsed both on an unrelated thread and my wall. He gets banned a second time.

Not long after, I'm getting the comment on another site and block him again.

Yeah, I consider this harassment.
 
Deagonx said:
Are you questioning the veracity of Firestorm's claim, or are you simply pointing out that he didn't provide a screenshot of it? I have no doubt he's telling the truth. Do you? If you do, make that clear and stand behind your stance, don't just make a vague allusion to that notion.
Click to expand...
It is unclear how this is pertinent. All users, including the staff, must provide evidence. This is not a matter of trust, but rather of properly documenting the case.
Deagonx said:
That's not true, strictly speaking. Off-site behavior has been used in the RVR before as supporting evidence.
Click to expand...
Give examples where this was a thing or unspoken rule?
Firestorm808 said:
I blocked the guy on two other sites before it came to light to be the same guy from vsbw. Then he got banned. They guy "apologized" and got an early released. Not long after, his bad behavior relapsed both on an unrelated thread and my wall. He gets banned a second time.

Not long after, I'm getting the comment on another site and block him again.

Yeah, I consider this harassment.
Click to expand...
So he followed you here as well? Seems valid then.
 
ImmortalDread said:
It is unclear how this is pertinent. All users, including the staff, must provide evidence. This is not a matter of trust, but rather of properly documenting the case.
Click to expand...
If you will not take a stance on it one way or the other, then your objections should be dismissed. You should have enough integrity to clearly and openly state your opinion on the matter.

ImmortalDread said:
Give examples where this was a thing or unspoken rule?
Click to expand...
For me, actually, someone attempted to portray my off-site behavior in such a way, and until I gave my side of the story that showed that it was A) misrepresented and B) two years prior, not recent, it was being discussed if I should receive an infraction and I was given a pretty stern message from Ant telling me to shape up before he got the whole story.
 
Here is the page that references rules for offsite behavior.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Site Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is a community with a large number of active users, most of whom are dedicated to discussing and indexing statistics of characters from a variety of fictional franchises. However, maintaining proper conduct and behavior among the large and active user base of this community...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
  • Threatening someone off-site, be it a threat of violence, hacking, doxxing, sexual harassment, etc.
  • Harassment of users in their immediate surroundings (ex. Someone constantly messaging you with insulting comments via DMs or PMs)
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).
  • Impersonating someone for malicious purposes.
Click to expand...
 
Deagonx said:
If you will not take a stance on it one way or the other, then your objections should be dismissed. You should have enough integrity to clearly and openly state your opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
I have taken a position on this matter and I have stated three times, I believe, that he should provide evidence regardless of whether or not you trust him.
JohnConquest1 said:
Dropping by to say this is a bad, bad idea.
Click to expand...
I mean, it has advantages and disadvantages, but no rule. (now I saw there are, so nvm)
Deagonx said:
Here is the page that references rules for offsite behavior.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Site Rules

The VS Battles Wiki is a community with a large number of active users, most of whom are dedicated to discussing and indexing statistics of characters from a variety of fictional franchises. However, maintaining proper conduct and behavior among the large and active user base of this community...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing, seems I am outdated then.
 
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...
I gonna name one past incident.

That will been…. the one with Sera and the others.

That did involve off site stuff, but I not gonna go any further than that given this needs no further derailment than necessary.

Edit: Corrected recent to past incidents
 
ImmortalDread said:
I mean, it has advantages and disadvantages, but no rule. (now I saw there are, so nvm)
Click to expand...
The disadvantages completely overshadow any perceived positives. Users should also, just, be pushed to not act like a ass hat online. Its just a way too big can of worms to not address should specific instances become prominent enough.
 
JohnConquest1 said:
The disadvantages completely overshadow any perceived positives. Users should also, just, be pushed to not act like a ass hat online. Its just a way too big can of worms to not address should specific instances become prominent enough.
Click to expand...
Let me make sure I understand: are you saying that I can report VSBW members here for actions that occurred outside the wiki?

In any case, I was not aware that such rules existed, so I apologize for any problems this may have caused and also apologize to @Deagonx.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Let me make sure I understand: are you saying that I can report VSBW members here for actions that occurred outside the wiki?

In any case, I was not aware that such rules existed, so I apologize for any problems this may have caused and also apologize to @Deagonx.
Click to expand...
If the actions are about something from the wiki*
I think that's what they mean.
Like harassing someone for a CRT.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Let me make sure I understand: are you saying that I can report VSBW members here for actions that occurred outside the wiki?
Click to expand...
This falls into a notability issue. But yeah, users have been banned before for harassment and doxing of others offsite. I believe the former is why Fandom actually stopped forcing the internal forums on us, because that was getting that bad, for that reason.
 
JohnConquest1 said:
This falls into a notability issue. But yeah, users have been banned before for harassment and doxing of others offsite. I believe the former is why Fandom actually stopped forcing the internal forums on us, because that was getting that bad, for that reason.
Click to expand...
Are there specific cases where additional evidence can be supported and accepted? While it makes more sense, I question whether screenshots can be considered existent. Even Discord support does not accept screenshots when evaluating support tickets, so why would a vs battle wiki accept them?

Off-site conversation evidence, which is often in the form of screenshots, is difficult to verify since chats can be manipulated. This can be a leading issue and can be abused. Reporting harassment on a forum is easy because a user can share the link and any admin can view it. However, if it happens off-site, the user cannot share it unless they call a staff member and share their screen, which most users find irritating.

On a forum or wiki, a user can always share the link to the message, and even if it has been deleted, the administrator can still see it. Staff members have more control over their platforms and can verify whether the information is true or not, whereas off-site cases are more challenging.

Therefore, I dislike using off-site evidence as it can be tricky. Sera's case is complicated and circumstantial, so I will not use it as a counter-argument to my point, as it involved many individuals and staff member's history to the point, any evidence was beneficial at that time.
 
We are no longer is talking about the report, my brother or sister in christ, John and I are chatting on something that is relevant to the thread itself.
 
I’ve cleared up the derailing comments.

Reminder to the normal members, it is against the rules for you to comment on this thread unless you’re making a report, are directly involved in a report, or have relevant information that hasn’t been mentioned in a report.
 
After reading the mass storm over the debate, I'm pretty sure a permaban is reasonable for now. If he comes back a year later to apologize to the staff on Community Central, then maybe. But he is literally harassing Firestorm for the sake of harassing him just because he doesn't like cosmic tier Doomslayer. A disagreement on stats is one thing that's harmless on paper, but using that as a motive to be harassing one of our more helpful and contributive users on the wiki (Admin or otherwise) that is not excusable. Also, the offsite rules explicitly state that harassing users in DMs is absolutely on the list of offsite things we CAN ban users for.

But anyway, we should move on from this topic given it is concluded.
 
So there has been a private discussion regarding the actions of @Transcending and @Beyond_transcending

It has been announced that they continuously stonewall on DC Comics related revisions and argue in bad faith. But what is worse is that they have self admitted on a wide variety of places that it is their full intention that they do so deliberately just to get people "Triggered"; particularly Antvasima and Deagonx. It goes without saying that a common disagreement is one thing, but deliberately attempting to bait your opponents is another. Based on some common understandings and behavior, they are apparently affiliated with various Anti-VSBW groups who wish to possibility destabilize the wiki or at the very least our DC Comics cosmology and scaling to be full of loopholes and exaggerated statistics ratings.

I unfortunately cannot share any public evidence of this claim, because another one of their wrong doings is that they have friends on various discord groups and are willing to commit to harassment against anyone who tries to expose their malicious intentions and art of deception and post them on places like quora. So out of respect to whoever it is who shared us the information, we cannot give out screen shots. But deliberately making bad arguments with the intention of provoking people, deliberately trying to deceive people with outrageous claims to upgrade their favorite verse, asking your friends to mass produce proxy accounts just to upvote or gang up on a content revision, and harassing anyone who tries to expose their dark intentions are all list of things that we do not condone here and it is agreed to add up to be a permanent ban worthy offense. I have Antvasima, Mr._Bambu, Firestorm808, Deagonx, and AKM sama to act as witnesses. And we can share the information with the rest of the HR group if prompted.

But thus, they are both permanently banned as agreed by staff in discussion.
 
Last edited:
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
840
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top