• 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)

Deagonx said:
Let me put it this way, what purpose does it serve to accuse them -- correctly or not -- of not having read the source material?

If there's information in the source material that influences the outcome of the discussion, simply post it. Show, don't tell. Prove, don't accuse. No one should be forced to tolerate constant accusations of unfamiliarity with a comic during a discussion.
Click to expand...
Yeah it'd be ideal to prove, but it seems fine to have claims in line with that. (And sometimes it wouldn't be possible to prove; if someone says that something happened which never actually occurred, you often can't actually post a scan of that, as the scene just doesn't exist).

How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?

We could technically operate like that, never discounting the other person's opinion or knowledge, and merely posting evidence for things, but that's really difficult to uphold, and I think the psychological toll and risk of abuse through reporting people one doesn't like makes extending these sorts of rules so far a bad idea.
 
Agnaa said:
How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?
Click to expand...
There’s a stark difference between saying someone is wrong vs. claiming they never read the source material just because they disagree
 
CloverDragon03 said:
There’s a stark difference between saying someone is wrong vs. claiming they never read the source material just because they disagree
Click to expand...
I know, but if the argument is just that some accusations are okay because they're so low-impact, I think that "you haven't read this" would easily fly under that bar.
 
Agnaa said:
How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?
Click to expand...
Like Clover points out, this isn't really an equal comparison because "you're wrong" is not an accusation that can't really be proven or is inflammatory, it's just a fact.

I would object, however, to saying "You've clearly never seen the show, it's Vegeta's wife." Now, in an example like this we're talking about a piece of info so basic that indeed only someone that doesn't know the material wouldn't know it, but it's still not helpful to the point (Bulma being Vegeta's wife can be easily proven and then it can be left at that.)

If it's a piece of information that is more ambiguous, accusing over and over (five times in this case, that I could see) of people who disagree with you not having read the source material is just entirely unnecessary.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
“You’re wrong” has more to do with the argument itself

“You haven’t read this” is a personal accusation
Click to expand...
Eh, I guess you could make that argument, but iirc Deagon didn't care about the "personal accusation"/"attack on the argument" distinction.

And I wonder about similar situations, that don't quite go into accusations, but imply them.

If that's what we're going with, I'd consider this the mildest thing worth a warning, and add it to the tracker.
Deagonx said:
Like Clover points out, this isn't really an equal comparison because "you're wrong" is not an accusation that can't really be proven or is inflammatory, it's just a fact.
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily true, most things on this site are arguable and can have reasonable people disagreeing, coming down to different standards of evidence and the like.

But meh, guess this is resolved until the next time a report about being slightly rude comes up.
 
Deagonx said:
Prom could be excluded on a similar basis, which would be 10-6
Click to expand...
Prom was not fired and can become a bureaucrat again if she finds sufficient free time to help out properly again. She has a vote if she wants to.
ImmortalDread said:
Besides, there are 5 options and permanent ban is endpoint; 2 years is compromise as it was decided, and you conceded on this when Mav mentioned it.
Click to expand...
I haven't conceded. I still think that we used an overly harsh overkill option.
 
Agnaa said:
Yeah it'd be ideal to prove, but it seems fine to have claims in line with that. (And sometimes it wouldn't be possible to prove; if someone says that something happened which never actually occurred, you often can't actually post a scan of that, as the scene just doesn't exist).

How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?

We could technically operate like that, never discounting the other person's opinion or knowledge, and merely posting evidence for things, but that's really difficult to uphold, and I think the psychological toll and risk of abuse through reporting people one doesn't like makes extending these sorts of rules so far a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I agree with Agnaa here.
 
Antvasima said:
Prom was not fired and can become a bureaucrat again if she finds sufficient free time to help out properly again. She has a vote if she wants to.
Click to expand...
Not how it works. Prom's vote would be counted if she became a Bureaucrat again (or had another such staff role), but she doesn't currently. You don't just spontaneously give people votes based on convenience
 
I agree with Antvasima, just because someone retired manually, doesn't mean we should overlook their opinions and her status as former Bureaucrat and being the lead Bureaucrat of FC/OC wiki are still worth mentioning. She her vote doesn't need to be discounted. Though she never gave a full opinion and a ban for a month was just a minimum. She definitely agrees with punishment but also suggests there are others that should be punished alongside Weekly.

But at the same time, I prefer if we don't drag the discussion on for too many posts.
 
Last edited:
CloverDragon03 said:
Not how it works. Prom's vote would be counted if she became a Bureaucrat again (or had another such staff role), but she doesn't currently. You don't just spontaneously give people votes based on convenience
Click to expand...
It isn't a sudden development. I have consistently been very clear about that Promestein still has a vote when she wants to. She and DontTalk probably have the best senses of judgement in our entire community. It would be ridiculous to not consider her sufficiently reliable in this regard.
 
Deagonx said:
I don't believe it is a practical use of our time to continuing nickel and diming every way way chop up the vote in order to try and alter a settled matter.
Click to expand...
It wasn't settled though. One of our members decided to apply a two-years ban before we had finished, and in cases with no overwhelming staff consensus, we should try to find a compromise solution.
 
When we have to debate the technicalities of which staff or ex-staff votes are valid in a staff vote, regardless of the strength of their points, you know we have a problem with staff votes.
 
Last edited:
Deagonx said:
I don't believe it is a practical use of our time to continuing nickel and diming every way way chop up the vote in order to try and alter a settled matter.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, we have much more pressing matters to handle at this time, like some of our staff members getting hacked out of the blue.
 
But it isn't a new issue that only staff members who were enlisted to evaluate these types of issues should have evaluation vote authority. Our standards are clear in this regard.
 
Antvasima said:
It wasn't settled though. One of our members decided to apply a two-years ban before we had finished, and in cases with no overwhelming staff consensus, we should try to find a compromise solution.
Click to expand...
This is the compromise solution. A not-insubstantial number of us would prefer him gone permanently. My stance on that has not shifted. I doubt the others' have either.

Also, again, you and DDM both agreed in the January debacle and the subsequent fallout that Weekly had a final line before him. He has crossed that final line multiple times since. I categorically refuse to grace this discussion with any more time or brain power. No user who has ever been banned before has gotten off light after reaffirming the reasons for their first punishment. Weekly is no exception.
 
I personally consider doxing to be a very serious offence.
 
Yeah, probably a case mix up. That was someone else who doxxed him a long time ago and got permabanned for it. Styrm was banned for few months for being rude to ImmortalDread, but he has since apologized iirc. And am fine with a ban reduction based on the support gotten.
 
Strym just had a history of rude/toxic conduct and had been warned several times prior. I'm against reducing the ban because it's pretty short as it is and it loses meaning if anyone can just have their ban reduced just for the asking.
 
Agnaa said:
Recently, a conversation among over a dozen high-level staff members and related parties came to the conclusion that @Artorimachi_Meteoraft should be banned for one year.

The main reason for this is the repeated pestering of users in DMs, both on and off-site, after those users had already refused his requests.

The sheer scale this happened on, the fact that previous staff warnings weren't listened to, and the fact that he was previously permanently banned, all led into the ban and its length.

Some of the infringing conversations we found are linked here, but due to privacy concerns, not all are included, and others will likely be added as permission rolls in from the users involved:
Click to expand...
Coming back to this report to add that Artorimachi is still doing this exact shit off site to a close friend of mine (1, 2). He's also been spamming Discord friend requests, which he also did to me prior to his ban (and presumably other people). Obviously none of this substantiates a report by itself, but I think it shows that he absolutely refuses to learn from his mistakes and is continuing the exact behavior that led to a ban in the first place; I think a ban extension would probably be in order.
 
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
866
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top