• 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)

Crabwhale said:
This is funny to me.

But yes in general don't be a dummy and get a proper revision going in order to add or remove something.
Click to expand...
Okay, i thought it was kinda legal to add specific no brainer abilities when the profile is a recent one, and it was forgot to be added to the sandbox
 
Jozaysmith? said:
Okay, i thought it was kinda legal to add specific no brainer abilities when the profile is a recent one, and it was forgot to be added to the sandbox
Click to expand...
It could be permissible if at the moment of creating a profile you have forgotten something and you add it within minutes of creating it, but here it has been more than half a day since the profile was created, it would need its own CRT at that time.
 
Crabwhale said:
Stop commenting irrelevant stuff.
Click to expand...
Technically, I believe the posts were actually directly relevant.
Though, pedanticism aside, it is very helpful if any clutter or chit-chatty posts were kept out of this thread.

Instead, @Megaraptor149 / @Jozaysmith? (or anyone reading this), I would recommend keeping any small follow-ups as personal messages such as on a message wall or as direct messages. It is generally better if all and any important information is put into one single post and then left alone for the staff to review.
 
Yeah, that's really not great. Chase hasn't even posted in several days so it appears that was posted in response to Chase liking some of the comments on the Nasu general discussion thread. I don't have the impression that they get along or are friends, so I can't write it off as inappropriate-but-friendly banter.
 
I've deleted a comment from Marshadow responding to this report with a screenshot of a distasteful remark Chase made on Discord.

1) What Chase says off-site is not our business. We are not the universal ethics committee, we are moderators of the forum.
2) If you have issues with him off-site they should be handled off-site, not by posting on his message wall with accusations of pedophilia.

No matter how you chop it up, the action you took is not justified by telling us how deplorable you think Chase is on Discord.
 
I've been forced to temporarily threadban Marshadow, as he has continually reposted more off-site accusations about Chase after I deleted them, which is not a justification for randomly attacking Chase on his message wall for liking comments in a General Discussion thread.

Your problems with Chase off-site are not relevant here, and if a thread-mod deletes a comment you made for being inappropriate, do not repost them.
 
I'd like to point out that the SS used was pretty old. They are from the same time they tried to ban chase months ago and in the end the case was dismissed and that behavior from him has stopped and has not been repeated, so using old evidence here to prove actual claims here doesn't sounds valid.
 
Dereck03 said:
so using old evidence here to prove actual claims here doesn't sounds valid.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I want to emphasize that even if Chase had said that yesterday it wouldn't help his case. If he has an issue with Chase off-site that should stay off-site. I know you didn't say otherwise, but I want to make that clear to anyone reading.

------

Bottom line, harassing Chase on his message wall for liking some innocuous comments about what kind of person you think he is isn't acceptable, and responding to an RVR report about it with a SS of Chase using a slur or saying something gross on Discord isn't acceptable, and repeatedly posting horrible accusations about him when the comments get deleted is just adding fuel to the fire and is just insisting on creating public drama despite mod intervention.

Marshadow is mad because he got threadbanned from the Nasu general discussion thread for using it as a venue to respond to Nasu CRTs, which he is explicitly not allowed to do, and some users clowned about it in the thread after it happened. All Chase did was like some of the comments and Marshadow decided to make a scene about it because he was upset, and now he's trying to do the same thing here. I think it's pretty unacceptable, and this in combination with the proxy violation of his topic ban lead me to believe he should be banned for at least some period of time.
 
Deagonx said:
Agreed, but I want to emphasize that even if Chase had said that yesterday it wouldn't help his case. If he has an issue with Chase off-site that should stay off-site. I know you didn't say otherwise, but I want to make that clear to anyone reading.

------

Bottom line, harassing Chase on his message wall for liking some innocuous comments about what kind of person you think he is isn't acceptable, and responding to an RVR report about it with a SS of Chase using a slur or saying something gross on Discord isn't acceptable, and repeatedly posting horrible accusations about him when the comments get deleted is just adding fuel to the fire and is just insisting on creating public drama despite mod intervention.

Marshadow is mad because he got threadbanned from the Nasu general discussion thread for using it as a venue to respond to Nasu CRTs, which he is explicitly not allowed to do, and some users clowned about it in the thread after it happened. All Chase did was like some of the comments and Marshadow decided to make a scene about it because he was upset, and now he's trying to do the same thing here. I think it's pretty unacceptable, and this in combination with the proxy violation of his topic ban lead me to believe he should be banned for at least some period of time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not saying that it matters or not the date in which it was said, but it is an attempt to revive an old case that was dismissed with the same old evidence to try to try something against chase when he doesn't even act that way anymore, that's why it's important to emphasize the fact so that people don't keep assuming things about him.

Regarding the harassment on the wall, I saw it since yesterday but I thought it was posted on marshadow's wall and not chase's and until a few minutes ago I realized it was on chase's wall.

Anyway I don't think there's nothing more I can comment since I'm not involved in this.
 
To add to the above, as a result of the report and my deletion of his comments here he has taken to accusing staff of being "disciples of Epstein" on his forum wall and has claimed I am "defending pedophilia" elsewhere as well.

This, to me, is not something I am willing to laugh off. It's incredibly disgusting to be accused of something like that for the oh-so-horrible crime of not allowing him to use this forum as a venue to create public drama about another user. It's entirely unacceptable to me, and I'm personally of the opinion that he should be permanently banned. I understand that this is a harsh punishment, but insinuating that I am a pedophile for doing my job is batshit insane and I should not be subjected to something like that.
 
Since Deagon asked me to comment.

I find that "disciples of Epstein" thing too vague to do anything about.

Please clarify exactly where those "defending pedophilia" statements come from, and provide screenshots of them so we can appropriately evaluate the context.
 
Agnaa said:
I find that "disciples of Epstein" thing too vague to do anything about.
Click to expand...
He's referring to the staff. In the comments of the post he made on Chase's wall when he was warned what he was doing might be wrong he said "the staff hopefully aren't disciples of epstein."

Agnaa said:
Please clarify exactly where those "defending pedophilia" statements come from, and provide screenshots of them so we can appropriately evaluate the context.
Click to expand...
HgRXM1q.png


dArdHWi.png

xd6ZcuJ.png


Another that said
"yes, lets defend the pedophile to get the nasu wanker i dont like banned grrr"
 
I don't think we should ban people for opinions like that.

Here's the other message you mentioned, but didn't screenshot for some reason.

I don't think that's far enough away from pedophilia to be considered an obviously wrong and ban-worthy accusation. Even if I wouldn't land it as substantive enough to ban Chase over.

And NecoScaler's comments towards you seem pretty tame (such as "you might not have intended to do that, but you ended up [defending pedophilia]"), or were broad and shitposty enough for me to not really classify them as an attack.

However, I do think NecoScaler's comments on Chase's wall are wack as hell, and would want a ban of about one week for that.

Since I keep seeing people do this, I think I should make it clear.

If someone does something bad, report them.​

Don't just insult or vaguely threaten them on their profiles.​

If they don't get banned for it after you report them, let it go.​

Or just vent about it some place off-site where that person can't see it.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
I don't think we should ban people for opinions like that.
Click to expand...
Of course, I just don't think he should be going onto other people's walls to start drama about it because Chase liked some comments.

Agnaa said:
And NecoScaler's comments towards you seem pretty tame (such as "you might not have intended to do that, but you ended up defending pedophilia"), or were broad and shitposty enough for me to not really classify them as an attack.
Click to expand...
I suppose I really strongly don't believe that referring to me as a "disciple of epstein" or "defending pedophilia" are tame. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of a more unsettling accusation that could be made.
 
Deagonx said:
Of course, I just don't think he should be going onto other people's walls to start drama about it because Chase liked some comments.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if there's more of it like that it may bump up the ban time, but just from the stuff on his own wall and Chase's wall I'd only ask for a one week ban.
Deagonx said:
I suppose I really strongly don't believe that referring to me as a "disciple of epstein" or "defending pedophilia" are tame. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of a more unsettling accusation that could be made.
Click to expand...
"disciple of epstein" was lobbied at the staff as a whole, based on a collective reaction to a report. That collective nature diminishes it greatly, for me.

"defending pedophilia" is a description of an action, not a person, and it isn't done in a way that's invented wholecloth out of nothing. Chase made a lot of messed up and creepy comments about real people and fictional characters that look like kids. I think it's an incorrect way of characterising the situation, but not so much so that we should ban for it.

If staff members handle a situation badly, such that people can read it as dishonesty, bigotry, or "defending pedophilia", we NEED users to be able to call that out, without fear of getting banned because we decided that actually the staff were right.

As long as they're not just lobbying allegations pulled right out of their behinds, of course.
 
Agnaa said:
"disciple of epstein" was lobbied at the staff as a whole, based on a collective reaction to a report. That collective nature diminishes it greatly, for me.
Click to expand...
I couldn't say I agree. He said "The staff hopefully aren't disciples of Epstein" and then, specifically in response to my participation in the report, said "I was wrong about there being no disciples of Epstein."

And if there were any ambiguity left over from that, it is eliminated by him describing my threadbanning him and immediately saying "we got Epstein defenders."

Agnaa said:
"defending pedophilia" is a description of an action, not a person
Click to expand...
Right, a description of an extremely offputting and grotesque action, assigned to me, because I did my job.

Agnaa said:
If staff members handle a situation badly, such that people can read it as dishonesty, bigotry, or "defending pedophilia", we NEED users to be able to call that out, without fear of getting banned because we decided that actually the staff were right.
Click to expand...
One of these things is not like the other. I'm not saying staff should be immune to being called out for things, I am saying that this description is so disgusting and so completely beyond the pale that it was clearly made out of childish malice and it is not something we should allow at all.
 
Deagonx said:
I couldn't say I agree. He said "The staff hopefully aren't disciples of Epstein" and then, specifically in response to my participation in the report, said "I was wrong about there being no disciples of Epstein."
Click to expand...
This is an incorrect reconstruction of events, as far as I can tell.
  1. The post on Chase's message wall, was sent after this RVT post, and before any after it.
  2. NecoScaler's Discord message was sent after this RVT post.
At that point in time, Dereck and DDM had also weighed in on it, giving similar views to you.

The message on NecoScaler's message wall also occurred around that time.
Deagonx said:
And if there were any ambiguity left over from that, it is eliminated by him describing my threadbanning him and immediately saying "we got Epstein defenders."
Click to expand...
While NecoScaler did mention you threadbanning him, he still used "defenders" as a plural. And didn't just talk about the threadbanning; also mentioning the evidence against Chase that was brought up.

As such, I think it's strange to read it as only referring to you, and not any other staff member. Whether ones that weighed in on the report (Dereck and DDM), or others who stayed silent.
Deagonx said:
One of these things is not like the other. I'm not saying staff should be immune to being called out for things, I am saying that this description is so disgusting and so completely beyond the pale that it was clearly made out of childish malice and it is not something we should allow at all.
Click to expand...
I think NecoScaler saying "might not have intended [to defend pedophilia], but that is what you ended up doing" is a pretty tame way of calling you out for that. Like hell, NecoScaler didn't even say the words "defend pedophilia", as far as I can tell. If we permaban for something as indirect as that, how do you think NecoScaler should have called you out? Because I sincerely cannot think of a much kinder way to talk about something like that.

EDIT: I'm going to work, so I won't be able to respond here for quite a while.
 
Last edited:
Okay, frankly, I can't really handle discussing this further. As you know, I think you are incredibly wrong for the way you're going about this. I do not consider this a small matter. The fact that we are considering 1 week for something like this was beyond my wildest dreams about what the possible outcome would've been. If that ends up being the consensus of staff, so be it, but I do not want to debate this any longer as though it's a harmless thought experiment, as I feel the correct conclusion is so immensely obvious that it warrants relatively little discussion. I will leave this to you and the other staff members to determine that.
 
To be perfectly honest and to avoid back and forth. I'm fine as long as Marshadow doesn't interact with me on this forum and outside. If he does then I'm all for a ban.
To be honest, it's kind of unwarranted and annoying just because I liked other members comments regarding his thread ban from the General Nasuverse Discussion Thread.
 
Last edited:
It is a fact that Chase has posted some genuinely gut-wrenching shit off-site, to such an extent that many felt he should be banned. I voted against such an action at the time on the basis of two facts: that it wasn't on-site (or, at least, the worst of it wasn't), and that it wasn't concrete enough to say he was firmly breaking the law. I didn't like handing out such a judgement, and it upset a great deal of people when the staff reached that conclusion. I think a lot of users need to understand that we, the staff, do not ban people for simply disliking their actions, even vehemently. We are by social contract compelled to uphold our rules, and it was decided that Chase hadn't technically broken them. We have no rule against being a bad person, only for actions, most of which covers activity only on our site.

Agnaa is right in that people ought to be able to air their legitimate concerns, and to an extent I can understand why he'd think this incident being discussed today may be a case of that. However, disruption of peace and mixing downright insults outside of official pathways to making those concerns known, is not right. Describing the staff as "disciples of epstein" shows, in my estimation, a want to simplify the situation and downplay the complexity of it, in the name of saying "grrr staff bad, evil!". It is not airing complaints and is not an attempt to be constructive, one is forced to feel.

I would therefore agree with at least a short general ban for BasedNecoScaler, on the grounds that poor behavior is not a new thing for them. Agnaa mentioned one week: I think this is too lenient in-context, and would argue for a month. If people want to discuss things with staff, there are places to do that- Staff Discussion forum for posting threads, or reaching out in DMs for more private matters, or message walls for casual matters. Just have some sense. Thanks.
 
I find it absurd that we are being touchy about this matter.

It is not 'tame' to accuse people of being 'disciples of Epstein' and 'Epstein defenders'. Nothing about it being stated about a large amount of people makes it any less severe.

Nor does taking action against it constitute a precedent that could be reasonably used to ignore serious, legitimate accusations in the future, because these comments were obviously not made as legitimate accusations. NecoScaler obviously doesn't actually believe the VSBW staff body is made up of people associated with Epstein. He made those comments for the purpose of targeting and insulting people he took issue with. We would not refer back to this situation if there was real reason to believe staff members were involved in serious crimes in the future, and I consider it ridiculous to think we would.

And if he actually believed Chase was a pedophile - if he believed this was a serious crime that he was made aware of and needed to address - he would have done so (and still can do so) through the proper channels, instead of making mocking public comments that do nothing to resolve the problem.

I have expressed my issues with Chase's conduct in the past. I don't believe the kinds of comments he makes are the kinds of comments a reasonable adult with a developed moral fibre would make - and if he wants to be seen in a good light by this community, I would highly suggest to him that he retains his composure in public and keeps those comments for purely private, consensual conversations. But ultimately, this isn't about Chase, and it hasn't been. NecoScaler doesn't think the staff are 'disciples of Epstein', and he doesn't think calling people 'Epstein defenders' is going to change anything. He's leveraging the situation to make wholly inappropriate replies under a a shield of justification that he himself knows isn't legitimate.

If NecoScaler wishes to make a case against Chase, something based on serious evidence, then he can. And I would personally hear him out if he did. But he knows very well that these comments were unacceptable. I would suggest no less than a month ban for this, and I would prefer something in the range of 2 months.
 
I will also add, for those who may be later evaluating this, not long after this report was made Marshadow posted a meme about pedophilia in an unrelated One Piece revision. I would really discourage examining this incident through the lens of a user acting upon a sincere grievance over Chase's behavior. To Marshadow this is something that exists within the realm of humor, not horror. It's why he is comfortable posting multiple memes about it and using phrases like "disciple of Epstein."

He's likely lashing out because of his topic ban and subsequent general discussion threadban and is starting trouble for no reason, and he is moving the goalposts to focus on Chase's off-site iniquities to justify his behavior.

I do not condone the messages I have seen from Chase, they are reprehensible to be sure, but I am literally just some guy on a forum about whether Superman can beat Goku. I do not want to shoulder the burden of auditing every single member's moral conduct irrespective of its relevance to this forum. I did not sign up for that, it is hard enough dealing with the conduct that actually does happen here, like when members take to another member's wall to call them pedophiles. And I certainly didn't sign up to be accused of being sympathetic to pedophiles because I recognize that said wall-post was nothing more than a transparent temper tantrum from a user who genuinely couldn't care less about Chase's conduct beyond the justification it can offer him to act out against a participant in the banter that occurred at his expense after he was thread-banned for violating his topic ban again.

I strongly urge that we condemn this behavior more severely and retract the generous interpretation that this was born out of a sincere and righteous disgust with Chase or people thought to be "defending him" and see it for what it truly is, and respond accordingly.
 
Given the very very extreme comments made by Chase that NecoScaler quoted above, and that Deagon deleted, which were far far more extreme than what NecoScaler said to Chase, I can definitely understand that NecoScaler thinks that Chase advocates extreme racism, rape, and likely lolicon-fetischism in conjunction (but I am not informed about which characters that Chase was referring to, so I do not know for certain), so I personally agree with Agnaa in that regard.


As such, if we are going to give NecoScaler a temporary ban, I think that it should primarily be due to his unwarranted comment about staff members.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
As such, if we are going to give NecoScaler a temporary ban, I think that it should primarily be due to his comment about staff members.
Click to expand...
This is my feeling as well. While the wall-post on Chase's wall was more or less pointless drama bait, I had no intention of advocating for severe punishment, only that we should make it clear that it's not okay to instigate drama.

Responding to that -- as he did -- by accusing the staff of being "disciples of epstein" and "pedophile defenders" is severely reprehensible IMO and warrants a serious punishment. I do not believe that Marshadow did what he did out of feeling disgusted with Chase. I just find that hard to believe given how freely Marshadow is willing to make jokes about pedophilia and treat the subject with that kind of irreverence. I think he just saw Chase like some comments he didn't like and decided to go after him since he couldn't respond to the comments themselves after being threadbanned.

But that aside, how long of a punishment do you feel is warranted for that?
 
I think that Marshadow/NecoScaler likely is disgusted by Chase. In fact, I am disgusted by what Chase said as well, and am not a fan of keeping those sorts of people as a part of our community.

And I also understand that NecoScaler/Marshadow and other members think that defending somebody who has made comments that very strongly make him seem like a rape-endorsing racist and lolicon enthusiast, does make us defend a paedophile at his expense, so okay, I can understand giving NecoScaler a temporary ban for calling staff members "disciples of Epstein", but an interpretation can in fact be made regarding that defending Chase in favour of punishing himself in this manner does qualify as his other comment.

Then again, given that Marshadow/NecoScaler had requested a ban here for himself until recently, due to being thread-banned from his favourite topic, and you said that he has joked about paedophilia himself, maybe he is just trying to stir up community drama, given how extremely controversial Chase is, and how extremely doubtful it is that we should allow him to remain here if the quoted comment from him above truly reflects his true values and personality.
 
Deagonx said:
I think he just saw Chase like some comments he didn't like and decided to go after him since he couldn't respond to the comments themselves after being threadbanned.
Click to expand...
I would like to clarify that I did not make a comment on the forum nor interacted with Marshadow, but I only liked the posts made by SweetDao and DeagonX regarding his threadban and I made a comment on a Discord server saying that his threadban was justified and it was not overexgerration on the moderator's part. But as soon as I made that comment, he started to spam my profile's wall.
I thought it was funny at first, but he wouldn't stop spamming, hence I have deleted to avoid any futrher controversies.
 
Deagonx said:
But that aside, how long of a punishment do you feel is warranted for that?
Click to expand...
If NecoScaler is sincere in his view of Chase, and is just upset about that some of us seem to be defending him despite the extreme sentiments he has expressed, maybe two weeks or so, but all forms of drama should be heavily discouraged and handled in a much more proper manner, so maybe I am being too lenient?
 
Also, I have removed NecoScaler's thread ban, so he can explain himself. He does not seem anywhere near as malevolent as Chase, so he has a right to defend himself as well. However, please make sure to behave yourself properly, Neco.

Also, if the screencapture we were shown was accurate, I personally think that we should permanently ban Chase from our community without a chance for any appeals in the future. I do not want extremely malevolent and degenerate people being a part of this place, especially given that the majority of our members are quite young.
 
Antvasima said:
Also, I have removed NecoScaler's thread ban, so he can explain himself. He does not seem anywhere near as malevolent as Chase, so he has a right to defend himself as well. However, please make sure to behave yourself properly.

Also, if the screencapture we were shown was accurate, I personally think that we should permanently ban Chase from our community without a chance for any appeals in the future. I do not want extremely malevolent and degenerate people being a part of this place.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Chase is a peculiar member of our community with many controversial characteristics, but he hasn't done anything wrong on-site and we can't simply ban him because we don't like him. If there is evidence of him associating with illegal activities such as pedophilia, then that should be discussed rather privately due to its heavy-disturbing topic, but as of now, merely his acting as a degenerate off-site isn't enough to warrant any punishment.
 
Antvasima said:
Also, I have removed NecoScaler's thread ban, so he can explain himself. He does not seem anywhere near as malevolent as Chase, so he has a right to defend himself as well. However, please make sure to behave yourself properly, Neco.

Also, if the screencapture we were shown was accurate, I personally think that we should permanently ban Chase from our community without a chance for any appeals in the future. I do not want extremely malevolent and degenerate people being a part of this place, especially given that the majority of our members are quite young.
Click to expand...
I usually don't get involved in this but here you have to take some things into account, those screenshots are months old, Chase was reported with the same thing but the case was dismissed, as his behavior had nothing to do with VSB related but AFB and off-site servers not related to VSB at all and most of them were shit-talks. If there is any evidence that Chase has behaved in the same way on the forum or affected the forum then I wouldn't mind reviewing it and giving a verdict. Also, which junior/young members have been affected? None as far as I can tell as he has never behaved that way here on the forum.
Antvasima said:
He apparently enthusiastically advocated for casual lolicon-rape and extreme racism. If that is his true personality, I don't want genuinely evil people around the mostly young members in this community.
Click to expand...
And again, evidence that he acted that way here? I'll be glad to see it and know what members have been affected. From what I know of him on my server his behavior was a complete improvement from what those SS dictate so I'm skeptical to continue to hold that view, mainly because they were mostly shit-talks with lot of controversial stuffs, but at the end, shit-talks about anime and/or VN characters.
 
Antvasima said:
He apparently enthusiastically advocated for casual lolicon-rape and extreme racism. If that is his true personality, I don't want genuinely evil people around the mostly young members in this intended to be kind and friendly community.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not a fan of him either but I don't have enough evidence to prove that mindset of his. If the majority of the staff here is going to advocate for his eviction or present enough evidence to prove that mindset of his then I won't contest it; I'm just saying that we shouldn't ban someone simply because they have controversies unrelated to our site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
10 11 12
Replies
452
Views
29K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top