• 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)

I don't see what the previous ban has to do with the current issue. That was a troll edit I did due to some beef I had with another user, which I haven't repeated since. It's completely unrelated to me making immature jokes with friends
 
Last edited:
TWILIGHT-OP said:
It's true that his behavior around making sex jokes needs to change. However, afaik, the previous ban was actually due to him vandalizing profiles as a joke, not for the sex jokes themselves. That said, if other staff members believe a temporary ban is necessary, I’d support a duration of 2 weeks to 1 month with a strict warning (Tho I don't really support a ban just in case if anyone believes to give him a temporary ban). Since, @Giannysmag mentioned, the jokes were directed at close friends who didn’t seem to mind.
Click to expand...
Id disagree with ban considering there were worse cases of jokes, and there was genuenly a report where person openly admitted he is sexually attracted to lolis and got away like nothing happened and im pretty sure he banned himself instead. So banning someone for immature jokes abt sex despite no one finding it disturbing or insulting is crazy
 
Last edited:
Giannysmag said:
I don't see what the previous ban has to do with the current issue. That was a troll edit I did due to some beef I had with another user, which I haven't repeated since. It's completely unrelated to me making immature jokes with friends
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Okay, a strict warning then instead, I suppose. Is somebody in our staff willing to officially deliver it and update our warning tracker? 🙏
Click to expand...
I don't think the previous ban is related enough to change anything. I simply thought it appropriate to at least mention. I will deliver the warning:

@Giannysmag
This is an official warning that you must abide by our site rules, particularly in regards to being appropriate:
Being sexually flirtatious will not be tolerated. Playing mature games, flirting, or using sexual connotations is discouraged, and in extreme cases, will result in a severe penalty.
Click to expand...
It has been found that in many cases you have been in violation of this rule.

This site has a large population of minors, and so you are to immediately cease needlessly mentioning sexual topics, making sexual jokes, and making sexually charged comments towards other community members.
 
FinePoint said:
I don't think the previous ban is related enough to change anything. I simply thought it appropriate to at least mention. I will deliver the warning:

@Giannysmag
This is an official warning that you must abide by our site rules, particularly in regards to being appropriate:

It has been found that in many cases you have been in violation of this rule.

This site has a large population of minors, and so you are to immediately cease needlessly mentioning sexual topics, making sexual jokes, and making sexually charged comments towards other community members.
Click to expand...
tamm-cat.gif
 
FinePoint said:
I don't think the previous ban is related enough to change anything. I simply thought it appropriate to at least mention. I will deliver the warning:

@Giannysmag
This is an official warning that you must abide by our site rules, particularly in regards to being appropriate:

It has been found that in many cases you have been in violation of this rule.

This site has a large population of minors, and so you are to immediately cease needlessly mentioning sexual topics, making sexual jokes, and making sexually charged comments towards other community members.
Click to expand...
Thank you. 🙏

Is somebody willing to update our warning tracker as well please? 🙏

Also, perhaps we should add a link to it to the first post in this thread?
 
Wankbreaker said:



What do we do, in the case where a user behind a verse deletion request, admits their primary goal was to stifle dissent/downgrade attempts?
Click to expand...

forgot to write this this morning, but I retract this report.

I was told the underlying context of the message by another user, and that it was written in a bout of anger.

I apologize to the Mage Association staff team for causing unnecessary controversy over a misunderstood message.

However, while this doesn’t involve the reported user, I do not appreciate the constant hostility I’ve gotten from members (and some staff,even), for scaling ideals for Type-Moon, that doesn’t exactly match up to theirs, to the point where I’ve been harassed by alt discord accounts. ( a previous instance of I have reported here, but it went nowhere due to being unable to tie the account to a user here.)

I also do not appreciate the slimy attacks on myself, for the purpose of silencing the arguments I make. (such as abusing the discussion rules to shut down discussion,even though the arguments are mostly completely new, threats of reports because of my arguments, or most recently, trying to make me a shonen manga villain of the week because I posted a thread yesterday (Mother’s Day) by coincidence? be for real. )


Such things are completely unnecessary.

Anyways, that is all.
 
Antvasima said:
Thank you for helping out. 🙏

Also, Charmander wonders if there is anything he can do to prove and redeem himself so he is allowed to return.

community.fandom.com

Antvasima

community.fandom.com community.fandom.com
Click to expand...
We already said many times to not bring him back. Not that it matters since like I said earlier, he'll find a way to come back anyway by making a sock, and I suspect he's here as another account.
 
Honest question, what is the point of him returning if he is completely able to just create a new alt account without anyone finding out, and when they do, they just create another?

So my main question is, what would the point of him returning to his main even do, if he can already access the site?
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Honest question, what is the point of him returning if he is completely able to just create a new alt account without anyone finding out, and when they do, they just create another?

So my main question is, what would the point of him returning to his main even do, if he can already access the site?
Click to expand...
Because him being able to return on his main account gives him the chance to redeem himself, while him returning on an alt only solidifies our mistrust.
 
I will say that the staff consensus does seem to be clear, even if I personally disagree with it.
And so Ant probably shouldn't continue to ask about it unless something changes.
 
Last edited:
If KingTempest if also willing to give Charmander a final chance, that makes 4 staff members with voting rights regarding this issue (bureaucrats, administrators, and thread moderators) in favour of it.

Which ones are against it? 🙏
 
 
Well, since it's closer now, and my previous argument mostly focused on an emotional urge to be forgiving, I will instead offer a practical stance in favor of Charmander's return, related to the question I answered previously.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Honest question, what is the point of him returning if he is completely able to just create a new alt account without anyone finding out, and when they do, they just create another?

So my main question is, what would the point of him returning to his main even do, if he can already access the site?
Click to expand...
FinePoint said:
Because him being able to return on his main account gives him the chance to redeem himself, while him returning on an alt only solidifies our mistrust.
Click to expand...
From the perspective of basic human psychology, I think it is greatly beneficial to us if our incentives match our desired outcomes.
Our desired outcome is to have reasonable people who debate within our rules and not to have people evade bans with alts.

If someone, even after being banned for an entire year, is still this interested in the wiki, it seems extremely likely to me that denying their appeal would lead them to making alts and trying to evade their ban, because we will effectively be telling them that if they want any hope of ever participating again it is their only option.

And I don't think this is a decision which can't be reached by a moral person. If they consider themselves reformed, they can argue they only plan on doing good things with this alt, and that they'd be helping us without us even knowing it, and since they have no chance to appeal it's their only way to do so.

Instead, if we set a precedent that someone who has served significant punishment, and is still interested and polite about it, can have another chance to participate normally, we incentivize them to simply wait a reasonable time then come back as a normal member without deception which we can monitor more easily, rather than setting the precedent that a permanent ban is probably final and your only hope to ever participate again, regardless of personal growth, is to break the rules.

Therefore, I think giving Charmander another chance is a reasonable way to generally encourage reform and honesty as opposed to deception.
 
I'm not exactly enthusiastic about the idea of "we can rescind our permanent bans just because someone asked nicely." If anything, I'm concerned about the level of obsession with the wiki that yields the making of multiple sock accounts and repeatedly trying to appeal a permanent ban even years later.

Also, let's say we chose to keep Charmander banned. By your logic, the resulting creation of alt accounts is our fault when realistically it absolutely isn't
 
I'm not a staff member & I don't wanna derail, but if he does return, would it be better to offer him limited privileges on this wiki such as not making CRTs or editing any pages? Just to be sure he doesn't act up again?

Sorry... just thought I'd offer a suggestion.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I'm not exactly enthusiastic about the idea of "we can rescind our permanent bans just because someone asked nicely." If anything, I'm concerned about the level of obsession with the wiki that yields the making of multiple sock accounts and repeatedly trying to appeal a permanent ban even years later.
Click to expand...
That's sort of a straw man. I specifically mentioned that they also already served a reasonably lengthy punishment. Obviously the more severe the infraction the longer we would consider satisfactory before we consider rescinding it.
CloverDragon03 said:
Also, let's say we chose to keep Charmander banned. By your logic, the resulting creation of alt accounts is our fault when realistically it absolutely isn't
Click to expand...
Again, I never said that. It is possible to indirectly influence something without it being your fault.
 
We're not influencing anything, we're just enforcing rules. And said rules should probably implicitly say "asking nicely isn't enough to rescind a permanent ban." Again, especially given the multiple sock accounts. That's not a strawman, that's literally what's happening, it's just asking nicely and making promises that have been made and broken multiple times as is
 
Some people I don't think should have their ban rescinded for very obvious reasons, makes the worth of a permaban meaningless, especially if they have been banned for prior nefarious reasons and are being this obsessive, especially considering the prior offenses and that Charmander has shown zero evidence of shaping up even when using those sockpuppets (If he actually cared or bothered his Topaz sock wouldn't have gotten a temporary ban for bad behavior to begin with).

FinePoint, I am sorry but I simply do not see a good enough reason to bring this man back to the wiki under any circumstances whatsoever.
 
KLOL506 said:
Some people I don't think should have their ban rescinded for very obvious reasons
Click to expand...
Well of course certain things are not able to be feasibly forgiven, I do not argue against that.
I simply don't think this is quite that extreme.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
We're not influencing anything, we're just enforcing rules. And said rules should probably implicitly say "asking nicely isn't enough to rescind a permanent ban." Again, especially given the multiple sock accounts. That's not a strawman, that's literally what's happening, it's just asking nicely and making promises that have been made and broken multiple times as is
Click to expand...
KLOL506 said:
Some people I don't think should have their ban rescinded for very obvious reasons, makes the worth of a permaban meaningless, especially if they have been banned for prior nefarious reasons and are being this obsessive, especially considering the prior offenses and that Charmander has shown zero evidence of shaping up even when using those sockpuppets (If he actually cared or bothered his Topaz sock wouldn't have gotten a temporary ban for bad behavior to begin with).
Click to expand...
Isn't there a way to stop someone from making sockpuppet accounts on a wiki? Doesn't this website have a feature where you can somehow block the IP address of a user?

Just a question I had.
 
Omnificence said:
Isn't there a way to stop someone from making sockpuppet accounts on a wiki? Doesn't this website have a feature where you can somehow block the IP address of a user?
Click to expand...
We have IP checks but as you can see from the Vzearr situation, even that isn't enough. They somehow always find a way and by the time we figure out what the hell is going on, it's already too late, damage is already done.

At this point IDK if even an IP ban will work. We just gotta keep banning sockpuppets over and over until they get tired and leave for good.
 
KLOL506 said:
At this point IDK if even an IP ban will work. We just gotta keep banning sockpuppets over and over until they get tired and leave for good.
Click to expand...
And you don't see how allowing a chance at reform might be far less effort than that?
 
FinePoint said:
And you don't see how allowing a chance at reform might be far less effort than that?
Click to expand...
We've already gone about this song and dance about this alleged attempt at "reform". Charmander has time and time again with his actions showed that he is incapable of reform. If he really cared he would have waited at least 2-3 years without making any sockpuppets in-between and made a proper appeal, and even assuming it was just to contribute, he would've at least tried to keep a good image of himself on his behavior, but instead we see his Topaz sock get hit with a ban for bad behavior that ultimately contributed to the permaban of the account down the line later (Hell, how do we know he isn't further destroying any chance of leniency with another sockpuppet right now?). Also, what Clover said.

It's not about effort. It's about maintaining the well-being of the community and being consistent with how we enforce our rules around here and ensuring there aren't too many loopholes to abuse.
 
CodeCCLL said:
vsbattles.fandom.com

CodeCCLL

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Can someone tell me what this user said to me in original post?
Click to expand...
Anyway, I gave them an informal warning, since it's just one incident and nobody else has commented on it in a while, and I don't want to wait too long.

Obviously let us know if it gets any worse, and if any staff think the punishment should be more severe, please say so.
 
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
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
I will be mostly absent for a while
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Random-Helper323
Random-Helper323
Back
Top