Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Lort15]

Reporting @Dark_Soul20189 for various infractions:

Applied a CRT involving Law Manipulation with only 1 staff vote even tho our rules indicates that CRTs involving abilities such as Law Manip don't fall under the "Minor CRTs" rule

Applied a Sonic CRT by removing the Regeneration ability completely. The CRT that not only have a bad staff agreement ratio (3 agree vs 2 neutrals vs 1 disagree), but has Mr.Bambu and DDM agreeing with "Possible Low Godly Regeneration" and claiming the staff vote is an impasse (Meaning it couldn't be applied yet). It was fixed later on but by someone else

Applied this Maou Gakuin CRT even tho Bambu has never agreed to Healing, but to Ressurection, which means the CRT doesn't meet the proper staff ratio to be applied


Created this CRT addressing points that have been argued in another CRT merely 2 months ago, which is against our Discussions Rules that quotes that you need to wait 3 to 4 months before re-addressing a topic again

Applied this Instant Death CRT even tho tho only 2 staff agreed with the remova vs 1 that disagreed (Armorchompy). This is also Vote Manipulation as Armorchompy stated he would rather change the rating to "likely" instead of removing it

Falsely reported @Lloydblitzed over a small mistake that wasn't report worthy and claimed to have fixed moments later

Falsely reported @Hellscream over comments that shouldn't be report worthy

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Applied a CRT involving Law Manipulation with only 1 staff vote even tho our rules indicates that CRTs involving abilities such as Law Manip don't fall under the "Minor CRTs" rule

It's true that Law Manip is explicitly stated there, but the reasons for that really are extremely, painfully self-evident. Law Manip is a byproduct of magic use, and the character doesn't use magic. Given that this is a byproduct effect that doesn't deal in the specifics of Law Manip, I think this is fine.

Applied a Sonic CRT by removing the Regeneration ability completely. The CRT that not only have a bad staff agreement ratio (3 agree vs 2 neutrals vs 1 disagree), but has Mr.Bambu and DDM agreeing with "Possible Low Godly Regeneration" and claiming the staff vote is an impasse (Meaning it couldn't be applied yet). It was fixed later on but by someone else

Borderline, I think. Should've had more input given one disagree but the effective ratio is 3:1, we've applied CRTs on that. I wouldn't call it a rule violation.

Applied this Maou Gakuin CRT even tho Bambu has never agreed to Healing, but to Ressurection, which means the CRT doesn't meet the proper staff ratio to be applied

Again, 3:1, we've applied on that before. Even if it went against my vote, three others agreed with the OP.

Created this CRT addressing points that have been argued in another CRT merely 2 months ago, which is against our Discussions Rules that quotes that you need to wait 3 to 4 months before re-addressing a topic again

Think it sucks to call this a rule violation. That first CRT only has the contents of the Digiverse issue as a secondary matter- meaning to find that, you'd need an active, encyclopedic knowledge of Ninjago, or devote an unreasonable amount of time to ensuring what you're talking about wasn't posted. It does technically stand against the specific rule (albeit barely) but in this instance the rule is nonsensical to actually consider violated.

Applied this Instant Death CRT even tho tho only 2 staff agreed with the remova vs 1 that disagreed (Armorchompy). This is also Vote Manipulation as Armorchompy stated he would rather change the rating to "likely" instead of removing it

This one is bad, yeah. I'd be willing to believe it might have been an instance of misreading but the vote as portrayed in the OP is literally the exact opposite of what Armor said. I'll ping @Armorchompy for this.

Falsely reported @Lloydblitzed over a small mistake that wasn't report worthy and claimed to have fixed moments later

Falsely reported @Hellscream over comments that shouldn't be report worthy

It isn't really "false", it's just very overreactive. The first one is demonstrably true, that did happen, Lloyd just fixed it before the report occurred. Not a rule violation for Lloyd, but not a rule violation to report it, either.

The second one was excessively petty but I don't think I'd consider it a rule violation without a substantially larger body of excessively petty reports to give us a pattern of behavior. If the only other one was the report on Lloyd, then I would call this a heated moment and little more.

@Dark_Soul20189 You've been reported, and I think at least one part of the report has merit to it. You have the opportunity to defend yourself.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Spoiler: Spoiler

Falsely reported @Lloydblitzed over a small mistake that wasn't report worthy and claimed to have fixed moments later

Falsely reported @Hellscream over comments that shouldn't be report worthy

This were already resolved, and adding them here paints the report as a petty one (specially the Hellscream one when one of the evaluating staff during the report directly told him to behave better)

Applied this Instant Death CRT even tho tho only 2 staff agreed with the remova vs 1 that disagreed (Armorchompy). This is also Vote Manipulation as Armorchompy stated he would rather change the rating to "likely" instead of removing it

Seems to have been a genuine mistake when he read Armor's comment. That being said, two staff were enough for that revision imo

Me going through the points one by one in ascending order, page updates and Bambu basically says what I wanted to

This one is bad, yeah. I'd be willing to believe it might have been an instance of misreading but the vote as portrayed in the OP is literally the exact opposite of what Armor said. I'll ping @Armorchompy for this.

I do believe it was a genuine mistake, particularly for the way Dark_soul worded the vote in OP. Practically the same Armor wrote, but adding "wouldn't". At worse, I'd give a warning to always double check, as overall it is a fault that influenced the CRT. As the person that closed the thread thinking it was resolved, I also take responsibility for not checking better here.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

I was about to write my defence but was beat to it...

This one is bad, yeah. I'd be willing to believe it might have been an instance of misreading but the vote as portrayed in the OP is literally the exact opposite of what Armor said. I'll ping @Armorchompy for this.

This one is on me, I read what @Armorchompy wrote wrong and misunderstood it as him prefering a "likely rating", but wouldn't mind a removal...

So yeah, I am extremely sorry for me misunderstanding that, and I would not be against reopening the CRT if that is necessary?

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

I do believe it was a genuine mistake, particularly for the way Dark_soul worded the vote in OP. Practically the same Armor wrote, but adding "wouldn't". At worse, I'd give a warning to always double check, as overall it is a fault that influenced the CRT. As the person that closed the thread thinking it was resolved, I also take responsibility for not checking better here.

Yeah, as backed by my original vote text, I always try to keep important tabs on users' votes (A trend you will find in my CRTs), though it seems like I very much misread what Armour wrote. I somehow misread the text and fully misunderstood it. Sadly, when it comes to reading, I have a tendency to misread stuff, and in this moment, it happened in the worst possible part of the sentence. (This includes misreading certain words and sometimes just adding or having a word disappear)

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

Spoiler: Spoiler

This were already resolved, and adding them here paints the report as a petty one (specially the Hellscream one when one of the evaluating staff during the report directly told him to behave better)


Seems to have been a genuine mistake when he read Armor's comment. That being said, two staff were enough for that revision imo

Me going through the points one by one in ascending order, page updates and Bambu basically says what I wanted to


I do believe it was a genuine mistake, particularly for the way Dark_soul worded the vote in OP. Practically the same Armor wrote, but adding "wouldn't". At worse, I'd give a warning to always double check, as overall it is a fault that influenced the CRT. As the person that closed the thread thinking it was resolved, I also take responsibility for not checking better here.

So why he removed it despite it still 2 agree and 1 disagree, it literally not was genuine mistake, he did vote manipulation and add he removed it without enough votes

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

So why he removed it despite it still 2 agree and 1 disagree, it literally not was genuine mistake, he did vote manipulation and add he removed it without enough votes

... because he thought Armor wrote "wouldn't mind removing it" and thus thought he agreed? Why do you think I would support a warning here? Yeah, his mistake did influence the revision, but it was a mistake nonetheless (imo).

 

[Lort15]

It's true that Law Manip is explicitly stated there, but the reasons for that really are extremely, painfully self-evident. Law Manip is a byproduct of magic use, and the character doesn't use magic. Given that this is a byproduct effect that doesn't deal in the specifics of Law Manip, I think this is fine.

Fair, ig

Borderline, I think. Should've had more input given one disagree but the effective ratio is 3:1, we've applied CRTs on that. I wouldn't call it a rule violation.

Why don't we consider Neutral staff opinions in the thread? And regardless of that, there's only 2 staff that agreed to a removal. 2 others agreed with "Possibly Low Godly", so a full removal was never accepted

Again, 3:1, we've applied on that before. Even if it went against my vote, three others agreed with the OP.

No, this would imply the ratio is 3-2 as you didn't agree to the Healing proposition like the 3 others, but to Ressurection, so you don't fully agree to the OP

Think it sucks to call this a rule violation. That first CRT only has the contents of the Digiverse issue as a secondary matter- meaning to find that, you'd need an active, encyclopedic knowledge of Ninjago, or devote an unreasonable amount of time to ensuring what you're talking about wasn't posted. It does technically stand against the specific rule (albeit barely) but in this instance the rule is nonsensical to actually consider violated.

Dark_Soul heavily participated in the past Digiverse CRT and should've known this was addressed before. Being a knowledgable member of Ninjago doesn't matter here

This one is bad, yeah. I'd be willing to believe it might have been an instance of misreading but the vote as portrayed in the OP is literally the exact opposite of what Armor said. I'll ping @Armorchompy for this.

This kind of "Missunderstanding" happened in 2 other CRTs. This isn't a mistake anymore, but a pattern

It isn't really "false", it's just very overreactive. The first one is demonstrably true, that did happen, Lloyd just fixed it before the report occurred. Not a rule violation for Lloyd, but not a rule violation to report it, either.

The second one was excessively petty but I don't think I'd consider it a rule violation without a substantially larger body of excessively petty reports to give us a pattern of behavior. If the only other one was the report on Lloyd, then I would call this a heated moment and little more.

I think multiple instance of "overracting" should still be considered a violation. I agree it would be fine if it only happened once

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I do believe it was a genuine mistake, particularly for the way Dark_soul worded the vote in OP. Practically the same Armor wrote, but adding "wouldn't". At worse, I'd give a warning to always double check, as overall it is a fault that influenced the CRT. As the person that closed the thread thinking it was resolved, I also take responsibility for not checking better here.

That's fair. I'd be in favor of a light warning too, if only to promote attentiveness.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Yeah, I would be fine with a warning if the staff thinks it's required. Even though it was a mistake, the mistake was still large enough for the CRT to pass.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

... because he thought Armor wrote "wouldn't mind removing it" and thus thought he agreed? Why do you think I would support a warning here? Yeah, his mistake did influence the revision, but it was a mistake nonetheless (imo).

This is not proof is "genuine mistake", we notice that he literally said Armor was "wouldn't mind removing it", but Armor "I wouldn't remove it", but he still put him in agree and remove infinite stamina without enough votes, this is 3 wrong in one CRT, so it needs ban:

1. Vote Manipulation
2. Not enough votes
3. Manipulate the words of staffs

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Why don't we consider Neutral staff opinions in the thread? And regardless of that, there's only 2 staff that agreed to a removal. 2 others agreed with "Possibly Low Godly", so a full removal was never accepted

What would you like to consider them?

No, this would imply the ratio is 3-2 as you didn't agree to the Healing proposition like the 3 others, but to Ressurection, so you don't fully agree to the OP

As the guy that gave the vote that we're debating about here, I disagree. I agreed it should be something different, but not with the disagreement party. That's functionally 3:1.

Dark_Soul heavily participated in the past Digiverse CRT and should've known this was addressed before. Being a knowledgable member of Ninjago doesn't matter here

This is true, I suppose. And much of Dark_Soul's posts, looking at it further, pertain to the Digiverse issue. I suppose this bears explaining. @Dark_Soul20189

This kind of "Missunderstanding" happened in 2 other CRTs. This isn't a mistake anymore, but a pattern

People are capable of making mistakes multiple times across the passage of months and years. In this case I find it at least reasonable to interpret it as a mistake.

I think multiple instance of "overracting" should still be considered a violation. I agree it would be fine if it only happened once

Lloyd's report wasn't an instance of overreacting, really, it was just already solved. Suppose I said that your report is overreacting, because a few of the points were solved or are extremely minor issues, would I give you a warning for seeking what you believe to be justice? It isn't right to do so. You are acting in your conscience, and I believe that Dark_Soul acted in their conscience there.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

"I wouldn't remove it"

Add the word "mind" in there. Fairly plausible and easy mistake.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

Add the word "mind" in there. Fairly plausible and easy mistake.

Will he literally had to review this more than once, especially since there are people who get warnings and it may even reach Ban because of this.

 

[FinePoint]

Dark_Soul talks to me over Discord quite a lot, and my impression is that he is passionately invested in Ninjago and the site as a whole, and he doesn't seem like the type to purposefully violate a rule or try to be deceptive about concluding CRTs.

That said, he is a bit hyper, so I completely believe he might've made a few hasty mistakes here and there.

In addition to the fact that most of this is fairly minor, I think that just an informal warning to be more cautious is all that is warranted.
He told me he doesn't have the best reading comprehension, so specifically he should probably reread things at least once to be sure.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Genuine vote manipulation is met with a ban, yeah. But in this case it's so obviously justifiable as a mistake that it would be draconian at best to apply a ban.

I'm going to remove further comments from non-staff on the subject, barring Dark_Soul himself given the above report. Rabidly pushing for a ban over a mistake strikes me as poor taste.

 

[FinePoint]

Dark_Soul wanted me to inform the staff that he will try and always ask a staff member if it's okay before concluding things in the future, though it is late for them and they have a migraine so they don't want to personally write anything else here tonight.

Personally, I think the willingness to take extra precautions in the future reinforces that they were genuine mistakes.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I also think that a ban would be a serious overreaction in this case.

 

[Catzlaflame]

To be totally honest, personally, I don’t think a warning is really necessary either. 2 mistakes? 3 mistakes? Ya, that would definitely warrant some kinda “Hey pay attention lol.” But, personally, one mistake in one thread will probably happen to everyone regardless of how attentive they are, me thinks. Otherwise totally agree with all the above.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Handling things publicly lends itself to transparency on thought process. And I think for the most part, many posts have been non-accusatory and non-combative, which is good. People with permission to speak on certain subjects should admittedly strive towards cooperation rather than attacking one another over something as simple and petty as a ban appeal.

Now. Ant's request for the chance of future appeal is staunch, and he is more entrenched in that want than I think I have ever seen on any other case. I have already said that I believe the votes down the line of this appeal process have displayed a clear trend towards disallowing an appeal. However, with the vote being anywhere as close as 6-5, I would indeed change my stance. That's very, very close, too close to deny compromise. Many of those with voting power against have said that they feel they will never give mercy, and that's acceptable. Many have said they would grant conditional mercy, depending on actions from this point on. The verdict may change.

I am now of the opinion, given the close nature of the vote, that a chance for appeal should be given. Maybe in a year, maybe in two. I just really think we should wrap this up.

I don't understand why this kind of leniency is needed just because a permabanned user asked nicely. We should be firm in our rulings rather than bending the knee, and I implore anyone voting in favor letting him come back to seriously think about why they are agree to that. We don't need all this

 

[Agnaa]

I believe the margin is 6 - 5 actually, although I may be mistaken.

6 - Me, Glass, DDM, Damage, Crab, Prop
5 - Bambu, Ant, Finepoint, Reiner, Kingtempest

Again that’s not to say I think an appeal is appropriate for Charmander (I don’t), but I don’t think banning one altogether is something we should do, and I think a vote on whether or not appealing at a later date should be conducted, separate from this vote (which is geared more towards wether or not he should be banned, currently — although some have made the specification) to see if we can find some middle ground there.

I've said to not unban yet, but to allow an appeal in a year or two, wherever that lands in the votecount.

I don't understand why this kind of leniency is needed just because a permabanned user asked nicely. We should be firm in our rulings rather than bending the knee, and I implore anyone voting in favor letting him come back to seriously think about why they are agree to that. We don't need all this

I'd more phrase it the other way; why is this kind of harshness needed? I think permabans without appeal should only be done in very extreme circumstances. People change, and so I think we should only block off the possibility of that if their behaviour was highly insidious/damaging. For Godly, it was some angry outbursts and sockpuppeting. I think people can grow out of those things.

 

[KLOL506]

I'd more phrase it the other way; why is this kind of harshness needed? I think permabans without appeal should only be done in very extreme circumstances. People change, and so I think we should only block off the possibility of that if their behaviour was highly insidious/damaging. For Godly, it was some angry outbursts and sockpuppeting. I think people can grow out of those things.

We've already shown why this harshness is needed, that he explicitly can't grow out of it, every time he's made a sock he's almost always reverted to his old ways. If he really changed then he would not have made those sockpuppets in the first place and barring that he would've at least tried to stick to the rules of not being condescending or aggressive to give himself away for a temporary ban with those sockpuppets. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING, AND YET HE CHOSE TO KEEP DOING IT KNOWING FULL WELL IT WOULD NOT END IN A GOOD WAY FOR HIM AT ALL.

Like, what even is the point of another appeal if the vote count remains the exact same and the same old people are not going to give him leniency? Like, we're not gonna change our mindsets just because you think he deserves a shot. Do we keep doing appeal after appeal for perpetuity because of this so-called technicality? Refer back to Tllmbrg's comment. Either we stick to protocol or we get rid of it entirely and any semblance of integrity that we have.

 

[KingTempest]

I'll say this.

Permabans without appeal is like... an invitation for socks

 

[Tllmbrg]

I'll say this.

Permabans without appeal is like... an invitation for socks

And putting someone into prison invites them to try and break out of it.
What should escaping jail be legal now, I don't get this point.

 

[KLOL506]

I'll say this.

Permabans without appeal is like... an invitation for socks

TBF that only justifies the permaban even more.

Why would you willingly make sockpuppets knowing it's against the rules and it would weaken your appeal significantly? Especially if you're not going to change your behavior in the long run anyway?

 

[Mr._Propeller_Hat]

I'll say this.

Permabans without appeal is like... an invitation for socks

That is just going to solidify a permaban even more.

 

[KingTempest]

No I was just saying it to say it

 

[FinePoint]

And putting someone into prison invites them to try and break out of it.
What should escaping jail be legal now, I don't get this point.

Making a sock account is many magnitudes easier than escaping prison.

But if we're insisting on that false equivalence, I don't think most people would support life in prison with no chance of parole for a couple escape attempts and some disorderly conduct.

 

[KLOL506]

It's only disorderly conduct if it's done once or twice, not 6 times in a row. Charmander has made 6 attempts in total after his ridiculous rant against AKM to come back to the wiki only to then rinse and repeat, not to mention all those appeals he made that all got categorically rejected again and again and again (Worse still right before his time to appeal could be reached he got caught using a sock). That alone should've told him he is not wanted on this site yet he continues in defiance trying to game the system. This shows that he is neither willing to reform, nor willing to take no for an answer, like a spoiled child crying to their mother until they just give up. This is not the kind of person we want in our wiki. I'm just going to refer to Clover's prior comment on this.

 

[Agnaa]

We've already shown why this harshness is needed, that he explicitly can't grow out of it, every time he's made a sock he's almost always reverted to his old ways. If he really changed then he would not have made those sockpuppets in the first place and barring that he would've at least tried to stick to the rules of not being condescending or aggressive to give himself away for a temporary ban with those sockpuppets. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING, AND YET HE CHOSE TO KEEP DOING IT KNOWING FULL WELL IT WOULD NOT END IN A GOOD WAY FOR HIM AT ALL.

Well duh, he hasn't sufficiently changed yet. That's why I'm saying to not unban him yet.

But not having changed yet doesn't mean that someone can never change. I see no sense in that notion.

Like, what even is the point of another appeal if the vote count remains the exact same and the same old people are not going to give him leniency? Like, we're not gonna change our mindsets just because you think he deserves a shot. Do we keep doing appeal after appeal for perpetuity because of this so-called technicality? Refer back to Tllmbrg's comment. Either we stick to protocol or we get rid of it entirely and any semblance of integrity that we have.

How long would you hold this view for? Would five years without creating a sock not give you pause to think he's changed?

I believe that people would start to change their minds after long enough without offences. A lot of shitty teenagers grow up into adults that aren't shitty, it just takes quite a few years.

 

[KLOL506]

Well duh, he hasn't sufficiently changed yet. That's why I'm saying to not unban him yet.

How long would you hold this view for? Would five years without creating a sock not give you pause to think he's changed?

I believe that people would start to change their minds after long enough without offences. A lot of shitty teenagers grow up into adults that aren't shitty, it just takes quite a few years.

No amount of time would make us change our beliefs on him given how much pestering he has done in just three years worth. I don't care if you see this as counter-productive or as "not a good look to have for members here", we are not going to change our point of view based on some hypothetical what-if. He had plenty of chances to show that he changed in that timeframe. He failed - EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Also, given the reasoning has changed from "No return vs. Allow return" to "Allow Appeal vs. Ban Appeal forever", whether or not that needs a re-vote, is up to you.

 

[KLOL506]

Also by your logic, we may as well allow the return of some seriously nefarious individuals like Pandimensional, Mckmal, Mikoto, FanofRPGs or the like because "ENOUGH TIME HAS PASSED THAT THEY MAY NOT ACT LIKE THAT ANYMORE AND MAYBE SOME STAFF'S VIEWPOINTS HAVE CHANGED", no matter how bad the shit they did in the past like systemic destabilization and harassment of staff members or sending death threats or similar.

I'd rather not, I actually like the wiki all peaceful and not bombarded 24/7 with malicious links, scams, death threats, doxxing or having to face someone dropping racist dehumanizing shit in the comments section.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'd more phrase it the other way; why is this kind of harshness needed? I think permabans without appeal should only be done in very extreme circumstances. People change, and so I think we should only block off the possibility of that if their behaviour was highly insidious/damaging. For Godly, it was some angry outbursts and sockpuppeting. I think people can grow out of those things.

There's been several appeals before this one that were all rejected, all with empty promises that were broken. You're missing that crucial piece of information

Excuse me for actually wanting to enforce our rules I guess. Y'all gotta stop trying so hard for something so not worthwhile

I'll say this.

Permabans without appeal is like... an invitation for socks

An obsession with the site is not our problem. We simply nuke the socks as we always have

 

[Agnaa]

No amount of time would make us change our beliefs on him given how much pestering he has done in just three years worth.

You speak for yourself, but not for every staff member that might be present at such a time.

I don't care if you see this as counter-productive or as "not a good look to have for members here", we are not going to change our point of view based on some hypothetical what-if.

It wouldn't be based on a hypothetical, it would be based on actually reaching that point in time.

He had plenty of chances to show that he changed in that timeframe. He failed - EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

There's been several appeals before this one that were all rejected, all with empty promises that were broken. You're missing that crucial piece of information

Yeah. It took me, like, 5 years to grow up from being a shitty kid. I had plenty of chances, failed to change, until I did actually change.

It's not like this community will be gone five years from now.

Also by your logic, we may as well allow the return of some seriously nefarious individuals like Pandimensional, Mckmal, Mikoto, FanofRPGs or the like because "ENOUGH TIME HAS PASSED THAT THEY MAY NOT ACT LIKE THAT ANYMORE AND MAYBE SOME STAFF'S VIEWPOINTS HAVE CHANGED", no matter how bad the shit they did in the past like systemic destabilization and harassment of staff members or sending death threats or similar.

Some of those things were pretty insidious, and so would cover things I'd be fine not having appeals for. If they secretly caused issues before being exposed, and we let them back, they could secretly cause issues again before we spot that.

But I do think it is pretty obvious that someone like Mckmal isn't an issue any more. We're no longer getting multiple socks a week sending **** to staff members, so I wouldn't hold a grudge in that sort of case, yeah.

Excuse me for actually wanting to enforce our rules I guess

Which rule of ours says that these sorts of actions should be met with a permaban for no chance of appeal?

If that's a thing, then yeah fair enough, don't let him come back. But if not, then you're not actually reflecting something in our rules.

 

[KLOL506]

There's been several appeals before this one that were all rejected, all with empty promises that were broken. You're missing that crucial piece of information

Pretty much this. People seem to ignore this one line that has made us so unwilling to give Charmander any notion of respite. His words and promises may be honeyed, but ultimately hollow. He's walked back on every single one of them, hell, he got caught walking back on it just about a year ago. When will enough be enough to say that he's exhausted every single chance of a successful appeal to win over us.

We've wasted enough time on the RVT as is. It seems like a re-vote over this involving all staff might be necessary after all.

 

[KingTempest]

Also by your logic, we may as well allow the return of some seriously nefarious individuals like Pandimensional, Mckmal, Mikoto, FanofRPGs or the like

Ain't these supervillains???

 

[Wankbreaker]

Im just going to say this, life in prison with or without parole exists for a reason.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah. It took me, like, 5 years to grow up from being a shitty kid. I had plenty of chances, failed to change, until I did actually change.

If this is just about regular life outside the site, it's of no concern to me. If it's about prior behavior on the site, well, I don't seem to recall you making constantly broken empty promises relating to this.

We're not monitors of change. You either follow the rules or get the boot.

Which rule of ours says that these sorts of actions should be met with a permaban for no chance of appeal?

If that's a thing, then yeah fair enough, don't let him come back. But if not, then you're not actually reflecting something in our rules.

You're being pedantic, and I hope not intentionally. In what world do we let a permabanned user who has made constant rejected appeals that amounted to "pretty please?" with empty promises just because... he did so again?

Permaban appeals rarely even happen, and when they do, it's for a damn good reason

 

[Crabwhale]

Also by your logic, we may as well allow the return of some seriously nefarious individuals like Pandimensional, Mckmal, Mikoto, FanofRPGs or the like because "ENOUGH TIME HAS PASSED THAT THEY MAY NOT ACT LIKE THAT ANYMORE AND MAYBE SOME STAFF'S VIEWPOINTS HAVE CHANGED", no matter how bad the shit they did in the past like systemic destabilization and harassment of staff members or sending death threats or similar.

I'd rather not, I actually like the wiki all peaceful and not bombarded 24/7 with malicious links, scams, death threats, doxxing or having to face someone dropping racist dehumanizing shit in the comments section.

Aight KLOL, you gotta chill a bit, man.

I get where you're coming from and I agree with the sentiment of not allowing Char back in, but the rather explosive delivery and melodrama aren't helping your case here.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Aight KLOL, you gotta chill a bit, man.

I get where you're coming from and I agree with the sentiment of not allowing Char back in, but the rather explosive delivery and melodrama aren't helping your case here.

(Yeah also the extreme comparison does no favors here)