Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Theglassman12]

@Mr. Bambu To verify, yes I did give him permission to make the staff thread. He wanted to add a note on the page since he wanted to clarify stuff like hax or other means can bypass a tiering difference. Though I’m barely familiar with the dude in terms of versus threads beyond like one thread I participated so in terms of his behavior overall I have no comment since I’ve not debated against him in length.

 

[FinePoint]

That was not a warning.

Ant suggested a warning, and you replied you had done so. Obviously it wasn't added to the tracker.

Semantics aside, it means they had similar behavior not that long ago and was informed about it, then persisted anyway.

I guess so. Check with other mods and etc before doing so.

Naturally we should have more staff members weigh in, as this is a complex case, I was just giving my current thoughts.

 

[RitsuØ1]

I would like to report @Re5yh for plagiarism attempts. He tried to steal other people's work. And he is still trying to plagiarize other people's works. I believe at least a warning is warranted.

 

[Re5yh]

I would like to report @Re5yh for plagiarism attempts. He tried to steal other people's work. And he is still trying to plagiarize other people's works. I believe at least a warning is warranted.

Well, it was just that I coudn't find the rule before back then

 

[FinePoint]

I would like to report @Re5yh for plagiarism attempts. He tried to steal other people's work. And he is still trying to plagiarize other people's works. I believe at least a warning is warranted.

I escalated your previous informal warning to an official one by me.

Unless other staff members think something else is more appropriate, that probably resolves the issue for now.

Well, it was just that I coudn't find the rule before back then

You had it explained to you pretty explicitly before. Please don't let it happen again.

Other wikis don't adhere to our standards, so in addition to the ethical problems copy-pasting from them can lead to serious inconsistencies.

 

[Re5yh]

I escalated your previous informal warning to an official one by me.

Unless other staff members think something else is more appropriate, that probably resolves the issue for now.

You had it explained to you pretty explicitly before. Please don't let it happen again.

Other wikis don't adhere to our standards, so in addition to the ethical problems copy-pasting from them can lead to serious inconsistencies.

ok, i understood

 

[FinePoint]

ok, i understood

Thank you for being reasonable.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Ant suggested a warning, and you replied you had done so. Obviously it wasn't added to the tracker.

Semantics aside, it means they had similar behavior not that long ago and was informed about it, then persisted anyway.

It was an instruction message, not intended as a warning for the tracker. Notice how I didn't tell him he was being warned for it. You can even find my comment on the original report from that thread where I found them clueless, and so I simply explained what they needed to do and took care of it. It was the first time he got reported, and thus a warning of misconduct was not necessary. That's why I didn't add it to the tracker. Simple as that.

 

[FinePoint]

It was an instruction message, not intended as a warning for the tracker. Notice how I didn't tell him he was being warned for it. You can even find my comment on the original report from that thread where I found them clueless, and so I simply explained what they needed to do and took care of it. It was the first time he got reported, and thus a warning of misconduct was not necessary. That's why I didn't add it to the tracker. Simple as that.

Alright. So what do you think should be done in this instance?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Alright. So what do you think should be done in this instance?

Noooooooooooooo I don't wanna get involved aaaaaaaaa

I agree with Bambu that people really need to chill in regards to Johner. He disagreed with a thread being a stomp and gave his reasoning. That's it. Whether wrong or not, that's what the debate is for. Johner has taken my original advice into account and has genuinely made an effort to engage with the community, make threads asking questions, offer new rules (regardless if I personally agree with em or not) when he finds some lacking (showing he did in fact took my instructions to heart and tried reading our rule pages). That he still has couple of things to hammer out and learn? Sure. That he can misjudge profiles and/or certain character powers? Absolutely, who hasn't in this site? He has tried to at least argue the matches other find as stomps, showing while potentially biased (and again, who exactly isn't on this site?) he genuinely is trying to have a discussion.

I don't find anything he has done in the linked threads as rule violations. When all the reports can be summarized as "he's not understanding my arguments!!!!!!! He's lazy!!!!!!!! I don't agree with him!!!!!" yeah, I start having a problem.

So yeah. These are my thoughts. I'll likely be disagreed with, that's fine. I also could've overlooked a proper violation. I defer to the rest of the staff with what to do.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Never mind. I saw some of Mahek's preceding posts here, not just his one deleted post.

Considering that, I think that he should remain thread-banned.

Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning.

I think that Mahek just reacted to that Homie890 made a statement about doing something potentially life-threatening. Given that Mahek seems to be autistic, he took it literally, got worried, and wanted to warn about the consequences. I think that he seemed to mean well.

^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message (unlike the also mentioned preceding messages (again, PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning) that were specifically directed at CRIMINALS, particularly ATROCITY CRIMINALS).

Atrocity crime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Reporting @Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer for talking about disturbing violent things even after they were explicitly warned by @Crabwhale.

I've already banned from that thread specifically since they kept instigating it towards bad topics, but I thought it diligent to mention it here as well so it can be discussed if that is all that is needed or if some other punishment is warranted.

I think that Mahek just reacted to that Homie890 made a statement about doing something potentially life-threatening. Given that Mahek seems to be autistic, he took it literally, got worried, and wanted to warn about the consequences. I think that he seemed to mean well.

Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning

^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Examples_in_protists My blind ahh read altruism as autism lmao,

vsbattles.com

https://vsbattles.com/profile-posts/109762/

Not sure if I should provide screenshots of the conversation between me and Queen in Discord reaffirming what I have stated...

Also I find it a bit odd that Homie was not involved in this especially because most of my messages were in the context of responding to their messages where they themselves also spoke about imprisonment and introducing air into a person's bloodstream (not to say I want them to be in trouble, just that no one included that factor and I alone was singled out).

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Sorry for the late response and numerous edits, I just came back from work, and was very busy the last two days so I had no time to come online and explain myself... which also allowed for Giannysmag to suggest the thread ban (again, singling me out), also, TIMEZONES.

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Examples_in_protists My blind ahh read altruism as autism lmao,

vsbattles.com

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Sorry for the late response and numerous edits, I just came back from work, and was very busy the last two days so I had no time to come online and explain myself... which also allowed for Giannysmag to suggest the thread ban (again, singling me out), also, TIMEZONES

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Examples_in_protists My blind ahh read altruism as autism lmao,

vsbattles.com

No hard feelings to Giannysmag, to be clear, cause I completely understand the logic and appreciate the attempt at ensuring the punishment was fair and specific instead of broadly closing the thread, just that again there was very little consideration of other contributing factors and circumstances as mentioned above.

(Hopefully all this is seen and responded to soon cause I don't want to clog the thread up any further.)

 

[Antvasima]

I was made aware of this report privately and felt it was worth adding a quick note. The recent surge in Yukari matchups seems to have started after the Lady Bone Demon MU.

While I don’t have concrete evidence, I do have some mild suspicions that SkibidiShady may be a sock account - or, more charitably, just a new and inexperienced user. They’ve recently shared one of their matchups in our General Discussion thread, so they’re at least aware that it’s the appropriate place to discuss MU's before pitching them.

That said, I don’t think there’s any reason to assume bad intent. It seems more likely that he’s just throwing MU's out there without much forethought or discussion. As I mentioned, he appears to be relatively new to the site.

Just a note that our forum does not register any sockpuppet activity from that member.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Bambu that people really need to chill in regards to Johner. He disagreed with a thread being a stomp and gave his reasoning. That's it. Whether wrong or not, that's what the debate is for. Johner has taken my original advice into account and has genuinely made an effort to engage with the community, make threads asking questions, offer new rules (regardless if I personally agree with em or not) when he finds some lacking (showing he did in fact took my instructions to heart and tried reading our rule pages). That he still has couple of things to hammer out and learn? Sure. That he can misjudge profiles and/or certain character powers? Absolutely, who hasn't in this site? He has tried to at least argue the matches other find as stomps, showing while potentially biased (and again, who exactly isn't on this site?) he genuinely is trying to have a discussion.

I don't find anything he has done in the linked threads as rule violations. When all the reports can be summarized as "he's not understanding my arguments!!!!!!! He's lazy!!!!!!!! I don't agree with him!!!!!" yeah, I start having a problem.

So yeah. These are my thoughts. I'll likely be disagreed with, that's fine. I also could've overlooked a proper violation. I defer to the rest of the staff with what to do.

I think that this seems reasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning.

^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message (unlike the also mentioned preceding messages (again, PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning) that were specifically directed at CRIMINALS, particularly ATROCITY CRIMINALS).

I would appreciate further staff input regarding this.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

I would appreciate further staff input regarding this.

Just clarifying, by further staff do you mean just Crabwhale and Finepoint or other staff in general including HR as well as other mods? (just asking as to how many will be involved in this)

 

[FinePoint]

Sorry for the late response and numerous edits, I just came back from work, and was very busy the last two days so I had no time to come online and explain myself... which also allowed for Giannysmag to suggest the thread ban (again, singling me out), also, TIMEZONES.

To be clear, Giannysmag actually did suggest I thread ban Homie too. It was my personal judgement not to.

QueenCripple did inform me that it was a common old wives' tale in your country which you were referencing, and it seems like the language barrier caused me to misinterpret your euphemism as talking about a literal cat.

Still, feline or not, it does invoke a pretty graphic image. It's also blatant misinformation, but if it's common in your country I can understand how you fell for it.

I'm a very forgiving person by nature, so just the fact that there was any misunderstanding is making me seriously consider giving you another chance in that thread. However, I acknowledge I may be in fact too forgiving, so as always, I would love to hear input from other staff members before I officially endorse anything in particular.

Of course, input from @Crabwhale in particular would be highly appreciated.

 

[FinePoint]

I think that this seems reasonable.

As for the Johner situation:

After sleeping on it, I think just an official warning is probably most appropriate.

I acknowledge there's no single message which is a rule violation per-se, but collectively I think they do paint generally dishonest debating behavior.

However, if Lephyr has noticed significant improvement overtime since last time, it leads me to believe it is not intentional, and that there's hope they will continue to improve this time as well, so I don't think a ban would necessarily be productive, but that an official warning could motivate and guide them in the right direction.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

To be clear, Giannysmag actually did suggest I thread ban Homie too. It was my personal judgement not to.

QueenCripple did inform me that it was a common old wives' tale in your country which you were referencing, and it seems like the language barrier caused me to misinterpret your euphemism as talking about a literal cat.

Still, feline or not, it does invoke a pretty graphic image. It's also blatant misinformation, but if it's common in your country I can understand how you fell for it.

I'm a very forgiving person by nature, so just the fact that there was any misunderstanding is making me seriously consider giving you another chance in that thread. However, I acknowledge I may be in fact too forgiving, so as always, I would love to hear input from other staff members before I officially endorse anything in particular.

Of course, input from @Crabwhale in particular would be highly appreciated.

It's probably the part about it happening before (albeit under very specific and rare circumstances, Queen told me (and I also searched it up) that it's only happened a few times in pregnant women) that led me to believe it to be, despite being rare, still worth noting/mentioning as a a possible risk.

I appreciate your consideration and compassion, though I would acknowledge that even despite my aforementioned messages prior to Crabwhale's warning being particularly targeted at atrocity criminals you also did already mention that you were against violence towards prisoners (which I assume would include criminals in general alongside those falsely imprisoned and innocent as Giannysmag has mentioned, though I should mention that one of my deleted messages also indicated that I was willing to consider rehabilitation (alongside deterrence) for petty criminals who have not committed atrocity crimes, so for example petty criminals being like unarmed robbers or burglars or shoplifters (who did not additionally commit assault/battery and grievous harm) compared to atrocity criminals being murderers, r--ists, etc etc,) so I should respect your view/stance on that matter (though I probably need to clarify if this was your personal view or enforcement of site rules or both) and thus additionally I'd understand why you'd take action in the first place.

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

uses Jason from friday the 13th as a killer. Ah. I see. I mean, technically it shouldn't even be on Roblox then, but I know they rarely enforce copyright unless they receive a direct complaint.

vsbattles.com

https://vsbattles.com/threads/unpopular-opinions-and-friendly-rant-thread.160292/post-7117371

^referring to the aforementioned views/stance + enforcement of rules.

 

[FinePoint]

So I should respect your view/stance on that matter (though I probably need to clarify if this was your personal view or enforcement of site rules or both) and thus additionally I'd understand why you'd take action in the first place.

Personally, I think that violence against criminals is ultimately pointless, and only increases the chance they re-offend if/when they get out.
This is supported statistically.

However, that has nothing to do with why I deleted your messages or banned you. That was purely me enforcing our policies on appropriate content, given the target audience of this forum.

I would never abuse my privileges for a personal disagreement, and in fact, I have no objection to people having different opinions even on moral issues.

 

[Antvasima]

Just clarifying, by further staff do you mean just Crabwhale and Finepoint or other staff in general including HR as well as other mods? (just asking as to how many will be involved in this)

I meant any staff members with evaluation rights who are willing to help out here.

For the record, I also don't mind if we remove your thread-ban if you are willing to try to behave well and not spam too much.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Personally, I think that violence against criminals is ultimately pointless, and only increases the chance they re-offend if/when they get out.
This is supported statistically.

However, that has nothing to do with why I deleted your messages or banned you. That was purely me enforcing our policies on appropriate content, given the target audience of this forum.

I would never abuse my privileges for a personal disagreement, and in fact, I have no objection to people having different opinions even on moral issues.

^To be fair, life imprisonment without parole or a whole life order/tariff often means they'd NEVER come out (then again, yeah usually it's both used as a safety measure to isolate criminals from society AND also potentially give more time to find evidence that could determine for certain whether prisoners are in fact guilty or innocent even after trials and verdicts are done, and indeed evidence has been found long after trials that have confirmed either the guilt or innocence of several prisoners, hence lending credence to the idea of suspects and prisoners being innocent until proven guilty aka presumption of innocence), so usually the chances of recidivism or reoffending is low cause they're already practically sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison/jail. That said, yeah I'd agree as to why'd you'd consider violence pointless against criminals who DO have the chance to come out of prison/jail (though then again said criminals are already liable to be stigmatised even after being released, and even possibly subjected to lynching or vigilantism and retributive justice by members of the public who feel that said criminals have not been punished enough, and then there's corruption of the legal and law enforcement systems in various regions, so that complicates matters a lot more).

Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Also unfortunately there are still ways to make suspects/prisoners spend their whole lives in prison/jail even without giving a life imprisonment sentence or whole life order...)

List of longest prison sentences - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of people sentenced to more than one life imprisonment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of prisoners with whole life orders - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of longest prison sentences served - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(^Mostly the first link and last link reinforcing/proving the statement.)

Thanks for clarifying on this being an enforcement of site rules, and I had no intention whatsoever of assuming or accusing abuse of privileges, I merely wished to clarify that there were other factors to consider as mentioned above:

Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning.

^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message (unlike the also mentioned preceding messages (again, PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning) that were specifically directed at CRIMINALS, particularly ATROCITY CRIMINALS).

Atrocity crime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Examples_in_protists My blind ahh read altruism as autism lmao,

vsbattles.com

https://vsbattles.com/profile-posts/109762/

Not sure if I should provide screenshots of the conversation between me and Queen in Discord reaffirming what I have stated...

Also I find it a bit odd that Homie was not involved in this especially because most of my messages were in the context of responding to their messages where they themselves also spoke about imprisonment and introducing air into a person's bloodstream (not to say I want them to be in trouble, just that no one included that factor and I alone was singled out).

Mostly the timing and purpose of the messages (preceding messages being prior to Crabwhale's warning and the message about embolisms being merely an explanatory warning message that was not targeted at any being in general as Ant has already said and which I confirmed) since the other issues (euphemism misunderstanding, my overestimation of the frequency of air-inflow-caused embolisms in the female reproductive system, and context of me responding to Homie) have already been explained:

To be clear, Giannysmag actually did suggest I thread ban Homie too. It was my personal judgement not to.

QueenCripple did inform me that it was a common old wives' tale in your country which you were referencing, and it seems like the language barrier caused me to misinterpret your euphemism as talking about a literal cat.

Still, feline or not, it does invoke a pretty graphic image. It's also blatant misinformation, but if it's common in your country I can understand how you fell for it.

I'm a very forgiving person by nature, so just the fact that there was any misunderstanding is making me seriously consider giving you another chance in that thread. However, I acknowledge I may be in fact too forgiving, so as always, I would love to hear input from other staff members before I officially endorse anything in particular.

Of course, input from @Crabwhale in particular would be highly appreciated.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

I meant any staff members with evaluation rights who are willing to help out here.

For the record, I also don't mind if we remove your thread-ban if you are willing to try to behave well and not spam too much.

I was already intending to cease the graphic topics due to Crabwhale's warning; it was mostly a matter of converging factors as explained above that led to the thread ban.
I would appreciate the lifting of the thread ban but for the sake of fairness it may be better to wait for more staff input. (Also because I wish to understand/see what the opinion of the staff is.)

 

[FinePoint]

Snip.

This really isn't the place to have such an elaborate debate, as it will clutter the thread and distract from the core issue.

The conversation henceforth should focus entirely on whether or not you violated our rules and what should be done as a result.

However, if you do wish to discuss it with me, you are free to DM me either here or on Discord.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

This really isn't the place to have such an elaborate debate, as it will clutter the thread and distract from the core issue.

The conversation henceforth should focus entirely on whether or not you violated our rules and what should be done as a result.

However, if you do wish to discuss it with me, you are free to DM me either here or on Discord.

Technically it would be whether the thread ban is justified since it's already sorta given that I did partially violate the rules initially (cause that's why the warning was given in the first place) but the ban may have been too excessive or unreasonable given the aforementioned factors:

Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning.

^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message (unlike the also mentioned preceding messages (again, PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning) that were specifically directed at CRIMINALS, particularly ATROCITY CRIMINALS).

Atrocity crime - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Since there's now a new page I should probably use this reply ^ to link back to the start of the conversation so that everyone has the necessary context.)

 

[Catzlaflame]

Regarding johnner.

I really don’t like to leave reports under the broad umbrella of “General behavior” so to outline everything I see that the user is being reported for:

1. Ignorance (first part of message) & Creating a staff thread out of spite/bad faith (second part of message)

The thread is a mismatch. He’s interpreting mismatch to be the same thing as a stomp. You all explained otherwise, and the response was the creation of the staff thread based on the faulty premise of stomp = mismatch.

You all explained what you meant, and if he refuses to accept it, that’s why we have staff evaluating these requests. A lot of people do use “mismatch” and “stomp” interchangeably, so I totally understand why he thinks that, but if you already explained it to him and he quote

is refusing to accept

welp this is vs battles wiki not convince johnner wiki, so let the staff in the APRT decide.

2. Spreading misinformation

@johnner If you’re going to cite a staff member, I advise you to include a quote of what they said. I sincerely doubt a staff member said it’s okay to create mismatches, but you may have interpreted something to mean that way. To avoid this, just include the exact words of said staff member so people can see it for themselves.

3. Refusing to admit he’s wrong
Refer to point 1

4. Spamming on message wall
Meh, spamming is a bit much. I could interpret:

I am not giving an answer "yes" or "no" without actually doing a bit of research first. I have no plans to deal with this subject.

As implication that the user doesn’t want the conversation to be continued, but not particularly explicit. Also, it wasn’t much conversation as far as I can see. @johnner If he doesn’t wanna engage on a topic, then thats that. it doesn’t matter if “the scans are right there” or not.

Final evaluation:
Instruction message or messages should suffice.

 

[Crabwhale]

Of course, input from @Crabwhale in particular would be highly appreciated.

I don't have much to comment on besides the warning I've already provided for him.

I would also advise that, when speaking on a particular subject, you should preferably stick to a focused point unless intense elaboration is needed. Which in most cases, does not mean quoting several unrelated messages multiple times and putting half a dozen Wikipedia links in any single message. It makes it difficult to keep track of what exactly it is that you're saying. @Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

I don't have much to comment on besides the warning I've already provided for him.

I would also advise that, when speaking on a particular subject, you should preferably stick to a focused point unless intense elaboration is needed. Which in most cases, does not mean quoting several unrelated messages multiple times and putting half a dozen Wikipedia links in any single message. It makes it difficult to keep track of what exactly it is that you're saying. @Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer

Fair enough, though then again I usually feel the need to respond to many different people at once cause I find their messages interesting, I understand why that would be a bit overwhelming and/or otherwise unnecessary... (Though I'm not sure still if it is better to reply to multiple people within one message or break up said replies into different messages, especially if two or more people are talking about the same topic.)

I acknowledge and accept (and understand the necessity of) the warning, but I'm not sure if the thread ban was necessary since I already ceased talking about that sort of stuff and the embolism message was for the sake of explanation rather than with the intention of targeting any group of people or even beings (or any one person or being for that matter), also with an attempt to euphemise additional info regarding potential risks of embolisms with air travelling into a specific part of the female reproductive system (which I subsequently learnt was rarer than I initially believed and thus not too much of a cause for concern due to said risks occuring under very unique specific circumstances).

That being said, I'd still want to see what other staff think beyond FinePoint and you regarding whether the ban can and should be lifted or not (I already stated that I have no intention of resuming conversations regarding such topics previously, and I hope we can take each other at our word, given that my sentiments behind such topics are highly charged and specific towards only a specific group and/or topic, namely atrocity criminals and forms of punishment and deterrence, which are also both usually not often discussed in the forum in general and thus should, hopefully, not have to arise again... I'm not sure if my attempts to spoiler some of the disturbing parts of the messages prior to Crabwhale's warning would also be factored in since technically it does mean I acknowledged and tried to shield the audience from being explicitly exposed to such content, but then again spoilers are inherently easy to show the content of so it probably may not be considered in the overall discussion).

I was already intending to cease the graphic topics due to Crabwhale's warning; it was mostly a matter of converging factors as explained above that led to the thread ban.
I would appreciate the lifting of the thread ban but for the sake of fairness it may be better to wait for more staff input. (Also because I wish to understand/see what the opinion of the staff is.)

(More information/explanations in earlier messages in the RVR as explained here)

(Since there's now a new page I should probably use this reply ^ to link back to the start of the conversation so that everyone has the necessary context.)

 

[Antvasima]

Excessive verbosity seems like a recurring problem for you Mahek. Please make a continuous effort to keep it under control.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Excessive verbosity seems like a recurring problem for you Mahek. Please make a continuous effort to keep it under control.

True, though in a way it's context dependent...
Here obviously it'd be detrimental in the sense of cluttering.
Whereas elsewhere where it's casual it's less of an issue (though still a bit excessive oof).

(I do feel like I have to explain myself/where I'm coming from quite often so perhaps that's one reason why it's the case, aside from helping to basically provide useful (even if at times unnecessary) info (in the case of Wikipedia or other Internet links) and giving me a chance to express myself more while also possibly helping to respond to more people at the same time (in the case of long responses), though understandably it's not always necessary but I feel like being too short would sound quite curt and cold at times as well...
But yes I will try to shorten messages/break them up into multiple messages where possible from now on, hope people can also help me keep it in check by reminding me in future should I revert/relapse into the long response habit, in addition to my own efforts.)

(We still probably need further input from other staff about the thread ban issue... unless the input from FinePoint and Crabwhale was sufficient but that's probably up to staff to judge.)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hello. This is a minor announcement that following some time of discussion amongst our administrators and a number of complaints, a short one month ban has been applied to @Chariot190 for consistent poor behavior in threads. Not to speak of the substance of his posts, which the staff generally agree are in the spirit of seeking a resolution, it has been noted time and time again that Chariot confronts situations with extreme rudeness well beyond what our site rules would allow. Chariot himself has said that he is working on this, and we support him in doing so, but for now have decided to go ahead with punishment for past actions.

This post is not an invitation for discussion on this thread. Thank you.

 

[FinePoint]

Excessive verbosity seems like a recurring problem for you Mahek. Please make a continuous effort to keep it under control.

I feel as if plenty of time has passed if anybody else was wanting to weigh in on Mahek.

Since you and I are okay with removing the thread ban, and I'm the one who gave it to him in the first place, and others seem to not want to comment- should we go ahead and do so?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I think that seems fine.

 

[FinePoint]

Yes. I think that seems fine.

Alright. I have done so.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[FinePoint]

Thank you for helping out.

By the way, I still think it's very important that we finalize this thread regarding the rules to avoid future confusion.

 

[Antvasima]

I will check.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

Alright. I have done so.

Thanks again.