MeiouHades
The Evidence
Again, I'm going to take away the editorialising, and just investigate the linked evidence from after his unban in chronological order.
- June 19, 2025: This message is two baby steps into being mean.
- June 19, 2025: Bambu saw the previous comment, as well as some others, and determined that Meiou does not deserve a formal warning, just an informal piece of advice.
- June 22, 2025: This has a slightly harsh tone, but nothing I'd consider rule-breaking. Plus, the other interlocutor was being just as (if not more) incendiary, accusing Meiou of not knowing anything about the series and just making things up.
- June 22, 2025: Again, slightly harsh tone, but not rule-breaking. TheGodOfIce777 said that a scan was using "transcending space and time" in reference to the future and past, Iamunanimousinthat said that was not true, MeiouHades correctly pointed out how the scan did explicitly mention that and considered reporting him for blatantly lying. That seems fine to me, as there's a reasonable basis to consider reporting them.
- June 22, 2025: Qawsed saw the two previous posts, and said that both Meiou and Iamunanimousinthat should chill out, at risk of an official warning if they continued.
- June 28, 2025: I think this post was Somewhat Rude, a rule violation of sorts.
- July 4, 2025: This post has many very rude aspects of it, I'd consider it quite a violation, and I don't see anything in Alexander's post immediately beforehand that would make me look upon that more kindly.
- July 4, 2025: Contrary to Meiou's own claim in this post, both this one and the previous one have included unwarranted direct personal attacks on Alexander as a person, with statements like "There are guys here who I don't agree with but I respect greatly, you are not one of them", "You suck at debating and you've proven that countless times here". These are demonstrably statements about Alexander as a person, not just the arguments they happen to have made in that thread. On top of that, there's some pretty rude isolation-driving statements like "and that's precisely why no one takes you seriously".
- To heed off any potential response like "Oh, so you're saying we have to LIE and pretend we greatly respect people we don't?" In My Opinion, no, but you have an obligation to not smear it in someone's face. You shouldn't say "There are people here who I think are smart, you are not one of them". But you can call particular users smart if it comes up, and if someone approaches you asking if you think they're smart, you can say "no", as long as it's done in a relatively cordial way.
- July 4, 2025: I find it quite heart-wrenching seeing Meiou respond with so much vitriol to someone who is clearly young and acting with humility. Especially combined with the gaslighting of saying there are no personal attacks, despite comments like "No one here thinks you're a serious debater or worth taking seriously at all" and "You can hardly read what's in front of you, no way you can type anything coherent sensible under anesthesia when you can't even do it while fully awake".
- July 4, 2025: I am astonished that a post like this wasn't reported until now.
- July 4, 2025: The violations continue. If you were to "Mock someone mercilessly" that would not be engaging in sensible debate, it would simply be bullying. Threatening to do so is not reasonable behaviour.
- July 4, 2025: An exceedingly toxic way to close off a conversation.
- July 4, 2025: Damage says that users could benefit from chilling. I find that to be quite the understatement.
- July 30, 2025: Given the greater context, of CodeCCLL starting off the incendiary comments, and consistently escalating things, with Meiou not fully reaching those heights of escalation, I won't hold this against Meiou.
- August 27, 2025: Meiou seems to be admittedly disrespectful here, by continuing to debate while saying that he's deemed Iamunanimousinthat as not worthy of a respectful debate. The portions trying to convince Unanimous that they're isolated, and describing them saying they'll stop comment as "threatening us with a good time" are rude.
- September 2, 2025: I don't know why this comment was reported. Yeah, it's kinda unnecessary since it's repeating evidence that was posted earlier, but that's not relevant to the pattern at hand.
The Defence
Your ban was, in part, for your behaviour. On top of that, prior to your ban you'd received a warning for behaviour, and while you were banned you received a posthumous warning for previous behaviour. So, while a decent part of it was for sockpuppeting, I still find that old context to be relevant.
As I commented in the breakdown above, I don't think your reasonings for why the posts aren't report-worthy by themselves are sufficient. So that leaves your justifications of the posts themselves, which I do not believe justify it. I don't care that he spammed the general thread a year ago saying that DB sucks, that comes nowhere near justifying this level of aggression being lobbied in July.
I think this paragraph, in and of itself, is a rule violation. You're being reported for (among other things) toxicity directed towards this user, and you say "tell me this user or anything they say is even worth taking seriously remotely". As someone not familiar with DBS, I can't parse that post into anything I could parse as being deserving of this level of dismissal. But you should not be using the RVR as a platform to implicitly make someone believe that every site user think they're "not worth taking remotely seriously". I take them seriously.
Plus, I don't at all understand how that link is meant to prove Alexander "knows what they're doing". I just see it as them being exasperated that their thread got rejected.
I only accept "it's banter" if the other interlocutor is obviously fine with it, or later says that they are. And hey, in this case Unanimous
explicitly said the opposite.
And you did not just call out that behaviour, you insulted them while doing it.
I didn't see other stuff in that thread from Unanimous that was on that level, although I didn't look particularly hard, and I think the Alexander stuff seals the case by itself.
That's not very obvious to me, what evidence do you have for that claim?
Conclusion
Well yeah, this does just seem like a continuation of his previous toxicity around DB, which hasn't stopped after two years. Given its extreme extent right now, and how it didn't improve after such a long ban, I'd suggest a permaban.
Addendum
To clarify, I don't view Hades as some online bully, I just think some of his behaviour has been a bit more rude than we should strive for in our community, and given his track record I don't think another warning would be sufficient to change that.
