Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[DbzDB2]

You do, and you make a lot of valid points.

I wouldn't be opposed to a short ban either if this was done in malice (I was under the impression it was just a misunderstanding, but if the context shows otherwise I am open to consider that), I just think we should clarify the rules regardless.

I stand by my initial stance that a 3 month ban is the bare minimum here.

I think my previous comment is more than enough evidence that it was done in malice.

 

[Recon1511]

Lastly, Recon's complete lack of remorse is quite unsettling to me. When he was asked to explain himself, he did not apologize, he did not explain his intentions, he simply said "that looks bad" in a smug and sarcastic manner. He clearly doesn't care nor is he aware of how inappropriate his behavior is. This is very concerning because his behavior is not okay whatsoever.

You are attributing a tone to my comment on your own. I do however apologize for wishing for your death.

As for the rest of your post, you clearly use this website in a personal manner I do not and that's what's likely causing you to perceive this as a higher offense than I intended.

Recon has literally said that people on this website should be hanged and dragged across the street. It doesn't matter what the context or intention is, that kind of comment is extremely offensive, and perhaps even psychotic.

This is a lie though I did not refer to anyone from this website, you can go see the post I'm replying to yourself. As I saw it at the time Rinneitachi was talking about some unspecified random and I didn't care either because the comment is simply not a serious threat.

And I have to say, given DbzDB2 past I don't think he is being entirely genuine about his outrage considering he already got in trouble in this very thread for getting into long arguments with Coomandar and telling them to kill themselves in a blatantly direct manner.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

A ban is certainly too far. Recon has recognized that he was in error to joke about this with you and it's not an earnest death threat to begin with. This deserves a warning and a hasty departure to other matters, nothing else.

 

[Nierre]

I definitely don't agree to banning him. a warning is fine enough.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I personally think that a temporary ban seems more appropriate in this case, in order to not encourage this kind of behaviour from our members in general.

 

[KingTempest]

It's different from banning someone for something that is a blatant violation and banning someone for something that we haven't even firmly set in stone as a rule violation yet. I don't think a joke of that caliber is worth a month ban, that's excessive. A warning for something he didn't know is better.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Recon brought up something concerning. What's this?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Recon brought up something concerning. What's this?

https://vsbattles.com/profile-posts/110257/

The deleted post in question (admins can see it), to show it as real. @Abstractions was handling the case seemingly but may have missed it at the time.

 

[DragoZeroNova]

According to the comments on that report, a 6 month ban was agreed (Edit: Proposed) for @DbzDB2 at the time because of comments like those (The staff who agreed on a 6 month ban were @Mr. Bambu, @Abstractions, @LephyrTheRevanchist, @Antvasima, @DarkDragonMedeus, @FinePoint and @Damage3245). I have no idea if it was ever carried out, but based on his posting history, it would seem like he was never banned. Edit: He was banned for two months and the 6 months was a suggestions agreed on by several staff, but was not carried out.

 

[Kaydee1648]

According to the comments on that report, a 6 month ban was agreed for @DbzDB2 at the time because of comments like those (The staff who agreed on a 6 month ban were @Mr. Bambu, @Abstractions, @LephyrTheRevanchist, @Antvasima, @DarkDragonMedeus, @FinePoint and @Damage3245). I have no idea if it was ever carried out, but based on his posting history, it would seem like he was never banned.

A 2 month ban was carried out, not 6. It’s also evident that the user served it out.

 

[DragoZeroNova]

A 2 month ban was carried out, not 6. It’s also evident that he served it out.

I see where I made the mistake: A two month ban was indeed served and carried out. Staff later proposed to change that to a 6 month ban, but while multiple staff agreed to that proposal, it never went anywhere.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

According to the comments on that report, a 6 month ban was agreed (Edit: Proposed) for @DbzDB2 at the time because of comments like those (The staff who agreed on a 6 month ban were @Mr. Bambu, @Abstractions, @LephyrTheRevanchist, @Antvasima, @DarkDragonMedeus, @FinePoint and @Damage3245). I have no idea if it was ever carried out, but based on his posting history, it would seem like he was never banned. Edit: He was banned for two months and the 6 months was a suggestions agreed on by several staff, but was not carried out.

A 2 month ban was carried out, not 6. It’s also evident that the user served it out.

Thank you for the info. Could not properly check the entire conversation at the time (and I had entirely forgotten the case)

So the situation was indeed resolved and there's nothing more to add to that.

 

[Random-Helper323]

A 2 month ban for telling someone to end themself is extremely lenient, but if it's resolved and moved past I suppose we can leave it at that.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, and we should probably apply a temporary ban in the current case as well. It seems unfair and to set a very bad precedent otherwise.

 

[DbzDB2]

Yes, and we should probably apply a temporary ban in the current case as well. It seems unfair and to set a very bad precedent otherwise.

I fully agree. A temporary ban is appropriate.

I received a 2 month ban for saying those things to Coomander, and I agree that it was deserved. That's why I apologized sincerely and have changed since then. So why should Recon get off without punishment when he essentially did the same thing?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I will say for the final time that I firmly disagree with any ban being handed down in the current case. Recon's comments were not made in seriousness. The comments made by Dbz were far more heinous. This shouldn't be a situation where we punish both for fairness. Recon hasn't done anything worthy of a retort above a warning to stop it.

 

[Random-Helper323]

I will say for the final time that I firmly disagree with any ban being handed down in the current case. Recon's comments were not made in seriousness. The comments made by Dbz were far more heinous. This shouldn't be a situation where we punish both for fairness. Recon hasn't done anything worthy of a retort above a warning to stop it.

I think both comments are bad, but you're right, the old comment telling someone to end themself is far worse. I do think saying someone should be killed is pretty bad though. Definitely a warning.

 

[Planck69]

I'm largely in agreement with Bambu here. At most, I can see a warning for this specific instance, and harsher punishment for anything from this point onwards, now that we've established that even jests made in poor taste are bannable.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that a warning only is fine to apply here then.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I have added the warning to the tracker. @Recon1511, while I obviously believe your words were not said in earnest, you must be careful. Tone is difficult to ascribe online, and though I am familiar with this brand of humor, it obviously can be easily misrepresented or misunderstood. This is not a petty warning: should it come to this again, we would probably handle this as a legitimate death threat. Do bear it in mind that it falls to the comic to moderate themselves.

With this resolved, I think we can move on.

 

[FinePoint]

Should I make a new thread to discuss the potential of clarifying the rule?

 

[KingTempest]

If it's that deep then yeah

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Should I make a new thread to discuss the potential of clarifying the rule?

Could do. I would have believed it the common interpretation that a death threat requires it to be an actual threat, but as that isn't the case, a discussion about it could do.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I make a new thread to discuss the potential of clarifying the rule?

A staff only thread in that case.

 

[Lilybitdun]

For some reason this was applied and closed

Michael Myers (Thorn Timeline) is now 9-B+

This calculation has been accepted. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Shattas/Michael_Myers_Violently_Smashes_A_Cabinet_Into_Many_Pieces So Michael Myers (Thorn Timeline) can now be upgraded to level 9-B+.

vsbattles.com

But the bare minimum 24hr grace period didn't happen, it was only open for ~4 hours

For content revision suggestions, generally, a standard grace period of 48 hours should be allowed for the reviewing staff members to evaluate and approve them. However, in the case of extremely blatant, self-evident revisions, a grace period of 24 hours is acceptable. Until this grace period has elapsed, since the time of the thread's creation, the revision should not be applied to the profiles.

 

[Reiner04]

For some reason this was applied and closed

Michael Myers (Thorn Timeline) is now 9-B+

This calculation has been accepted. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Shattas/Michael_Myers_Violently_Smashes_A_Cabinet_Into_Many_Pieces So Michael Myers (Thorn Timeline) can now be upgraded to level 9-B+.

vsbattles.com

But the bare minimum 24hr grace period didn't happen, it was only open for ~4 hours

Apparently, it was applied under Ant's guidance before even thread was accepted. Because of this, I wasn't entirely sure of the proper course of action here that i could take. However, since the CRT seemed fairly straightforward, I ensured the "two staff votes" rule was fulfilled to avoid setting a bad precedent and told the user to apply any changes in future only after regular CRTs has been accepted by atleast 2 staffs with evaluating rights, tho the 24 hours rule must have slipped my mind during all that (oopsie moment).

Shattas

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Lilybitdun]

Apparently, it was applied under Ant's guidance before even thread was accepted. Because of this, I wasn't entirely sure of the proper course of action here that i could take. However, since the CRT seemed fairly straightforward, I ensured the "two staff votes" rule was fulfilled to avoid setting a bad precedent and told the user to apply any changes in future only after regular CRTs has been accepted by atleast 2 staffs with evaluating rights, tho the 24 hours rule must have slipped my mind during all that (oopsie moment).

Shattas

vsbattles.fandom.com

Ant was sent the calc but not the CRT, without getting context he probably assumed that the CRT for the calc had already passed the grace period prerequisite
(I'm making assumptions, Ant might've already known but from looking at the interaction my assumption feels likely)

 

[Reiner04]

Ant was sent the calc but not the CRT, without getting context he probably assumed that the CRT for the calc had already passed the grace period prerequisite
(I'm making assumptions, Ant might've already known but from looking at the interaction my assumption feels likely)

Maybe. I have unlocked the thread, however; considering that the user is new and likely still learning the ropes, I don't think this situation warrants more than simple instruction and guidance (there is mistake on my part too anyways, messing up such a simple things as thread mod)

 

[Shattas]

Apparently, it was applied under Ant's guidance before even thread was accepted. Because of this, I wasn't entirely sure of the proper course of action here that i could take. However, since the CRT seemed fairly straightforward, I ensured the "two staff votes" rule was fulfilled to avoid setting a bad precedent and told the user to apply any changes in future only after regular CRTs has been accepted by atleast 2 staffs with evaluating rights, tho the 24 hours rule must have slipped my mind during all that (oopsie moment).

Shattas

vsbattles.fandom.com

Apparently, it was applied under Ant's guidance before even thread was accepted. Because of this, I wasn't entirely sure of the proper course of action here that i could take. However, since the CRT seemed fairly straightforward, I ensured the "two staff votes" rule was fulfilled to avoid setting a bad precedent and told the user to apply any changes in future only after regular CRTs has been accepted by atleast 2 staffs with evaluating rights, tho the 24 hours rule must have slipped my mind during all that (oopsie moment).

Shattas

vsbattles.fandom.com

I didn't know about the 24-hour rule. You said I could add it, but never mind.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I thought that the change seemed minor and uncontroversial to apply, and thought that a single staff member accepting it seemed sufficient, but may have misremembered our rules in that regard. My apologies in that case.

Btw: From what I recall, Shattas applied the revision in a very inaccurately structured manner, so they seem to need help with that part.

 

[Reiner04]

Btw: From what I recall, Shattas applied the revision in a very inaccurately structured manner, so they seem to need help with that part.

I will assist him with the editing part tomorrow ig. In the meantime, I have left instructions on his profile, including links to the relevant rule pages he needs to keep in mind for the future.

 

[FinePoint]

I have created the staff thread to discuss the rule.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you both for helping out.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

reply

... Am I allowed to ask for a thread unban for the unpopular opinions thread...? Feel like rejoining + I think the stuff that led to the ban are unlikely to repeat themselves (also, new year, might as well hope to start it off positively).

 

[Nierre]

I have (once again) thread-banned @Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer from the rant thread.

They blatantly continued to spam it even after the warning, and after I told them exactly how they could make long posts without being disruptive.

In addition, they were thread-banned before (although for different reason), but Ant and I decided to give them another chance. It was also brought up back then how they shouldn't spam long posts, both publicly and privately.

Finally, I've gotten multiple private messages now basically begging me to do something about it, which of course isn't a reason alone to take action, but it is proof that they have been regularly bothering people in the thread.

Of course, like last time, if other staff members think something else is appropriate, I would love to hear from them.

I am fine with banning them from that thread.

It's been 6 months since they've been banned from the Unpopular Opinions thread due to an annoying amount of flooding and spamming, I think it's fine if we unban them from the thread, as long as they learn to either condense their messages into one post or utilize the spoiler feature that we have available.

 

[Dragopentling]

Also I don't want to silence him by reporting his violation. @FantaRin_The_First helped me to make a report about him. He had done multiple times vandalizing profiles (there's even a comment in here that helped make things more clear about this vandalizing stuff). That's clearly not my mistake. And I reported that not to spite him, but about he's own act that against the rules. I dunno why he thinks I do it like I had a personal problems. He's also the one who treat my thread as "nothingburger" and suddenly accuse me (just like @Mr. Bambu explanation and you can see it yourself in my thread).

Also him saying "It's like they're trying to silence and attack me before I can even give any proper venue or counterargument." Pretty much wrong -- He had done writes multiple long arguments and debating it with me before I reported him here. The only part where I said I'll report him because it was referring to the profile he vandalized (he debated the part that he vandalized with me as if it was valid afterall).

This is just comical. That's all I need to say.

 

[Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer]

It's been 6 months since they've been banned from the Unpopular Opinions thread due to an annoying amount of flooding and spamming, I think it's fine if we unban them from the thread, as long as they learn to either condense their messages into one post or utilize the spoiler feature that we have available.

Yeah, I shouldn't go insane with spamming either, I was just very very bored and timezones and Forum not being real-time were irritating, it was a one-off event (hopefully), should not happen again.

(I still prefer Discord for chatting but whatever works welp.)

Thanks for the third chance.

 

[Reiner04]

It's been 6 months since they've been banned from the Unpopular Opinions thread due to an annoying amount of flooding and spamming, I think it's fine if we unban them from the thread, as long as they learn to either condense their messages into one post or utilize the spoiler feature that we have available.

I am also fine with this.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that we can give Mahek a final chance them, but it will be withdrawn if they begin to spam, derail, or post excessively long posts in that thread again.

 

[Nierre]

I've done so.