Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Dalesean027]

I'm with KT and Bambu on this one personally, we already have to divert so much to this already and TR hasn't even been back what a full month or two yet even and is already wasting a lot our collective time that was spent working on other more important things. I don't see how its worth it to keep doing this over and over each time we let this come back, it gets to a point where we gotta just stop being lenient which like is crazy because we've already done that before with full staff intervention in several cases and like here we are back once again. Just completely halts and upheaves progress when we always have to micromanage with TR

 

[Theglassman12]

I more or less share the same thought as KingTempest. The whole slap on the wrist treatment for people who “contribute a lot” has always been a pet peeve of mine and I don’t see why we should be lenient to anyone when at the end of the day, they’ve been reported and banned for a reason.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The consensus, then, is 5 in favor of a topic ban, 4 in favor of a warning, Agnaa who would be fine with anything, and Crab who specified Greater Than a Warning but should post if he's cool with a topic ban (which, if he meant that, would make it 6-4). Still a gridlock, since ideally we'd have at least a three staff lead. So. More ears to pull.

@Armorchompy @LephyrTheRevanchist @Damage3245
@AbaddonTheDisappointment

If you need a summary post, I'm sure one can be made on request, but I think pretty much all relevant data has been tossed out.

 

[Vzearr]

I'm with KT and Bambu on this one personally, we already have to divert so much to this already and TR hasn't even been back what a full month or two yet even and is already wasting a lot our collective time that was spent working on other more important things. I don't see how its worth it to keep doing this over and over each time we let this come back, it gets to a point where we gotta just stop being lenient which like is crazy because we've already done that before with full staff intervention in several cases and like here we are back once again. Just completely halts and upheaves progress when we always have to micromanage with TR

I more or less share the same thought as KingTempest. The whole slap on the wrist treatment for people who “contribute a lot” has always been a pet peeve of mine and I don’t see why we should be lenient to anyone when at the end of the day, they’ve been reported and banned for a reason.

What happened here? The focus shifted away from what actually happened in the situation, and more into general frustration with having to deal with me and TR as a whole???

I understand the frustration. I’m not going to pretend my past hasn’t contributed to that. But decisions here should still be based on what actually happened in this case, not just how tired people are of seeing my name come up.

If the issue is that this took up staff time, then I get that, but that alone doesn’t mean a topic ban is the correct response. Plenty of threads take up time when they get heated.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

More ears to pull.

Well, I've been keeping up with the convo. I find very interesting how split we seem to be here, but I'd like to think is not for the wrong reasons.

For me personally? As I showed the last time I participated in a (public) Vzearr report in this thread, I heavily dislike being taken advantage of when giving fourth, fifth chances. Sometimes, things just won't change.

So honestly? I'm in for the topic ban. Vzearr was given another chance, on a imo lenient manner given the history as laid out by Agnaa and passionately expressed by KT. We really seem to be going back to the toxic cycle where Vzearr will keep coming here again and again. Nip it in the bud.

And that's coming from someone that has acknowledged the passion they have for this verse. And it's exactly that passion that keeps getting them into trouble.

 

[Vzearr]

Surely there's a less harsh compromise we could come to.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I'll reiterate my stance on the matter for clarity and say that I think this issue was blown out of proportion. I don't think it's in-line with how we have handled issues like this in the past to instigate a topic ban.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Vzearr definitely did get heated and engage in some questionable behaviour. All the same, this might be an issue of slowing down rather than stopping. The verse got a barrage of threads in rapid succession and a barrage of edits. I was getting fatigued with the verse even though outside of its role in the Wiki all I know about it is it's an anime that's presumably set in Tokyo and probably involves revenge.

So I wonder if a partial solution is a tighter restriction on the number of threads that can be active at once for TR by Vzearr. Maybe just one at a time. The need for three approvals is obviously necessary, but rules for counting votes need to be tight. I admit I was a bit vague when I said it could theoretically work, but when I clarified I was neutral Vzearr said the thread was already applied and therefore I counted as agree. The disagreements were also somewhat glossed over.

Honestly, given that behaviour I think I have to support some kind of restriction, like what I described above, with a caveat that I'm neutral on a topic ban for now, and believe that any further problems could warrant it.

Given Vzearr's primary past offences are from quite a while ago, I don't know if they should be the main focus here. I think the goal needs to be to bring down the temperature, not to roast Vzearr.

 

[Vzearr]

Vzearr definitely did get heated and engage in some questionable behaviour. All the same, this might be an issue of slowing down rather than stopping. The verse got a barrage of threads in rapid succession and a barrage of edits. I was getting fatigued with the verse even though outside of its role in the Wiki all I know about it is it's an anime that's presumably set in Tokyo and probably involves revenge.

So I wonder if a partial solution is a tighter restriction on the number of threads that can be active at once for TR by Vzearr. Maybe just one at a time. The need for three approvals is obviously necessary, but rules for counting votes need to be tight. I admit I was a bit vague when I said it could theoretically work, but when I clarified I was neutral Vzearr said the thread was already applied and therefore I counted as agree. The disagreements were also somewhat glossed over.

Honestly, given that behaviour I think I have to support some kind of restriction, like what I described above, with a caveat that I'm neutral on a topic ban for now, and believe that any further problems could warrant it.

Given Vzearr's offences are quite a while ago, I don't know if they should be the main focus here. I think the goal needs to be to bring down the temperature, not to roast Vzearr.

By the way, I didn't count your vote, I counted viet and reiner as 2 votes and applied only viets possibly rating.

Thank you for commenting.

 

[Random-Helper323]

By the way, I didn't count your vote, I counted viet and reiner as 2 votes and applied only viets possibly rating.

I'm pretty sure the verse needs three votes and not enough time had passed though. I can tell you're impatient to fix up the verse given that you've likely been sitting on edits you'd like to make for ages, but moving very quickly tends to lead to mistakes, fatigue, frustration, conflict... I highly recommend you take it slower. Not stop entirely, but slow down significantly.

Thank you for commenting, I appreciate not going so strict on me.

I understand frustration and quick decisions that lead to regret. I want you to take it slower and calm down, and I'm a pretty forgiving person.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'll reiterate my stance on the matter for clarity and say that I think this issue was blown out of proportion. I don't think it's in-line with how we have handled issues like this in the past to instigate a topic ban.

To the best of my knowledge, we have never had a case much like Vzearr, where a user was banned for their interactions with a verse, made a sockpuppet, used the sockpuppet to become staff to admittedly influence that verse, confess, be allowed back, and then offend again almost immediately. The lack of precedent here is how much leniency has been given already.

 

[GrathOfLux]

To the best of my knowledge, we have never had a case much like Vzearr, where a user was banned for their interactions with a verse, made a sockpuppet, used the sockpuppet to become staff to admittedly influence that verse, confess, be allowed back, and then offend again almost immediately. The lack of precedent here is how much leniency has been given already.

True, there hasn't been another case like that. I'm referring to the relative severity of the offense being reported and the punishments being considered for it. My opinion is that this was a relatively minor offense, and shouldn't have had this severe of a discussion even in its historical context.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

True, there hasn't been another case like that. I'm referring to the relative severity of the offense being reported and the punishments being considered for it. My opinion is that this was a relatively minor offense, and shouldn't have had this severe of a discussion even in its historical context.

I suppose I would just reiterate that I don't feel the same. I think the historical context is immensely relevant, considered with the short time frame between the verse being opened again and these infractions occurring.

 

[Agnaa]

Surely there's a less harsh compromise we could come to.

A topic ban is already a fairly uncommon compromise. 90% of the time things go straight from warnings to total bans.

 

[Antvasima]

I'll reiterate my stance on the matter for clarity and say that I think this issue was blown out of proportion. I don't think it's in-line with how we have handled issues like this in the past to instigate a topic ban.

I'm referring to the relative severity of the offense being reported and the punishments being considered for it. My opinion is that this was a relatively minor offense, and shouldn't have had this severe of a discussion even in its historical context.

Agreed.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

I think this issue was blown out of proportion. I don't think it's in-line with how we have handled issues like this in the past to instigate a topic ban.

Kinda similar thoughts.
I’ve been following the report, and while I usually prefer not to get involved in situations like this, I felt i should give my opinion on this matter.

Personally, I think a topic ban is a bit too harsh for something that could have been handled with a warning earlier on. From what I can see, the issue doesn’t really seem tied to TR itself, but more like a dispute over tone and respect. While things may have gotten a little tense, I don’t believe it crossed the line to the point of needing such a strong response of topic ban.

 

[Damage3245]

Currently I'm leaning more in favour of a warning than a topic ban.

But this should really serve as a wake-up call and last chance here. They need to act better or that's it next time.

 

[KLOL506]

I am in favor of a topic ban. We have permabanned people for less. But as a CGM who has history with Vzearr, I understand that my vote is meaningless. Even so.

There are also a few other staff who were involved who didn't make a statement on this yet.

@Planck69 @Emirp sumitpo @LordTracer @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234

 

[Just a Random Butler]

Kinda similar thoughts.
I’ve been following the report, and while I usually prefer not to get involved in situations like this, I felt i should give my opinion on this matter.

Personally, I think a topic ban is a bit too harsh for something that could have been handled with a warning earlier on. From what I can see, the issue doesn’t really seem tied to TR itself, but more like a dispute over tone and respect. While things may have gotten a little tense, I don’t believe it crossed the line to the point of needing such a strong response of topic ban.

Currently I'm leaning more in favour of a warning than a topic ban.

But this should really serve as a wake-up call and last chance here. They need to act better or that's it next time.

I agree with what TWILIGHT and Damage basically said.

But if the majority ultimately chooses a topic ban, I won't complain.

And as for you, Vzearr, regardless of the outcome, I think you should be VERY VERY VERY careful next time, especially since it looks like you're been very prone to getting in trouble compared to the last time I interacted with you on-site.

 

[Planck69]

A warning this once is fine, though Vzearr should shape up from now on. If it further proves that Tokyo Revengers specifically brings out these issues then we can revisit the idea of a topic ban then.

 

[Qawsedf234]

There are also a few other staff who were involved who didn't make a statement on this yet.

In my view Vzearr just has a habitually bad track record with Tokyo Revengers and this is just more evidence towards it. A topic ban is warranted in my view.

 

[Reiner04]

In my view Vzearr just has a habitually bad track record with Tokyo Revengers and this is just more evidence towards it. A topic ban is warranted in my view.

To provide better context, the CRT-related content that was reported here seems to have become heated at that moment not due to TR or Vzearr’s attachment to the verse, but for other reasons, in my opinion, which Twilight also pointed out earlier. The original report regarding the CRT is as follows:

This thread seems very hot, anyone want to turn on the AC to cool the thread?

The Crying Blue Ogre - He's 100x Stronger Than Me!

Tokyo Revengers characters' durability widely outscales their AP. By a large margin. I.e. Many x. This can be seen by no name goons not tanking these hits, but somehow, depsite not tanking these hits, going on to survive hits that are 100x stonger. They're literally tanking the hits, the mid...

vsbattles.com

The remaining concerns are related to a VS thread, which also appears to have become somewhat heated overall, based on how I see it.

Post in thread 'Rule Violation Reports (New forum)' https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-7637308

 

[LordTracer]

I’m in favor of a topic ban for Vzearr. I strongly agree with KT, and quite frankly, I’m tired of seeing Vzearr in here every other week.

 

[KLOL506]

Agree with a topic ban: FinePoint, Mr. Bambu, KingTempest, Dalesean027, Qawsedf234, LordTracer, LephyrTheRevanchist, Theglassman12

Disagree with a topic ban but fine with a warning: Antvasima, GrathOfLux, Reiner04, Planck69, Damage3245, TWILIGHT-OP, Just a Random Butler

Neutral: Agnaa (Fine with anything from a mild warning to a permanent topic ban), Random-Helper323 (Wants a middle ground of a warning plus thread restrictions, but doesn't fully oppose a topic ban)

Edit: Seems to be a 1-vote gap advantage for a topic ban of a duration yet to be determined.

 

[Reiner04]

Random-Helper323

I think Randomhelper is neutral on Topic ban and thinks some form of restriction on numbers of CRT is needed.

 

[KLOL506]

I think Randomhelper is neutral on Topic ban and thinks some form of restriction on numbers of CRT is needed.

Edited.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Edited.

You mistook butler for Random.

 

[Reiner04]

You mistook butler for Random.

I corrected KLOL's typo. Should be good now.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Agree with a topic ban: FinePoint, Mr. Bambu, KingTempest, Dalesean027, Qawsedf234, LordTracer, LephyrTheRevanchist, Theglassman12

8 for a topic ban.

Disagree with a topic ban but fine with a warning: Antvasima, GrathOfLux, Reiner04, Planck69, Damage3245, TWILIGHT-OP, Just a Random Butler

7 for a warning.

Fine with anything from a mild warning to a permanent topic ban: Agnaa

This almost sounds completely neutral to me.

Neutral, but thinks a CRT restriction needs to be applied: Random-Helper323

I can't fully oppose a topic ban in good conscience, as much as I'd like to. I do think I'd prefer a warning coupled with a one thread limit though.

Edit: Seems to be a 3-vote gap advantage for a topic ban of a duration yet to be determined.

It is a 1 point lead.

Ban: 8

Warn: 7

Neutral: 2 (sort of)

No-one seems to like my middle ground suggestion, so it seems to boil down to those two options. Just the fact that 17 staff have voted and the vote is so close tells us how much of an issue this is though.

 

[Reiner04]

Ban: 8

Warn: 7

Neutral: 2 (sort of)

No-one seems to like my middle ground suggestion, so it seems to boil down to those two options. Just the fact that 17 staff have voted and the vote is so close tells us how much of an issue this is though.

Honestly, given the number of staff on both sides, it’s hard for me to say whether this can be concluded in the same way as we normally would. Having 7–8 staff members on opposing sides, many of whom are admins, speaks volume about the complexity of the case to go for one. I also don’t think this should have gone on for this long, but at this point, I think we should try to reach some kind of middle ground if possible, such as your suggestion of limiting the number of CRTs that can be created. Calling more staffs has so far failed since the moment we call, votes gets split further and further, sometimes on this side, sometimes on another.

@LephyrTheRevanchist @FinePoint @Qawsedf234 @DarkDragonMedeus
Considering the Overwhelming numbers on either side, with difference of just 1, would Random-Helper suggestion of a Warning with a one thread limit at a time for vzearr would be plausible middle ground?

I do think I'd prefer a warning coupled with a one thread limit though.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I can't recall who it was, at this moment, but I seem to remember that we had a sort of official proxy system for a particular user with a particular verse, in that this user's work for the verse was only permitted to be submitted if it went through approval by their overseer (who, iirc, was just another blue name with good standing)? Is this ringing any bells for anyone else? It's such a vague memory, but if we could find that precedent, I think something like this would, at least, mitigate Vzearr's issues, if this must end in a vote deadlock. One thread limit for the verse, and his posts need approval before going up-- this can be either via staff or, more plausible imo, another normal user who volunteers for the role to enable Vzearr to work.

This obviously adds to the work flow and is inconvenient, and I think is unfair to whichever staff member or user volunteers to do it, but it is under this condition that I could, personally, agree to any compromise. I would still prefer just a topic ban, to avoid us getting burned entirely.

I will point out, yet again, that Crab has voiced disdain for Vzearr's behavior, and has advocated for more than a warning-- implicitly, I believe he would be in favor of, at the very least, a topic ban. If that were the case, we would be at 9-7, and at 3 vote lead, I would consider the matter resolvable with a topic ban with a significant majority in favor.

 

[Reiner04]

and his posts need approval before going up-- this can be either via staff or, more plausible imo, another normal user who volunteers for the role to enable Vzearr to work.

I am already quite doing it since yesterday. But it is not possible for me to keep track of each of his post in every thread. So if its in the line of the posts that's only related to TR CRT (which seems to be main concern here and since you also pointed out you don't have issues with vs thread as much), i can do it.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Is this ringing any bells for anyone else

I believe it was @Topaz404 who was given permission to act as a proxy for fujiwara?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-revision-regarding-banned-users-and-proxies.176372

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I believe it was @Topaz404 who was given permission to act as a proxy for fujiwara?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-revision-regarding-banned-users-and-proxies.176372

Yeah, that's the ticket. Could do a similar thing with Vzearr, although, it wouldn't have to be literally every post. Just those on TR threads.

 

[Reiner04]

I am already quite doing it since yesterday. But it is not possible for me to keep track of each of his post in every thread. So if its in the line of the posts that's only related to TR CRT (which seems to be main concern here and since you also pointed out you don't have issues with vs thread as much), i can do it.

To be more precise Vzearr promised me personally that he will always choose words carefully and try to not get involve himself in any further issues and i referenced that conversation with him in this thread too. So that's why i have been keeping an eye on him if he is keeping his promise.

But i think if his posts already recieves my permission as being okay, wouldn't it be just fine for him to post it since he is not literally banned but still exist here? @Mr. Bambu

 

[Mr. Bambu]

To be more precise Vzearr promised me personally that he will always choose words carefully and try to not get involve himself in any further issues and i referenced that conversation with him in this thread too. So that's why i have been keeping an eye on him if he is keeping his promise.

But i think if his posts already recieves my permission as being okay, wouldn't it be just fine for him to post it since he is not literally banned but still exist here? @Mr. Bambu

I'm so sorry, but can you clarify what exactly you mean?

 

[Reiner04]

I'm so sorry, but can you clarify what exactly you mean?

I mean that for TR related CRTs, he should have his posts reviewed and approved by me (as a volunteer) or any other available staff member before posting them in the relevant thread (if they approve it or else he has to keep patience). This would continue until we are confident that his behavior has improved, which realistically won’t be something that can be reassessed immediately, or even within a few weeks or months.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Honestly, it’s disappointing and frustrating how Vzearr keeps escaping punishment. He is a member who has contributed absolutely nothing productive. His threads are poorly made and AI-generated. His comments are generally accompanied by rudeness and sarcastic replies. He is the reason Tokyo Revengers got banned on our Wiki. He is the reason this thread has about 5 pages just to discuss what punishment to give him. He is also the reason why, apparently, we will have to assign staff or regular members to keep an eye on him. That’s just absurd.

It’s unbelievable that anything short of a permanent ban is even being considered. And it’s even more absurd that some staff members had the nerve to agree with just a ‘warning’. For the love of God, this guy created sock puppets and INFILTRATED our staff. He shows no improvement in his behavior and always causes problems.

You are protecting a member who spat on the wiki and spat on the staff. You are setting absolutely absurd precedents that will come back to haunt you.

This guy should have been banned a long time ago, and permanently, with no appeals. He is not special, he is just another problematic member that should have been dealt with already. And I’m sure this frustration I have is something that many members of this forum agree with and share.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I mean that for TR related CRTs, he should have his posts reviewed and approved by me (as a volunteer) or any other available staff member before posting them in the relevant thread (if they approve it or else he has to keep patience). This would continue until we are confident that his behavior has improved, which realistically won’t be something that can be reassessed immediately, or even within a few weeks or months.

To clarify, I would propose this to not just be for CRTs. I would want it for versus threads, too, since his bad behavior extends into there as well. I would also not propose any deadline on this restriction being lifted. I would see it be indefinite. I would see it be only done by volunteers and not the general staff, since then I see it being the case that Vzearr bugs random staff members about it-- it becomes too much of a weight to bear so a single troublesome user can continue to interact with the verse that causes them to be troublesome.

Honestly, it’s disappointing and frustrating how Vzearr keeps escaping punishment. He is a member who has contributed absolutely nothing productive. His threads are poorly made and AI-generated. His comments are generally accompanied by rudeness and sarcastic replies. He is the reason Tokyo Revengers got banned on our Wiki. He is the reason this thread has about 5 pages just to discuss what punishment to give him. He is also the reason why, apparently, we will have to assign staff or regular members to keep an eye on him. That’s just absurd.

It’s unbelievable that anything short of a permanent ban is even being considered. And it’s even more absurd that some staff members had the nerve to agree with just a ‘warning’. For the love of God, this guy created sock puppets and INFILTRATED our staff. He shows no improvement in his behavior and always causes problems.

You are protecting a member who spat on the wiki and spat on the staff. You are setting absolutely absurd precedents that will come back to haunt you.

This guy should have been banned a long time ago, and permanently, with no appeals. He is not special, he is just another problematic member that should have been dealt with already. And I’m sure this frustration I have is something that many members of this forum agree with and share.

For the record: I have extended permission to M3X to post this, because I feel it voices discontent without being deliberately cruel, and I think that it is relevant to point out the frustrations of the general userbase.

 

[Reiner04]

To clarify, I would propose this to not just be for CRTs. I would want it for versus threads, too, since his bad behavior extends into there as well. I would also not propose any deadline on this restriction being lifted. I would see it be indefinite. I would see it be only done by volunteers and not the general staff, since then I see it being the case that Vzearr bugs random staff members about it-- it becomes too much of a weight to bear so a single troublesome user can continue to interact with the verse that causes them to be troublesome.

Understood. I only made an exception for VS threads since I believed some leniency was being considered for them, though I personally think leniency should apply more to CRTs than VS threads, if at all. However, if this applies to all TR related threads and is have ti be handled by volunteers only, then I’m fine with that.