• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Rule Violation Reports - 47

Status
Not open for further replies.
And we haven't been addressing the problem until now. Now that this problem has been addressed I feel like this the best course of action. However, I will stop my discussion here, I don't want to derail.
 
The point is that 90% of anyone in the thread has read the entirety of To Aru. Matthew has 0 knowledge about the verse and has admitted to have a personal grudge against it due to old conflicts. He also pops in To Aru discussions just to provoke some members. I am in the wrong for being sarcastical, but he is also in the wrong for doing this. In cases where the members involved in the thread have the same knowledge as the "most knowledgeable supporter", saying that the specific supporters are "above them and should be the ones to give the veredict" is... Welp, a clear bias.

And Matt accuses me of "following him in threads" when, most of the time, he is the one who doesn't even know the verse but enters the thread to either give a lazy response or directly accuse me/other members.
 
Gosh darn it. This is going to seem more complicated than I thought. I think it's best to see Matt, Weekly, and Schro's past to decide if the disrespect comes from a two way street.
 
Devo ir pegar o screenshot, Matthew?

Literally everyone in the thread can see that you only pop out after me or Zemsum either debunk or try to argue.
 
To explain the situation a bit, Matthew and Weekly feel stressed out because a number of members are recurrently disrespectful and/or make accusations against them. They are doing their best to help out, behave well, and hold back equally harsh responses in order to be professional, so their concerns are very understandable. The gang-up mentality and paranoia against them in this community genuinely have to stop.

On the other hand, the accusations and verbal jabs have generally not been severe enough for us to ban our members, and in this case SchroKatze has otherwise been well-behaved as far as I am aware, so moderate instruction warnings usually seem more warranted. We have our standard procedures and regulations after all, and cannot start banning people for mostly not liking us personally.

At the same time, this widespread hostility has practically turned into a war of attrition, and I definitely don't want either Matthew or Weekly to eventually either explode or quit out of frustration. Suggestions in private from the staff regarding how we should deal with this would be appreciated. My area is dealing with organisation and edit-patrolling, not drama.
 
We should stop talking about this issue here though. I definitely agree about that.
 
As a friends of Kaze and Mashu, this saddened me about their problem right now, Mashu situation already explained by Ant, but Kaze i will say this, he has anxiety and some mental problem which can make him depressed, maybe there is more but that's all i guess about Kaze right now, i know this since we talking each other on discord.

So what's the core? The stress. Stress can lead to a drama between two users from what i see.

Hopefully after i say this we can reach the conclusion about Mashu and Kaze.
 
Yes, let's hope so.
 
I will give a warning to him. It wasn't malicious vandalism so i think he can stay here.
 
SomebodyData deleted it. Can somebody give the page creator an instruction warning?
 
He did offer counterarguments in the previous thread, and afterwards explained to me that he has finals weeks coming up, and does not have the time to properly deal with this right now. I think that we should wait until his exams are over, so he can properly discuss this issue.
 
Thank you Sera.

And for the record, I did present counterarguments in the prior thread multiple times and numerous people also agreed.

... See, we can play this game all day. "Agreed / didn't agree, argued / didn't argue", different people will say different things.
 
Yes, this is not a rule violation. It is just an inconvenience for some of the participants in the discussion.
 
Sera EX said:
We've been over this a million times. Closing threads is not a rule violation. If you have an issue with a staff's practice, contact an administrator or bureaucrat directly. Only rule violations belong on this thread. That is a violation of the:
Click to expand...
The fact we don't have a rule against unreasonable closure is a problem with our rules, not a reason to ignore obvious issues.
 
This is more so a question, not a claim, but are there not any rules specified for the usage of power for mods or?
 
Wasn't the thread near 500 posts anyway? It would've been closed regardless.
 
It is part of the staff's job to close discussions that are going in circles, are too controversial, or are out of control.

This one needed Matthew to be present to properly argue for his case in order to reach a conclusion, and since that is not possible at this point in time, the discussion needs to be postponed.
 
Can someone link the thread in question? the deleted comment is making this situation hard to understand
 
Antvasima said:
It is part of the staff's job to close doscussions that are going in circles or are out of control.

This one needed Matthew to be present to properly argue for his case in order to reach a conclusion, and since that is not possible at this point in time, the discussion needs to be postponed.
Click to expand...
I really don't like this whole "only staff can keep a discussion on the rails". Normal users/non-admins are not inherently less trustworthy, and Matt's argument has multiple supporters.
 
Again, waiting for discussions to be properly handled by the staff is not a new feature in this wiki, and a few weeks is nothing by our standards. You are making a hen out of a feather/a big deal over very little, as usual when it comes to Matthew.
 
@Yobo

The staff are supposed to evaluate the arguments and clear threads for application. If they are not involved, you can all argue with each other until you turn blue, and nothing will happen anyway. It is better to wait for a while.

I had to wait for years for a Naruto revision, for example.
 
Hey guys, we should probably take this off of here. We're only gonna clog up the Thread this way. We have Walls for a reason you know, just sayin'.
 
Yobo Blue said:
Is this directed towards Hykuu or me, @Ant?
Click to expand...
I don't remember. I think that it was a general comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Homie890
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
780
Deleted member 40688
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top