• 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 - 48

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well Regi's ban is kind of questionable on whether it was evaluated properly (not whether he deserved it more just how we analysed the situation) so I am hesitant to use that as justification for another band.
 
To clarify, before the ban Regis got a report and afaik multiple rule breaks and reports were the reasonings for why the decision came to giving Regis a final warning.

However later Agnaa found out that he hadn't been reported as many times as it appeared and I believe he only had one report before the the one that led to his final warning

His ban also mainly happened because of the warning because the actions brought up were relatively minor and wouldn't have warranted a serious punishment without the context of a final warning

Maybe I have not remembered everything properly so have got a few things wrong, but if if i have recalled everything correctly I am very much opposed to using the ban as a main reasoning for another because I honestly cannot say that it was rightfully implemented not because of the conclusion but because of the steps leading up to the conclusion. He shouldn't get a ban unless his actions themself justify it without the previous ban and final warning being brought up.
 
Andytrenom said:
To clarify, before the ban Regis got a report and afaik multiple rule breaks and reports were the reasonings for why the decision came to giving Regis a final warning.

However later Agnaa found out that he hadn't been reported as many times as it appeared and I believe he only had one report before the the one that led to his final warning
Click to expand...
To double clarify, there were three RVT reports total. One for his behaviour during the Discord server ban thread last year, a report after that where Matt said Regis had been reported "a dozen times" beforehand, and one more report considered the final warning.

After talking to Weekly about it, he was warned beforehand but only in the actual threads themselves, and not on the RVT or on his wall, so I can't say how times he got warned this way.
 
Can somebody ask the other administrators to comment here as well?
 
I honestly don't think the comment Weekly initially linked is banworthy even for someone with a, in loose terms, 'history'. Like, even report worthy. I don't know how often I've seen users accuse people of lying, including people accusing myself as actively lying, and nada being brought up here.

As for banning Regis, I'll make my point abundantly clear with this quote from Andy:

Can we not go the "the guy was in trouble before so let's make any disagreeable action he takes unacceptable from now on" route Yes prior history is important but let's not focus solely on that and ignore all other context.
This is practically the same situation. Regis shouldn't be banned by any measure and I'd think less of us as a site for doing it. Nor do I think Regis is a particularly toxic user despite being vocal about issues with the site and making some blunt accusations such as someone being dishonest. Even then one doesn't need to be aware of a lie to make it; many of the times Regis has accused someone of doing it I don't see how it's him accusing someone of purposeful deception, and the times he does are rather sparse. This demonization of users goes in both directions and it's unhealthy to take it seriously.

This isn't a Weekly/Matt-bashing thread though. Talk to HR representatives individually; you don't just report staff like any other users for obvious reasons. I does not mean staff is above the rules by any measure, but clogging up a thread that's only really supposed to quickly shoot down blatant rulebreaks and point out consistent misbehavior with every time a staff rubs someone the wrong way accomplishes nothing. Heck, I've had issues with Weekly myself that I've talked to HR before about.

That said, how much a user contributes to the site should not determine whether or not they are subject to a punishment. I've seen this argument thrown around a lot and it doesn't sit well with me.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I don't get how you could say that Regis isn't toxic with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Honestly speaking, I believe Regi made a lot Appeal to motive Fallacy towards WeeklyBattles and a [https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2904278#217 Red-herring for points he disagree. I don't believe that we ban people if they made Fallicous points. I don't think that he broke these Site Rules:

  • Refrain from spamming, trolling, threatening, using derogatory comments of any form (ethnic, homophobic, belittling the disabled or mentally ill, etcetera), and rude, vulgar, sexist, etcetera offensive language.
Mabye this rule was broken?

  • You can leave comments in the forums if you want to argue about a character's power or point out things that seem wrong, but don't be rude, obnoxious, unreasonable, or overly argumentative. Also, try to keep the forum threads on point, and to not veer off-topic.
If Regi is to be ban, then, it would for this comment about the staff from this Site Rules.

  • That said, we must also have the right to defend ourselves within our own borders. As such, everybody who visit this wiki strictly to attack us, or try to dismantle our tiering system, are categorically permanently banned from our community.
We have banned people who attacked the staffs system or wiki system before like Naruto-debater123, Udlmaster and many others.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
How is this time any different from past reports about Regis? If he has been toxic before and did not shape up, why shouldn't he be banned?
Click to expand...
In the interest of moving things along (and not in the interest of putting words in people's mouths), considering Dargoo's said things like

Nor do I think Regis is a particularly toxic user despite being vocal about issues with the site and making some blunt accusations such as someone being dishonest.
And Wokistan saying that this report wasn't "juicy", it seems like some don't think that Regis was being toxic in the thread he was reported over.
 
...Despite him receiving warnings from two admins in that thread before he was even reported here and showing general hostility to anyone, not just me, on that thread
 
Again, not to put words in people's mouths, but Yobo did say:

Yobo Blue said:
Well you see, the face on his profile is just a picture

Some people just have a different standard of toxicity.
Click to expand...
 
I think it does matter when there hasn't been any real rule breaking other than being rude, as far as I can tell at least.
 
Well, I disagree about that we shouldn't take into account how much help a member, especially a staff member, has been for the wiki in sum total. We would end up with almost nobody taking care of the site, and an extremely stressed and dysfunctional atmosphere among the staff, if we banned them left and right. It takes quite severe rule-violations for the HR group and the bureaucrats to consider such an action.

It is also important to note that the constant hostility and accusations towards Matthew and Weekly are slowly eroding their stamina for staying in this wiki, which is not a good development at all. Something should be done about that, but I am not sure how it is best to handle it.
 
Maybe you can set up a special rule where members aren't allowed to make accusations or bully Matt and Weekly? I've seen special rules set up for different verses asking to not try upgrading them as it's been discussed heavily in the past, so I can see something like that here. I'm not sure if this plan will work when executed as it might leave in loopholes people can exploit but it's something we can start with.
 
We already have a policy that staff related issues should be brought to the HR group instead of here.

Is there a reason why a lot of members don't seem to be aware of this? If there is we can see to doing something about that but I don't think specifically mentioning matt and weekly should be necessary.
 
I think its because the HR rarely even talks about what they did about the staff member's incident(s). People want transparency, not just the classical "Our staff is too stressed and we are going to talk in private", which usually results in the "blue name" being punished instead of the one being accused.
 
And Ant... Saying that the staff should be "immune to reports and criticism" because they are "stressed" and did something for the wiki is basically the same as saying that a corrupt politician should stay because he "did something".

And creating rules specially to make staff immune to anyone disagreeing with them is pretty much the start of a downfall of the interactions between normal users and staff.
 
SchroKatze said:
And Ant... Saying that the staff should be "immune to reports and criticism" because they are "stressed" and did something for the wiki is basically the same as saying that a corrupt politician should stay because he "did something".
Click to expand...
They're not immune to reports and criticism, many staff members have been demoted/banned before, but there is a higher tolerance. The same way there's a lower tolerance for perfectly new users.
 
The higher tolerance seems to be limitless tho. I can recall a few cases of staff being demoted (Discord Group is a special case). One of which needed Fandom to come and do it, and even then the ex-staff member still holds influence here via people talking for them.

Weekly has been causing trouble for as long as Regis is being accused, yet Weekly got warnings that didn't have any weight to it.
 
SchroKatze said:
The higher tolerance seems to be limitless tho. I can recall a few cases of staff being demoted (Discord Group is a special case). One of which needed Fandom to come and do it, and even then the ex-staff member still holds influence here via people talking for them.

Weekly has been causing trouble for as long as Regis is being accused, yet Weekly got warnings that didn't have any weight to it.
Click to expand...
KuuIchigo notably got banned for minor infractions, albeit after he retired from admin, but still, that is a case where minor infractions and ignoring warnings built up over a while to get a contributing member banned.

Also, like many others have said, if you have issues with a staff member's actions, send it off to HR group. Posting it here will accomplish nothing, and might actually make it less likely for the staff member to be banned, since reports will be taken as witchhunting.
 
Like I mentioned earlier. You send a complaint to the HR group and no repercussions have ever been seen or heard of, it looks just as bad as if there was no action taken. And I don't trust the staff to not be biased and just let them off easy. hence why people mention it publicly.
 
That the HR group takes a long time to react is mostly due to that they are busy IRL, not remotely due to corruption, and I cannot be expected to handle everything in this wiki, especially subjects that I am ill-suited for. I mean, that people want a severely overworked autistic person to solve all of their social drama problems seems rather unrealistic, even though I am trying to be of help.

Also, Agnaa is correct. Staff members are not immune. We simply have to weigh the good against the bad that all members have done, or the wiki would collapse, and I have berated both Matthew and Weekly in private to shape up in the past, but they are genuinely currently doing their best to hold back when attacked. It isn't at all fun for them though.
 
Anyway, Andytrenom is definitely correct in that this thread is not intended for members with a grudge to attack the running of the wiki as a whole. I think that we are doing a reasonably good and helpful job overall, especially given how much work there is to do.

Let's permanently drop this please.
 
One final thing, since it is important:

Comparing the staff to corrupt politicians is an extremely false equivalency. The politicans in question are deceitful lying opportunistic irresponsible manipulators who take bribes from oligarchs and extremist activist organisations, and only care about power to abuse against the population, without a care of how much damage they cause to their countries of origin.

The staff here are (regrettably) doing this for free as charitable work, since we want this community to function properly, but have still had to endure lots of abuse from severe trolls, hecklers outside of the community who disagree with the character statistics, and some ungrateful people within it, and we still carry on, despite all of it.

However, we still have to at least try to create a reasonably stable and peaceful work environment in order for the wiki to function properly, and cannot start witchhunt processes that would quickly chase away many staff members who would not feel comfortable working here anymore.

All of this is technically quite self-evident, but I still somehow have to spell it out.
 
I'll address this quickly since it's (indirectly) talking about me

That's because HR isn't about shaming publicly a staff member who has done something wrong. Our job isn't telling everyone that someone is doing something wrong, it's fixing the problem without making a lot of noise about it.

You've seen plenty of RV threads, you know perfectly well how messy they get, especially when staff gets reported.

And not once I have punished a regular member for sending me a PM talking about a staff member misbehaving, if anything, that's what could happen when someone tries to make a public report, which results in a complete mess with nothing being done.

Is the HR system perfect? No, not at all. It has its flaws, such as the fact that it takes long, but I can tell you that It works much better than a public report, because the main difference is that the latter causes useless drama, while the former does not.
 
The thing is, you don't decide whether a calc is valid on it's on or not, that legitimately is the domain of the calc group and a calculation discussion thread. I don't think he's saying you don't get an opinion at all, but he is correct in saying that it's not evaluated like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
9 10 11
Replies
413
Views
26K
omegabronic
omegabronic
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DaMonkeMan
  • Locked
Editing some rules for the Wiki
Replies
21
Views
2K
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Most Important Discussion Rule Section - Staff Thread Creation Guidelines
2
Replies
63
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top