- 32,811
- 38,020
If it's a joke then I clearly missed the punchline because I had nothing to do with GetBackers being in such a terrible state, let alone even know it was still kept around.
-
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 (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 10,344
- 17,460
That's the joke KLOL, it's the absurdity behind blaming someone who doesn't even read the verse, much less scale the verse on its quality which makes it a joke/makes the joke work.
- 30,376
- 32,185
Saying those are just jokes of poor taste isn't really a good defense, especially if he said those at randomly bad timings. Plus he has said before that he wasn't joking when he said "Mario should be Wall level". Plus derailing a an ongoing content revision with off topic statements just to either get controversial proposals passed or preventing simple proposals from getting through is still not excusable. Read the recent link I added, he quite literally admits to intentionally making threads "Clusterfucks" just to think it would either get his proposals passed or prevent the OP's proposal from getting passed.
Fair, I added some text, but it's still weird. Still, plenty of others don't like being named dropped for no reason at all period. Also, doesn't really take way from the rest of his actions.
Last edited:
RandomGuy2345
He/Him- 24,193
- 14,705
Verbal irony.
- 165,658
- 73,349
- Thread starter
- #16,125
I trust Medeus' evaluation here. Should you give warnings to the people involved who went too far in their behaviours then?
Also, everybody please stop spamming this thread. There likely isn't much left to add about this issue anymore.
Also, everybody please stop spamming this thread. There likely isn't much left to add about this issue anymore.
Last edited:
DivineAura44
He/Him- 4,886
- 3,133
Since when was thinking Mario was wall level an offence? According to you yourself, he wasn't trolling.
- 30,376
- 32,185
There was a typo, also it's not thinking that that's an offense, it's the way and timing he said it that it was. He was spamming it on content revisions, ignoring blatant feats much higher, and it wasn't just that verse but him implying every game protagonist in existence should be Wall level/Street level on the same thread in which he said that.
Again, as Antvasima said, let's stop bombarding the thread. I have to get ready for work soon and can't really deal with this for long.
- 18,393
- 14,309
Don't worry, real life responsibilities are more essential than dealing with this. Have fun!
- 4,983
- 2,178
I am curious if a sentence on how long @Sniper670's ban was set to be before they had lost access to their account, given their account is currently active on the forum.
If they had been banned and afterward unbanned, then sure, however, if their punishment was either undecided or decided but had not been doled out due to them having left, would this indecent be considered ban evasion of some sort?
If they had been banned and afterward unbanned, then sure, however, if their punishment was either undecided or decided but had not been doled out due to them having left, would this indecent be considered ban evasion of some sort?
- 8,902
- 3,441
I think this is a serious issue. People losing their cool and self-banning just to come back once the incident has blown over should not be an acceptable method to evade punishments.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
What punishment exactly?
I was told the only reason why I got banned was because I have my account to someone.
It was you who was trying to use "little drops of water" as a means to ban me.
- 30,376
- 32,185
Well, I heard there was originally going to only be a suggestion to give you a short ban. But you later intentionally just publicly gave people your password publicly and let someone take you account; which is very dangerous and also gives someone opportunity to sock with it basically. And it was later screenshotted and publicly shared where some random trolls could have taken it; making permaban the only safe option. When most would have requested to be permabanned if they were that desperate.
However, it does look like you got your account back and changed your password to something more secure, but not sure I remember how long ago that was or how long the initial plan for the ban was. But I do agree with Mori that at least the initial plan for that ban should have still been waited out at bare minimum.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
I'm fine with whatever decision would be made here.
I should note that I was not evading any ban. It doesn't even make sense if I was going to get a short ban, and then I proceed to "evade" by going off wiki for more than a month.
People are looking into this too much lol
I should note that I was not evading any ban. It doesn't even make sense if I was going to get a short ban, and then I proceed to "evade" by going off wiki for more than a month.
People are looking into this too much lol
- 5,122
- 2,559
Agreed, sniper's worst moments here were done out of emotions from what i can tell, like anger or indignation, i don't think any ban is necessary now that he has cooled off.
Also makes no sense for him to evade his ban by risking permabanning his account by exposing his password and come back expecting to stay, clearly not the intention.
Also makes no sense for him to evade his ban by risking permabanning his account by exposing his password and come back expecting to stay, clearly not the intention.
- 8,902
- 3,441
I will say right now that I very strongly doubt that Sniper has changed, and he remains unapologetic given his past behavior. I think it is a very poor idea to let him go unpunished given his behavior, and he was lined up for some manner of a short ban in the first place. Being "helpful" does not excuse crass, rude, disruptive, and inflammatory behavior... and I definitely do not find him that helpful at all, given how obtusely hostile he is to me on literally every thread we are present in.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
Look. The only guys I really do lash out to is you and Iamunanimousinthat and you know why?
You entered the very Civil thread and started accusing me and warning me to "watch my tone".
Iamunanimousinthat will use his own headcannon and not change his mind about anything.
Without you two around, I'm very Civil. I do apologize for lashing out but you two stress tf outta me
I'm almost always cool..... Except when you two are involved. Why do you think that?
You entered the very Civil thread and started accusing me and warning me to "watch my tone".
Iamunanimousinthat will use his own headcannon and not change his mind about anything.
Without you two around, I'm very Civil. I do apologize for lashing out but you two stress tf outta me
I'm almost always cool..... Except when you two are involved. Why do you think that?
- 8,902
- 3,441
It really feels like Sniper hasn't learned his lesson. He's just blaming me for doing my job.
I find the prospect of letting him off the hook without any punishment whatsoever to be pretty ridiculous, given that he has been reported multiple times and continues to blame me for his behavior.
- 165,658
- 73,349
- Thread starter
- #16,143
Okay. That is good then.
Are you willing to give him a chance in this regard, Moritzva?
- 165,658
- 73,349
- Thread starter
- #16,144
For how long do you think that he should be punished then? Would two weeks be enough? He doesn't seem to have done anything particularly severe.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
Anything you say.
- 18,393
- 14,309
Can someone link the thread that this issue took place? I want to check the comments if it is really ban worthy or not.
- 8,902
- 3,441
Two weeks seems reasonable enough. It's pretty light, and it should help set a standard that self-destructing isn't a viable method of escaping a report.
Note that I am not accusing him of intentionally doing such, but that if we let him do it, then other malicious actors may use it as a way to weasel out of pressure and come back once people aren't paying attention. I think it is important that we make it clear that self-banning isn't a replacement for being reported and punished properly.
Note that I am not accusing him of intentionally doing such, but that if we let him do it, then other malicious actors may use it as a way to weasel out of pressure and come back once people aren't paying attention. I think it is important that we make it clear that self-banning isn't a replacement for being reported and punished properly.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
You can search for when she started commemting
- 4,276
- 2,797
Mori started commenting here for further information.
- 165,658
- 73,349
- Thread starter
- #16,150
Okay. I suppose that we will have to delay the Pokémon revision thread by two weeks then.
I would appreciate if you use the time to write an explanation post for your arguments there, Moritzva.
I would appreciate if you use the time to write an explanation post for your arguments there, Moritzva.
- 8,902
- 3,441
I believe you were there for the original reports. It was agreed upon that none of his individual acts were report-worthy on his own, but he did it so often and ignored warnings to such an extent that it had to be addressed.
- 8,902
- 3,441
The part that confuses me is, on the original thread, I wasn't even part of the opposition. I simply agreed with a different set of affirmative reasoning (Cal's). So, when I asked "what is different this time?" it was out of legitimate confusion as I could not tell what he was trying to accomplish, just that the arguments looked very similar.
I wasn't even the one who argued against him, he was simply denied the first time, then Cal made a different argument arguing a similar (but supposedly not identical) point, and only Cal's reasoning got accepted.
No reason to continue this line of thought on RVT, though, as to not derail.
- 4,276
- 2,797
Shouldn't we be waiting to see if more staff agree on this two-week ban, considering Mori did only comment on this issue 25 minutes ago?
- 18,393
- 14,309
I am re-reading the case once again. I partially agree with your conclusion, but I want to make sure that there is transparency in RvR thread. At least fair to both sides. So I will post the relevant comments and backstory. At the end, you are admin, and I am trying to help the case a bit, if you don't mind.
Also side question, is the ban type wiki or topic?
- 8,902
- 3,441
Antagonistic behavior and repeatedly ignoring warnings by staff members.
Also, it's hard to say who to summon. Cal was "on Sniper's side," but only in the sense that their arguments were similar in their goals, but different in nature.
The main opponent would probably be Iam, who was already on the new thread as well, but I think Sniper and Iam will literally argue for 15 pages if left alone.
Fundamentally, I think it only proves my point if people from the past thread have to be bugged into commenting again. If the thread is such a repeat that past arguments need to be presented again, then the thread should just be closed.
- 4,276
- 2,797
I'm fairly sure the thread in question was already applied some time ago?
- 8,902
- 3,441
You see, this is the problem. We had a lot of people agreeing on the ban previously, but because Sniper nuked his own account and went rogue, all the arguments and data have been buried. This is why we need to be harsh on this behavior, intentional or not, as it gums up the bureaucratic system.
- 8,902
- 3,441
That's the even weirder part; the original thread (and Sniper's side) won, just not for Sniper's reasoning. Cal's logic won over a lot of people. It appears that Sniper does not agree with this and made another thread that specifically involves his own logic and points, except those were already denied in the past.
Similar threads
