• 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)

Before any severe disciplinary action is taken, I believe it would be appropriate to review any available evidence related to the two claims being made. It would be unjust to accuse an individual of toxic behavior without having concrete evidence to support the claims. I would like to express my sincere request for patience as we await the presentation of evidence from the individuals @Kachon123 and @Therefir. It is important to acknowledge that drawing conclusions based on claims alone, without the support of evidence, is not a sound approach. It would be more appropriate to make a fair judgement based on the available evidence.
 
Tbf, they don't have the best history with Ziller and are shit talked all the time in the OPM thread. So I can understand it.

As a consistent participator in that thread, though, I can substantiate that they are unnecessarily toxic even with minimal or no agitation.

I'd say 2 weeks to a month is fair, but I've got no qualms about 3.
 
I would request that the individual in question be contacted (pinged here) and given an opportunity to provide a defense of their actions. To the best of my knowledge, this individual has not received any official warning in the past. Therefore, imposing a ban as a punishment would be considered severe and excessive. It would be more appropriate to consider alternative forms of disciplinary action that are proportionate to the infraction.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I would request that the individual in question be contacted (pinged here) and given an opportunity to provide a defense of their actions. To the best of my knowledge, this individual has not received any official warning in the past. Therefore, imposing a ban as a punishment would be considered severe and excessive. It would be more appropriate to consider alternative forms of disciplinary action that are proportionate to the infraction.
Click to expand...
The three strike system isn't always the precedent we operate by, especially when a user is constantly agitating towards other users for no discernible reason. In this case, corroboration from both normal members and staff is enough for a short ban me thinks. It's not like pwning the guy over it.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I must respectfully correct your statement, the individual in question did not respond to the comment asking them to “chill out”, they commented on a subsequent response. I would kindly request that all members ensure that they provide complete and accurate information, to avoid any confusion or misinformation.
Click to expand...
Dread, I don't think we need to get caught up in semantics here. Man was making a point, he doesn't need to be fully, exhaustively comprehensive in it, so long as he provides the thread for us to judge on our own.
 
Crabwhale said:
The three strike system isn't always the precedent we operate by, especially when a user is constantly agitating towards other users for no discernible reason. In this case, corroboration from both normal members and staff is enough for a short ban me thinks. It's not like pwning the guy over it.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree with the proposed course of action, as it seems to be a severe punishment, particularly in light of the fact that the individual in question may not have been aware that they were being reported.

I suggest that an official warning be issued, requesting that the individual in question modulate their tone. It is worth noting that this is not the first instance of this behavior, but it should also be acknowledged that the individual has not yet received an official warning.

It is authoritative to keep in mind that after receiving a warning, the individual may exhibit a more cooperative attitude and work with staff members to address the issue. Based on my observation of the individual's messages, it appears that they possess both semi-toxic and productive traits.

The goal should be to lower their tone without completely discouraging their contributions.
 
Crabwhale said:
Dread, I don't think we need to get caught up in semantics here. Man was making a point, he doesn't need to be fully, exhaustively comprehensive in it, so long as he provides the thread for us to judge on our own.
Click to expand...
I acknowledge your point, but I would like to emphasize the importance of providing a clear and detailed account of the situation for other staff members to review. In my opinion, it is essential to be precise when submitting a report or providing evidence, as this ensures that all relevant information is taken into consideration when evaluating the situation.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I respectfully disagree with the proposed course of action, as it seems to be a severe punishment, particularly in light of the fact that the individual in question may not have been aware that they were being reported.

I suggest that an official warning be issued, requesting that the individual in question modulate their tone. It is worth noting that this is not the first instance of this behavior, but it should also be acknowledged that the individual has not yet received an official warning.

It is authoritative to keep in mind that after receiving a warning, the individual may exhibit a more cooperative attitude and work with staff members to address the issue. Based on my observation of the individual's messages, it appears that they possess both semi-toxic and productive traits.

The goal should be to lower their tone without completely discouraging their contributions.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're trying to say, but if staff members have judged a user sufficiently disruptive in a certain amount of time and after a certain amount of supporting evidence, we reserve the right to hand out a short ban. And all staff votes are leaning towards that.

An example (though very severe by comparison to the current case and therefore not fully equivalent with it, should however illustrate the point): if a user where to start throwing racial slurs around, their degree of productivity would not be taken into account, nor would they get a chance to explain themselves. They would just be banned, there, on the spot.
 
Coomander was warned here by LordTracer for being extremely toxic, that was just a few months ago, and I don't even believe that's the first he has been warned, he has a story of being unnecessarily rude for the whole past year, but that's just the usual way he talks.

I personally have not interacted with them that much, or anything at all, but I can't ignore how nearly every time I have visited the One Punch Man thread, they are always in an argument against other people, usually in a rude manner.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I would advocate for granting the individual in question the opportunity to provide a defense of their actions prior to taking any disciplinary action.
In my opinion, the individual is likely to take the report seriously and make a constructive contribution to the resolution of the issue.

I would concur with the imposition of a short-term ban, in the event that the individual in question does not wish to provide further cooperation and continues to engage in inappropriate behavior. However, as a first step, I would recommend providing the individual an opportunity to defend themselves before implementing any disciplinary action.

@Kachon123 It appears that you have not submitted any new evidence in this instance. All the evidence related to this issue can be found in the RvR thread. It is imperative that all relevant evidence be taken into account when evaluating the situation.
 
On the one hand, I get the sentiment of giving people the chance to defend themselves. That said, if they've been warned in the past and still keep up this behavior, that evidently means they don't really care about said warning

Edit (since Maverick's message just showed up): A 2 week ban makes sense to me, as I don't think they've been banned before, but they've definitely received warnings before.
 
Someone keeps mentioning him in the Report queue instead of here, but they reported @Coomandar on multiple occasions. First, there was this comment, which I gave a light warning to. But it seems Coomander continued to be rude and insult people's intelligence here, and here. I think a final warning will suffice, and if they persist. A short ban is in order.
 
I mean he said this and I quote
you are brainless, if you dont want to read the wiki basic informations, not my fault
Click to expand...
If he also did not read the wiki basic information that he should not be throwing around insults, then I really agree to that short ban, alternatively he can also get short banned from the OPM general discussion and OPM threads since that is where he insults the most, maybe a 2-week thread ban should help get him straight.
 
ziller knows english is not my native language and yet KEEP trying to correct me everytime when he get out of arguments, this is what got me mad. I know im wrong but if you want my justification, there is

i’ll ask him to try write one sentence in portuguese without messing around with a single verb, and then i’ll friendly accept this kind of treatment
 
I will say that me correcting coomandar's spelling was intended to be slightly passive agressive (although I wasn't aware that coom was a non-native english speaker), so I don't really blame getting worked up over that, so I would personally say forget about that thread.
I personally would suggest the lesser option of 2 weeks rather than a month. While I do have a history of being annoyed by coom in many interactions, it can also be said that he has a history with me, since I have was temporarily banned for similar reasons in the past, so I understand him getting worked up at me
though, I can't really say the same for the other cases, which I had no involvement in, so I don't really think a month is necessary, even if I am not a fan of how he acts all the time.
 
Honestly I know it may seem a bit too lenient but, I'm still not sure if 2 week ban is the way to go
even if Coom can be unpleasant, that is partially just because he is easy to provoke, which most people often take advantage of
not that it's a justification for being rude, but given that he has done nothing particularly major, I still feel like everyone should wait a day or so in case coom has more in his defense to share
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • 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
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
547
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top