Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?
I would not be against it since the behavior relapsed twice, following the early release.
Aye, but at that point we have to whip out our ESP devices (read: tin foil hats). If someone doesn't like a verse, and that distaste leads them to do a thorough investigation about it's ratings, is that a rule violation?
Honestly, if three months don't work, hit him with six, minimum. It's not really an offense in of itself to call someone a wanker, just a rude and childish thing. But targeted harassment is a different matter entirely. Suffer not the unapologetic asshole.
In spite of hate/or malicious intent, that's report worthy, and that happened in the past, someone got banned couse of this, as it should be.
Nah, just saying it happened in the past and the user got banned (as it should always be).
Yes, that makes sense, but there is an enormous difference between genuinely arguing in bad faith, such as through misdirection, misrepresentations, outright lies, or what you mentioned above, and simply greatly liking or disliking a certain verse, but remaining faithful to our wiki's intended core ideals of accuracy and reliability above all else.
Well, they weren't actually banned for three months the last time, as their block was lifted quite early on, as far as I recall.
I agree, but I think wires are getting crossed here. What you and Bambu are referring to are separate things. Bambu is just explaining that one's motivations for a downgrade are not per se material to whether or not the downgrade is valid. You're saying it's a problem if the arguments are dishonest that's a problem, which is true, but the two aren't mutually inclusive.
But if the user does it on spite of mocking, upsetting or "for the laughs "... doesn't matter how good their points are, is report worthy and that person should be banned.
You need to clarify exactly what you mean, because the first part of your sentence is very unclear. Are you speaking to their motivations or some action they've actually taken?
I'm talking in the case someone does it, along with their motivations.
Yes. Also agreed.
I was proposing it should be longer than 3 months even if just a little bit, but I suppose 3 months is fine but this time he will have to wait them out and I don't think we should believe the apology this time since that basically tells me his original apology might have been a lie. It also could technically be possible he was lying as he claimed we never warned him even though we clearly did unless he literally did forget all that. But he really wasn't supposed to forget those important incidents. Hence another reason to make it longer than 3 months, but 3 months is still a bare minimum.
Immediately after getting banned again, he goes after me off-site again. I would reconsider a longer duration.
I'd say just block the dude from contacting you
I have.
Shouldn't the dude be straight up perma-banned at this point?
I think that would make more sense, we don't know what will happen next, @Firestorm808, I think you better block him at all, these things are very complicated, this is something very serious, which should be received with a harsh and brutal penalty.
If people think that's too harsh, 1 year trial should do. I have seen the man in action a bit but already from that alone I can tell it won't be pretty. Better safe than sorry.
You can't ping people unless you're staff or quote their message, btw.
You're living in his head rent-free, damn.I wouldn't be against a permaban. The guy feels like he's malding and can't keep it to himself.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Additionally, this one is not relevant to the vsbattle community. You can choose to block the individual in question, but this is not a sufficient reason to request an extension of time.
But it shows they have no intention of stopping despite the ban.
I'll be able to post the screenshot after work.
First, it's not "incorrect" simply because you have a difference of opinion. Second, we don't know if it was Discord or not, and it's entirely possibly that he was already in the official server. In any case, it's a moot point, the intent is what is critical here.
As I've already explained, it will be treated differently because the behavior is directly pursuant to an extremely recent ban for harassment on this very site. We don't need to pretend that this is some kind of slippery slope where people start posting private DM conversations here from other websites to get people banned. That's just not what's going to happen.
How can he not see the irony.
And this is harassment for you? I suppose then. So, on that different site, you could not block him right away?
You're seriously saying that we should be letting persistent staff member harassment go because it's off-site, despite the fact that the person in question has been reported for this twice already, and them evidently continuing to do so after having already been banned is likely indicative of them not willing to change their ways about it, meaning they would most likely continue this line of behavior upon their ban being expired?
Are you serious right now? "For you?" That's harassment for anybody and I have no idea why you're giving such an attitude about this?
Good grief. He did. He already said that he did. The fact that he did it in the first place is what's being discussed here.
