Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Antvasima]

The emoji frankly doesn’t mean much on its own. But combined with all the other stuff I pointed out in my original report, and the fact that there seems to be some IP overlap according to Ant, it isn’t exactly a good look.

Also, I’m wondering why you continue to make the same Megami Tensei threads asking us to debunk the same arguments you’ve copy pasted over and over again

Well, maybe we can topic-ban all three accounts in lack of better options, given that at best somebody is using his real life friends to argue for something by proxy, and at worst they are using sockpuppets?

 

[TheGatememer]

Regardless of which one it is, they are still circumventing their matchup ban, so I’m pretty sure that’s grounds for a ban.

 

[Antvasima]

Regardless of which one it is, they are still circumventing their matchup ban, so I’m pretty sure that’s grounds for a ban.

I suppose that is a valid point. So for how long should we ban all of the accounts in question?

 

[Antvasima]

Gonna report this user (I would tag him but he doesn't have the same name here) for repeatedly making low-quality profiles with the wrong tier/edits to the profiles of the Sonic franchise. He seems relatively new and I've tried to steer him on the right path, as well as even pointing him towards the verse's general discussion thread to maybe get some help, but I'm fed up. Here's some examples.

Images: Example #1, #2, #3, and a bonus one.

Profiles:

Kleptomobile (already a key on the Eggmobile profile), Amy Rose variant (literally just canon Amy but altered, probably shouldn't have a profile), and the Egg Dealer to name a few.

The profiles have only the very fundamentals, having neither scans nor references, and the cherry on top is wrong ratings in several areas (Tier, Speed, and Lifting Strength) for several of them (Adventure/Modern Era characters rated at the level of Classic Era characters, for example). Keep in mind the verse page very clearly states where each era scales in both AP and Speed to avoid this exact instance, and the renders he adds that weren't there prior are all just so low-effort.

Maybe this is harsh, but he's actively making the pages worse or making profiles that are plain bad. A ban is probably too harsh, but I highly recommend restricting him from profile editing. At the very least, until he can actually create profiles both consistent with the ratings and up to our standards.

I gave a wiki message wall warning to this member to follow your instructions btw.

 

[TheGatememer]

I suppose that is a valid point. So for how long should we ban all of the accounts in question?

I don’t know what the standard ban length is for sock puppeting, but I’d imagine it would be a year minimum, since that’s how long their matchup ban is.

 

[Antvasima]

What do other staff members here think regarding the issue?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The proposal is basically upgrading their quasi-ban to a proper ban, then.

I would accept that, yeah.

 

[Deagonx]

I agree.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don’t know what the standard ban length is for sock puppeting, but I’d imagine it would be a year minimum, since that’s how long their matchup ban is.

Sock puppeting in general is usually permaban worthy offense unless their are excuses for it such as to get around a forgotten password which in that case it's not really sock puppeting but just general "Alt account" and thus not ban worthy. Using socks to get around ban is definitely permaban for the alt while the original account may have a ban extended to a prolong period possibly including permanent ban. And abusing multiple accounts to agree with oneself on content revisions especially is permaban worthy offense. But even in minimal cases where their is clear malicious intent of abusing multiple accounts, anything less than 6 months to a year is too generous.

 

[Eseseso]

Reporting this user for spamming his name on the Kirby page in the "Opponents" section.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

Reporting this user for spamming his name on the Kirby page in the "Opponents" section.

Ant warned him already

 

[Deagonx]

@DivineAura44 while your opinion is valid, this thread is not an open forum for uninvolved third parties to offer their opinion on punishments. I have deleted your comment, please don't do that again.

 

[Antvasima]

Sock puppeting in general is usually permaban worthy offense unless their are excuses for it such as to get around a forgotten password which in that case it's not really sock puppeting but just general "Alt account" and thus not ban worthy. Using socks to get around ban is definitely permaban for the alt while the original account may have a ban extended to a prolong period possibly including permanent ban. And abusing multiple accounts to agree with oneself on content revisions especially is permaban worthy offense. But even in minimal cases where their is clear malicious intent of abusing multiple accounts, anything less than 6 months to a year is too generous.

Well, me and AKM have tended to be generous to members with multiple accounts, as long as no harm was done and no ban was evaded, by simply contacting them in private, asking them to choose which account they want to continue with, and then ban the others, but in this case a type of ban was in fact evaded, so I would personally be fine with if we apply a 6 months block to the main account, and permanent blocks to the others.

 

[Antvasima]

Reporting this user for spamming his name on the Kirby page in the "Opponents" section.

By my experience he is harmless but is not feeling well at all mentally right now.

I hope that he will be reasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

Just to make sure you guys are certain that the guy you are going to ban for an entire year is Pizzabox and not just like his brother or something? There could be alternate reasons to the similarity in arguments, more than just sockpuppeting. It could be someone from the same discord server who discusses these topics with him. Banning someone for a year based off a suspicion (mostly based on similar thinking and a reply which has multiple interpretations) doesn't sit well with me. At least call them to defend themselves before you do.

We did so earlier though, and he apparently had nothing to say for himself.

 

[Propellus]

By my experience he is harmless but is not feeling well at all mentally right now.

I hope that he will be reasonable.

That shouldn't excuse him by vandalizing a page.

 

[Antvasima]

I try to be lenient if there are legitimate extenuating factors, such as an otherwise well-behaved and well-intended member suffering from a bit of a mental breakdown.

 

[Deagonx]

That shouldn't excuse him by vandalizing a page.

Ant gave him a warning and just mentioned his experience with the user and expressed some compassion. No one is making excuses, he will receive something firmer if he continues the vandalism, but it's not inappropriate to take into consideration someone's history or personal state.

 

[Antvasima]

@MastaWhite , @FanFav12 , and @Pizzabox492 :

What do you have to say for yourselves here?

I will block them now.

 

[Antvasima]

I have done so now.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Reporting @WeeklyBattles.

Even after an attempt of dissuasion from me, and a moderator, that being @Planck69, weekly continues to try and manipulate my thread into it not actually being a CRT (despite the fact that it’s under the CRT portion, and I didn’t at all ask for it to be moved to the Q&A).

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

I’m also not going to respond past this point unless asked, since all the evidence is there, and dude just continues to willfully twist what I say.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, I can confirm as much. Weekly was trying to dismiss the thread on the premise of it just being clarifications that were answered, nonsensical as that is even when Milly repeatedly told them otherwise.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Pardon? You asked for clarification and clarification was given, as well as additional means of scaling Singularity to Low 1-C which you willfully ignored and instead opted to just push your own OP without addressing any counterarguments and instead falling back on staff that immediately agreed with your claims without bothering to hear the other side of the argument. I dont see how i did anything wrong here

 

[Deagonx]

Having read through the thread, he even acknowledged that it was a downgrade in his second response:

Ive called some staff here to weigh in on this, as the logic for this downgrade is extremely shaky at best

Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.

I don't know how we usually deal with such things, but given Weekly's history of being dogmatic in discussions like this and being immature/refusing to acknowledge his own wrongdoing, I think that some level of action should be taken.

You asked for clarification and clarification was given

No. Milly very clearly wasn't asking for clarification, the post was very clearly an argument for a downgrade and you acknowledged that early on. The word "clarifications" in the title was not a request for information, it was a statement of intent. I do not believe you actually interpreted it as a question, because it obviously wasn't and you didn't treat it as one until you'd already argued back and forth many times.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Having read through the thread, he even acknowledged that it was a downgrade in his second response:



Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.

I don't know how we usually deal with such things, but given Weekly's history of being dogmatic in discussions like this and being immature/refusing to acknowledge his own wrongdoing, I think that some level of action should be taken.


No. Milly very clearly wasn't asking for clarification, the post was very clearly an argument for a downgrade and you acknowledged that early on. The word "clarifications" in the title was not a request for information, it was a statement of intent. I do not believe you actually interpreted it as a question, because it obviously wasn't and you didn't treat it as one until you'd already argued back and forth many times.

The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is factually incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.

 

[Deagonx]

The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is facutlaly incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.

We are already completely off-topic. This RVR report has absolutely nothing to do with the details of the argument. Do not change the subject.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.

This is actually extremely prevalent, as on several occasions, he asserts I don’t know anything about the verse or it’s cosmology. Mind you, I have argued in favor of this verse on multiple occasions (on and off site), was the person who came up with the logic of Singularity being Low 1-C to begin with, and wrote several of the justifications for Bayonetta 3 character’s AP.

It is abundantly clear that one’s “knowledge of the series”, to Weekly, is entirely dependent on if you like the verse and agree with him uncontested, which is bad faith arguing personified.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

We are already completely off-topic. This RVR report has absolutely nothing to do with the details of the argument. Do not change the subject.

What? This is the entire reason for this subject existing.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Reporting @WeeklyBattles.

Even after an attempt of dissuasion from me, and a moderator, that being @Planck69, weekly continues to try and manipulate my thread into it not actually being a CRT (despite the fact that it’s under the CRT portion, and I didn’t at all ask for it to be moved to the Q&A).

The whole situation is just bizarre to me, having just finished reading the thread.

Even if it started as a QnA (and reading the OP and some of the earliest comments, I did not get that impression at all), so? I've seen QnA and clarification threads turned into revisions. Trying to forcefully dismiss the purpose of the thread would quite honestly just be a waste of time.

 

[Firestorm808]

The first iteration of the OP makes the following proposed revision:

"The way I’m viewing it, his erasure seems to be the only thing that exceeds his AP, and the only thing that’s actually shown to be effective on that level. Which, the way is put, would make him 2-A, and Low 1-C with erasure."

Qualifying for a CRT.

 

[Planck69]

The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is facutlaly incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.

I'm saying your viewpoint isn't objectively correct and I disagree with it, not that you're lying.

And the issue here isn't you disagreeing or your arguments. Those are whatever. It's you repeatedly trying to misconstrue the premise of the thread despite its maker telling you otherwise to get it handwoven away like a QnA.

 

[Deagonx]

What? This is the entire reason for this subject existing.

This is about your conduct in the thread, not who was right or wrong in the argument. Namely, your insistence that it was a request for information rather than a CRT despite it clearly being a downgrade CRT, and continuing to argue that point even after Milly clarified very concretely that this wasn't the case.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

This is about your conduct in the thread, not who was right or wrong in the argument. Namely, your insistence that it was a request for information rather than a CRT despite it clearly being a downgrade CRT, and continuing to argue that point even after Milly clarified very concretely that this wasn't the case.

Okay, fine, its a downgrade CRT. Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Okay, fine, its a downgrade CRT. Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.

That's up to staff evaluation.

 

[Deagonx]

Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.

That has absolutely no relevance to this RVR report.

 

[Planck69]

Okay, fine, its a downgrade CRT. Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.

Weekly can you stop arguing a CRT on the RVR? Setting aside the fact that all the staff that visited agreeing with the thread's premise clearly shows the counterargument isn't ironclad, you're not being reported cause some staff cabal is targeting your "poor bullied Low 1-C rating~", it's that you're twisting and trying to get a CRT dismissed off of nothing but title wording.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Weekly can you stop arguing a CRT on the RVR? Setting aside the fact that all the staff that visited agreeing with the thread's premise clearly shows the counterargument isn't ironclad, you're not being reported cause some staff cabal is targeting your "poor bullied Low 1-C rating~", it's that you're twisting and trying to get a CRT dismissed off of nothing but title wording.

Can i stop being reported for minor infractions just because people dont like me?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Not really? The staff in that thread have already proven the unwillingness to acknowledge the facts of the counterargument

Or they don't agree with your conclusions.

Now, enough derailment on this. Let staff come to a conclusion on the report.

 

[Deagonx]

Not really? The staff in that thread have already proven the unwillingness to acknowledge the facts of the counterargument

Accusing people of being "unwilling to acknowledge the facts" simply because they didn't arrive at the same conclusion that you did is textbook stonewalling.

Can i stop being reported for minor infractions just because people dont like me?

Infractions are a reason unto themselves for a report. Fashioning this as a personal vendetta rather than a consequence of your decision to drag out a very pointless argument that it wasn't a downgrade thread does not reflect well.