- 9,881
- 12,887
Yeah, once again, short ban seems appropriate here. Weekly is going out of their way to put down other people’s conversations to beg for agreements
-
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
Yeah, once again, short ban seems appropriate here. Weekly is going out of their way to put down other people’s conversations to beg for agreements
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
MonkeMan, that stuff you posted isn't relevant.
Please stop clogging the thread with unrelated info.
It was not harassment, it was, if anything, "destabilising the wiki". That has already been brought up, and isn't limited to only certain platforms. You don't need to quote what AKM said about it.
Please stop clogging the thread with unrelated info.
It was not harassment, it was, if anything, "destabilising the wiki". That has already been brought up, and isn't limited to only certain platforms. You don't need to quote what AKM said about it.
- 61,177
- 14,747
I was spamming shit in a channel where everyone was spamming shit, i wasnt tring to put conversations down. And again, that doesnt make any sense, the bayonetta thread in question is already in favor of the arguments ive made, why would i need to beg for agreements for a thread that already agrees with me?
- 9,881
- 12,887
It doesn’t matter how that thread is going. It’s what you did in relation to that thread. The thread could be going the completely opposite way and I would still tell you the same thing
- 61,177
- 14,747
I was spamming shit in a channel where everyone was spamming shit, i wasnt trying to put conversations down.
And again, no, it was not in relation to that thread. Ive posted screenshots of how i ask for legitimate input, that was not a legitimate ask for input.
- 9,881
- 12,887
I can’t claim I know anything about the channel, you weren’t doing any regular spam. It was thread and agreement begging spam
Weekly, it doesn’t matter if you’ve asked for input before in a normal manner. That’s how you should always be doing it
And yeah, I would consider telling other people to “shut up” and that “no one cares, look at this thread” qualifies as putting other convos down for your own gain
I’m not gonna police how you talk on discord, but in regards to the wiki, it’s not professional behaviour
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
I do think it's important how the thread was going, since it gives us info on whether it's a joke or not, which determines whether it's a rule violation or not.
From a look through the thread, I can't see a clear vote count, so I can't tell whether it was actually in Weekly's favor or not at the time of those Discord messages.
Given the fact that it continued for a while afterwards, I'd guess that it wasn't clearly in Weekly's favor.
- 31,372
- 34,118
I'm in agreement with Agnaa, there was one or two where he did appear to be begging for staff input and when he asked "Why not?" That was actually followed up by a fairly good question that "People staff included do it all the time on discord." And while there was obnoxious shit posting, as Agnaa and Prince of Pein said; they're dick moves and quite obnoxious, but not something that violates our offsite rules.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Regardless, my intention was to seek clarification from Weekly regarding their perspective on the vote count, because in matter of fact, glass's vote should be counted as one, and there are no such rule that Weekly claimed.
The viewpoints of Ant and Lephy should not outweigh this case, particularly since they have only been exposed to your perspective and not the opposing one.
Additionally, for the member who took a screenshot of the conversation, it would have been preferable to capture the entire exchange rather than giving glass the impression that I was in agreement with Weekly.
And for seriousness or jokeness in our conversation, it was for sure not a joke conversation.
- 61,177
- 14,747
Thats the thing though, that is how i always do it. Like i said, the spamming is not a serious ask. If i were looking for a serious ask it would have been the same as the stuff i posted.
Im aware, thats why i dont talk like that on the wiki
- 9,881
- 12,887
Yeah, the tides of a thread can heavily correlate to agreement begging. I just wanted to bring up that no matter the direction of the thread, Weekly’s methods of getting input wasn’t ok
- 9,881
- 12,887
If it’s how you always do it, then don’t do it the other way. This is how it should always be
Still. It makes the context clear. This wasn’t a joke
- 61,177
- 14,747
That is how it always is. I dont do it any other way.
I can go back through those posts and add /j to the end of them if that makes a difference, im apparently that bad at making my jokes clear that people think i was being serious
- 8,344
- 8,831
Like, I'm aware that it isn't really wrong to ask for input off-site, but just don't make it seem like you're outright begging people for votes just so that you can shut down others for their own opinions. And please stop claiming that most of these actions are "jokes"
- 61,177
- 14,747
Thats not what i was doing nor is it what i do ever. The most begging ive ever done is a desperate ask for input on the MTG thread that has been dead in the water for he past two months and even then i didnt just spam demands for input.
- 9,881
- 12,887
Except you did. You spammed with begs
Weekly, if I went into a chat you were in, public or DMs, and spammed “Agree with this please” multiple times along with sending the thread, I don’t think you would assume “Haha Lonkitt’s being silly again”
- 61,177
- 14,747
Not in a serious manner
I absolutely would because you dont act like that normally
- 61,177
- 14,747
Here is me being desperate for input on a thread, two months apart, note the lack of spamming, because thats not what i do if im looking to actual input.
- 9,881
- 12,887
Weekly, you were pretty blunt in your spamming
Except this mirrors similar behaviour with the RWBY situation, so in this case, I know it isn’t a behaviour I haven’t seen from you before
- 9,881
- 12,887
Weekly, posting unrelated instances of you asking for input isn’t helping your case
Here is me being desperate for input on a thread, two months apart, note the lack of spamming, because thats not what i do if im looking to actual input.
Overlord_Darkness
Username Only- 1,058
- 391
Reading all this, I can't understand one thing: why do you continue to argue with the violator, having evidence of a violation of the rules? Moreover, if a person has already been banned for this in the past, then this case can be considered a repeated violation of the rules. And, by the way, in my opinion, a "joke" should not be an excuse or a mitigating circumstance for actions that are destructive to CRT threads and wiki in general.
- 61,177
- 14,747
Because its not a major violation, as Agnaa has explained in great detail
Shitposting in a discord server is not destructive to CRTs or the wiki
- 61,177
- 14,747
Aight, so i wouldnt have been reported if i were spamming something unrelated to anything on the wiki?
How so?
Overlord_Darkness
Username Only- 1,058
- 391
As I can see, your posts and shitposting could lead to a mess in the CRT thread the link to which you left. Such appeals, even if they are humorous, are unacceptable in any form.
- 9,881
- 12,887
You say this like it’s a point in your favour, but this is literally for wiki related stuff. You can’t use the “well if I spammed anything else” excuse. You know as well as I do that’s just a weak argument
The RWBY situation rings some bells
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
This kinda seems to be going around in circles at this point. You two just keep bringing up effectively the same arguments.
Please consider stopping and waiting for other staff to weigh in. Or just continuing on each other's message walls.
Please consider stopping and waiting for other staff to weigh in. Or just continuing on each other's message walls.
- 15,339
- 22,147
At the time the agreement begging started (June 5) I don't think staff consensus favored Weekly's arguments going by the first two pages, @Planck69 and @Theglassman12 disagreeing with him early on.
And yeah, the messages never conveyed a joking tone, as Weekly expressed he needed agreements because he found another user to be stubborn.
- 9,881
- 12,887
I’m just gonna cut to the chase (on my end, that is) so me and Weekly don’t have to keep going in circles, since you’re right, it’s feeling a lot like that
I’m in favour of a short ban for Weekly, plain and simple. That’s my input here
- 15,998
- 6,001
This is something Deagonx mentioned, too, he would call me manipulative, unaware of the verse and the cosmology, etc, all because I disagreed with him.
Overlord_Darkness
Username Only- 1,058
- 391
I mean, the rules exist for a reason and their violation should be punished, and the severity of the punishment should be objectively weighed based on what is known. At least, if I understood the whole chain of events correctly, then Weekly was already banned once for such a violation of the rules, which can serve as an argument for a longer block. At the moment, I believe there are no objective reasons to perma ban him.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #19,991
I agree with Agnaa and Medeus here, and am also not comfortable with banning somebody just for being a bit obnoxious and mentally unstable and desperate.
Giving Weekly a strict warning to make an effort to shape up his behaviour seems fine though.
Giving Weekly a strict warning to make an effort to shape up his behaviour seems fine though.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
Non-staff please, neither of those messages really matter.
Milly, such words spoken off-site don't violate any rules; they're not harassment.
Underlord, non-staff who aren't involved in reports are only meant to comment to add new relevant information. Not to give their opinions on how harshly rules should be enforced. People have already brought up that prior violations tend to imply a harsher punishment now; you don't need to do it again.
Milly, such words spoken off-site don't violate any rules; they're not harassment.
Underlord, non-staff who aren't involved in reports are only meant to comment to add new relevant information. Not to give their opinions on how harshly rules should be enforced. People have already brought up that prior violations tend to imply a harsher punishment now; you don't need to do it again.
- 31,372
- 34,118
I need to go to sleep for now, but I agree with Agnaa that we do not need circular arguments. And indeed that one specific scan where he was demanding staff input was indeed going a bit far, and possibly enough for a short penalty, even though he also asked a legit good question shortly after that. But the rest was just typical Discord shitposting.
However, I'd prefer more staff input and since I can't quite excuse that one "Staff input demand" specifically, a short ban may be understandable.
However, I'd prefer more staff input and since I can't quite excuse that one "Staff input demand" specifically, a short ban may be understandable.
- 61,177
- 14,747
I will wholeheartedly accept a ban if i end up slipping up again, but as i said to Agnaa and the rest of you guys i will try to make sure to clarify what is and is not a serious request/statement, both on and off-site, going forward.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
The violations include one (imo) light one (messages like this asking for evaluations without reading arguments, although he did start providing arguments minutes later) and an (imo) mild one (this, same server/channel, an hour earlier, no arguments posted shortly afterwards).
Both were in the past 48 hours.
- 15,339
- 22,147
I’m just gonna note that mental instability should preferably not be used as a shield for every incident.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #19,998
I was referring to the tendency to bring up Weekly's old transgressions from considerably more than a year ago.
- 167,679
- 76,256
- Thread starter
- #19,999
Not if they are severe, but I tend to try to be lenient for minor ones, as I know how hard it is to keep mental instability completely under control.
- 18,393
- 14,323
The extent of the violations and the time frame in which they occurred play a significant role in assessing the situation fairly.
To provide an unbiased viewpoint,
The Weekly has a history of warning cases and previously received a year-long temporary ban for similar behavior.
They were recently reported by Milly and received strict warnings within the current week.
Another user, Deagon (or a similar user), reported them for a different issue, despite never having met before.
It is important to ensure fair treatment at some point. For instance, Strym received a month-long topic ban for being reported twice within a week, while Tatsumi received a two-month topic ban within the same timeframe (although their cases are distinct).
While multiple factors contribute to determining appropriate punishments, the member's mental and psychical background should not excuse them from facing the consequences of their actions.
This assessment is not a personal attack on Weekly, as I am friends with them, but it is crucial to make a fair decision based on the relevant history of previous cases.
To provide an unbiased viewpoint,
The Weekly has a history of warning cases and previously received a year-long temporary ban for similar behavior.
They were recently reported by Milly and received strict warnings within the current week.
Another user, Deagon (or a similar user), reported them for a different issue, despite never having met before.
It is important to ensure fair treatment at some point. For instance, Strym received a month-long topic ban for being reported twice within a week, while Tatsumi received a two-month topic ban within the same timeframe (although their cases are distinct).
While multiple factors contribute to determining appropriate punishments, the member's mental and psychical background should not excuse them from facing the consequences of their actions.
This assessment is not a personal attack on Weekly, as I am friends with them, but it is crucial to make a fair decision based on the relevant history of previous cases.
Similar threads
