• 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)

I've made my thoughts on Weekly clear beforehand, but yeah I definitely think the Discord shit is completely irrelevant in this case. It got him banned the first time, but THAT was an egregious breach of conduct that directly affected the wiki. I don't see how anything else posted comes even close.

That being said, punishing people for posting said screenshots isn't something I'm all that keen on pursuing. Like, at all.
 
A miscommunication has occurred, as none of the staff members proposed an outright ban. Instead, they recommended (most likely Ant and others agreed with) implementing a topic ban.
 
Last edited:
Could you please clarify which specific incorrect reasons you are referring to? It is worth noting that Weekly actually requested a topic ban based on those reasons. It appears counterintuitive to acknowledge erroneous motives when the person involved possesses the most comprehensive understanding of the situation and yet agreed with the suggestion.
 
Antvasima said:
Which staff members were engaged in possibly deliberately misrepresenting screencaptures, @Moritzva ?
Click to expand...
I don't think it was deliberate.

Glassman posted the screenshots, but he's not in the server, so he couldn't have gotten them himself.

Although, he did post two screenshots completely unrelated to his report, making it seem like he had more evidence than he did, which is a milder form of misrepresentation. Even if he didn't get the screenshots himself, he could've (and should've) left them out from whatever batch he received.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't think it was deliberate.

Glassman posted the screenshots, but he's not in the server, so he couldn't have gotten them himself.

Although, he did post two screenshots completely unrelated to his report, making it seem like he had more evidence than he did, which is a milder form of misrepresentation. Even if he didn't get the screenshots himself, he could've (and should've) left them out from whatever batch he received.
Click to expand...
Okay. Noted.
 
I’ll note that I only said we should consider punishments for future cases, not here. While I definitely think Glass should have exercised better judgement, and I don’t think his actions can be entirely attributed to ignorance, I’d rather we all leave this entire report as a learning experience. Mistakes were made, and all users should be more careful about reports lacking significant context in the future, especially ones for off-site behavior.

In other words, I am not happy with what happened, but I think it is most fair to draw a line in the sand and make it clear we expect better from our staff members, as well as making sure other users are more careful overall. At the very least, if a user is not certain that they possess full context, they should admit as much in the report so another party can look into it.

If this happens again, then I think we should take decisive action.
 
I should clarify that I think the only tacked-on part was the Discord stuff. The initial report that started this conga line by Milly is fully valid in my book.
ImmortalDread said:
Could you please clarify which specific incorrect reasons you are referring to? It is worth noting that Weekly actually requested a topic ban based on those reasons. It appears counterintuitive to acknowledge erroneous motives when the person involved possesses the most comprehensive understanding of the situation and yet agreed with the suggestion.
Click to expand...
Any punishment or even consideration of punishment pertaining to screenshots which I find wholly irrelevant to the current case. It really isn't that hard to track down what I'm saying, and I don't really appreciate having something as simple as this be questioned.
 
Crabwhale said:
I should clarify that I think the only tacked-on part was the Discord stuff. The initial report that started this conga line by Milly is fully valid in my book.

Any punishment or even consideration of punishment pertaining to screenshots which I find wholly irrelevant to the current case. It really isn't that hard to track down what I'm saying, and I don't really appreciate having something as simple as this be questioned.
Click to expand...
I fully agree with this, for the record. Weekly’s behavior on the Milly thread is entirely deserving of criticism and scrutiny.

That’s about all I have to say on this subject, though. Let‘s try to come to any last conclusions we need to reach, and leave it at that, so we can go on with our normal activities.
 
Greenshifter said:
@Crabwhale Dread is talking about Weekly, you were talking about the people who provided screenshots.
Click to expand...
This entire comment of yours.
Greenshifter said:
Yes, like I just said… Dread wasn’t, thus you 2 were talking next to each other.
Click to expand...
Disproves this one.

Stop commenting on this case entirely, you are only confusing things for absolutely no reason.
 
Crabwhale said:
Any punishment or even consideration of punishment pertaining to screenshots which I find wholly irrelevant to the current case.
Click to expand...
I have some doubts regarding the extent to which your response addresses my inquiry. Allow me to provide further clarification.

Specifically, I am referring to the observation that Weekly, being the member who possesses the most contextual knowledge among us, acknowledged and even proposed a self-imposed topic ban prior to Ant doing so. This suggests that Weekly himself recognized the impropriety of the situation. Moreover, Weekly acknowledged the severity of the consequences and emphasized the importance of fair treatment, as originally mentioned in my post. It is important to note that Weekly discerned that the reported incident was not motivated by malicious intent.

There appears to be a misunderstanding in your interpretation of my previous statement, as you focused on the type of punishment rather than the crux of the matter, which is Weekly's acceptance of their own punishment and the potential impact on the unfolding events at hand.
 
Here's the thing though: Weekly doesn't decide when or how he's punished or not punished. We do. And being the member with the most contextual information, which I don't think he is (nor are most people who are reported), doesn't really matter much when we're the ones who examine evidence and decide what happens.

Concurrently, have you considered that he was speaking regarding the initial Milly report? Because I sure as shit didn't see him conceding on anything relating to the Discord screenshots, which you may note was the main focus of my message.
 
Crabwhale said:
Concurrently, have you considered that he was speaking regarding the initial Milly report? Because I sure as shit didn't see him conceding on anything relating to the Discord screenshots, which you may note was the main focus of my message.
Click to expand...
You sure of this

I understand that staff members have examined the evidence, but I have reservations about the assumption that the evidence provided is entirely devoid of context. The screenshots, while not complete, are not significantly truncated, and it should be noted that Glass had been making inquiries prior to the creation of CRT.

Regarding the first paragraph, I meant to emphasize that Weekly who wrote the messages may possess the most comprehensive understanding of their own messages, irrespective of their accuracy or falsehood.

It seems that there is a point being overlooked here. Some members have been reported for minor infractions in an attempt to garner more severe punishments. In light of this, it is noteworthy that Weekly acknowledged this aspect from my post and willingly accepted the three-month topic ban proposed by Ant, as well as other thread moderators and administrators.

If you wish to continue the conversation privately but do not wish to pursue the discussion any further, I will respect your decision.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I would like to bring attention to the communication style employed by @Tdjwo, which I find to be unnecessarily passive-aggressive in their posts. He is being condescending, dismissive, and authoritative. The person speaking is asserting their superiority and attempting to shut down the other person's input or participation based on their lack of official staff status because he is claiming that the thread is staff-only which in fact, it is not. They are also making demands for the intervention of staff members to enforce their desired outcome.
Overall, this behavior can be seen as disrespectful and controlling.
Click to expand...
Deagonx said:
I agree, the aggressive comments were unnecessary, and his insistence that it is a staff-only thread seems odd both in that a) He himself is continuing to comment despite not being staff, and b) It very clearly isn't a staff-only thread. Perhaps it can be moved there at some point, but there's literally no point in shouting at people that it will end up a staff discussion thread and therefore they shouldn't comment.

I will also add that, in my experience, Tdjwo has a history of being unnecessarily aggro. I ended up thread banning him from the Nasuverse cosmology revision thread because A) He commented three separate times without permission and B) Every comment was just rude or dramabait e.g. "This thread is ass" "This thread is bs, close it"
Click to expand...
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
I also seem to recall Tdjwo has been reported in the past for similar behavior, though I may be mistaking him for someone else. That should be looked into.

Edit: This is likely what I was remembering. He has been warned in the past.
Click to expand...
ImmortalDread said:
Based on the member's past behaviour, it appears that implementing a topic ban would be a suitable course of action in this particular situation. Additionally, it is worth noting that the mentioned thread has a contentious nature and is likely to generate unnecessary conflict.



The user's assertion that my question, which was posed respectfully to gain a better understanding of the CRT mechanics, is deemed "irrelevant and a waste of time" demonstrates a dismissive and condescending attitude.
Click to expand...
LordTracer said:
I suppose I’ll also add that in this thread, he was also accusing everyone that agreed with the OP of ignoring his points, saying that nobody made a proper refutation to his arguments, etc. Both Deagonx and I told him to stop making comments like that, but he continued to do so anyway.
Click to expand...
Here are the relevant posts, for anyone who might have missed them.
 
All I'm going to say regarding Immortaldread is that all I did was tell her not to comment or derail a crt that's solely for staff members and permitted members. Don't understand why she's acting like a victim. Not that I care at all.

Deagonx is a special case I'm going to talk about later. The amount of times he's abused his authority against Nasuverse supporters is very alarming and I have proof of that including the victims.
 
Last edited:
The only Nasuverse thread I've been involved in was the staff discussion thread about the Moon Cell. I threadbanned you there for making multiple comments without permission. The only other member that I threadbanned was discussed with other staff before proceeding. That said, if you intend to make a complaint about my conduct as staff, you should contact members of HR. Those types of issues are not handled in RVR.

Tdjwo said:
All I'm going to say regarding Immortaldread is that all I did was tell her not to comment or derail a crt that's solely for staff members and permitted members. Don't understand why she's acting like a victim. Not that I care at all.
Click to expand...

Is this all that you have to say about your conduct described above?
 
Deagonx said:
The only Nasuverse thread I've been involved in was the staff discussion thread about the Moon Cell. I threadbanned you there for making multiple comments without permission. The only other member that I threadbanned was discussed with other staff before proceeding. That said, if you intend to make a complaint about my conduct as staff, you should contact members of HR. Those types of issues are not handled in RVR.
Click to expand...
Yeah sure, I would contact them. Whats HR btw?
Deagonx said:
Is this all that you have to say about your conduct described above?
Click to expand...
I dont think I need to say more. Regarding Lephyr's comment, all I'm going to say is you should read the comments in the thread and decide if I'm truly at fault there. I was accused of something I didn't do despite telling them I stopped arguing. So honestly, I can't feel arsed to waste my time defending myself if no one can properly comprehend what went wrong.
 
I still believe I did nothing wrong and all the claims made against me are either misunderstood or just wrong. Especially Dread's case where I was simply telling her not to comment on a staff only thread.

The only valid complaint she made about me was that I was incorrectly ordering her to stop commenting on the staff only thread because it wasn't against the rules for a non staff to make comments on a staff only thread as long as a staff member hasn't replied to the thread. In that case, I can concede to that complaint because I wasn't aware of such a rule. I always thought it was against the rule to comment on a staff only thread regardless if the staff had seen it or not which is why I kept telling her to quit making comments on the thread.
 
Last edited:
You were very aggro about it, and it wasn't a staff thread in the first place. Even if it had been, you yourself aren't staff.

Now, you're saying that you don't understand what you did wrong. But you should figure it out, because if it continues the bans will get more severe over time, and you have a track record of being rude to others and being difficult to deal with in threads.
 
Deagonx said:
You were very aggro about it, and it wasn't a staff thread in the first place. Even if it had been, you yourself aren't staff.
Click to expand...
I was aggressive about it because she kept on replying and derailing the thread which I thought was against the rules on a staff only crt. The OP allowed me to comment because I'm one of the few he knows who understands the main topic.
Deagonx said:
Now, you're saying that you don't understand what you did wrong. But you should figure it out, because if it continues the bans will get more severe over time, and you have a track record of being rude to others and being difficult to deal with in threads.
Click to expand...
Ok if I didn't know something was against the rule earlier and no one told me about it, how is that my fault? It wasn't until later thay a staff member told me a non staff could reply if staff members haven't gotten to the thread. I always thought the concensus was that a non staff can't comment on a staff only crt UNTIL he/she gets permission from the staff member. You were literally there yet you didn't tell me about that until later.
I'm pretty sure most of us have a track record of doing something wrong at least once. This time around, I dont think Im to be blamed for something I didn't know was allowed or not allowed.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I suppose that a 2 weeks warning block is probably fine then.
Click to expand...
So I'm receiving a warning block solely because I told ImmortalDread to stop commenting on a staff-only revision thread which I thought was against the rules as I've been told in the past? Can someone explain to me how that makes any sense? All the links Dread posted had me talking about the same thing repeatedly which is, telling her to stop commenting or derailing the thread because I thought she wasn't allowed to. No one ever told me non-staff members could comment on a staff-only crt until the very last minute so I think it's quite unfair and unreasonable to ban me over something I didn't know was against the rules especially when no staff member told me till the last minute.

If I'm still going to get banned regardless, I would like to finish some discussions I'm having with Agnaa first.
 
LordTracer said:
I suppose I’ll also add that in this thread, he was also accusing everyone that agreed with the OP of ignoring his points, saying that nobody made a proper refutation to his arguments, etc. Both Deagonx and I told him to stop making comments like that, but he continued to do so anyway.
Click to expand...
I believe I have every right to make a complaint over something I think is unfair to me, don't I? I made a whole 1 hr+ refutation post to the OP's point which mind you, he requested from me to personally do. And after I did it, no one even offered to refute my points and simply ignored it which is completely unfair since I went out of my way to make a comment requested by the OP just for it to get ignored despite making relevant points. So tell me, what did I do wrong in particular for me to get banned over?
 
I think two weeks is a bit excessive. The previous mentions were two prior threads, that even then weren't very bad. And in one of them, he apologised immediately after. And in this one again it was pretty minor.

I'd suggest more on the order of a few days, if at all.
Tdjwo said:
So I'm receiving a warning block solely because I told ImmortalDread to stop commenting on a staff-only revision thread which I thought was against the rules as I've been told in the past?
Click to expand...
That's not why. It's suggested because you eventually said that in a bit of a rude way, for a thread which wasn't even staff-only. And because you'd been somewhat rude, and warned about it, before.
 
Agnaa said:
That's not why. It's suggested because you eventually said that in a bit of a rude way, for a thread which wasn't even staff-only. And because you'd been somewhat rude, and warned about it, bebefore.
Click to expand...
I admit I was a bit rude with that comment. But that was after I politely and repeatedly asked her to stop commenting. The OP wanted the thread to be staff only but he forgot to put it in a staff only thread which I also didn't notice so I thought I was doing the right thing by telling her not to comment.
My past history of being "rude' are all misunderstood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
14 15 16
Replies
639
Views
44K
TWILIGHT-OP
TWILIGHT-OP
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
3
Views
213
Tdjwo
Tdjwo
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
30
Views
2K
James_Plays_4_Games
James_Plays_4_Games
Back
Top