• 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)

Alright, read the latest reports. Here's my thoughts on whether the provided evidence is bad behaviour or not.

Dread's Report

Georredannea15:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
  • Post 2: No.
  • Post 3: No.
Larssx:
  • Post 1: Kinda.
  • Post 2: Kinda.
Quintessence_PE:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
I don't think any action is really necessary here.




StrymULTRA's Report

The_Yellow_Topaz:
  • Post 1: No.
  • Post 2: Not really.
  • Post 3: Kinda.
  • Post 4: No.
  • Post 5: No.
  • Post 6: No.
  • Post 7: No.
  • Post 8: Meh, a tiny bit.
  • Post 9: No.
  • Post 10: Yes.
  • Post 11: Kinda.
Going from that to behaviour in this RVT itself.

I do think that Lephyr's post was phrased in a way that could mislead people, and that Topaz was within her rights to clear that up.

Contrary to what Strym said here, they did continue acting badly after the warning as Topaz demonstrated here.

I don't think that Lephyr should've interpreted Topaz saying "this part of the sentence is deceptive" as "Lephyr is a deceptive person", that's an incredibly unkind reading.

I think Topaz's response of calling that a "futile jab to further clog the thread" isn't great. But I think that Lephyr's move to "you're distorting my words and calling me a liar" is even worse. Topaz didn't do that.

I'm in Bambu's camp of wanting a 1 week ban. There were only a few things that were barely infractions.




Marshadow was topic banned for posting a large number of low quality CRTs. Dread claimed to have warned them, but since no evidence was provided I can't back this up.

About 2 months have passed of the 3 month topic ban. Although initially, a few staff members were suggesting it should only be 1 or 2 months long.

However, this claim about not knowing about the rule was already brought up when the ban was initially discussed. Since no new information is being brought up, I don't think this ban length should be re-evaluated.
 
Thank you for helping out, Agnaa. I think that you seem to make sense. 🙏

So should we block Topaz for a week rather than give her a strict warning?
 
Probably. There was a staff member instruction in a thread followed by a few mild infractions, and another very mild infraction here when reported, I think that nudges things just past warning territory.
 
Alright, read the latest reports. Here's my thoughts on whether the provided evidence is bad behaviour or not.

Dread's Report

Georredannea15:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
  • Post 2: No.
  • Post 3: No.
Larssx:
  • Post 1: Kinda.
  • Post 2: Kinda.
Quintessence_PE:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
I don't think any action is really necessary here.




StrymULTRA's Report

The_Yellow_Topaz:
  • Post 1: No.
  • Post 2: Not really.
  • Post 3: Kinda.
  • Post 4: No.
  • Post 5: No.
  • Post 6: No.
  • Post 7: No.
  • Post 8: Meh, a tiny bit.
  • Post 9: No.
  • Post 10: Yes.
  • Post 11: Kinda.
Going from that to behaviour in this RVT itself.

I do think that Lephyr's post was phrased in a way that could mislead people, and that Topaz was within her rights to clear that up.

Contrary to what Strym said here, they did continue acting badly after the warning as Topaz

Marshadow was topic banned for posting a large number of low quality CRTs. Dread claimed to have warned them, but since no evidence was provided I can't back this up.

About 2 months have passed of the 3 month topic ban. Although initially, a few staff members were suggesting it should only be 1 or 2 months long.

However, this claim about not knowing about the rule was already brought up when the ban was initially discussed. Since no new information is being brought up, I don't think this ban length should be re-evaluated.
No, I don't believe dread said anything along those lines, even if she did, she's not staff.
You have to admit, going straight into a punishment is not exactly fair, and as far as I can tell, not the usual procedure.

Members who have engaged in toxic activity in threads have received lighter sentences in comparison for the most part. I have not really engaged in that behavior outside of the usual debating.
 
Your initial claim was that you weren't aware of the rule; whether you were informed by staff or a non-staff member wouldn't matter.

Whether someone is warned first or not depends on the offence.

Toxic behaviour seems inherently more easy to control and more intermittent, if someone gets warned after 2000 messages for 3 toxic ones, that implies that they're not toxic very often. We do sometimes jump straight to banning people for toxic posts, if they're in the first few messages they make.

On the contrary, 13 threads which staff members have described as incoherent and low quality demonstrates a strong pattern of behaviour.

Hopefully this clears up your questions; I see no impropriety in how the report was initially handled, and you have brought up no new evidence. So unless you bring up new evidence, I don't think anything should be done.
 
Your initial claim was that you weren't aware of the rule; whether you were informed by staff or a non-staff member wouldn't matter.

Whether someone is warned first or not depends on the offence.

Toxic behaviour seems inherently more easy to control and more intermittent, if someone gets warned after 2000 messages for 3 toxic ones, that implies that they're not toxic very often. We do sometimes jump straight to banning people for toxic posts, if they're in the first few messages they make.

On the contrary, 13 threads which staff members have described as incoherent and low quality demonstrates a strong pattern of behaviour.

Hopefully this clears up your questions; I see no impropriety in how the report was initially handled, and you have brought up no new evidence. So unless you bring up new evidence, I don't think anything should be done.
Quick correction, it was 11 threads. Some of these were due to being asked to move my low 1-c threads to staff discussion.

I doubt every single staff member reviewed all 11 threads and formed their opinion of of that, low quality is subjective, as many non staff community members agreed with my threads, and each thread has used multiple scans to back up their claims.
Some threads had more minor changes than others, hence the short length.
 
No, I don't believe dread said anything along those lines, even if she did, she's not staff.
Your initial claim was that you weren't aware of the rule; whether you were informed by staff or a non-staff member wouldn't matter.
Dread claimed to have warned them, but since no evidence was provided I can't back this up.
 
Last edited:
As demonstrated earlier, you had over half a dozen threads open for the verse at the time. So just saying you only had 3 open isn't an adequate defence.

However, Dread's warning did come after you'd created those, and you didn't seem to create any more before the report, so I won't consider Dread's warning as a knock against you; you didn't seem to ignore it.
 
As demonstrated earlier, you had over half a dozen threads open for the verse at the time. So just saying you only had 3 open isn't an adequate defence.

However, Dread's warning did come after you'd created those, and you didn't seem to create any more before the report, so I won't consider Dread's warning as a knock against you; you didn't seem to ignore it.
A few of those threads were pretty much abandoned and were forgotten to be closed, you can check the post history on those.
 
Asking for a thread ban and warning for @Georredannea15 and @Fixxed for continuing to post in this thread despite it being staff only,, and doing so despite being reminded multiple times that they do not have permission to comment.
As I said, I had permission, but since about 2 months have passed, I forgot from whom I even got permission. However, I was one of the first to get permission and comment.
 
No, the rules only have that restriction for content mods. Thread mods, admins, and bureaucrats can permit people for any number of posts.

That was wrong, only bureaus can permit for any number of posts. So there probably wasn't permission for indefinite posts granted.

Qawsed seems to have a handle on it in the thread. No need to do anything here, imo.
 
Last edited:
No, the rules only have that restriction for content mods. Thread mods, admins, and bureaucrats can permit people for any number of posts.

Qawsed seems to have a handle on it in the thread. No need to do anything here, imo.
So can my ban be opened? But that's okay, I don't have anything else to write to that revision anyway.
 
Hell, the term "wank" has similar connotations.
Im basically saying that DT really likes DKD, nothing more, nothing less
I expect that kind of banter from my more unhinged close friends. Far as I can tell though, you ain't a close friend of DT's.

Learn to not speak like someone hooked up to Discord 24/7, especially when you've been reported before and are on thin ice.
 
Back
Top