- 9,891
- 12,905
The meaning behind what you're saying hasn't changedMy statement:
"CAN YOU READ MY ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF YAPPING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE"
You twisting my words to make it seem worse:
"CAN YOU READ
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The meaning behind what you're saying hasn't changedMy statement:
"CAN YOU READ MY ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF YAPPING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE"
You twisting my words to make it seem worse:
"CAN YOU READ
I agree with this.I would suggest a forum ban of no more than a few months, perhaps around the range of 3-6. Hopefully that will be enough for the current conflicts, both interpersonal and intrapersonal, to settle.
Yes it hasThe meaning behind what you're saying hasn't changed
I don't intend for it Im just debating it XD, I wouldn't call it trouble, it is pretty normal to debate on why you shouldn't get bannedLooking into this situation from the outside, I would support a short-term forum ban here.
At the present, MysticCarnage's behaviour is evidently unacceptable. They are not only causing problems and needless stresses for other users, but they are extremely insistent on this behaviour in spite of having it pointed out to them. This behaviour is also clearly not going to be mitigated by simply giving them a warning - if it was, the discussion on the RVRT so far would have already surely been enough. They are causing trouble, and they'll continue to cause trouble unless we distance them from the forum for a time.
At the same time, I'm not forced to believe from what I've seen so far that they are incapable of changing. While I certainly don't consider such circumstantial mitigating factors to have serious leeway when discussing punishments, I will note that this hostile behaviour has clearly been caused in part by a negative feedback loop - MysticCarnage sincerely believes that they are being targeted and harassed here, and while I can't say I agree, the fact that they clearly believe this combined with the continued interactions with the members they believe are targeting them is almost certainly making their behaviour worse than it would be otherwise.
I don't believe his behaviour on this RVRT thread so far is deterministic for his behaviour in the future, even if there is more than enough of a case for taking action. I believe, once the dust has settled, that they should be capable of interacting productively with the community again. I would suggest a forum ban of no more than a few months, perhaps around the range of 3-6. Hopefully that will be enough for the current conflicts, both interpersonal and intrapersonal, to settle.
Thank youPersonally, I don't think a ban of any length is in order for the stuff they said in the threads. I and even many previously banned users get away with similar stuff on the regular.
That's not to say it isn't childish, but I think all that's needed is a warning (like most users, staff included, get when they say stuff like this).
All of the good will and leeway I had developed as a result of DarkGrath's very thoughtful and well-reasoned advocacy has swiftly evaporated.I don't intend for it Im just debating it XD, I wouldn't call it trouble, it is pretty normal to debate on why you shouldn't get banned
6 months is crazy, this aint the court of law my guy jesus, I aint do anything you can name
NAME AND GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF RULES I VIOLATED
Cause the calc was shitty and he was angrily questioning why it's so shitty
Can you cut that shit out?Anyways, you have no proof but because you have that little red square around your name, You >>> Me
A ban of a severe length is in order for how negative he turns any and every tokyo revengers thread and how condescending he loves to be whenever he starts getting on his high horse against anybody who disagrees with himPersonally, I don't think a ban of any length is in order for the stuff they said in the threads. I and even many previously banned users get away with similar stuff on the regular.
That's not to say it isn't kind of childish, but I think all that's needed is a warning (like most users, staff included, get when they say stuff like this).
Again, if it was truly your intention to ask "could you please focus on my arguments", then you need to phrase it that way. The way you have it phrased absolutely implies you're insulting his reading capabilitiesYes it has
"can you read my arguments" refers to me asking for him to read my arguments instead of talking about other things
"can you read" would refer to me insulting his reading capabilities
We have been doing so for a good while nowNAME AND GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF RULES I VIOLATED
No my guy, I phrased it perfectly, you mysteriously ended my sentence at the part where it seems like an insult, I hope you get a punishment because what your doing ain't okay, If I phrased it like this, actually nvm, I see no way how you could see me referring to that as him not being able to readAgain, if it was truly your intention to ask "could you please focus on my arguments", then you need to phrase it that way. The way you have it phrased absolutely implies you're insulting his reading capabilities
We have been doing so for a good while now
Pretty sure I've seen a couple people disagree, let me rest my case instead of jumping to the worst conclusionWe have a large amount of agreement for a forum ban of some length. Can any of the admins participating here enable that so that we may, at the very least, discuss the duration peacefully without Mystic's substanceless ranting?
Ziller and Coomandar were slinging worse insults in the past and only received bans of a month or less. So I disagree with any kind of lengthy ban.A ban of a severe length is in order for how negative he turns any and every tokyo revengers thread and how condescending he loves to be whenever he starts getting on his high horse against anybody who disagrees with him
I never mysteriously ended your sentence. In my listing of your insults, I put your full post thereNo my guy, I phrased it perfectly, you mysteriously ended my sentence at the part where it seems like an insult, I hope you get a punishment because what your doing ain't okay, If I phrased it like this, actually nvm, I see no way how you could see me referring to that as him not being able to read
Six months is goodGiven the poor follow-up behavior, my kneejerk feeling for length would be in the ballpark of 6 months.
If I get banned, I'll just ask someone else to report you its fine, I will start making the report now thoughI never mysteriously ended your sentence. In my listing of your insults, I put your full post there
I'd like to stop this back and forth now please
Six months is good
Also like 3 people disagreeing, let more people see it jesusI'm also in favor of 6 months, as is DarkGrath, King Tempest, Bambu, and Lonkitt. I believe that is more than enough agreement to enact it.
My suggestion is bearing in mind the unnecessary clogging up of this thread, too.Ziller and Coomandar were slinging worse insults in the past and only received bans of a month or less. So I disagree with any kind of lengthy ban.
I wouldn't say it's unnecesary if they genuinely think they're being misinterpreted.My suggestion is bearing in mind the unnecessary clogging up of this thread, too.
Brother at this point just shut up. Really. Shut up. You're making comment after commenting and getting things worse. The reason a ban is being discussed is because you didn't shut up before. I'm surprised none of the staff members have shut you down yet.Jesus, Yall are the opposite of suitable people to have positions of power
Your all soft, YOU CANT EVEN NAME ME A RULE I VIOLATED, MAYBE FOCUS ON THAT MY GUY
I'm inclined to disagree, though the word "harsh" seems appropriate. Grath mentioned being uncertain whether a harsher sentence is good for someone who feels staff is targeting them: personally, I feel that we should err on the side of harshness to avoid looking as though individuals can glean a lighter punishment by simply screaming about how terrible the staff are.I wouldn't say it's unnecesary if they genuinely think they're being misinterpreted.
But, if they're getting banned anyway, I say anything more than 2 or 3 months is unreasonable.
Strongly agree. I feel as though I have seen more than a few reductions in RVR as a result of people throwing tantrums here in a manner similar to MysticCarnage. ByAsura pointed out shorter bans for worse insults, but by my recollection those users were more or less doing the same thing, flooding the RVR with arduous bickering by replying to every staff who tried to give input with stubborn insistence of their own innocent. Behavior which, IMO, we should clamp down on in the future.personally, I feel that we should err on the side of harshness to avoid looking as though individuals can glean a lighter punishment by simply screaming about how terrible the staff are.
To briefly appease you:Jesus, Yall are the opposite of suitable people to have positions of power
Your all soft, YOU CANT EVEN NAME ME A RULE I VIOLATED, MAYBE FOCUS ON THAT MY GUY
That's fine with me. I counted him as a six month vote but I did not see that he had edited the comment.To be absolutely certain, I think 4 months is a good compromise as suggested by Ant. It avoids what I would agree with Grath in calling the lower extreme.
I would say both, given his comment on Therefir's calcOkay. Should that be applied both here and in our wiki then?
I don't necessarily disagree, but that had nothing to do with what I was saying at all.I feel that we should err on the side of harshness to avoid looking as though individuals can glean a lighter punishment by simply screaming about how terrible the staff are.
I didn't say I actually agree with that kind of ban length.Three Months: DarkGrath, ByAsura
Handled.Okay. Would you be willing to handle it please, Bambu?
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment.I didn't say I actually agree with that kind of ban length.
I'm glad this is settled. Now we can return to focusing on more important matters, like whether Goku could beat Superman.Handled.
I'm not sure what the best course of action is, but I can definitely speak to the fact that he's rather aggressive and unwilling to accept that other people disagree with him. He's certainly not unique in that regard, and I've become accustomed to that sort of stubbornness in CRTs, but he has essentially declared repeatedly that myself and Damage aren't making valid arguments, and we're biased, et cetera. This same upgrade was rejected back in March and he's attempting it again.I'm open to discuss what exactly should be done in his case, if anything more than just a warning is even necessary, but as he's very recently just off a ban, I do feel it's worth at least bringing up. @Deagonx and @Damage3245 are both prolific in that particular thread and I think can attest to the general poor behavior.