I would be comfortable with 6-12 months as a proportional punishment. In recognition of the general interests expressed so far, and the exceptional controversies surrounding this situation, I would lean on the high end and suggest a 1 year ban as a final compromise.
Considering the repeated offenses and how Weekly hasn't seemed to have changed, despite the many chances he's been given, and the fact that VSBW has clearly not been doing his mental health any favours, I agree to Option 2.
Weekly had already had multiple clear and final warnings. This also isn't some new issue but a recurring one. A two year/permanent ban is warranted. Otherwise it just seems like favoritism.
Well, I understand your perspective on the matter but with Qawsedf's vote we are currently 12 to 7 in favor of a 2 year ban (with more than a few of those advocating for a permanent ban). I think that is a decisive enough majority to consider the matter settled. I have pinged some of the other staff but some of them don't want to get involved.
Well, it isn't favoritism. I have been far more lenient towards several members, including staff, who have insulted me considerably worse than what Weekly did here. I just usually try to be understanding and compassionate and to find less drastic solutions if we aren't dealing with people who just came here to cause problems.
But Weekly is causing problems if they were not only demoted due to these issues, but banned before and have had multiple other reports addressed to them. A single freak out wouldn't warrant this unless it was particularly bad; but it's not a freak out as much as a constant pattern from what was brought up before.
I don't disagree with this statement. In fact, it is possible for an excessive habit of minor offenses to eventually stack together to become a major offense. That's more or less what Spam would be. But I more so was also bringing up it wasn't just an excess of minor occurrences but some people throw in reports that weren't even report worthy at all in the mix of the numerous minor offense reports. That was the real issue I probably should have specified.
I should have been more specific yes, but I will point out details. Simply agreeing with Weekly's 2 year ban or permaban is NOT harassment. Bambu is not doing anything wrong, you're NOT on the list of people targeting him either, and Maverick also isn't doing anything wrong either. If you agree with a permanent ban, that is perfectly fine. I am not forcing any of you to change your minds. But at the same time, there are a few users who deliberately antagonize WeeklyBattles at every opportunity they see. There were a combination of legit reports and not so legit reports also, but only the legit ones should be focused.
That was originally one of the list of reasons for his year long block, but it turned out to be a false detail. And several other staff DID bring it up, not just me. If that wasn't Weekly, it should be used as a reminder then.
Agnaa already proved that statement wrong by listing the numerous things. Also, it's not just "Prehistoric examples" I legit have seen instances even amongst Bayonetta revisions that were created after Weekly's ban expired where Glass was hostile to him or called him "Incapable of debating or showing scans." And Weekly isn't the only person Glassman antagonizes, he has recently been antagonizing Antvasima a lot as of late where he calls him out over every minor offense or for suspecting a conspiracy while never commenting when others say things far worse against Antvasima
No one is disagreeing that Weekly hasn't been problematic, but the most recent report was the first time since Weekly ban that actually was in Glassman's favor. I have seen numerous times of Glassman behaving just as bad if not worse than Weekly on various Bayonetta threads. Jinx was also someone who Weekly had issues with and never liked WeeklyBattles and some of her arguments on RWBY threads such as calling some blatant fight scenes outliers for no reason were also things I understand Weekly being annoyed by. But take the joke he made on Discord was something way out of context that Mori made a rant to say, you can take and offsite joke and weaponize it against people. And I was informed by some people in DMs that Glassman is someone a lot of users complain about albeit not as much as someone like Eficiente.
Looking back, I don't deny being too lenient or too generous and both of us tried to help him on DMs numerous times with his mental health or that we may be partially at fault for the special treatment. However, I still think there are comments in the second paragraph that are exaggerations.
If the options are 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years or a perma-ban I'm more in favor of one year I guess.
Frankly, the fact that he even shared screenshots of that is pretty absurd. I linked to a Fun & Games thread from 3 years ago proposing to upgrade Rick Sanchez to Tier 0, not a CRT. What he did with Bambu was not a joke, and that myth has been dispelled numerous times.
I believe so. I cannot see a good reason to circumvent the strong majority in favor of a two year ban.
I think the majority in favor of two years is strong enough that if we are to force a compromise instead of simply yielding to the vote, it should be more along the lines of 18 months.
This is taken out of context, clearly. You are also thinking way less of me, I am not cheap girl. I don't let people to pay me for this. How in the world are you comparing this case where two people including me outright in public said that Deagonx paid me to agree with me IN a fun & games thread. If it was serious bribe, those two comments would be deleted, fun and games would be turned to an actual CRT and Deagonx would argue for it.
I've done so.
Well, this isn't an either or kind of issue to start with. We should generally try to reach a staff consensus.
I strongly agree, as well as with your earlier post expanding upon this in more detail. We should raise our bar across the board for civility and what kind of conduct we consider actionable. Perhaps it should be put into writing, in order to have a great deal of specificity about what kind of behavior is allowed and what is not, which will leave less in the realm of "any given mod's personal sensibilities about conduct" when we're dealing with less overt cases.
I'd consider 12-7 a consensus.
That is not how we tend to handle things. Unless there is an absolutely overwhelming overweight for one option, we try to reach compromise solutions, especially regarding deciding punishments.
Yes. That seems reasonable.
I agree such accusations should be investigated, but I advise setting expectations low. Having looked at a handful of instances where Weekly has claimed to have been harassed, I have never seen anything actually report worthy, and I say that as someone who has a much stricter stance on it than many.
To be clear though, the two year solution was a compromise. In Bambu's words, he said he would not be satisfied with anything less than two years. Several staff advocated for something permanent.
I am willing to write up a draft of more specific guidelines for civility/respectability so that we have a clear reference point for future offenses, rather than the usual "staff vibe check" and can make it a staff thread so that we can discuss it further. I agree that the lack of clarity about when and how moderate aggression/rudeness should be punished has allowed a lot of people free reign to just be low-latent assholes on the forum, since they never cross our definite threshold of "literally cussing someone out."
That is not how I interpreted the issue. A balanced compromise solution in-between 1 month and 2 years seems like roughly 1 year.
The tendency to harrass others in this community en masse with limited provocation is a problem, yes, but I may be too considerate and empathetic to others to be able to be sufficiently harsh in this regard, but we also shouldn't turn too draconian and authoritarian, so it is a difficult issue to approach and deal with properly.
Well several people also advocated for an indefinite block.
But you frankly seem to be among our least tolerant staff members in this area, and I do not want our forum to completely enter the politically one-sided, intolerant, and partisan cultural climate that much of western society is unfortunately currently engaged in. We need to maintain some degree of flexibility, tolerance, thick-skinned mental resilience, and diversity of opinion for our community to be reasonably democratic and not drive away even more people who feel oppressed by the "fun police" than we already do, or be bound by mandatory rules that demand us to constantly be one size fits all ruthless regarding punishments.
We can discuss this more in a different venue, but for my part (and I explained some of this in a discussion with Agnaa) I am far more concerned with protecting the dignity of our entire user base, and their right to be treated with respect, than I am in protecting the right of a handful of toxic users to be mildly-to-moderately rude on a constant basis with no avenue for stopping them.
I suppose that is a valid point.
Ant with all due respect, what in Jove's name are you saying?
As I mentioned above, I think that we are already easily sufficiently harsh in these areas and should definitely not completely enter areas of oversensitive intolerance.
Well, I meant that just because somebody is somewhat offensive, that doesn't mean that we should be completely oversensitive and systematically instantly apply draconian ban-hammers. Everybody would end up constantly walking on egg-shells in an almost Orwellian atmosphere, which is not remotely desireable.
A private discussion among our highest ranked staff members may be best, yes.
