• 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)

????
  1. Not a single message is redirected to anyone, BUT TO myself. Because people was ranting about my common sense in off-site servers while at the end, when dareaperman in fact listed all inconsistencies, then my doubts about the statement being invalid was valid
  2. the outlier deletion was literally metaphorical
If I was disrespectful, I would be pointed out by OP or by anyone present in the thread at that time or even privately by OP. I tried to be completely reasonable while being opposition and addressed them all of them respectfully.

Is it not against rules to falsely report people like that? Because it currently stated in Ant's OP.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
????
  1. Not a single message is redirected to anyone, BUT TO myself. Because people was ranting about my common sense in off-site servers while at the end, when dareaperman in fact listed all inconsistencies, then my doubts about the statement being invalid was valid
  2. the outlier deletion was literally metaphorical
If I was disrespectful, I would be pointed out by OP or by anyone present in the thread at that time or even privately by OP. I tried to be completely reasonable while being opposition and addressed them all of them respectfully.
Click to expand...
The impression I got from the thread was that you were referring to the people participating on the thread itself. If these remarks had a different angle to them based on comments outside the thread, I can understand that. However, that wasn't really specified on the thread itself. That's not something an average threadgoer should be expected to know either. It appears this was more of an issue of miscommunication more than anything if what you're saying is true.

ImmortalDread said:
Is it not against rules to falsely report people like that? Because it currently stated in Ant's OP.
Click to expand...
It says false reports based on vendettas are unacceptable. I don't possess any vendettas considering this is the first time I've interacted with you, and I made the comment based on the knowledge available to me. I even consulted a staff member beforehand if this would be appropriate. It may not have warranted a course of action, but it does not mean it was in bad faith.
 
A staff member approved this RvR? This is interesting.

I have nothing to defend myself because I did not break any rules and OP very much differ to the perspective you are having, respecting the fact he is the only one I was debating with him. (and the rest were targeting me for not taking any statement as valid, but I respectfully dismissed it and focused on OP)

If you think that I was the reason for thread closure, then ask OP himself. Because I neither suggested it nor forced him nor harassed him and neither had even intention for it.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
I agree with and Agnaa and Bambu here.

Also, is it fine if I reduce TheMonkeMan's ban length to one month?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with it, because if we're agreeing this wasn't playful banter (even if he has been diplomatic with you in the past), then this is one of a string of infractions. I feel two months is still pretty lenient for the offenses. That would be my vote, if you're looking for a consensus.
 
Antvasima said:
Also, is it fine if I reduce TheMonkeMan's ban length to one month?
Click to expand...
I am opposed to this.

To be frank, I was considering making a case for the exact opposite. As Crabwhale and Deagonx pointed out, this recent incident was by no means isolated - not only was his most recent report ban-worthy by itself, but it's carried on the shoulders of many other incidents of unacceptable conduct for which he has demonstrated being unremorseful and unwilling to learn from his errors.

Even taking a brief overview of his past conduct in mind, I'd consider 2 months to be unusually lenient. Regardless of what our intentions behind the ban are - whether we intend for it to be proportionate with bans for similar circumstances, whether we want to give him appropriate time away from the wiki to change his behaviour, whether we want this to act as a deterrent for similar future behaviour (from him or other users), whether we want to establish respect for acknowledging the consequences of poor behaviour, or any number of other perspectives - I'd still be forced to say 2 months is an unusually low amount of time we've given.

I don't want to exaggerate the severity of the situation. TheMonkeMan has caused problems, but he's not (and shouldn't be treated as) a severely harmful person. He's just demonstrated immature behaviour consistently enough that we had ought to take action. With this in mind, I don't mind some level of leniency here - he shouldn't have to experience any kind of deviant labelling associated with his ban. Even so, what I've said before stands. 2 months is an unusually low amount of time for these kinds of problems, and in the interest of fairness, I would have thought something in the range of 3 months was far more appropriate. I won't stress the point if other staff members would prefer to keep it as it is, but I would oppose reducing it further.
 
Regarding the report on Dread, I don't think it warrants further arguing or bickering here on the RVR- the original report was dismissed and it seems like everyone has a better understanding of things.
 
Okay. Never mind about TheMonkeMan then.
Mr._Bambu said:
Regarding the report on Dread, I don't think it warrants further arguing or bickering here on the RVR- the original report was dismissed and it seems like everyone has a better understanding of things.
Click to expand...
I agree with this as well.
 
Antvasima said:
TheMonkeMan told me that it seems unlikely that he will return:

vsbattles.fandom.com

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Click to expand...
He said this the first time he got banned, so I think it's just another case of a member going "this place sux im leaving!!" and then they proceed to stay anyway. I can't provide the actual post as it's nigh-impossible to find posts made by banned members, and I'm pretty sure it came from the slander threads eitherway.
 
Antvasima said:
TheMonkeMan told me that it seems unlikely that he will return:
Click to expand...
He had expressed a similar sentiment the first time he got banned, but ended up returning anyways. However, if he thinks it is in his best interest to not be on the forum anymore and his requesting that his account be deleted, perhaps his ban should be made permanent so that he will get what he wants.
 
Deagonx said:
However, if he thinks it is in his best interest to not be on the forum anymore and his requesting that his account be deleted, perhaps his ban should be made permanent so that he will get what he wants.
Click to expand...
I hardly think that's warranted or necessary.

If, once his ban period is over, he decides not to come back to the wiki, that's that. If he decides to come back to the wiki, however, then he is in his right to do so. Banning him permanently makes no tangible difference in the prior scenario, and only serves to be disproportionate and to restrict him from a choice he is (and should be) allowed to make in the latter scenario. It doesn't provide anything of value either way.
 
DarkGrath said:
2 months is an unusually low amount of time for these kinds of problems, and in the interest of fairness, I would have thought something in the range of 3 months was far more appropriate. I won't stress the point if other staff members would prefer to keep it as it is, but I would oppose reducing it further.
Click to expand...
As the staff member with by far the greatest experience with Monke, I say this is still too little. I don't think time away will change him unless he physically begins getting older. His immaturity shows in too many of his posts. I still think 6 months is the better option.
 
Crabwhale said:
As the staff member with by far the greatest experience with Monke, I say this is still too little. I don't think time away will change him unless he physically begins getting older. His immaturity shows in too many of his posts. I still think 6 months is the better option.
Click to expand...
I should have been more clear in my original post that I was overall comfortable with the 3-6 month range you proposed, just with a preference for the lower end. If you believe in your experience with Monke that 6 months would be warranted, I'd be content with that.
 
DarkGrath said:
and only serves to be disproportionate and to restrict him from a choice he is (and should be) allowed to make in the latter scenario. It doesn't provide anything of value either way.
Click to expand...
I believe there is something to be said about individuals who can't really help themselves from returning even when they recognize that participating in the forum is a net negative for them, but I won't insist on that solution if it doesn't seem appropriate.
 
I think that the current 2 months should hopefully be enough. He uses crude and vulgar language, yes, but I do not have the impression that he means any harm.
 
image.png

monke asked me to post this over discord
 
See even in this supposed self-reflective post he still throws potshots at people for no apparent reason. I can't speak for Deagon here, but I can speak for myself.

I don't know where he got the idea that I hate him from. It's something he throws around a lot, and I think it's projection. It's no secret he has a low opinion of me, constantly tries to get on my nerves, and rants about me off site.

He's the one suffering from unreasonable hatred here. If nothing else I have been exceedingly tolerant with him this entire time, perhaps even too tolerant. I've never brought his case to the RVR myself, merely provided info, and warned him for some things besides. If I hated him I would've spoken up about his issues beforehand, but I did not, out of good will that he would improve. He has not. That good will has run dry.

I am not angry or hateful towards Monke. I am disappointed.
 
I more or less share the same feeling. I've reported him for the same things I'd report anyone else for. He seems to get fixated on beefs that he has, but I don't hate him or anything like that, I just want him to stop being hostile to people or making people uncomfortable here.
 
However, I might be mistaken as that account might be his main because the actual fandom user named "TheMonkeMan" hasn't made a single edit and Bambu himself stated he's unsure if this is really MonkeMan.

User contributions for TheMonkeMan | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Hence, feel free to call off the case if I've turned out to be wrong.
 
GarrixianXD said:
However, I might be mistaken as that account might be his main because the actual fandom user named "TheMonkeMan" hasn't made a single edit and Bambu himself stated he's unsure if this is really MonkeMan.
Click to expand...
It would be fairly easy to fake such a message if all we're going off of is the username. I'll see to contacting Monke off-site to see if he was really the one who made it.
 
In the event of your primary account being banned, you are permitted to create an alternate account solely for the purpose of submitting a ban appeal on a staff member's message wall. It is important to emphasize that this alternate account must not be utilized for any other activities within the wiki.
Click to expand...
Not exactly a ban appeal, but commenting on a staffs wall isn't frowned upon while banned, assuming it is him.
 
I have contacted Monke on Discord, and he gave me permission to send this screenshot of our conversation.

d7AbOcm.png


As we can see - yes, he was the one who made the comment.
 
GarrixianXD said:
I think you’re mistaking my point. What I’m actually implying is that this “TheMonkeMan” user on fandom might not even be him. Even though I initially thought it was, thus why I made the report.
Click to expand...
I know. But even if that is him, calling " DaMonkeMan" a sock would be inherently wrong, as it's the older account. For all we know "TheMonkeMan" probably wasn't created for the wiki and is just an unused alt, considering it has no contributions anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
30 31 32
Replies
1K
Views
92K
Vzearr
Vzearr
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
1K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
408
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top