Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Mr. Bambu]

They are not that harsh for using the term as far as I recall, but that member also seems to be acting in very bad faith by trolling, systematically acting extremely rude, and spreading a bad atmosphere in our community in general, so I do not mind a permanent block for him, but would appreciate staff input regarding for how long we should ban him.

I think a shorter block is tenable, perhaps a month.

Though Fandom harshly reprimands usage of the word, it's a not too uncommon term for a lot of folk, and I think we can be more agreeable with that sort of thing wiki-side. That said, his behavior has been particularly disruptive, so action does need taking. Damage's proposal is basically agreeable to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I think a shorter block is tenable, perhaps a month.

Though Fandom harshly reprimands usage of the word, it's a not too uncommon term for a lot of folk, and I think we can be more agreeable with that sort of thing wiki-side. That said, his behavior has been particularly disruptive, so action does need taking. Damage's proposal is basically agreeable to me.

Hmm. I do not think that members who continuously insult, mock, and troll others, especially in crude manners, should be a part of this community, and think that a considerably longer ban is in order if he is guilty of this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hmm. I do not think that members who continuously insult, mock, and troll others, especially in crude manners, should be a part of this community, and think that a considerably longer ban is in order if he is guilty of this.

If we were to ban every single individual who was guilty of insulting, mocking, and trolling, without first receiving warnings, we'd have no more users within two months time.

 

[Damage3245]

A permanent ban is unnecessary for them at this point. A shorter block will suffice and we can keep an eye out for repeated behaviour issues after the ban.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so a 1 month block then?

Is somebody here willing to apply it to both his forum and wiki accounts, and to provide warning instructions to him in conjunction?

 

[Catzlaflame]

Blocked his wiki account for a month.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I banned @Shining_Cross for 1 month in our forum.

Somebody should preferably post an instruction message to his forum or wiki message wall as well though.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

This user vandalized this profile

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This user vandalized this profile

Blocked

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do about this?

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Damage3245]

So what should we do about this?

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Well, we don't know for certain that this is in fact Shining Cross (unless a check has been made behind the scenes to verify that).

But if it is him, just extend the ban to a permanent one. I don't much care for having that kind of toxic personality around.

 

[Deagonx]

So what should we do about this?

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

I think we should ignore him and/or make the ban permanent as Damage said. This user is very immature.

 

[Antvasima]

I will ask Kai about if it is the same person.

 

[Antvasima]

Kai said that it seems to be the same person.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Kai said that it seems to be the same person.

I'm all in a permaban then.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well, we don't know for certain that this is in fact Shining Cross (unless a check has been made behind the scenes to verify that).

But if it is him, just extend the ban to a permanent one. I don't much care for having that kind of toxic personality around.

I'd support extending to permanent for sockpuppeting and not taking hints.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'd support extending to permanent for sockpuppeting and not taking hints.

I second this.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I second this.

Should we initiate the block now?

 

[Catzlaflame]

3 admins unanimously approved a permaban, so it should be fine. I extended the ban on the wiki, and Bambu already handled the sock account.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

I revised his VSBW forum block to a permanent one instead.

 

[Deagonx]

Reporting @Arcker123 for these remarks in this thread, the discussion began with my comment here

You're a clown, and you do not have a better understanding of English than me you pretentious fool.

This is why nobody likes talking to you. You're a smug stone wall incapable of simply not thinking you're smarter than everyone. It's annoying to everyone because it's so blatantly clear to everyone you're not.

Deagonx is incapable of actually arguing.

He's just so laughably dishonest that his only response is to give some strawman that I never even once implied.

You're not as good at being as dishonest as Damage.

A handful of others that are likely reportable, but those are the main ones. The conversation got heated fairly quickly on Arcker's side, and while some of my later comments were not perfectly diplomatic, I don't think I said anything that justifies those sorts of remarks, and this is just something Arcker tends to do towards people who disagree with him. I'm especially unclear as to why he randomly roped in Damage to insult as well.

 

[Arcker123]

Deagon made multiple remarks insulting my intelligence such as the one where he claims that he was taking me to English class or sum.

That's what the first two messages are responding too. Me just getting annoyed at his pretentious and unearned insults.

As for me calling you dishonest, we've already established previously that that's a warning at best, but I think context here makes it more permissible.

I never insulted Damage, I was continuing a joke about the ability to rage bait people by using Damage as an example.

Edit: Me calling your fallacious reasoning dishonest is also not that bad.

Reporting @Arcker123 for these remarks in this thread, the discussion began with my comment here






A handful of others that are likely reportable, but those are the main ones. The conversation got heated fairly quickly on Arcker's side, and while some of my later comments were not perfectly diplomatic, I don't think I said anything that justifies those sorts of remarks, and this is just something Arcker tends to do towards people who disagree with him. I'm especially unclear as to why he randomly roped in Damage to insult as well.

When you say I don't understand English then immediately concede, I'm going to joke about it. You don't get to stone wall and waste people's time whilst insulting their intelligence and think their annoyance is unreasonable.

Do you think I don't have plenty of fair conversations with the majority of users here I disagree with? I hold some insane positions and the fact only two individuals have reported me in the past lends credence to the idea this is not something I do in general, so your ridiculous mischaracteirzation of me is baseless.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

I would appreciate some official clarification on this matter as to not have to fear being reported in the future as from my understandimg Void manip in said thread was passed due to grace, more admin support, and lack of counter arguments from the disagreeing mods. If I am mistaken I would like this to be clarified.

bump

 

[GarrixianXD]

bump

As of now, no one is inspecting this case. You'll be pinged here once we get to it, there is no need to be paranoid.

 

[Deagonx]

Me just getting annoyed at his pretentious and unearned insults.

I'll clarify my perspective on the discussion as a whole. These were the first three remarks exchanged:

Yall really gave him concept manip for that shit

It's hyperbole because I said it was - Top tier Deagonx argument

Can only be defeated by "it's literal because I said it was."

To me this was just banter, and I don't have any issues with it. However, your response from there progressed from a mere quip to seemingly actually challenging my stance on the matter:

Who cares? You don't even reject that reasoning in principle, you would accept that conclusion using that argument if it fit your bias.

"It's true because I said it so" is a convincing argument to you.

From there, I provided clarifications as I felt that my position was not being understood correctly. I've since looked at my comments again, and I feel confident that they were completely respectful. In contrast, nearly all of yours included some form of insult or mockery, that I chose to ignore, for instance:

This pathetic attempt to pivot the discussion is pretty funny ngl

We just need to pretentiously laugh at him for failing to understand our jokes.

This is the level of cognitive dissonance I've come to expect of Deagonx.

I do not have to justify my claims. - Deagonx circa 2023

I could go on, but this is essentially a constant element in any discussion with you. By itself it likely doesn't rise to the level of being RVR worthy so I chose to ignore it. Eventually, a dozen or so comments in this discussion later, you took the stance that saying "It is figurative" and "It seems figurative to me" are essentially identical in regards to making a positive claim and incurring a burden of proof. A claim I find ridiculous

For the first time in the discussion, by my estimate, I made a remark that was less than polite in saying:

If you are not able to understand the difference between "is" and "seems" then there's not much else we can do here. It's an incredible simple thing that could only be rejected by someone choosing to be unreasonable. Amplified further by the really silly claim about "conceding." Sorry, I'd prefer not to serve as your English teacher.

Which, per your own admission, you responded to by calling me a "pretentious fool," a "clown," a "smug stonewall" and that "nobody likes me."

What I find unacceptable here is the stance you seem to have that you are entitled to constantly mock and degrade someone you are having a discussion with, so long as it remains below a certain level, but as soon as you are met with any manner of perceived disrespect in the same fashion that you are constantly treating others with, you escalate to the absolute extreme and make the claim that it was justified by what the other person said. You characterizing my single mild quip in response to your dozen as "unearned insults" is particularly egregious, in my opinion.

I don't really find this acceptable, but that is only my own opinion and I am not an unbiased party in this affair. I encourage other staff members to read the discussion that occurred and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Arcker123]

From there, I provided clarifications as I felt that my position was not being understood correctly.

The actual content of the argument is irrelevant to the report. Lest we have another debate on the actual topic. This is jut a posture to make yourseld seem virtuous.

I feel confident that they were completely respectful. In contrast, nearly all of yours included some form of insult or mockery, that I chose to ignore, for instance:

Aside from tooting your own horn a bit too much here, a lot of the things you have listed are out of context.

"Pretentiously laugh at him" was a sarcastic joke, and that was obvious by the fact it was crossed out. The fact you're using statements like this is again another mark against your credibility in this report.

I do not have to justify my claims. - Deagonx circa 2023

The fact you actually think this is serious is again just false and hampers your credibility.

The rest is simply me calling your debate tactics dishonest, which I reiterated in the thread itself.

"It is figurative" and "It seems figurative to me" are essentially identical in regards to making a positive claim and incurring a burden of proof. A claim I find ridiculous

One I made you concede on.

Also, let's not gloss over the hypocrisy in this example. Somehow, you personally insulting me is okay because you found my argument ridiculous, but are you not accusing me of the same behavior? Why couldn't I use this defense? Stop trying to gloss over your own faults in that discussion.

Which, per your own admission, you responded to by calling me a "pretenious fool," a "clown," a "smug stonewall" and that "nobody likes me."

I called you the first two because you smugly insulted my english ability, which is entirely pretentious and worth being called out.

The other two are just me pointing out that the way you debate is annoying to people, which given the upvotes, I'm sure I'm right there.

What I find unacceptable here is the stance you seem to have that you are entitled to constantly mock and degrade someone you are having a discussion with, so long as it remains below a certain level, but as soon as you are met with any manner of perceived disrespect, in the same fashion that you are constantly treating others with, you escalate to the absolute extreme and make the claim that it was justified by what the other person said.

Calling people's debate tactics dishonest are not the same thing as insulting them personally which you did. Calling people's arguments and the way they debate dishonest is surely the same thing as saying someone doesn't understand english.

You're taking things out of context to enhance this victim narrative you have going on and it's not working. We both said some immature things, i'll admit that, but I think you trying to act like I was acting in a way I did not is the problem I have,

I don't really find this acceptable, but that is only my own opinion and I am not an unbiased party in this affair. I encourage other staff members to read the discussion that occurred and draw their own conclusions.

Ok dude. You can keep believing that.

Edit: Please explain how it's not an insult to say I was throwing a temper tantrum and such?

 

[Crabwhale]

Deagon can definitely rub people the wrong way, but in this case you're acting more problematic and inflamatory than he is, Arcker.

This ain't your first time on this rodeo, dude. You should know better.

 

[Arcker123]

Deagon can definitely rub people the wrong way, but in this case you're acting more problematic and inflamatory than he is, Arcker.

I called him dishonest and pretentious when he blatantly insulted my intelligence.

You can believe whatever you want about who's worse, that's inconsequential to me, I'm just explaining why I said some of the things I said and how Deagon was mischaracteirzaling things I said and the things he said.

This ain't your first time on this rodeo, dude. You should know better.

Uh sure we can agree on that.

I just think that it being a reportable offense to call someone dishonest on a debating website, where honesty is of upmost importance is a ridiculous but I won't harp on it here.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Deagon made multiple remarks insulting my intelligence such as the one where he claims that he was taking me to English class or sum.

That's what the first two messages are responding too. Me just getting annoyed at his pretentious and unearned insults.

Then you ignore them. Responding back with comments like "pretenious fool," or "clown" doesn't help anything regardless of who said what first. You can easily message another staff member to stop the nonsense.

"Pretentiously laugh at him" was a sarcastic joke, and that was obvious by the fact it was crossed out. The fact you're using statements like this is again another mark against your credibility in this report.

Not really, as some people (mainly new users) on this site don't know that crossing out comments means it's suppose to be a joke, it's not like it's a rule, and if comments are exchanged between users that aren't on friendly terms or even know each other like that you could simply cross it out but still mean it (this is not saying that's your intention) but if the two users are in even a minor exchange and one starts making sarcastic joke, it doesn't help at all. My point is that using these comments doesn't hamper credibility, but it's also not something that hammers a point home.

The fact you actually think this is serious is again just false and hampers your credibility.

Why? You make sarcastic jokes but that doesn't make it a valid excuse when in even a small heated exchange that can get you annoyed which you mentioned you were when you made those two other comments mentioned in the post above. My point is the same as above, these comments could very well be sarcastic jokes but when in an exchange between two people that results in a report being made in the Rule Violation thread these aren't things to just gloss over in my opinion but once again, potential joke comments don't add much to credibility but they sure don't hinder it when it reaches the point where we end up in the on this thread.

Now with that said, I don't think everything Deagon mentioned is iron tight and comments made by Deagon weren't needed especially when it's regarding someone's intelligence because shit like that hits hard for someone like me, but it's clear y'all should know better.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with LordGriffin and Crabwhale, while I agree Deagon isn't normally the best behaved Thread Mod, Arcker was clearly the one who said more offensive comments here and is the one instigating the drama in the topic.

 

[Damage3245]

I agree with LordGriffin and Crabwhale, while I agree Deagon isn't normally the best behaved Thread Mod, Arcker was clearly the one who said more offensive comments here and is the one instigating the drama in the topic.

These are my thoughts on the matter as well.

 

[Arcker123]

Then you ignore them. Responding back with comments like "pretenious fool," or "clown" doesn't help anything regardless of who said what first. You can easily message another staff member to stop the nonsense.

I don't think that's reasonable to ask in the middle of a debate.

Maybe I have debate brain ego, but of course I'm going to respond to some guy who tries to claim he knows English better than me and laughably fails at that.

Not really, as some people (mainly new users) on this site don't know that crossing out comments means it's suppose to be a joke, it's not like it's a rule, and if comments are exchanged between users that aren't on friendly terms or even know each other like that you could simply cross it out but still mean it (this is not saying that's your intention) but if the two users are in even a minor exchange and one starts making sarcastic joke, it doesn't help at all. My point is that using these comments doesn't hamper credibility, but it's also not something that hammers a point home.

Even if we give Deagon this level of charity, which he honestly doesn't deserve due to his experience and position as staff, it still doesn't change the fact these aren't insults, which we seem to agree on.

I think it hampers credibility because I think I'm justified in assuming he knew what it meant.

Why? You make sarcastic jokes but that doesn't make it a valid excuse when in even a small heated exchange that can get you annoyed which you mentioned you were when you made those two other comments mentioned in the post above. My point is the same as above, these comments could very well be sarcastic jokes but when in an exchange between two people that results in a report being made in the Rule Violation thread these aren't things to just gloss over in my opinion but once again, potential joke comments don't add much to credibility but they sure don't hinder it when it reaches the point where we end up in the on this thread.

Well if you're reporting someone, you're obviously going to make little things seem like a much bigger deal than they are. That's kind of a bias that comes with reporting someone. The fact Deagon is just so Blatantly wrong here should make his accounts of other things I said less reliable, especially the obvious jokes like this one.

You can get details incorrect for noble reasons, but the fact you're wrong alone is the credibility dampener.

I agree with LordGriffin and Crabwhale, while I agree Deagon isn't normally the best behaved Thread Mod, Arcker was clearly the one who said more offensive comments here and is the one instigating the drama in the topic.

How is calling someone dishonest more offensive than saying someone doesn't know English.

How did I instigate any drama when I never attempted to make this a rule violations issue?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

bump

Oh yea. Considering that this seems to be a misunderstanding I'll just drop my case against you.

 

[Deagonx]

Given the relative unanimity in staff input here, do any of you have an opinion on what action should be taken, if any? He was banned for rude behavior in most recently in October.

 

[Arcker123]

Unamity in what?

We both behaved poorly but I was slightly worse? Only two people said that.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Given the relative unanimity in staff input here, do any of you have an opinion on what action should be taken, if any? He was banned for rude behavior in most recently in October.

I rather consider the stories and feelings of both sides; I’m more inclined both of you should be supportive of a warning. A ban for him is too far tbh, considering he wouldn’t be incisive if it weren’t for you making such remarks.

 

[Deagonx]

considering he wouldn’t be incisive if it weren’t for you making such remarks.

Personally, I don't agree. He was rude the entire time, he simply got considerably ruder once I finally said something mild toward him, which itself wasn't nearly as bad as what he'd been saying in each comment leading up to it. In any other context we likely wouldn't even consider a remark like "I don't want to be your English teacher" as warning worthy, IMO. It's just been misdescribed as "insulting his intelligence" to justify what came after.

 

[Arcker123]

How could you possibly think claiming that I don't know English isn't an Insult to my intelligence? The point is that it's incredibly condescending at best and that's why I called you pretentious. I also had a problem with you calling my arguments a "temper tantrum" and the claim that you were "teaching an English class." This is incredibly condescending and meant to belittle me. Of course I called you pretentious when you can't even defend any of that.

He was rude the entire time, he simply got considerably ruder once I finally said something mild toward him,

I called you dishonest when you were being dishonest. When you started to act condescending I called you pretentious.

Do you think calling my arguments a temper tantrum is any better or worse than me.saying yours are dishonest? Honest question here.

 

[Deagonx]

claiming that I don't know English

I'll also clarify for others, I didn't say this. The discussion revolved around explaining the difference between two words, and I said "I don't want to be your English teacher" with regard to continually explaining what the word meant. Not "you don't know English."

 

[Arcker123]

What do you think that implies? In conjunction with the claim you're "running an English class," The meaning of the joke is saying I do not know English well and have to be educated on word meaning. Something I found deeply pretentious.

This is not an honest argument. You know full well what that means, and I'm not misdescribing things for saying the meaning.