Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I believe the Chase case was already discussed multiple times on DM's. While my thoughts are similar to Bambu's that his fetishes are indeed cringe or outright disgusting, or even borderline immoral. It's nothing officially illegal; lolicon and pedophilia are two widely different things and there is no evidence to suggest he is guilty of that. If anything, someone brought up a defense in which he verified actual pedophiles are something he despises. Neo's actual violation is harassing him on his wall just for "Kokosing posts who disagreed with him." And also brought up a bunch of offsite stuff already brought up numerous times and already got rejected numerous times.

Also, Fandom staff probably will say there's nothing we really can judge offsite. Let's not have a repeat of the trolls who tried to get Damage banned for the fanfictions he created and said trolls tried to report him to Fandom only for it to get passed as offsite drama that is not relevant to Fandom TOS.

I'm not sure if I remember racism stuff, but those just seem like out of context slur words that are also on the list of things we don't really ban people for.

 

[Antvasima]

From what I know of him on my server his behavior was a complete improvement from what those SS dictate so I'm skeptical to continue to hold that view, mainly because they were mostly shit-talks with lot of controversial stuffs, but at the end, shit-talks about anime and/or VN characters.

If they were shit-talks rather than sincere sentiments that is a very different issue, even if what he said was still disgusting, but beyond a certain point I do not think that we should keep members who, for example, would sincerely advocate for systematic misogynistic rape, torture, ruthless tyranny, supremacist genocide, and similar. That is just an unrelated example though.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

From a moral standpoint, I absolutely agree that Chase ought to not be a part of this community.

But from a site rules standpoint, I’m pretty sure I’m our hands are tied on the matter, unfortunately.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm not sure if I remember racism stuff, but those just seem like out of context slur words that are also on the list of things we don't really ban people for.

Please see the deleted post here:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-6261544

 

[Antvasima]

From a moral standpoint, I absolutely agree that Chase ought to not be a part of this community.

But from a site rules standpoint, I’m pretty sure I’m our hands are tied on the matter, unfortunately.

Don't we have any rules for "beyond the point of no return" ridiculously extreme cases at least? If not, I think that we should institute them.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Frankly, I've grown utterly tired of the extent to which this "off-site behavior" rule has been abused, to the point where you can see the most reprehensible shit and be like "ok but it was off-site tho"

There's gotta be a limit to how far that excuse can take you. At some point, you've gotta put your foot down and say "hey, this is something that our community should have absolutely no business with."

Don't we have any rules for "beyond the point of no return" ridiculously extreme cases at least? If not, I think that we should institute them.

If we don't, please do. The fact that something like this can just be so easily handwaved is absurd

 

[Lonkitt]

Don't we have any rules for "beyond the point of no return" ridiculously extreme cases at least? If not, I think that we should institute them.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Any kind of off site behaviour that reveals up straight up predatory and racist behaviour should be applicable on the forum in terms of taking serious action. I don't care if it wasn't on the site. If you know somebody is a predator/racist, why would you allow them on the site? Just because its on another site doesn't mean they're a totally different person on the forum. If we actually give a shit about our policies against that kind of stuff, then we need to actually prove it and take action against these people. Its legitimately disgusting that just because its off site, people will shrug and say "nothing we can do". We're better than that, like come on

Chase absolutely needs to get booted and we need to remedy the "restriction" we have on the off site stuff

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I'm not actually that familiar with Chase or what he's done (I'll look into it later when I have more time), but I absolutely agree that people who display truly reprehensible behavior or hold genuinely evil views should get the boot without a doubt.
Off-site or not, I don't think any of us want to share the same space with morally bankrupt individuals, especially when this place is an escape from that kind of shit for quite a few of us here.

 

[Armorchompy]

Ban Chase. We can't ban people for any kind of bad off-site behavior, but this a line must be drawn and this guy is way the **** past it.

 

[LordTracer]

I wholeheartedly agree with banning Chase. “It was off-site tho” is, to put it bluntly, a shit reason to excuse people for saying and behaving completely reprehensibly. We don’t need people like that on the site, and we definitely don’t need people to acknowledge that, only to turn around and go ”yeah but it wasn’t on the forum“ and give it a pass.

Not to mention that we HAVE banned people for off-site behavior if it’s bad enough, it happened a few months ago with a user who got permabanned for being blatantly transphobic off-site. So there’s a precedent, and we should be using it now.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Any kind of off site behaviour that reveals up straight up predatory and racist behaviour should be applicable on the forum in terms of taking serious action. I don't care if it wasn't on the site. If you know somebody is a predator/racist, why would you allow them on the site? Just because its on another site doesn't mean they're a totally different person on the forum. If we actually give a shit about our policies against that kind of stuff, then we need to actually prove it and take action against these people. Its legitimately disgusting that just because its off site, people will shrug and say "nothing we can do". We're better than that, like come on

Chase absolutely needs to get booted and we need to remedy the "restriction" we have on the off site stuff

We do have rules that promoting hate speech is demotion worthy, though not quite ban worthy. Likewise, we also should not do the opposite issue to take every out of context joke of poor taste people say and use it as a weapon to get basically anybody banned. And as for what's ban worthy, it's agreed that harassing people in DMs, threating someone's RL situations such as doxxing or commiting major cybercrimes (Piracy is not something considered extreme) but if we have people who either hacked others, committed phishing scams, or uploaded actual CP; those are all indeed permaban worthy offenses on the spot.

Please see the deleted post here:

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-6261544

I have seen that post, and it's another post that has already been brought up numerous times and rejected. He was calling someone the N word in a joking context (And I'm not even sure if the person he called that was actually black). And the use of the word C***y or C***ies was just a general term for female body part. Which he was talking about fictional characters who "Looked cute and sexy." It's still been agreed that wasn't something we can really ban people over. Though my thoughts on the matter are similar to Maverick's. But I think deliberate trolling is a more realistic standard assumption when someone says slur words or hate speech as opposed to them actually being racist or bigoted. Though deliberate trolling is a serious offense for other reasons.

I do agree that overall our offsite rules might have been a bit too lenient. I too am not the biggest "Anything goes as long as it's offsite." And I do often times think "It's a joke" is becoming far too cliché of a defense to where it's hardly considered a defense anymore; especially they wait before getting outed before making such a statement instead of making the signs of joking right away. I strongly agree that actual genocidal maniac supporters and borderline child predators absolutely should be permabanned. More over, I did say there just because not every word is covered in our rules is not a good reason to ignore common sense. If someone has a history of being so toxic, they've been permabanned from every platform they been to for good reason, then we should not have any hopes they'll behave any better here. There should be some middle ground: some offsite things should just be kept offsite, some offsite stuff is demotion worthy if staff are commiting it but not ban worthy, other offsite stuff is ban worthy and offsite does not excuse it.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I wholeheartedly agree with DDM.

 

[Armorchompy]

I have seen that post, and it's another post that has already been brought up numerous times and rejected. He was calling someone the N word in a joking context (And I'm not even sure if the person he called that was actually black). And the use of the word C***y or C***ies was just a general term for female body part

Those terms are a specific lolicon thing. One might just not be aware of that of course, that's the nature of internet language and memetic transmission, but given the context and the other stuff he said I... I wouldn't really assume that.

More over, I did say there just because not every word is covered in our rules is not a good reason to ignore common sense.

This is my reasoning here. We're not a government that must abide by its own laws, we're a medium-sized internet community that is capable of exercising personal judgement over things. Let's be real, a permaban isn't really that damning in the great scheme of things. We're not sending the guy to prison, we're just clicking a button and preventing him from interacting with the community on-site anymore. It's not going to ruin his life.

 

[KLOL506]

From a moral standpoint, I absolutely agree that Chase ought to not be a part of this community.

But from a site rules standpoint, I’m pretty sure I’m our hands are tied on the matter, unfortunately.

At this point I couldn't give a hot shit about what the site rule says if it means protecting our community from people like Chase. Shit like this is simply far too deplorable for anyone in good conscience to allow IMHO. It's not the content alone that's making me advocate for a permanent ban, it's the way he delivers them that angers me so.

 

[Crabwhale]

I think rules exist for a good reason, and I myself am no stranger to controversial or raunchy methods of speaking off-site that would get me instantly axed were they to be judged by our standards.

What I think matters is intent. You can joke about a lot of things among friends. I ain't never met a friend group however, even the most unhinged of them, that actively joke about minor rape, and other such lovely things related to underaged people. I don't think this person is right in the head, and quite frankly, like a lot of other people here, I don't want them around the website frequented by underaged members.

Change the rule or make an exception this time, I don't much care what we do. I just know I want disgusting behavior like this as far ******* away from us as possible.

 

[Antvasima]

I very strongly agree with Crabwhale here.

 

[Agnaa]

I would therefore agree with at least a short general ban for BasedNecoScaler, on the grounds that poor behavior is not a new thing for them. Agnaa mentioned one week: I think this is too lenient in-context, and would argue for a month.

Yeah fair. Initially, that post suggested "At least 1-4 weeks", which I revised down after some further thought. But now that you mention Neco's history of bad behaviour, a longer ban does seem more reasonable.

It is not 'tame' to accuse people of being 'disciples of Epstein' and 'Epstein defenders'.

Hey now, that's not what I said. I think my previous posts make it clear that I was calling this screenshot tame.

Nothing about it being stated about a large amount of people makes it any less severe.

I think it does. I think we should treat the statement "You're a dumb ****" quite differently from how we'd treat the statements "There's a few dumb ***** among the staff" and "Some of this verse's supporters are dumb *****". And from what I've seen, we typically do.

Nor does taking action against it constitute a precedent that could be reasonably used to ignore serious, legitimate accusations in the future, because these comments were obviously not made as legitimate accusations. NecoScaler obviously doesn't actually believe the VSBW staff body is made up of people associated with Epstein. He made those comments for the purpose of targeting and insulting people he took issue with. We would not refer back to this situation if there was real reason to believe staff members were involved in serious crimes in the future, and I consider it ridiculous to think we would.

I don't so much think that we'd have people come forward with evidence, who also say "X user is {allegation}", and that we'd just ban the accuser and ignore the evidence.

Rather, I think it'd make it less likely for such allegations to gain evidence, traction, and an ear to hear them out, before the user involved gets banned.

And I'm not just inventing a scenario here; that exact thing happened with Sera. Some users were talking about the possibility of her having multiple socks, and using the photo of a model to claim as herself, on Discord. A dozen or so users involved with this were banned, with the situation not being properly rectified until years later, as their later attempts to substantiate it were labelled "doxxing" and "destabilizing the wiki".

While we've improved in this regard, I think banning NecoScaler for this statement would be a backslide. But I do think some amount of ban for the message wall comments, especially given his unsavoury history, is justified.

But ultimately, this isn't about Chase, and it hasn't been. NecoScaler doesn't think the staff are 'disciples of Epstein', and he doesn't think calling people 'Epstein defenders' is going to change anything. He's leveraging the situation to make wholly inappropriate replies under a a shield of justification that he himself knows isn't legitimate.

Bit more of a minor point, but this is what I meant when I said the "disciples of Epstein" comment was shitposty. The laughable absurdity of such a claim is one of the components that makes it hard for me to take it too seriously.

I will also add, for those who may be later evaluating this, not long after this report was made Marshadow posted a meme about pedophilia in an unrelated One Piece revision.

I find this representation of it a bit sparse on context. That thread already had rampant derailing and shitposting for 10 posts beforehand. The way you say it makes it sound like Neco jumped into a serious thread to post jokes about it. Rather, a thread was already derailed, Monke brought up this situation to NecoScaler, and NecoScaler responded in kind.

Also, if the screencapture we were shown was accurate, I personally think that we should permanently ban Chase from our community without a chance for any appeals in the future. I do not want extremely malevolent and degenerate people being a part of this place, especially given that the majority of our members are quite young.

Since this sentiment ended up being expressed in a lot of ensuing posts, I'll use this as a proxy for all of them.

I largely stand by the view that we shouldn't care about off-site behaviour except in cases where:

• It directly impacts the site and/or its users (directly harassing, threatening, or impersonating someone, plotting malicious actions against the site itself).
• They engage in online criminal activity that makes them a heavy liability to our site.

I don't view having reprehensible views as falling under either of these. Those views become a concern when they're acted upon, leading them to become a heavy liability.

The only thing making me reconsider this is the excessive vulnerability of potential victims in this case (children using our site). But even then, until there's a hint of Chase having attempted grooming (or worse) before, I find the idea of banning for an off-site thought-crime too hard to stomach.

Don't we have any rules for "beyond the point of no return" ridiculously extreme cases at least? If not, I think that we should institute them.

I'd find such a concept pretty hard to judge, since I think whether they're past that point is more dependent on their age than the extremity of the statements. When I was a teenager I was immature enough to laugh about things like dead baby jokes, so I can easily imagine Chase's comments being in the same vein, but if Chase was a decade or so older it would be cause for significant concern.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Any kind of off site behaviour that reveals up straight up predatory and racist behaviour should be applicable on the forum in terms of taking serious action. I don't care if it wasn't on the site. If you know somebody is a predator/racist, why would you allow them on the site? Just because its on another site doesn't mean they're a totally different person on the forum. If we actually give a shit about our policies against that kind of stuff, then we need to actually prove it and take action against these people. Its legitimately disgusting that just because its off site, people will shrug and say "nothing we can do". We're better than that, like come on

Chase absolutely needs to get booted and we need to remedy the "restriction" we have on the off site stuff

I'm not looking forward to the deluge of reports, against both staff and non-staff users, such a change in philosophy would make, if applied retroactively. I've seen many users comfortable making bigoted jokes on Discord since they knew it was allowed.

 

[DarkGrath]

I largely agree with Crabwhale's thoughts. Particularly, with this section.

I don't want them around the website frequented by underaged members.

Our off-site rules follow a specific and intentional framework that, for the most part, we have followed due to a mutual understanding and agreement with their justification. The underlying principles are that:

1: Off-site behaviour is not in our jurisdiction, and should not constitute on-site punishments.

2: Off-site behaviour that manifests in on-site behaviour is in our jurisdiction, and can constitute on-site punishments.

3: Off-site illegal behaviour is also not in our jurisdiction, but constitutes a necessary permanent ban for the sake of community safety.

These principles are, ultimately, why we have often been lenient about off-site misconduct. If someone makes a creepy comment on-site, that's in our jurisdiction and something we had ought to take action on. However, if someone makes a creepy comment off-site - and this comment of theirs does not affect their conduct on-site whatsoever - we tend to think of taking action on such matters as an overstep of our boundaries. Hence why, as I recall, Chase was not punished in the past for his comments. His comments were made purely off-site, they did not constitute illegal conduct, and they did not impact their on-site conduct, so it was agreed that it was an overstep of boundaries to take action on the basis of those comments.

I have always had my objections to this verdict, though with the understanding that it was justified under the principles we have largely agreed to. My problem is that I don't think off-site comments, even those that are kept entirely off-site, truly have no influence on on-site interactions. Even if the misconduct is not directly translated to on-site misconduct, I would be remiss to say that someone who has publicly made the comments that Chase has - even as a joke - would not in any way negatively impact on-site interactions. This wiki has underage people on it, and I would not expect those people to feel safe or comfortable on the same threads as someone who has openly joked about r**ing underage people. As much as we have justified these principles in the past, I consider this circumstance to demonstrate the limitations of those principles - because this is not a justifiable variation of the wiki to the members who partake in it.

Importantly, I do not want our verdict in this situation to overstretch to interjecting in wholly private matters. If someone, purely as a private matter that they do not openly express with people involved in the community, looks at drawn pictures of underage fictional characters with sexual connotations, I don't believe that is our business. What someone is attracted to - even to the extent of social and moral taboos - is not something someone can actively control, and it is very different from what someone does with that attraction. If someone partakes in it in a form that harms no one and has zero influence on their public behaviour, then I wouldn't consider ourselves justified in interjecting. My suggested addendum here, however, is to consider the instances where off-site behaviour indirectly influences on-site interactions (specifically, with regard to public off-site misconduct that could lead to distress or discomfort on-site to a similar degree as on-site misconduct) as a cause for reasonable punishment.

 

[Agnaa]

Chase has provided a message in defense of himself, but wanted part of it to only be shared among certain staff members. Admins, bureaucrats, and HR members, please have a read over it. The public part can be found here.

My take is that I don't really see it changing anyone's minds; I think the relevant ideas brought up were already suggested by other people, but hearing it from him has a chance of helping I guess.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I speak on this begrudgingly again because it is my role to do so. I do not enjoy defending my position because I see both positions as bad.

I agree with the notion that all off-site behavior, to an extent, impacts our forum. However, I also then agree with the idea that this quickly becomes a slippery slope, to be potentially weaponized by bad elements (as they have in the past). We have seen bad actors attempt to take relatively harmless off-site behavior (Crab's joking use of the N-word) and portray it as morally reprehensible, as a means of attacking Crab. If we take steps to create policies allowing perceived poor behavior offsite to be punishable by ban onsite, it will come in short order that we receive a bloat of pointless nothing-reports made by people who just don't like the person they're reporting, and look for any comment made in bad taste as evidence for their ban.

On a similar note, I think some of the suggestions here make it far too easy for someone to claim "just a prank" as a legitimate defense, and would leave us open to that with little to offer as a response.

It has already been said: Chase's actions offsite, however degenerate and reprehensible, have not been noticeably reflected in his activity on-site. As I maintain that our rules extend precisely as far as they need to in their current state, I do not support a change to Chase's verdict- although this was a question I grappled with for some time.

 

[Theglassman12]

I share the same view as Crab and DarkGrath, there has to be a line with offsite behavior, especially when it involves disgusting behaviors that can and will make numerous users on the site feel unsafe about when one of the points of the site is to be an escapism from folks like these. Ban Chase, nothing more that needs to be said.

 

[Crabwhale]

I don't think this report is the teetering on the edge of the abyss that those opposed to the ban are thinking it is.

Every person that has spoken up recognizes the exceptional circumstances this represents. And even if there are users dumb enough to take advantage of the fallout of these circumstances to rail on people they don't like, we will clamp down on it.

I say this as someone who has faced such allegations in the past, and as someone who has struggled with the implications of it before. I comprehend where Bambu and Agnaa are coming from. I understand, truly, I do.

In spite of all that and after much deliberation with myself and others however, I still think this is the best decisiom moving forward.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think this report is the teetering on the edge of the abyss that those opposed to the ban are thinking it is.

Every person that has spoken up recognizes the exceptional circumstances this represents. And even if there are users dumb enough to take advantage of the fallout of these circumstances to rail on people they don't like, we will clamp down on it.

I say this as someone who has faced such allegations in the past, and as someone who has struggled with the implications of it before. I comprehend where Bambu and Agnaa are coming from. I understand, truly, I do.

In spite of all that and after much deliberation with myself and others however, I still think this is the best decisiom moving forward.

Then I think you don't know our users very well.

We cannot "clamp down on it" if we are the ones to open up the floodgates. Our users are too quick to report on even simple matters, much less on something as severe as this. If a rule can be weaponized, it consistently is. As you say, you know this- but I don't think you have reckoned with how it would affect the wider community, rather you have reckoned with how it has affected you.

 

[KLOL506]

I'd rather we didn't engage in needless whataboutism here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'd rather we didn't engage in needless whataboutism here.

That isn't "whataboutism". It is direct evidence to my previous point and counterevidence to the notion that we're all being overcautious. Thank you for the needless concern, however.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Then I think you don't know our users very well.

We cannot "clamp down on it" if we are the ones to open up the floodgates. Our users are too quick to report on even simple matters, much less on something as severe as this. If a rule can be weaponized, it consistently is. As you say, you know this- but I don't think you have reckoned with how it would affect the wider community, rather you have reckoned with how it has affected you.

Why not add a clause which would refer to such cases which would allow staff to act against the person doing the report? Aka punish the one doing the report, if their report was targeting someone staff would find that the reporting person don't like ,so it would pretty much be a personal attack, and especially if it's based on shaky ground.

 

[Crabwhale]

Then I think you don't know our users very well.

We cannot "clamp down on it" if we are the ones to open up the floodgates. Our users are too quick to report on even simple matters, much less on something as severe as this. If a rule can be weaponized, it consistently is. As you say, you know this- but I don't think you have reckoned with how it would affect the wider community, rather you have reckoned with how it has affected you.

We are opening no floodgates here is my entire point. And I have considered how doing nothing has affected the community. It is not something I wish to prolong doing in this instance.

It is true, perhaps I am coming from a place of less consideration towards my own status and reputation than I should. And I am also intimately familiar with Arcker being a punkass. But those are not relevant in this case, I feel.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We are opening no floodgates here is my entire point. And I have considered how doing nothing has affected the community. It is not something I wish to prolong doing in this instance.

It is true, perhaps I am coming from a place of less consideration towards my own status and reputation than I should. And I am also intimately familiar with Arcker being a punkass. But those are not relevant in this case, I feel.

I understood that was the position you were arguing from, yes. The post above highlights the opposite, however- that our users will indeed jump on the opportunity to start trouble with unrelated cases, given the fuel to do so. That is the nature of slippery slopes.

If it is decided that this shall go one way as opposed to the other, then it will be so: I am used to being outvoted, it is not new. But as usual, I do maintain the right to say "I told you so" at every opportunity in the future when it goes awry, another thing I am used to. Shall be my last post on the subject.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Providing new info on the chase matter. Most of the view here is "even though he may be a degenerate who like children, we can't ban him for offsite behavior"
Well he is not one to even begin with, I have known him for sometime now. The screenshot posted of him saying the things are from May of this year, this was something he said a year before that in 2022. Which really goes in line that those stuffs he said were for giggles. He did not want to play K3 one of masada entries due to the fact that it has lolis, if he loves them it will be the reverse.

Regardless, he knows better now and should not have said them anyway. So if your intention to ban him is because he may be a pedophile, he is not.

 

[Deagonx]

I feel the need to point out, I find it kind of odd that we are all getting taken on this ride of having it out about Chase's presence here -- a user who has like 10 forum posts within the last 6 months -- because Marshadow chose to instigate drama.

No one here is defending Chase, directly or indirectly. But for good reason I do not want to be tasked with handling immoral conduct off site, and it is indeed a slippery slope despite what some have said.

It is easy to say that Chase is such a bad case that the decision is simple and it needn't go further than that because remarks made in a pedophilic vein are entirely beyond the pale.

Well, for me personally, saying a racial slur is beyond the pale. Saying a homophobic slur is beyond the pale. Being transphobic is beyond the pale. If I knew anyone who made such remarks I'd immediately eject them from my life.

But my experience has been that discord communities don't share my sensibilities. People do those things a lot. Users who are otherwise in good standing, some of whom are staff members.

These things are not okay, but I'll repeat, I signed up to moderate this forum. I did not sign up to moderate the personal lives of every single member to make a decision about whether they are so unethical that they simply can't be here regardless of where this unethical conduct took place. And considering that, like, a collective 5 members of staff give enough of a shit to handle RVR reports that they are not directly involved in it's truly surprising to see so many people come here with an opinion on the Chase situation despite having essentially no stake in the second-order effects it would have.

Chase says gross and horrible things on discord. I don't like that. But I do not want the RVR to become an off-site ethics tribunal for the degeneracy that is so commonplace in internet communities.

 

[Antvasima]

I speak on this begrudgingly again because it is my role to do so. I do not enjoy defending my position because I see both positions as bad.

I agree with the notion that all off-site behavior, to an extent, impacts our forum. However, I also then agree with the idea that this quickly becomes a slippery slope, to be potentially weaponized by bad elements (as they have in the past). We have seen bad actors attempt to take relatively harmless off-site behavior (Crab's joking use of the N-word) and portray it as morally reprehensible, as a means of attacking Crab. If we take steps to create policies allowing perceived poor behavior offsite to be punishable by ban onsite, it will come in short order that we receive a bloat of pointless nothing-reports made by people who just don't like the person they're reporting, and look for any comment made in bad taste as evidence for their ban.

On a similar note, I think some of the suggestions here make it far too easy for someone to claim "just a prank" as a legitimate defense, and would leave us open to that with little to offer as a response.

It has already been said: Chase's actions offsite, however degenerate and reprehensible, have not been noticeably reflected in his activity on-site. As I maintain that our rules extend precisely as far as they need to in their current state, I do not support a change to Chase's verdict- although this was a question I grappled with for some time.

Bambu makes very good sense to me above as usual.

If we would add some rule text that covers thoroughly extreme and over the line viewpoints expressed outside of our forum, and that are not said in "jest" or are taken completely out of context, is there some ways to word said rule text in a way with good safeguards that do not open the floodgates for inappropriate retroactive rule violation reports that we are not able to properly evaluate the validity of?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Also, I have removed NecoScaler's thread ban, so he can explain himself. He does not seem anywhere near as malevolent as Chase, so he has a right to defend himself as well. However, please make sure to behave yourself properly, Neco.

Also, if the screencapture we were shown was accurate, I personally think that we should permanently ban Chase from our community without a chance for any appeals in the future. I do not want extremely malevolent and degenerate people being a part of this place, especially given that the majority of our members are quite young.

The intial post on chases were just a shitpost intended for goofs, while i do think chases actions are completely digusting ( i have made that clear many times before on discord), i never planned to escalate things further ( or cause any drama) until someone made it an RVR issue. I think the overall tone of the messages makes that pretty clear.
To be honest, i really dont give a shit what comments chase likes. If idid, I would be saying a whole lot worse, he deserves it for his... tastes.
The disciples of epstein comment was less accusing anyone of anything of anything and more of i hope no one actually defends this guy to make a case on me, cause that'd be pathetic and lame.


Also, please get rid of that guy. A person THAT deep into the loli shit isnt going to improve, he's just going to make his prefrences more private so you cant pick up on it.
You cant change your sexual attractions THAT quickly.

 

[KLOL506]

Bambu makes very good sense to me above as usual.

If we would add some rule text that covers thoroughly extreme and over the line viewpoints expressed outside of our forum, and that are not said in "jest" or are taken completely out of context, is there some ways to word said rule text in a way with good safeguards that do not open the floodgates for inappropriate retroactive rule violation reports that we are not able to properly evaluate the validity of?

Ant, WTF. Like, straight up, WTF.

Nothing Chase said here was jest-worthy. No amount of context justifies anything Chase said. None of this fixes our problems and this completely removes responsibility to keep our community safe. Why the hell are you backtracking on this?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Frankly, I feel like this kind of discussion on a more codified rule would need its own thread. As far as the Chase situation goes, I mean... The verdict seems pretty obvious. The majority of staff are in favor of a permaban. I don't see how anyone can just turn a blind eye to that. And if I come off as overly blunt, it's because I take things like this incredibly seriously

For reference, the current tally for those who agree with a permaban vs. those who disagree is as follows:

Agree: 11 (CloverDragon03, KLOL506, UchihaSlayer96, Lonkitt, LordTracer, Theglassman12, Armorchompy, Crabwhale, DarkGrath, Antvasima, Maverick)
Disagree: 6 (Deagonx, GarrixianXD, Agnaa, Bambu, DarkDragonMedeus, Dereck03)

 

[KLOL506]

I am legitimately surprised people are more worried about "second-hand effects" and "muh rules don't cover off-site shit" instead of actually doing anything about Chase to begin with. Like holy shit, that's a serious lapse of judgment if I ever saw one. That's just as bad as the second-hand effects if not worse.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

The intial post on chases were just a shitpost intended for goofs, while i do think chases actions are completely digusting ( i have made that clear many times before on discord), i never planned to escalate things further ( or cause any drama) until someone made it an RVR issue. I think the overall tone of the messages makes that pretty clear.
To be honest, i really dont give a shit what comments chase likes. If idid, I would be saying a whole lot worse, he deserves it for his... tastes.
The disciples of epstein comment was less accusing anyone of anything of anything and more of i hope no one actually defends this guy to make a case on me, cause that'd be pathetic and lame.


Also, please get rid of that guy. A person THAT deep into the loli shit isnt going to improve, he's just going to make his prefrences more private so you cant pick up on it.
You cant change your sexual attractions THAT quickly.

i'd like to add, he isnt just attracted to the funny little anime drawings either, he's attracted to REAL LIFE PEOPLE who look like kids.

[Edit: The disturbing image has been removed, but the point is well made.]

Like come on. This is just a walking case given form.
We want to give this person as little access to children and teenagers as possible

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Frankly, I feel like this kind of discussion on a more codified rule would need its own thread. As far as the Chase situation goes, I mean... The verdict seems pretty obvious. The majority of staff are in favor of a permaban. I don't see how anyone can just turn a blind eye to that. And if I come off as overly blunt, it's because I take things like this incredibly seriously

For reference, the current tally for those who agree with a permaban vs. those who disagree is as follows:

Agree: 10 (CloverDragon03, KLOL506, UchihaSlayer96, Lonkitt, LordTracer, Theglassman12, Armorchompy, Crabwhale, DarkGrath, Antvasima)
Disagree: 6 (Deagonx, GarrixianXD, Agnaa, Bambu, DarkDragonMedeus, Dereck03)

I know Maverick has also commented, but I'm admittedly not sure where to put her, as she's spoken both for and against the ban

I’m for the ban to be clear.

 

[Crabwhale]

I would like for discussion on this case to be halted for just a slight amount of time as I am currently having something in regards to Chase's conduct investigated. It is not related to his off-site behavior, but it is absolutely related to his work as an on-site translator.

 

[Catzlaflame]

(Not a point about Chase's report, specificially, but a point on the matter as a whole)

If we would add some rule text that covers thoroughly extreme and over the line viewpoints expressed outside of our forum,

The proposed rule text shouldn't aim to encompass every specific instance that counts as "crossing the line" imo.

The level of specificity (i.e., the characteristic that ALL such reports should share) should just be that they all need to be very extreme, and should be blantant enough to appeal to a fundamental level of logic.

Sure what people consider "blatant" examples of "extreme" behavior is subjective, but creating a hyperspecific set of guidelines on what is too far when it comes to off-site behavior is only going to lead to semantic debates, with numerous comments saying something to the tune of "Oh but TECHNICALLY according to the rules, this isn't a genuine overreach so you can't punish me for this"

With something like this, IMO, it should be left broad and case-by case; it should depend primarily on sense of judgement; the staff will assess the proof and determine if the reporter is simply being extra/is targeting someone else, or if the reportee is truly someone we don't want on the wiki.

With this in mind, here is a rough draft (that would fit in right here):

Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of ~ (Already on page)

• - Extremely inappropriate behavior, fundamentally beyond trolling/joking, that demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the user in question is not someone that the members of the wiki would feel comfortable being around; these reports are to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and any specific targeting for reasons unrelated to their behavior, will not be tolerateed by any means.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I would like for discussion on this case to be halted for just a slight amount of time as I am currently having something in regards to Chase's conduct investigated. It is not related to his off-site behavior, but it is absolutely related to his work as an on-site translator.

I’m fine with that