• 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)

LuffyRuffy46307 said:
How many warnings would be required for a ban?
Click to expand...
There’s no real set number, but typically, receiving multiple warnings regarding the same kind of thing and still doing it would be an indicator of the person having yet to shape up. Thus, a ban would be in order.

Also, please don’t fill up the thread with questions like this from here on out. It’s starting to clutter the report
 
Deidalius said:
Why do I get a Warning? Isn't that like a Strike?
Click to expand...
The "warning" I was referring to in the lower part of my previous comment is to stay away from each other and don't interact or you will get a warning, not you are about to get a warning on the list.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, uhhhh........☠️💀☠️

There is no world in which threatening to witch hunt someone is analogous to calling them a trash person lmao.

But anyway, I feel like these two individuals just seriously need to steer very clear of each other. They clearly do not mesh well with each other, and their continued interactions are a recipe for disaster.

At the same time, 3 prior warnings is a lot, so I'm not inherently opposed to a short ban for Fuji, either. However, I won't be pushing for that myself since Deidalius seems to be a rather inflammatory person, so I can sort of see why someone would lose their temper and go overboard due to being trolled incessantly. But again, that's no excuse for this sort of behavior in any case.

Like I said, a recipe for disaster, those two, so please.....just don't interact in the future lol. 🗿
 
CloverDragon03 said:
I feel the severity of that combined with her prior warnings regarding her behavior warrants a ban. Not too sure on the timeframe though
Click to expand...
I get this, but the only reason I'd prefer another warning over a ban is because this instance seems like a collective of past back and forth with Dei from what previous comments mentioned (obviously there is only so much one person can take before an outburst or rude comment comes out). So preferably I'd lean towards another warning but a short ban is fine enough it that's what majority think is ok.
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
I get this, but the only reason I'd prefer another warning over a ban is because this instance seems like a collective of past back and forth with Dei from what previous comments mentioned (obviously there is only so much one person can take before an outburst or rude comment comes out). So preferably I'd lean towards another warning but a short ban is fine enough it that's what majority think is ok.
Click to expand...
At some point, though, this isn’t just a singular outburst. Going as far as to say you’re gonna make sure no one wants to associate with someone again is something that I think goes beyond a simple outburst.

I’m also not a fan of giving people what I consider to be far too many chances.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
At some point, though, this isn’t just a singular outburst. Going as far as to say you’re gonna make sure no one wants to associate with someone again is something that I think goes beyond a simple outburst.

I’m also not a fan of giving people what I consider to be far too many chances.
Click to expand...
I know that which is why I'm not against a short ban if majority agree, I wasn't trying to look at it as a simple one time comment, just trying to explain my thoughts on the build up to the comment.
 
I've got nothing to defend. Deidalius is openly a lolicon. I pointed out how disgusting that is in the hopes that, at minimum, it would prevent people from interacting with someone like that - I certainly wouldn't want to be talking to a lolicon, in any case. That's what that comment meant at its core.

If that is more of an issue than Dei being a lolicon (and to be clear, having seen the context, I do not believe it was said in a joking manner), then I don't know what to say.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
I've got nothing to defend. Deidalius is openly a lolicon. I pointed out how disgusting that is in the hopes that, at minimum, it would prevent people from interacting with someone like that - I certainly wouldn't want to be talking to a lolicon, in any case. That's what that comment meant at its core.

If that is more of an issue than Dei being a lolicon (and to be clear, having seen the context, I do not believe it was said in a joking manner), then I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
Want Dei in your blocklist?
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
I've got nothing to defend. Deidalius is openly a lolicon. I pointed out how disgusting that is in the hopes that, at minimum, it would prevent people from interacting with someone like that - I certainly wouldn't want to be talking to a lolicon, in any case. That's what that comment meant at its core.

If that is more of an issue than Dei being a lolicon (and to be clear, having seen the context, I do not believe it was said in a joking manner), then I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
Okay then.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
I've got nothing to defend. Deidalius is openly a lolicon. I pointed out how disgusting that is in the hopes that, at minimum, it would prevent people from interacting with someone like that - I certainly wouldn't want to be talking to a lolicon, in any case. That's what that comment meant at its core.

If that is more of an issue than Dei being a lolicon (and to be clear, having seen the context, I do not believe it was said in a joking manner), then I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
This is more a matter of our site rules not really covering this sort of thing, as outlined by other staff. Obviously, there’s some… strong opinions on this (including from me), but that’s kinda how it is atm
 
I do not think we ought to warn Fujiwara. I think her comment is over-threatening but given the context of the comment I do not think it is an unreasonable comment to make- from her position, this is not only a justifiable, but a moral action. It is not without some evidence, even if we the site do not find that evidence conclusive enough.I do believe that Fujiwara should not engage in those sorts of comments again, but to warn or potentially ban someone for doing what can be reasonably construed as protecting the community from what was in those comments doesn't sit right for me.

Fujiwara is not a vigilante and it is not up to her to decide when to gather an angry mob against a user. I think that can be said without a warning.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I do not think we ought to warn Fujiwara. I think her comment is over-threatening but given the context of the comment I do not think it is an unreasonable comment to make- from her position, this is not only a justifiable, but a moral action. It is not without some evidence, even if we the site do not find that evidence conclusive enough.I do believe that Fujiwara should not engage in those sorts of comments again, but to warn or potentially ban someone for doing what can be reasonably construed as protecting the community from what was in those comments doesn't sit right for me.

Fujiwara is not a vigilante and it is not up to her to decide when to gather an angry mob against a user. I think that can be said without a warning.
Click to expand...
I have a minor issue with this but overall I can agree with this.
 
Apologies for the late response to some of this stuff, I've been quite busy the last few days, but I think some of this stuff still merits checking.


Mehmetnegsss​

Given the few posts this user has, and the allegation of trolling, I felt it prudent to go through their posts. Here are my thoughts:
  • Post 1: Gives off the impression of a user trying to legitimately engage with a reasonable argument in line with profiles, but who is using a translation service to communicate with us.
  • Post 2: FRA, nothing interesting here.
  • Post 3, Post 5: Present arguments straying from profiles. They were told that if they believed the character's AP was stronger he should make a CRT, and they responded....
  • Post 4, Post 6, Post 7: By replying that it probably wouldn't be accepted. Which seems like a pretty mundane take from a new user inexperienced with the site. Although with later repetitions of this, it starts to seem to get into blatant disregard of our standards. (I also want to highlight that Post 4 here implies they are using a translation service, and natively speak Turkish).
  • Post 8, Post 10: Indicates a willingness to open a CRT for a claim straying from profiles, so that's nice.
  • Post 9: Expresses confusion, nothing interesting here.
  • Post 11: The CRT which drew out the report. It's a bad argument, but honestly, we have stuff like that on our profiles already, so I don't blame someone new for thinking it's up to our standards. The Adolf Hitler stuff in the username is wack, but not actually out of my barometer of what a stupid kid could end up leaving in a screenshot, without it being driven by trolling.
  • Post 12, Post 13, Post 14, Post 15: Asking people to look at the CRT. Nothing interesting here.
  • Post 16: I don't understand this post. It clearly fails our standards, but doesn't seem like the sort of thing only a troll would argue. I've seen sincere people make worse arguments.
  • Post 17: Repeat of their last post. There were a lot of malformed deleted posts in this user's history, which I'll attribute to growing pains with using this forum system.
  • Post 18: Little rude and dismissive, but not really to a rule violation extent, imo.
  • Post 19: Pretty wack NLF-y argument.
  • Post 20, Post 21, Post 22: Hard to understand, out of the request to go to Discord. I would take this time to point out that Arceus is kinda escalating things here, too.
And that's all their posts.
Overall, it more gives me the impression of a young user who doesn't understand our standards, and is using translation services to communicate. Doesn't really strike me as a troll, or someone who's unwilling to learn, but has rather picked up bad habits through battleboarding in other communities.

The progress from presenting non-accepted arguments of a character's stats in versus threads, and saying "I won't make a CRT since it won't get accepted", to making one, is a form of progress.

The "Adolf Hitler" username within in-game screenshots is wack, but is strange enough to not really have a rule around it, and is sufficiently avoidable by us (just finding other scans for those moves) that I don't really see it necessary to ban them over it.

At most, I could see a warning to make an effort to shape up behaviour-wise.


BraniacWorld​

Again, seems like someone not really understanding the standards of the site


Shmooply​

It seems like people are treating the idea of them being transphobic as a joke. If I could over-explain the joke in this light, it would be "I think I'm seeing a trend here. I get how it seems transphobic, but I'm not, wouldn't it be wild if I was? Transphobia's dumb hahaha."

But I'd heard some whispers on the wind that such an interpretation isn't very likely; that off-site they've engaged in transphobic behaviour. Which would frame the joke more as "I don't think I'm reporting or including this detail because I'm transphobic, but hey, my judgement's a bit clouded hahaha."

But asking around, screenshots supporting this were far more scarce than testimony. Still, I'll present them here for evaluation:
  1. Misgendering
  2. Admitting to being transphobic, and asking not to be defended on that front
  3. Said "please stop jacking it to fake women" in reference to KingTempest's defense of Fuji in the recent report
I'd like to clarify here that I don't find this a violation due to the off-site statements themselves, but I think these off-site statements inform how we interpret this on-site statement. And that the interpretation goes from the joke being "transphobia's dumb and it's just a coincidence my report reads like that" to "I'm actually transphobic but that's not the sole reason for the report", which is something I don't think we'd want coming up in reports.


Luci5678​

The argument of narrative cohesion behind a massive jump in speed is a proper justification that has been used here before. But I'd have to know more about the series to say whether it's a good argument. And from reading the thread itself, there were quite a few things that flew in the face of our standards.

While there were some cases where others were dismissive first, their behaviour was more egregious and more often unprovoked.

So this case goes a bit further from just not understanding the standards, to also being a bit rude on top of that. I wouldn't be opposed to anything between a strict warning, and a short ban.



LIFE_OF_KING​

King really should've known better, and has already been warned twice for similar behaviour. I'd suggest a short ban.


Twisted_Little_Raven/Reio35​

I don't personally care about the behaviour reported here, since these are generally not sufficiently explicit, and are done between two consenting individuals, but our rules are pretty clearly against it. So sure, ban away.



Deidalius​

I generally see those as, at best, bad jokes, and at worst, an off-site admission of proclivities towards fictional drawings that's just barely outside of relevance to our on-site functions. Unless evidence of attempted grooming, sexual harassment, etc. comes up.

Really, I think Fujiwara's "you stupid pedo ****" comment is the closest thing to being reportable there.

But, idk how all of this will change with our new standards for off-site conduct that will presumably be implemented in the next day or so.



Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara​

I'm not sure whether I should take this post as a rule violation or not. While it is pretty harsh, the vast majority of it is framed in purely subjective terms ("I don't like you", "everything you do reeks of insincerity and insecurity"). But I think the explicit attempt at isolation and harassment steps this over the line into being ban-worthy.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't intending for a permaban, I was envisioning something more along the lines of 1-3 months. I also have some amount of concern that we enacted that ban without waiting for Shmooply's comment, given some defenses or additional context could theoretically be possible.

@Torlikoff Be more careful when you choose to engage with this thread, as per our OP....
Regular members aren't allowed to post in this Rule Violation Reports thread, unless they are making a report here, have direct involvement in a report, or have relevant information about a report that has not been brought up yet, in order to not derail or delay the processing of the reports, or worse instigate further rule violations. Repeated violations will be followed with a strict warning, followed by a threadban for one week to a site ban for some duration, depending on the severity of their conduct.
Click to expand...
 
I would not agree with a permanent ban. We are not moral judicators, and transphobia itself is not a punishable offense for our normal users- the views they express offsite are not ours to condone or condemn. Shmooply's behavior is an issue because it affects our notion of certain things he does onsite- reasons for reports and so on become muddled if we establish a clear trend of behavior, which is why I do agree with the 1-3 month thing.

Reduce it and remember this in case certain questionable actions occur in the future, I say. With an established motive with a fairly solid base, I think that's important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
113K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
  • Featured
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
6K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
711
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top