- 3,707
- 2,720
I suppose I'll clarify that even though I oppose the ban on principle for my previously stated reasons, I am also not strongly opposed to it practically since a few days is incredibly short.I'm fine with that, as well.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I suppose I'll clarify that even though I oppose the ban on principle for my previously stated reasons, I am also not strongly opposed to it practically since a few days is incredibly short.I'm fine with that, as well.
To add context, this was very sporadic and in the same playful sarcastic tone that's usually okay around there, no disrespect towards anyone. This makes me look like I'm on demon time 24/7 when I'm usually chill and only sometimes drop the mildest salt ever in sprinkles of sarcasm. It's such a nothing burger I'm honestly shocked he'd report me over it.This does not seem report-worthy. Topaz could chill out a bit, but nothing here is too serious.
I don't even talk to him much, for me he's not a problem
Topaz: Strongly disagree with action being taken. Obviously, maybe, but it bears mentioning
Ok@LuffyRuffy46307 If someone has their pronouns on their profile, do try to bear them in mind, please.
BumpI actually had one question I was hesitant to ask aboutbut my curiosity, Is being racist, feminist, sense of superiority over certain culture, group, religion, race, cast or disliking certain culture, beliefs or groups itself is a punishable offence- or to having it severe enough to wish/do harm to other community? I see a very grey line about it amongst different mods so I just couldn't get the exact answer reading stuff. I'll rest here.
Bump
But to express my thoughts in kind of better manner, but obviously will be lacking as my English is... Shit..
I do know we can't have religious, racial, political discussions here in order to maintain the healthy environment where everyone can feel comfortable to engage in, everyone liking everyone, seeing everyone equal sure is ideal thing but isn't it's too much to force this ideal belief on everyone disregarding what they want to like, to whom they want to engage with, etc... so are offsite rules expands upto not just having this ideal behaviour we expect on site to be here but everywhere, to the point if ever to be known or caught to not liking certain culture, belief, religion, country or to have sense of superiority over religious, caste, or group, they can be punished. Even if it's just limited to like/dislike, favour/unfavoured without wishing any form of harm? I think hating someone based of their disliking/liking, preference shouldn't be done, i myself wouldn't care enough if someone dislikes me, unless ofc, there is hostility involved. And we shouldn't dig in to go as far as to intervene all places not in our jurisdiction. Simply just restricting our users to not discuss stuff related to the topic on here should be enough. obviously I can be wrong thinking this way. But that's just how I feel about few things.
Well, I personally think that simply being prejudiced on a personal level without actually targetting anybody or propagating prejudice to others should not be sufficient grounds for banning the prejudiced person in question, unless it is outright bigotry and/or supremacism, such as wishing harm, oppression, or similar on other groups, but other staff members likely disagree.I actually had one question I was hesitant to ask aboutbut my curiosity, Is being racist, feminist, sense of superiority over certain culture, group, religion, race, cast or disliking certain culture, beliefs or groups itself is a punishable offence- or to having it severe enough to wish/do harm to other community? I see a very grey line about it amongst different mods so I just couldn't get the exact answer reading stuff. I'll rest here.
They weren't jokes about the downgrade, they were insults towards the thread's creator. A person who was new to the site. And you continued after they asked you to stop, and after other users and staff members asked you to stop.I still dont get why I would be banned when the things that I have done were
1- Saying cope to someone nonstop (This one is fair)
2- Saying "Fu.ck you" in a nonserious way (No one got offended at all)
3- Making jokes about a downgrade that everyone was already joking about
Nothing here seems really that deep
EDIT: Should the second warining really be considered a real warning at all? I mean, not even Ant agreed with the report
Gay JJK profile pic
There's not much to say
Are you special?
You seem to be misunderstanding. That "**** you" comment was something LOK was warned for 6 months ago. I'm talking about a ban for newer comments, considering he's repeatedly joked with personal insults towards people he doesn't know in the past, been warned, and is still engaging in the same behaviour.Topaz: Strongly disagree with action being taken. Obviously, maybe, but it bears mentioning.
Life of King: Also disagree with action being taken. I agree with FinePoint in that practically all of these can be cast in a comedic light. If it were actually malicious, the tone behind them would not be as it is- "No **** you" was clearly meant in this light, and I think that's the worst of the posts.
I stopped tho. I only commented again when the OP responded me just after I said that I was dropping the threadThey weren't jokes about the downgrade, they were insults towards the thread's creator. A person who was new to the site. And you continued after they asked you to stop, and after other users and staff members asked you to stop.
You returned when the OP tried arguing against you, with simply another insult towards them.I stopped tho. I only commented again when the OP responded me just after I said that I was dropping the thread
Beside, its not like my comments are that bad in comparasion to anothers. Theres no reason to take my comments that deep when nothing there is half as bad as the way you're making it sound
EDIT: Removed a irrelevant part. Plus, this is my last comment about the subject
This is not towards Agnaa but to that "consensus" not about the shoomply case but the one that is implied to be happening.Given the general staff consensus on the recent ban of Shmooply, it seems like expressing those views off-site is enough, even without it being linked to a wish of harm.
As anything that is being discussed among a private group if exposed will directly affect the on-site user. Obviously I don't see a problem with punishing extremely extreme cases that involve direct harassment or dox in some way. But any shit-talk between friends without a direct feeling to any user will be punished? There would literally be no freedom of speech as some call it and this will simply be just a place where anyone will be punished for anything.There is no way to deal with that, but now with this addition users will feel that they can report more often for anything and many may excuse themselves in different ways to justify that report just because they think the rule is on their side (and we know that in many occasions we tend to be too lenient with the users) and as I said many members already feel afraid that anyone will report them or take anything out of context reaching points of strenuous discussion and internal fights that for users of little mental strength may become overwhelming that anything they say has to be regulated for fear that someone will report them.
I still have the same stance here.Mehmetnegsss
Relevant Comments
Staff Views
- Instructions, or light warning at worst: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, Agnaa)
Staff Actions
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with simply providing instructions and considering this closed.
- None found
I suppose I have the same take as Agnaa hereLuci5678
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- Arguments surrounding it (CGM rejections don't count, this still violates CRT rules, CGM rejections count when calcs are involved, this thread doesn't involve calcs, actually it does)
- Luci's response, second response, third response
- DarkDragonMedeus' interpretation
- Additional evidence by CloverDragon03
- Propellus' interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
- Stricter warning: 1 (GarrixianXD)
- Strict warning or short ban of a few days: 1 (Agnaa)
Staff Actions
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with providing a strict warning and considering this closed.
- None found
In the same boat as Agnaa and Deagonx
No action needed, aside from perhaps a reminder that Deidalius should try to avoid Fujiwura whenever possible.Deidalius
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- Defense provided by Arceus0x, followup
- LordGriffin1000's interpretation
- Deidalius' response
- Damage3245's interpretation
- UchihaSlayer96's interpretation
- DarkGrath's interpretation
- Dereck03's interpretation
- GarrixianXD's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation, followup
Staff Views
- No action: 7 (LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, UchihaSlayer96, DarkGrath, Dereck03, DarkDragonMedeus, GarrixianXD)
Staff Actions
I don't like repeatedly bringing this up, but no-one commented last time I tried, so, pinging the people who have already evaluated it.
- None found
@LordGriffin1000 @Damage3245 @UchihaSlayer96 @DarkGrath @DarkDragonMedeus @GarrixianXD
Has your opinion on this matter changed with the implementation of the new rules for off-site standards?
If no, could you elaborate on why? (i.e. Do you not think Deidalius' comments are serious, do you not think being attracted to fictional depictions of children extends to attraction to real children, do you not think that being attracted to real children is a danger to site users, do you not want to apply that rule retroactively despite that being done to Shmooply, some combination of the above?)
I think this is important precedent to set, and I don't want it to just slip under the radar due to people forgetting.
I think a short ban might be warranted given she has had multiple warningsMad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- KingTempest's interpretation
- Arguments surrounding it (This insult should be considered a rule violation, this one shouldn't, the comment says other stuff too)
- Comment from Deidalius, the target of Fujiwara's comment
- LordGriffin1000's interpretation
- UchihaSlayer96's interpretation
- Mr._Bambu's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
- No action: 3 (KingTempest, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000)
- Fujiwara and Deidalius need to stay away from each other: 2 (LordGriffin1000, UchihaSlayer96)
- Report-worthy: 1 (DarkDragonMedeus)
- Warning: 1 (UchihaSlayer96)
- Not inherently opposed to a short ban: 2 (UchihaSlayer96, LordGriffin1000)
- Warning or short ban: 1 (Dereck03)
- Ban: 2 (Damage3245, Agnaa)
Staff Actions
I think this merits more input.
- None found
Light warning at worst by the looks of it.TheGunsFinalWrath
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- TheGunsFinalWrath's response, followup, followup, followup, followup
- Dereck03's interpretation, followup, followup
- Comment from Udlmaster, the target of TheGunsFinalWrath's comment, followup
- Comment from Dr._whiteee, a person quite involved in the original thread, followup, followup
- KingTempest's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
Staff Actions
I think this merits more input.
- None found
I think this in itself would have been handled if proper instructions had been given to the user of how things work here, a few instructions plus a small reminder is enough.RVR Roundup
Mehmetnegsss
Relevant Comments
Staff Views
- Instructions, or light warning at worst: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, Agnaa)
Staff Actions
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with simply providing instructions and considering this closed.
- None found
Honestly I see a strict enough warning but seeing the reasoning behind the user's actions I can deduce that a small punishment as suggested by Agnaa might work to make him rethink his actions.Luci5678
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- Arguments surrounding it (CGM rejections don't count, this still violates CRT rules, CGM rejections count when calcs are involved, this thread doesn't involve calcs, actually it does)
- Luci's response, second response, third response
- DarkDragonMedeus' interpretation
- Additional evidence by CloverDragon03
- Propellus' interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
- Stricter warning: 1 (GarrixianXD)
- Strict warning or short ban of a few days: 1 (Agnaa)
Staff Actions
I'd like at least one more person checking this, before I go ahead with providing a strict warning and considering this closed.
- None found
Same as agnaa.
No action.Deidalius
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- Defense provided by Arceus0x, followup
- LordGriffin1000's interpretation
- Deidalius' response
- Damage3245's interpretation
- UchihaSlayer96's interpretation
- DarkGrath's interpretation
- Dereck03's interpretation
- GarrixianXD's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation, followup
Staff Views
- No action: 7 (LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, UchihaSlayer96, DarkGrath, Dereck03, DarkDragonMedeus, GarrixianXD)
Staff Actions
- None found
I feel that I change my instance to a short ban due to the history that the user possesses.Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- KingTempest's interpretation
- Arguments surrounding it (This insult should be considered a rule violation, this one shouldn't, the comment says other stuff too)
- Comment from Deidalius, the target of Fujiwara's comment
- LordGriffin1000's interpretation
- UchihaSlayer96's interpretation
- Mr._Bambu's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
- No action: 3 (KingTempest, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000)
- Fujiwara and Deidalius need to stay away from each other: 2 (LordGriffin1000, UchihaSlayer96)
- Report-worthy: 1 (DarkDragonMedeus)
- Warning: 1 (UchihaSlayer96)
- Not inherently opposed to a short ban: 2 (UchihaSlayer96, LordGriffin1000)
- Warning or short ban: 1 (Dereck03)
- Ban: 2 (Damage3245, Agnaa)
Staff Actions
I think this merits more input.
- None found
Still the same.TheGunsFinalWrath
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- TheGunsFinalWrath's response, followup, followup, followup, followup
- Dereck03's interpretation, followup, followup
- Comment from Udlmaster, the target of TheGunsFinalWrath's comment, followup
- Comment from Dr._whiteee, a person quite involved in the original thread, followup, followup
- KingTempest's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
Staff Actions
I think this merits more input.
- None found
My opinion on this matter has not substantially changed.Deidalius
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- Defense provided by Arceus0x, followup
- LordGriffin1000's interpretation
- Deidalius' response
- Damage3245's interpretation
- UchihaSlayer96's interpretation
- DarkGrath's interpretation
- Dereck03's interpretation
- GarrixianXD's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation, followup
Staff Views
- No action: 7 (LordGriffin1000, Damage3245, UchihaSlayer96, DarkGrath, Dereck03, DarkDragonMedeus, GarrixianXD)
Staff Actions
I don't like repeatedly bringing this up, but no-one commented last time I tried, so, pinging the people who have already evaluated it.
- None found
Has your opinion on this matter changed with the implementation of the new rules for off-site standards?
If no, could you elaborate on why? (i.e. Do you not think Deidalius' comments are serious, do you not think being attracted to fictional depictions of children extends to attraction to real children, do you not think that being attracted to real children is a danger to site users, do you not want to apply that rule retroactively despite that being done to Shmooply, some combination of the above?)
I think this is important precedent to set, and I don't want it to just slip under the radar due to people forgetting.
I believe I spoke on this at some point as well. I don't think any action is necessary.Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- KingTempest's interpretation
- Arguments surrounding it (This insult should be considered a rule violation, this one shouldn't, the comment says other stuff too)
- Comment from Deidalius, the target of Fujiwara's comment
- LordGriffin1000's interpretation
- UchihaSlayer96's interpretation
- Mr._Bambu's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
- No action: 3 (KingTempest, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000)
- Fujiwara and Deidalius need to stay away from each other: 2 (LordGriffin1000, UchihaSlayer96)
- Warning: 1 (UchihaSlayer96)
- Not inherently opposed to a short ban: 2 (UchihaSlayer96, LordGriffin1000)
- Warning or short ban: 1 (Dereck03)
- Ban: 4 (Damage3245, Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus, Dereck03)
Staff Actions
I think this merits more input.
- None found
I don't believe action here is necessary, but I wouldn't oppose a light warning.TheGunsFinalWrath
Relevant Comments
- Initial report
- TheGunsFinalWrath's response, followup, followup, followup, followup
- Dereck03's interpretation, followup, followup
- Comment from Udlmaster, the target of TheGunsFinalWrath's comment, followup
- Comment from Dr._whiteee, a person quite involved in the original thread, followup, followup
- KingTempest's interpretation
- Agnaa's interpretation
Staff Views
- No action: 2 (Dereck03, Deagonx)
- Warning: 2 (Agnaa, DarkDragonMedeus)
Staff Actions
I think this merits more input.
- None found
What was agreed upon has changed, given how the Shmooply case was handled. In the exact same paragraph where you made that point you also said it was meant to ban people who threatened violence, or partook in hate groups, and that it wouldn't apply to "critics of groups of people with no harmful intentions towards them". But if you don't want to change it further, it seems like you've got the numbers on your side for that. Guess I'll drop it, and consider that aspect resolved.My opinion on this matter has not substantially changed.
To be as clear on 'why' as possible - it was an explicit point when revising the off-site standards that merely having taboo fetishes is not a rule violation if it is not brought on-site. What would be a rule violation is substantial reason to believe that they have committed (or intend to commit) sexual harms to others. This was what was agreed upon, and it hasn't changed. The concern here seems to be whether comments along the lines of finding these characters attractive is a sign of legitimate intent to commit pedophilic acts - if it was, that would certainly be report worthy. But I don't believe that's the case. That's not a matter of setting a precedent as much as it is acknowledging that, even if taken as serious, and in spite of their obscene content, the screenshots provided didn't provide good reason to believe he was a pedophile or intended to commit pedophilia.
I would rather not draw this into the discussion on Shmooply's report, but since it seems to be a point of confusion, I will clarify something.What was agreed upon has changed, given how the Shmooply case was handled. In the exact same paragraph where you made that point you also said it was meant to ban people who threatened violence, or partook in hate groups, and that it wouldn't apply to "critics of groups of people with no harmful intentions towards them". But if you don't want to change it further, it seems like you've got the numbers on your side for that. Guess I'll drop it, and consider that aspect resolved.
I've updated that post to incorporate your views.
I think that Dereck03 makes very legitimate points.This is not towards Agnaa but to that "consensus" not about the shoomply case but the one that is implied to be happening.
It's literally bullshit. And this is clearly what I said would happen.
As anything that is being discussed among a private group if exposed will directly affect the on-site user. Obviously I don't see a problem with punishing extremely extreme cases that involve direct harassment or dox in some way. But any shit-talk between friends without a direct feeling to any user will be punished? There would literally be no freedom of speech as some call it and this will simply be just a place where anyone will be punished for anything.
I know many who talk any number of antics/nonsense but among friends without affecting anyone specific, if this is a thing now then leaving this place would be the best option as no one would feel safe to be every day watching what they say for fear that someone will SS en and report them just because yes.
This is not a prison where even others have to watch their behavior off-site so as not to anger anyone who gets angry.
We got these types of profiles on the wiki ironically.A user seems to have posted a fun and games thread about a series that incorporates principles from Nazi Germany.
i.e., a reference to
, the statementHi*ler
, and very clear symbolism.Sieg He*l
Malaysia comic book really something. Adolf?
Trust me, who want waifu version of Adolf? Here we have it on Malaysia comic Don't blame me, I just share what my country comic had offer and I found it amusing TBH.vsbattles.com
For clarity, It was not posted in a demeaning way. Given the recent turmoil with race/gender/ideology stuff, I do not know what (if anything) should be done here, but I think the scans should be deleted at least.
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)
Are you saying this because it will get us in trouble with Fandom or just personal beliefs?Hmm. I am not comfortable with us featuring an image with Nazi swastikas in our wiki. Can another image be selected, or the swastikas be edited out?
Yeah, other wikis do so it doesn't seem to be a violation of fandom guidelines, thus that Hitler profile of Reincarnation of Profiles has been intact for years.I think others wikis have nazi images on their gallery, don’t they?
I suppose that'll be optimal, but unfortunately, we don't have guidelines to restrict it.Hmm. I am not comfortable with us featuring an image with Nazi swastikas in our wiki. Can another image be selected, or the swastikas be edited out?
Seems like it. Took a shot in the dark with the Wolfenstein wiki, they have at least some swastikas (and other Nazi imagery, of course), as well as (perhaps obviously) pages for Hitler in a serious or goofy context.Are you saying this because it will get us in trouble with Fandom or just personal beliefs?
I think others wikis have nazi images on their gallery, don’t they?
Post, link or transmit any written, visual, or symbolic content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or encourages criminal conduct, or contains slurs, hate speech, dog whistles, and/or incitement of violence. This includes, but is not limited to: ableism, ageism, biphobia, discrimination based on family structure(s), ethnocultural discrimination, exorsexism, gender essentialism, homophobia, misogyny, polyphobia, racism, religious or areligious intolerance, sexism, and transphobia;
That sounds like a good solution, yeah.Maybe a better alternative would be to just include a warning template on the page ?