- 15,042
- 21,414
I agree a 1 month ban is appropriate (especially since the user agreed to taking a break from the site).
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.
He asked for it to be applied. I also would have rathered more discourse, but if the dude wants it quick, I won't be complained to for not doing it quick.I think continued discussion would be justified; I do think Bambu's application was a bit hasty.
I also think that a 1 month ban was overly draconian. I do not think that Omnificence behaved badly enough to warrant it, and he has evidently been dealing with a lot of stress and trauma, and apologised multiple times.I think continued discussion would be justified; I do think Bambu's application was a bit hasty.
I'll reiterate Bambu's point that Omnificence expressed that he was fine with a ban of a few weeks to a month, that he wanted to take a break from here, and that he would rather Bambu got it 'done with' for his own sake.I also think that a 1 month ban was overly draconian. I do not think that Omnificence behaved badly enough to warrant it, and he has evidently been dealing with a lot of stress and trauma, and apologised multiple times.
I don't think it is a fair assessment to denote that this was a draconian decision. I think it is fine to continue discussing whether the punishment should have been lighter (and if the agreement is as such, then to lower the punishment accordingly), but this was not an unreasonable course of action for Bambu to take under these circumstances.Okay. I really do want a break from here, anyway, thank you. I'm fine with a month or a few weeks-long ban.
Please, though, for my sake, get it over with.
Just something to note, but when my messages are deleted they usually notify that it was and the resaon behind it, something like this basically.Hello. Two days ago, I wrote a comment in this thread. It was like, "Will this affect the Elder Scrolls?" or something like that. So that's the problem. This comment is not there, I noticed it the next day. I thought, "Okay, maybe I didn't leave a comment, but I do remember that I edited a grammatical error in a posted comment or something." The next day, I made another comment that responded to a comment from LazerDim8000, who, as luck would have it, also mentioned TES. I again wrote a comment in this thread, responding to his comment, and I quote:
"I see, that makes sense.
Are there any plans for the Elder Scrolls? Daedric princes are listed as examples of characters with BDE, and I’m guessing not much will change other than the ratings for the Daedric Princes, aetherius, the Dovahkiin, and Alduin?".
I absolutely remember responding to his comment and checking to see if I left it to make sure, and after a while I even double-checked. Everything was in place. Today he is not there either.
I may be making a big deal out of a mountain, but is it POSSIBLE that someone is deleting my comments? I'm not sure about this. I don't see any other explanation. I have no proof because the first time I thought it was my mistake so I didn't take notes. I don’t know if you are able to see the history of deletions, so I wrote here, maybe yes.
If you mean these comments, then yes, somebody deleted them:Hello. Two days ago, I wrote a comment in this thread. It was like, "Will this affect the Elder Scrolls?" or something like that. So that's the problem. This comment is not there, I noticed it the next day. I thought, "Okay, maybe I didn't leave a comment, but I do remember that I edited a grammatical error in a posted comment or something."
For that purpose, yes. That thread isn't really the place for miscellaneous questions.@Ultima_Reality has deleted several comments in the thread to prevent clutter, it seems.
The Grabbing Dragon guy was just following the instruction of a staff member, and I was barely involved in the discussion until others started talking about it, and it isn't derailing if it's related to the discussion at hand.Reporting these users for derailing threads, and bringing up other verses and CRTs for argument for their own CRT and verse. report is regarding @Grabbing_dragon and @MasqueTLDF
We need to make it clearer that stuff like this is against the rules since it is a offence that happens on at least a weekly bases.
Firestorm only asked them to link the thread, not for you people to derail the thread with irrelevant content from another verse. And you're wrong; our discussion rules goes against derailing discussions that does not pertain to the main topic.The Grabbing Dragon guy was just following the instruction of a staff member, and I was barely involved in the discussion until others started talking about it, and it isn't derailing if it's related to the discussion at hand.
Also, in the discussion rules, there's no rule against this from what I've seen, This is a completely false report.
All I said was "Exactly" and the digital guy started talking about before me and I just responded. So why am I getting reported and not him too? And it did pertain to the main topic as it's another example of a 2-A rating from a simiilarly worded reasoning.Firestorm only asked them to link the thread, not for you people to derail the thread with irrelevant content from another verse. And you're wrong; our discussion rules goes against derailing discussions that does not pertain to the main topic.
This shouldn't be for me to deal with. But for clarity, I'm not only referring to you but everyone who was derailing the thread, including @Digital_Franz. Though, you are the OP of the CRT so I'm sure you should get a pass.All I said was "Exactly" and the digital guy started talking about before me and I just responded. So why am I getting reported and not him too? And it did pertain to the main topic as it's another example of a 2-A rating from a simiilarly worded reasoning.
What about everyone else who kept derailing the discussion even though I kept reeling the conversation in? How come the people who are doing what they are supposed to are the ones getting reported? I was insulted in the thread, I reeled the topic in when others started talking about AP ratings, I'm obviously not malicious as I've been trying to be kind throughout the whole discussion, but when a staff member asks for something and someone else responds, I get in trouble? Not to be rude but this is totally unreasonable.All I said was "Exactly" and the digital guy started talking about before me and I just responded. So why am I getting reported and not him too? And it did pertain to the main topic as it's another example of a 2-A rating from a simiilarly worded reasoning.
You're the OP of the thread so you shouldn't get punished. Grabbing_dragon didn't derail so the report shouldn't cover them either, unless there are deleted comments. But I do see other users derailing the thread, but then again, it'll be other admins and thread mods to deal with once evaluating the situation upon that discussion. Especially since I'm a content mod, I can't see any deleted comments there.What about everyone else who kept derailing the discussion even though I kept reeling the conversation in? How come the people who are doing what they are supposed to are the ones getting reported? I was insulted in the thread, I reeled the topic in when others started talking about AP ratings, I'm obviously not malicious as I've been trying to be kind throughout the whole discussion, but when a staff member asks for something and someone else responds, I get in trouble? Not to be rude but this is totally unreasonable.
And that's exactly what the grabbing dragon guy did, he absolutely didn't even discuss beyond that. He literally ONLY did as he was told but he got reported as well. It isn't my place to tell you how to do your job and I really hope my wording doesn't come off that way but as I've outlined, I've done nothing wrong and have been completely cordial, and you've said I was excused and if the other guy didn't do anything wrong either. Why wouldn't he get punished for falsely reporting us?Firestorm only asked them to link the thread
I just wanted to mention the fact that the example does not meet the criteria of the discussion since I was also participating but he wanted to prove me wrong without even having any knowledge of the verse.This shouldn't be for me to deal with. But for clarity, I'm not only referring to you but everyone who was derailing the thread, including @Digital_Franz. Though, you are the OP of the CRT so I'm sure you should get a pass.
"without even having any knowledge of the verse." I said before, I do have some, I'm just not an expert. And if you can make the claim that the example doesn't meet the criteria, why didn't the involved staff member mention that? And couldn't I therefore make the claim that it does fit the criteria?I just wanted to mention the fact that the example does not meet the criteria of the discussion since I was also participating but he wanted to prove me wrong without even having any knowledge of the verse.
Not what you told me in the discussion thread a while ago."without even having any knowledge of the verse." I said before, I do have some, I'm just not an expert.
I don't want to argue here for long but Firestorm isn't going to take the time to read this long thread. He tagged Elizhaa so what would follow in the thread was not going to be a simple no from Elizhaa but a long discussion. So I wanted to cut it short.And if you can make the claim that the example doesn't meet the criteria, why didn't the involved staff member mention that? And couldn't I therefore make the claim that it does fit the criteria?
"I'm not very knowledgeable on Tensura so if you could explain, that would be helpful." Direct Quote, I never said i didn't have any knowledge, I just said I didn't have a lot.Not what you told me in the discussion thread a while ago.
I don't want to argue here for long but Firestorm isn't going to take the time to read this long thread. He tagged Elizhaa so what would follow in the thread was not going to be a simple no from Elizhaa but a long discussion. So I wanted to cut it short.
Ok(If you mean these comments, then yes, somebody deleted them:
@Ultima_Reality has deleted several comments in the thread to prevent clutter, it seems.
On this matter: your use of that thread was very much negative, and we have specifically banned people from that thread (and its siblings) in the past for using it like so. Such is the condition under which the thread is allowed to exist, that intentional troublemaking results in excommunication. I also wouldn't have read Deagon's post as you do: "Compromise and threadban Fuji", I read the two as additive. I don't think Ant was wrong to read it as such.Yo
Not to dredge up a month old report literal hours after being unbanned (I've got nothing better to do on a thursday night, sadly), but I've just noticed I am unable to post in the pet peeves thread. I know why this is the case; Ant explains here that it was a consequence of my ban (which just ended, if you weren't aware). This is interesting because this was never agreed upon as part of the ban; The only mention of such was from Deagon (which you can see here, and was referenced by Ant), but that was specifically as a compromise. As in, as opposed to a forum ban, I would simply be banned from the pet peeves thread. Curiously, Ant says he was following Deagon's suggestion, but Deagon's suggestion was a thread ban as an alternative to a forum ban, not to combine the two. I will give Ant the benefit of the doubt and say he misunderstood Deagon's suggestion, though it is still a mistake that should be fixed.
Obviously, the time for compromise has long since passed seeing as a forum ban was the decided upon course of action. Ant seemed to agree with Deagon under the pretense of banning people who "severely abuse" the thread. This is curious because only a single actual rule violation occurred in that thread; The other two in recent memory were tossed out because we collectively (and correctly) realized the reports were silly. It's interesting that a single valid report results in a permanent thread ban, when I have almost never seen this phenomenon repeated for anyone else regardless of their own RVR reports. People who are forum banned are almost universally allowed back onto the threads they frequented when they return, in spite of their conduct; If Ant did not misinterpret Deagon's words, then I would ask why my situation is different from that of almost everyone else on the site.
TL;DR: A thread ban was never agreed upon anywhere. The "severe abuse" Ant mentioned was in regards to a single ban-worthy comment, which has since been dealt with (both via the comment being deleted, and a month-long ban being carried out). Undo it, or bring the old report back up for re-evaluation if you really feel that strongly about it.
I don't recall getting warned tho.after warnings from other staff members to stop doing it.
But.. But... I was reciting what deagon said within the thread himself in the last "instance".here
From what I remember the only comment that got delete was me telling him to calm down, which isn't indicative of aggression.others that staff can see that have been deleted for containing literally nothing aside from pot-stirring comments.
This is not the same as a quote. This is painting a paraphrasing in a demeaning light, because you disagree with what was said.It's like a wise man named deagon once said, saying no is trying to contradict the source material itself!!
I can see all of the deleted comments on that thread. So can the other staff.From what I remember the only comment that got delete was me telling him to calm down, which isn't indicative of aggression.
There was a broad warning to cease all derailment. Others largely ceased following that (or, at least, haven't picked up the habit again- let us hope they continue to not do it).I don't recall getting warned tho.
That's for derailing tho, everything I said had substance behind it, nonetheless I agree I was being passive aggressive.There was a broad warning to cease all derailment. Others largely ceased following that
With all due respect, your reading of Deagon's post seems a bit at odds with the definition of the word compromise; It's meant to be something where people can meet in the middle, but according to you Deagon actually intended a harsher punishment than normal, which doesn't sound like a compromise based on my understanding of the term. Still, I'll let Deagon speak for himself on the matter, if he wishes.On this matter: your use of that thread was very much negative, and we have specifically banned people from that thread (and its siblings) in the past for using it like so. Such is the condition under which the thread is allowed to exist, that intentional troublemaking results in excommunication. I also wouldn't have read Deagon's post as you do: "Compromise and threadban Fuji", I read the two as additive. I don't think Ant was wrong to read it as such.
Still, it wasn't really discussed much, and the end result didn't have it included, so it should be stricken, presuming you use the thread towards its intended purpose, rather than causing trouble again.
A concept may be more abstract than an another concept. It may even cover it, so what you are saying here is a bullshit similar to personal standards
You can deny it all you want, or you can fly on wings about it, but it doesn't change the fact
What is the relevance of this issue? You can continue with your minimal crisis, maybe some other memories will come to your mind, huh?
The "aggression" in question here was Deagon asking them to knock it off, a request which was obviously ignored.After being bullied by Nasuverse supporters and Ultima, everything is hard, isn't it?
Anyway, isn't it a bit aggressive of you to come here and say that? Or did I say something that's not true? Or something that's offensive to you? I'm sorry, but what I wrote was the truth.
So there is no need to act aggressively
Yeah.On a completely unrelated note, someone should maybe ask @Georredannea15 to calm down in this thread:
The "aggression" in question here was Deagon asking them to knock it off, a request which was obviously ignored.
In fact, if Fuji had not used this word and lit the fuse, everything would have proceeded calmly. Because everything was normal until thenYeah.
For the sake of your thread, I'd avoid throwing around the word "bullshit" regarding concepts the other side believes to be true, because I foresee it being a headache, but the linked post is unacceptable and tiring. I'll police the thread.
Currently issued warnings:
- RaveeCPN: 1
- Georredannea15: 1
I am truly baffled at how me saying the word "bullshit" is the cause of you insisting that Deagon being harassed and insulted for his takes on Fate scaling is a good thing. Really confused on what the correlation between those two events is, as well as concerned at how the presence of someone using a curse word is apparently enough to cause you to begin an incoherent tirade against an unrelated third party.In fact, if Fuji had not used this word and lit the fuse, everything would have proceeded calmly.
Wasn't this stuff directed at Deagon though? Like I agree that was uncalled for and would prefer such things to be avoided (as Bambu's already pointed out) but I don't see how this affected your tirade about himIn fact, if Fuji had not used this word and lit the fuse, everything would have proceeded calmly. Because everything was normal until then
The way you treat me, I will treat you the same way. You told me that, and I said that you. That's allI am truly baffled at how me saying the word "bullshit" is the cause of you insisting that Deagon being harassed and insulted for his takes on Fate scaling is a good thing. Really confused on what the correlation between those two events is, as well as concerned at how the presence of someone using a curse word is apparently enough to cause you to begin an incoherent tirade against an unrelated third party.