Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03 @Planck69 @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Catzlaflame @ActuallySpaceMan42

We need your continuous help here.

 

[Digital_Franz]

Okay I guess I can start. What should I even do? Defend myself? I don't think I did anything wrong.

First of all Masque points to posts from the old thread and the new one. On I said he's acting like a "know it all" because Gabbling Dragon took an example, as a member who knows the verse I said the example doesn't fit the situation and it wasn't Gabbling Dragon who argued but Masque himself yet in one of our discussions in the thread he told me this:

Sorry, I haven't read the series, I can't comment on your example but maybe we can agree to disagree? Hope I haven't come off as rude throughout the discussion. Anyway, I'm not even exactly sure what the goal of the argument is anyway.

He can't comment on my example but wants to argue in the CRT on the same example even though it was the WN version.
Furthermore, Masque has already displayed rude behavior, especially towards Vietthai96 which earned him to be reported here. He displays passive rude attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with his point of view, telling them that they lack common sense and such. Why haven't I reported him since? Because I don't give a sh*t.

I tell him that he chose the wrong examples and he directly says that I am rude. Why? Because I said that he chose the wrong examples? The farce. Almost everything he pointed out for the new thread is not rude. And furthermore saying that it is a farce is my point of view that I can display. If it were not the case, the concept of wankers would not have existed in the first place. Literally all Masque spends his time doing in the CRT is: it is said this, this is the most logical conclusion. Are we here to work without a statement and believe things? Curry and him say: yeah increasing and multiplying are the same thing. With this logic I take Naruto, the chakra being a UES, I just see the gap between his 8-A key for part I and his 5-C key for part II, I make the ratio and I place him at MFTL+ because "speed and strength increase proportionally".

When I give him a metaphor like "can you hear yourself talking", he wants to play on words and say that he doesn't speak but he writes. Of course that's the case. But if he wants to play this game, he should do it alone. Basically I ask him for direct statements but he gives me roundabout statements. Isn't that a joke? In any case, I don't want to waste time on this childishness.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Okay I guess I can start. What should I even do? Defend myself? I don't think I did anything wrong.

First of all Masque points to posts from the old thread and the new one. On I said he's acting like a "know it all" because Gabbling Dragon took an example, as a member who knows the verse I said the example doesn't fit the situation and it wasn't Gabbling Dragon who argued but Masque himself yet in one of our discussions in the thread he told me this:


He can't comment on my example but wants to argue in the CRT on the same example even though it was the WN version.

I don't understand how this is relevant.

Furthermore, Masque has already displayed rude behavior, especially towards Vietthai96 which earned him to be reported here. He displays passive rude attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with his point of view, telling them that they lack common sense and such. Why haven't I reported him since? Because I don't give a sh*t.

I don't believe I've been rude to Vietthai and I've never claimed that anyone lacks common sense. And I encourage constructive criticism and have remained kind to multiple people who have disagreed with me.

I tell him that he chose the wrong examples and he directly says that I am rude. Why? Because I said that he chose the wrong examples? The farce. Almost everything he pointed out for the new thread is not rude.

I claimed that you were rude because I interpreted your comments as being disrespectful and they made me uncomfortable, there's no other reason.

And furthermore saying that it is a farce is my point of view that I can display. If it were not the case, the concept of wankers would not have existed in the first place. Literally all Masque spends his time doing in the CRT is: it is said this, this is the most logical conclusion. Are we here to work without a statement and believe things? Curry and him say: yeah increasing and multiplying are the same thing. With this logic I take Naruto, the chakra being a UES, I just see the gap between his 8-A key for part I and his 5-C key for part II, I make the ratio and I place him at MFTL+ because "speed and strength increase proportionally".

I don't believe this is relevant to the topic of the report.

When I give him a metaphor like "can you hear yourself talking", he wants to play on words and say that he doesn't speak but he writes. Of course that's the case. But if he wants to play this game, he should do it alone. Basically I ask him for direct statements but he gives me roundabout statements. Isn't that a joke? In any case, I don't want to waste time on this childishness.

I don't "play on words", I just wanted to give you a serious answer. And please don't call me childish, I try hard to always behave in a mature and respectful manner.

 

[Digital_Franz]

I don't understand how this is relevant.

You brought up the subject of the old CRT and you say you don't understand how it is relevant?

I don't believe I've been rude to Vietthai and I've never claimed that anyone lacks common sense. And I encourage constructive criticism and have remained kind to multiple people who have disagreed with me.

Hmm. Maybe it's only the case for Phoenks and me? Well, that doesn't matter to me

I claimed that you were rude because I interpreted your comments as being disrespectful and they made me uncomfortable, there's no other reason.

Because you interpret. Let's ask the staff to interpret the same comment.

I don't believe this is relevant to the topic of the report.

Just to show your behavior. It all comes down to logic for you which logically leads to criticism of things you take badly.

I don't "play on words", I just wanted to give you a serious answer. And please don't call me childish, I try hard to always behave in a mature and respectful manner.

And do you think I take the debate as a joke? You should have just answered me that that's not what you meant instead of adding a bunch of useless things.

 

[Digital_Franz]

I don't "play on words", I just wanted to give you a serious answer. And please don't call me childish, I try hard to always behave in a mature and respectful manner.

This all appears just like that. You're just making yourself out to be the victim when you're not. As BlackeJan said here, you reported him without mentioning Curry's rude attitude and making him out to be the bad guy.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

You brought up the subject of the old CRT and you say you don't understand how it is relevant?

Specifically the rude comments in the CRT, not who's right or wrong in the argument.

Hmm. Maybe it's only the case for Phoenks and me? Well, that doesn't matter to me

I've been nice to You, Vietthai, and Phoenks as well, even after the disagreements and rude comments.

Because you interpret. Let's ask the staff to interpret the same comment.

Sure, that was the plan for my initial post.

Just to show your behavior. It all comes down to logic for you which logically leads to criticism of things you take badly.

I mean, what does you believing that Naruto is MFTL+ and disagreeing with my claims in the other thread have to do with any of this, and aren't arguments supposed to hinge on logic?

And do you think I take the debate as a joke? You should have just answered me that that's not what you meant instead of adding a bunch of useless things.

No, that's why I responded with a serious answer, and I did.

This all appears just like that. You're just making yourself out to be the victim when you're not. As BlackeJan said here, you reported him without mentioning Curry's rude attitude and making him out to be the bad guy.

I wouldn't exactly call myself a victim per se, I just feel disrespected, and I don't think you'd exactly have the right to decide who is a victim and who isn't. And as for the Curry thing, she didn't really say anything wrong in the newest thread, definitely not in regards to what the two of you are implying, it's just a common phrase with no negative connotation toward anyone.

 

[Deagonx]

That's enough now, please. The back and forth doesn't make it easier for staff to reach a conclusion, it makes it harder.

 

[Digital_Franz]

That's enough now, please. The back and forth doesn't make it easier for staff to reach a conclusion, it makes it harder.

OK

 

[BlackeJan]

I’ve stopped caring. He only did this cause I made a report to him like last month and how he today defended someone obviously being rude. I will only talk to him in debates and nothing more

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Regarding BlackeJan: My immediate impression is that both sides were being rude. Masque dismisses opinions he doesn't care about, and Curry spams people with "end of discussion" towards people she disagrees with, despite having no authority whatsoever to actually silence dissent. Given the tameness of the accused comments, I do find it difficult to actually regard anything as a rule violation rather than a simple escalation when faced with aggression.

The old thread may be a smidgeon worse than the new one (acknowledging that it is practically a month old), but really isn't much different. Even in your own evidence, you accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?

Regarding Digital_Franz: I will admit that Franz was more aggressive than Blacke, although when questioning whether their behavior deserves more than the usual "stop doing that" response we usually give, I would hardly say it is that much worse. The environment itself was made aggressive. I am hesitant to apply a warning in this instance.

I'm against a warning in the instance of Blacke, I don't think he behaved any worse than is the median for that thread. Franz is more debateable, but for now I lean in favor of leniency. Neither have a history of poor behavior, after all, and minor spats like this are simply bound to happen in a hobby such as this.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Regarding BlackeJan: My immediate impression is that both sides were being rude. Masque dismisses opinions he doesn't care about, and Curry spams people with "end of discussion" towards people she disagrees with, despite having no authority whatsoever to actually silence dissent. Given the tameness of the accused comments, I do find it difficult to actually regard anything as a rule violation rather than a simple escalation when faced with aggression.

Ig, I only really dismiss things if the conversation goes back and forth without progression as there's really no point in arguing then. And I think Curry's use of the phrase was pretty reasonable given the situation but overall, it's fine.

The old thread may be a smidgeon worse than the new one (acknowledging that it is practically a month old), but really isn't much different. Even in your own evidence, you accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?

In that particular instance, the person who I was conversing with was applying the context of one situation to another. (Ex: Blank was described in this way in this instance, but not in another instance, so my point was invalid. Disregarding the fact that the context of these two instance were different so logically, their descriptions would be different.) I believed this argument to be fallacious, therefore I asked them to use common sense because of the nature of fallacies being a lapse in logic during argumentation. I don't believe that what I said was exactly wrong/rude, but I can definitely understand that it could be interpreted in that way and I could've worded my response better, and for that I apologize.

Regarding Digital_Franz: I will admit that Franz was more aggressive than Blacke, although when questioning whether their behavior deserves more than the usual "stop doing that" response we usually give, I would hardly say it is that much worse. The environment itself was made aggressive. I am hesitant to apply a warning in this instance.

That's fine, I didn't want anyone to get an official warning or anything like that. Just for someone with more power than me to ease the hostility of the discussion. (And in regards to these two users being placed on my ignore list, would that be possible? Sorry if I'm asking for too much, I just don't want to deal with any rude comments.)

I'm against a warning in the instance of Blacke, I don't think he behaved any worse than is the median for that thread. Franz is more debateable, but for now I lean in favor of leniency. Neither have a history of poor behavior, after all, and minor spats like this are simply bound to happen in a hobby such as this.

Sure, and thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

 

[CurrySenpai]

I don’t really think I NEED to defend myself, but I’d just like it be known I wasn’t touting some sort of authority or something, I was just using the phrase because from my perspective Black was arguing against literal proven math, as in the definition of what it means to double something.

I could have used another phrase but I feel like saying “end of discussion” to someone arguing that doubling could mean something else isn’t that bad.

Most of the time people think I’m staff on VSBW I correct them, and I understand I have no authority so I don’t see why I’d try to flaunt a badge that doesn’t apply here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah, I know. My position isn't that you necessarily acted outrageously either, just that in these circumstances it is at least mitigable that Blacke acted a smidge out of line himself, I don't think "End of discussion" is conducive to discussion (shocking, I know). Mixed with the perception of others that you're a Content Moderator, despite only being one on FC/OC, I think that fed into the chemical reaction at work here.

Stuff like this is just the cost of doing business.

As for this:

That's fine, I didn't want anyone to get an official warning or anything like that. Just for someone with more power than me to ease the hostility of the discussion. (And in regards to these two users being placed on my ignore list, would that be possible? Sorry if I'm asking for too much, I just don't want to deal with any rude comments.)

It should be fine, though a bureaucrat would have to handle it. @Antvasima would you mind?

 

[BlackeJan]

you accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?

Iirc, it was cause he was acting rude himself and proceed to say something along the line of me not having commons sense so I retaliated back. I also did say that all I want was a warning, he only reported me cause I did the same to him and as I said many times beforehand, he hides his rudeness with innocence

I wasn’t touting some sort of authority or something, I was just using the phrase because from my perspective Black was arguing against literal proven math, as in the definition of what it means to double something.

i know basic math, the whole “double exponentially” is also cause it’s stronger then a sacred gear that doubles power as well so i see it as far beyond that of 2x. I keep forgetting u aren’t a staff, it took me awhile to know that anyone with a “content mod” isn’t part of the staff. My mistake

I do wanna point out that someone going “end of discussion” is like trying to silence them with no room for argument, like if a cop or a teacher was to do it since they do be having authority over you

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have much of the same thoughts as Mr Bambu.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

The ones from sociopath video or something new Delaware criminal And sleep depravation

vsbattles.com

@Twisted_Little_Raven admits to endangering pets and when made aware of said dangers, displays a blatant lack of remorse and an implied intention to continue placing said pet in danger. An unnamed thread mod said this is probably worthy of a report, and frankly I think any implication of intentionally placing an animal dependent on you in harm’s way without remorse is just indicative of scum behavior. I’m aware this probably falls out of the jurisdiction of vsbw, but at the same time I believe this is a stellar indicator of extremely toxic and negative behavior. That which Raven’s been prone to in the past and has received bans for in the past. I’m also aware that I come off very heated in my response to her in that threat, but as a dog owner my entire life, I’m wholly disgusted at the notion someone could act with such blatant disregard for their pet’s wellbeing, ig it aggravates me for a lack of better words.

 

[Crabwhale]

Over a year ago now, I proposed unbanning Raven as a matter of correcting previous staff communication breakdowns, as well as after having preliminary talks with her and Promestein to determine her behavior. Throughout the course of the following year, Raven has shown a gradual unraveling of her self-control in pretty much every interaction I've seen her in, and quite frankly, I don't think it should be tolerated anymore.

I promised you all I would see to it that, if my belief in her at the time was misplaced, I would correct my mistake. I believe that time has come. I am advocating a permanent ban with no chance of appeal.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As detestable as these actions are, I do not believe we have any rule covering this- not directly, at least. That is not to say that no action can be taken, but rather that any action sets a precedent and must be approached carefully.

For now, I will ask people to not make any more inflammatory posts on the matter- I do not find Arc's post an unreasonable one, but it doesn't serve any calm proceedings. So... just let us decide, yeah?

Over a year ago now, I proposed unbanning Raven as a matter of correcting previous staff communication breakdowns, as well as after having preliminary talks with her and Promestein to determine her behavior. Throughout the course of the following year, Raven has shown a gradual unraveling of her self-control in pretty much every interaction I've seen her in, and quite frankly, I don't think it should be tolerated anymore.

I promised you all I would see to it that, if my belief in her at the time was misplaced, I would correct my mistake. I believe that time has come. I am advocating a permanent ban with no chance of appeal.

Removing the option to appeal would be unprecedented, even in the most outrageous of cases. Now, we obviously reject many appeals, but to silence one outright doesn't seem necessary.

That aside, I agree. Raven has not shown any ability to reign in her behavior. Her ability to do so has degraded entirely, ranging from being basically reasonable after her ban to constantly stirring the pot day in, day out. In our rules or not, this is now the norm. I would agree with a permanent ban.

 

[Agnaa]

I think Raven's posts there indicate that she doesn't think that those actions put the animal in danger. I think that's a very important part of this report that was left out. Ultimately, it was a disagreement over whether feeding dogs chicken bones presents a notable risk to them. Not "loves harming dogs" vs "hates harming dogs".

At that point, I think it's something that we shouldn't wade into.

All that should be done there is stopping the discussion, since it clearly got too heated.

EDIT: For other behaviour, evidence should be provided of that. Post the continued ban-worthy behaviour so discussion can happen on it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, that is just ******* disgusting. I know jokes of poor taste aren't always something we ban right away, but animal cruelty and especially dog abuse is going too far. And that on top of her history; she legit was among people who causes too much trouble on slander threads and openly admits that she has no intention of stopping her malicious acts on multiple occasions tells me that she's already caused too much trouble as it is. She's consistently even worse behaved than Fujiwura from what I see, and her actions before her permanent ban were downright extreme.

I am in favor of reenacting her permanent ban. Causing uproars deliberately despite being told numerous times to stop cannot be tolerated any further.

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah this feels like crossing the line for me, I'm advocating for a permaban too.

 

[Agnaa]

As long as y'all are fine with permabanning people for advocating for climate change denial, antivax, faith healing (and other alternative medicine), all things which have similar scientific consensus that they're harmful, then whatever.

(If it's not just the "advocacy" you take issue with, but with her actually endangering another being through that, a similar argument would still apply, just a bit more constrained)

 

[HammerStrikes219]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/ban-kai-bleach-general-discussion.107575/post-6684650


“Then clowns like Theglassman12 gunna get annoyed because I'm bringing up bias. Dead. I don't like a community that treats your arguments like trash and don't have the backbone to debate it and just sit back from afar and laugh at my takes and give someone else kudos.”

She did call Glassman a clown along with specific other staff members while using “bias” which admittedly fair enough, but by the same token, no one is immune to bias to begin with.


It probably best to do a review on what else we got here for TwistedLittleRaven outside of the conversation between Arc and Raven here.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah, that's what I meant about being careful. I think that her agency in this particular matter is most relevant- Raven can't do shit about climate change really, and so I don't care if she denies it. She is directly responsible for the well being of any animal she owns, and spreading that it's alright to endanger them like that is more likely to have actual impact.

Faith healing and such I would have similar reservations towards, although with that being steeped in spiritualism, we evoke deeper issues. Luckily, I don't think the matter has ever been discussed in the decade plus of this site's existence. So it may be that we won't need to address non-eqiivalent scenarios until we reach them.

 

[Antvasima]

It should be fine, though a bureaucrat would have to handle it. @Antvasima would you mind?

Yes, of course, but I need some specifics regarding which members that @MasqueTLDF wants to automatically ignore.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Yes, of course, but I need some specifics regarding which members that @MasqueTLDF wants to automatically ignore.

@Digital_Franz and @BlackeJan, thank you very much.

 

[Antvasima]

About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour?

Also, technically the entire pig meat industry engages in unfathomably enormous amounts of animal cruelty, and most people are so used to it that they ignore it, despite that pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs.

Regardless, if she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue.

 

[Antvasima]

@Digital_Franz and @BlackeJan, thank you very much.

Thank you for the information. I will handle it.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information. I will handle it.

I have done so.

 

[Agnaa]

About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour?

If she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue though.

From her posts, she seems to believe that chicken bones aren't dangerous for dogs (or for herself) if eaten slowly, based on personal experience. She was dismissive of evidence to the contrary. Based off of this belief, she feeds one of her dogs that "1% of the time" if there's nothing else to feed them.

Obligatory disclaimer that I disagree with this, and that I do not feed them to dogs I'm around.

 

[Antvasima]

From her posts, she seems to believe that chicken bones aren't dangerous for dogs (or for herself) if eaten slowly, based on personal experience. She was dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

Obligatory disclaimer that I disagree with this, and that I do not feed them to dogs I'm around.

Well, if she is willing to adjust her behaviour, I do not think that in itself seems sufficient to punish her in that case.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour?

Also, technically the entire pig meat industry engages in unfathomably enormous amounts of animal cruelty, and most people are so used to it that they ignore it, despite that pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs.

Regardless, if she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue.

I don't think this is the right approach, really. That one great evil exists (the meat industry) does not mean we should allow the small evils (animal abuse). Raven's post is dismissive of the real harm she is causing to an animal she is responsible for. The simple fact that we cannot stop the slaughter of livestock does not mean we should stand by the harming of a dog. I can't say that I understand the perspective suggesting otherwise.

 

[Antvasima]

That was more an aside mention for the purpose of general awareness given my vegetarianism. What is relevant seems to be if Raven is engaging in deliberate animal cruelty or is just clueless, and if she is deliberately and continuously causing controversy.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That was more an aside mention for the purpose of general awareness given my vegetarianism. What is relevant seems to be if Raven is engaging in deliberate animal cruelty or is just clueless, and if she is deliberately and continuously causing controversy.

Raven was dismissive of evidence that she was harming an animal, essentially just trying to get the people bringing evidence to stop talking about it. I take this as sufficient that she was simply ignorant, but is now stubbornly endangering an animal's life.

Whether she is causing controversy deliberately is another matter. I think she does cause controversy, and I am willing to believe it is not for the intent of doing so. However, she does intentionally return to controversy to resurrect it, which may be considered an equal offense.

 

[Antvasima]

Raven was dismissive of evidence that she was harming an animal, essentially just trying to get the people bringing evidence to stop talking about it. I take this as sufficient that she was simply ignorant, but is now stubbornly endangering an animal's life.

Okay. That is very different then. I generally try to make a distinction between being clueless and being malicious, but this seems to cross into the second territory if she refuses to change her behaviour.

Whether she is causing controversy deliberately is another matter. I think she does cause controversy, and I am willing to believe it is not for the intent of doing so. However, she does intentionally return to controversy to resurrect it, which may be considered an equal offense.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

@Twisted_Little_Raven

Do you have anything to say for yourself?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

To be clear, I wouldn't even describe Raven's animal abuse as malice, so much as an unwillingness to change. Given this immediate response, future statements on the matter become unfortunately suspect.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this provides relevant information regarding this subject for Raven.

 

[Twisted_Little_Raven]

Wow seriously? I'm reported for this nonsense? I said I take the meat off the bone 99% of the time. And that 1% being there genuinely being nothing to eat. And I even trust that 1% even now and then because the dog eats them properly. This is treated like I'm willingly trying to kill a dog. If it did. I would; break them before giving them to the dog, give it to the dog regularly. Both of which I don't do. That means, even if my dog has shown competency with eating them, I still don't do it hardly at all. Blowing this up like some intentional dog killer is insane. This has nothing to do with me trying to cause controversy lol. Anyway I'll stop doing it if people care that much. If it's too late and y'all wanna pull ban hammer instead, my reaction is; nvm I'll chill

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am at work. When I'm not at work, I'll go over this.

 

[Twisted_Little_Raven]

If anything isn't it a good thing I said it? Otherwise, would have been continued unbeknownst to anyone. I recognize the danger which is why I said 99% of the time I don't except rare desperate situations. At most u can say I don't recognize the danger enough to allow even that 1%. There's also a difference between what I say, and what actually happens. Because I was annoyed he tried to tell me something I know, I went to downplay the situation by saying "he's exaggerating." Real actions would say, I hardly ever do that. So don't paint me as a malicious dog killer. Thanks.