Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Firestorm808]

While he did apologize, the way he did it sounds more overdramatic than necessary, which usually means something is off about it. Not saying that is proof of not being sincere, but I still think a short ban for a month is a considerably reasonable compromise yes.

Is this a repeat offense or first time?

 

[GarrixianXD]

Is this a repeat offense or first time?

The user doesn't seem to have been brought up to the RVRT before the current case. No warnings seem to be issued either, and should be a first-time offence.

Edit: I agree with DDM that a month is also sufficient enough.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Even a month seems relatively harsh to me- even acknowledging that he deliberately superseded the censor. I would take it as a maximum acceptable ban length, rather than a minimum.

 

[Phoenks]

Y'all are really going to month-long ban the guy for one censored usage of the n-word, as a first time offense, even after a clear apology? As if that word isn't commonly used at mass in practically every large social media site and app out there. I could see why a relatively new/inactive user wouldn't even know that word is banned here at first.

Was it even used in a derogatory manner? If so I could see a ban, but if not, is that even necessary?

 

[Propellus]

Y'all are really going to month-long ban the guy for one censored usage of the n-word, as a first time offense, even after a clear apology? As if that word isn't commonly used at mass in practically every large social media site and app out there. I could see why a relatively new/inactive user wouldn't even know that word is banned here at first.

Was it even used in a derogatory manner? If so I could see a ban, but if not, is that even necessary?

Do keep in mind that the usage of the n word equals an automatic ban prior to fandom rules which this site is basing off.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Y'all are really going to month-long ban the guy for one censored usage of the n-word, as a first time offense, even after a clear apology? As if that word isn't commonly used at mass in practically every large social media site and app out there. I could see why a relatively new/inactive user wouldn't even know that word is banned here at first.

Was it even used in a derogatory manner? If so I could see a ban, but if not, is that even necessary?

While I agree it is a fairly harsh reaction, respectfully, this isn't really adding much other than incredulity, which hardly helps. Rules being as they are, I will ask you to not interfere with such things if you don't have something to contribute.

To answer you: it is a rule, and it was broken, and it was arguably knowingly broken given that the censor was deliberately bypassed. We have historically been extremely, almost archaically harsh on the use of slurs, whether intended in jest or unseriously, as well. I don't know if you were present in the days where staff members posting images proving another person said a slur, resulted in that staff member (I believe an admin, at the time) to be instantly banned, requiring days or weeks of talking to Fandom to undo the ban.

Suffice to say this is a stepping-down, then, even if it is harsh. Rules and precedents being as they are, it isn't terribly unreasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

So, given the apology, is a two weeks ban sufficient, or should we go with one month?

 

[LIGHTYW]

While he did apologize, the way he did it sounds more overdramatic than necessary, which usually means something is off about it. Not saying that is proof of not being sincere, but I still think a short ban for a month is a considerably reasonable compromise yes.

Its because my keyboard is broken Man, so its everytiime on caps

 

[LIGHTYW]

Y'all are really going to month-long ban the guy for one censored usage of the n-word, as a first time offense, even after a clear apology? As if that word isn't commonly used at mass in practically every large social media site and app out there. I could see why a relatively new/inactive user wouldn't even know that word is banned here at first.

Was it even used in a derogatory manner? If so I could see a ban, but if not, is that even necessary?

EXACTLY MAN, jus because i called a character that doesnt even exist the n-word bro..? even if gojo is white, he still my bro like thats why i said n... like hes my n.. Bro
I didnt knew that it wasnt alowed here too, that account i created exist since april, but i only actualy started using it in like october because before it used to say that i needed to wait sometime until using it

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So, given the apology, is a two weeks ban sufficient, or should we go with one month?

I'd prefer leaning towards a lighter ban. So, I vote for two weeks.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Two weeks it is then, I suppose. Is somebody here willing to apply it to his forum and wiki accounts please?

 

[Tyranno223]

After talking with Ant and Firestorm, I would like to make a report on the user Ellbekarym. This was originally going to be saved till after the thread in question was concluded, but that is looking to be some time from now.

This is less about a single bad comment or something and more about a generally unpleasant attitude in a thread. I think Ellbekarym has a overly "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to conversations on the linked thread. It's one thing to do "banter" and back-and-forths in a thread, they're pretty regular and I'm not above it as might be known, but their comments veer away from the argument and towards me and my supporters a few times. That plus they bring in genuine fanfiction to support their arguments.

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

Mostly fine. He does call my points "completely insane" but on its own it's just banter.

• "No, I must be mistaken, I'm sorry, but in this case what I thought was wrong becomes completely insane. Your reasoning becomes: “Tolkien can invent anything, so he's omnipotent on his fictional world, but his world isn't really fictional since it describes the real, so beings more powerful than him in the real world (angels) are also more powerful than him as a fictional character (Valar) in the fictional world, so these fictional characters are omnipotent”. Please reassure me that I've misunderstood, that you're not doing some crazy fiction-on-reality feedback loop, because in that case we can stop right there. Apart from the blatant logical contradiction, this ultimately ends up denying the very distinction between reality and fiction."

https://vsbattles.com/threads/tolkien-tier-high-1-a-and-0-proposal.171747/post-6872497
Same here, but calling the proposal "infamy" is unpleasant.

• "At the end, I've discussed just about everything. Anyway, I want my username under the “Disagree” category so the world knows I'm not complicit in the infamy afoot."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

They seem to be implying I'm making some kind of plot here while also pretty much calling the people in this thread "ignorant" by saying they have not "realized the reality of this thesis". They then later call it a "hogwash thesis" and the "funniest wank"

• "But unlike you, I don't think people have realized the reality of this thesis, and I even find it hard to believe that you're actually defending it. We're on a reality-fiction loop: the character is stronger than the author, who is stronger than the fiction. To repeat myself, the argument is: Tolkien thinks the Valar are real, so the Valar are stronger than Tolkien, who is (almost) omnipotent, so they are. I can't believe anyone would go along with this completely hogwash thesis.
  
  That said, it would be the funniest wank on the site."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

They defend using fanfiction as an argumentative point, while also using abandoned drafts as part of their argument.

• "You're trying to dismiss a “super Valar” with contempt, but you are no one to declare which arguments are legitimate ; the Valar are themselves “super-maiar”, the latter being equal to High 1-A+ according to your thesis. Anyway it's a detail of the argument, that's not to mention the fact that Valar don't know things and can't create souls."
• "“You don't understand Tier 0” No: I maintain that limiting Valar to not being able to do X or Y is contigent to their nature. There's nothing to stop Eru from creating an uber-valar tomorrow that can kill other Valar (indeed, Eru will allow a human to kill Melkor). So killing a Valar is not an absolute impossibility, and for the rest, the argument is valid. The fact that Eru imposed the limitation doesn't change anything, since he could have done otherwise (and will, in this case)."
  • I was trying to make it clear that if a Tier 0 makes X thing impossible in a verse, then it's flat-out impossible and then they came up with a fanfic scenario."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

Pretty much fine. Though they do accuse me of putting words in Tolkien's mouth, though that's fine as banter.

I don't think it's too bad.

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I mean we are going in circles at this point. The mods accepted the revisions. I think the thread should be closed. We are pretty much just waiting on Ultima's re-evaluation of the High 1-A+ stuff. I will request the thread to be closed once that is done and initial responses dealt with since...

vsbattles.com

Again says that the people who agreed with me haven't understood my points. The language isn't bad here, but just a unpleasant attitude again.

• "I'll let Ultima speak for himself. The fact is, I doubt that most people who agree with you have really understood your argument."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

Welp, I did try to move this conversation, but that was rejected by Ellbekarym. I'll keep my responses short. Apologies to Pein and Seed. In fact I had given in and started writing a reply. But that's fine, I prefer it; even if in a way you've proved me wrong, since one of the reasons I don't...

vsbattles.com

Reaffirms that I portray Tolkien as insane.

• "Indeed, I don't think Tolkien thought many of the things you've attributed to him."
  • Granted the language isn't bad, but he doesn't take it back even in a recent post.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Two weeks it is then, I suppose. Is somebody here willing to apply it to his forum and wiki accounts please?

Has this been handled yet?

 

[AKM sama]

After talking with Ant and Firestorm, I would like to make a report on the user Ellbekarym. This was originally going to be saved till after the thread in question was concluded, but that is looking to be some time from now.

This is less about a single bad comment or something and more about a generally unpleasant attitude in a thread. I think Ellbekarym has a overly "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to conversations on the linked thread. It's one thing to do "banter" and back-and-forths in a thread, they're pretty regular and I'm not above it as might be known, but their comments veer away from the argument and towards me and my supporters a few times. That plus they bring in genuine fanfiction to support their arguments.

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

Mostly fine. He does call my points "completely insane" but on its own it's just banter.

• "No, I must be mistaken, I'm sorry, but in this case what I thought was wrong becomes completely insane. Your reasoning becomes: “Tolkien can invent anything, so he's omnipotent on his fictional world, but his world isn't really fictional since it describes the real, so beings more powerful than him in the real world (angels) are also more powerful than him as a fictional character (Valar) in the fictional world, so these fictional characters are omnipotent”. Please reassure me that I've misunderstood, that you're not doing some crazy fiction-on-reality feedback loop, because in that case we can stop right there. Apart from the blatant logical contradiction, this ultimately ends up denying the very distinction between reality and fiction."

https://vsbattles.com/threads/tolkien-tier-high-1-a-and-0-proposal.171747/post-6872497
Same here, but calling the proposal "infamy" is unpleasant.

• "At the end, I've discussed just about everything. Anyway, I want my username under the “Disagree” category so the world knows I'm not complicit in the infamy afoot."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

They seem to be implying I'm making some kind of plot here while also pretty much calling the people in this thread "ignorant" by saying they have not "realized the reality of this thesis". They then later call it a "hogwash thesis" and the "funniest wank"

• "But unlike you, I don't think people have realized the reality of this thesis, and I even find it hard to believe that you're actually defending it. We're on a reality-fiction loop: the character is stronger than the author, who is stronger than the fiction. To repeat myself, the argument is: Tolkien thinks the Valar are real, so the Valar are stronger than Tolkien, who is (almost) omnipotent, so they are. I can't believe anyone would go along with this completely hogwash thesis.
  
  That said, it would be the funniest wank on the site."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

They defend using fanfiction as an argumentative point, while also using abandoned drafts as part of their argument.

• "You're trying to dismiss a “super Valar” with contempt, but you are no one to declare which arguments are legitimate ; the Valar are themselves “super-maiar”, the latter being equal to High 1-A+ according to your thesis. Anyway it's a detail of the argument, that's not to mention the fact that Valar don't know things and can't create souls."
• "“You don't understand Tier 0” No: I maintain that limiting Valar to not being able to do X or Y is contigent to their nature. There's nothing to stop Eru from creating an uber-valar tomorrow that can kill other Valar (indeed, Eru will allow a human to kill Melkor). So killing a Valar is not an absolute impossibility, and for the rest, the argument is valid. The fact that Eru imposed the limitation doesn't change anything, since he could have done otherwise (and will, in this case)."
  • I was trying to make it clear that if a Tier 0 makes X thing impossible in a verse, then it's flat-out impossible and then they came up with a fanfic scenario."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

Pretty much fine. Though they do accuse me of putting words in Tolkien's mouth, though that's fine as banter.

I don't think it's too bad.

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I mean we are going in circles at this point. The mods accepted the revisions. I think the thread should be closed. We are pretty much just waiting on Ultima's re-evaluation of the High 1-A+ stuff. I will request the thread to be closed once that is done and initial responses dealt with since...

vsbattles.com

Again says that the people who agreed with me haven't understood my points. The language isn't bad here, but just a unpleasant attitude again.

• "I'll let Ultima speak for himself. The fact is, I doubt that most people who agree with you have really understood your argument."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

Welp, I did try to move this conversation, but that was rejected by Ellbekarym. I'll keep my responses short. Apologies to Pein and Seed. In fact I had given in and started writing a reply. But that's fine, I prefer it; even if in a way you've proved me wrong, since one of the reasons I don't...

vsbattles.com

Reaffirms that I portray Tolkien as insane.

• "Indeed, I don't think Tolkien thought many of the things you've attributed to him."
  • Granted the language isn't bad, but he doesn't take it back even in a recent post.

To be honest, I don't think anything is report-worthy here. Calling someone's argument "insane" or "wank" is par for the course in a debating website and I don't think the general attitude was hostile or aggressive enough to be a problem. You'll find people here who you feel are unpleasant but the expectation is for people to have thick enough skin so as to not get offended by minor remarks like these. The fanfiction arguments that you disagree with need to be debunked on the thread itself where you can take help from knowledgeable staff members. (Unless I missed something, in that case someone can correct me.)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

After talking with Ant and Firestorm, I would like to make a report on the user Ellbekarym. This was originally going to be saved till after the thread in question was concluded, but that is looking to be some time from now.

This is less about a single bad comment or something and more about a generally unpleasant attitude in a thread. I think Ellbekarym has a overly "holier than thou" attitude when it comes to conversations on the linked thread. It's one thing to do "banter" and back-and-forths in a thread, they're pretty regular and I'm not above it as might be known, but their comments veer away from the argument and towards me and my supporters a few times. That plus they bring in genuine fanfiction to support their arguments.

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

Mostly fine. He does call my points "completely insane" but on its own it's just banter.

• "No, I must be mistaken, I'm sorry, but in this case what I thought was wrong becomes completely insane. Your reasoning becomes: “Tolkien can invent anything, so he's omnipotent on his fictional world, but his world isn't really fictional since it describes the real, so beings more powerful than him in the real world (angels) are also more powerful than him as a fictional character (Valar) in the fictional world, so these fictional characters are omnipotent”. Please reassure me that I've misunderstood, that you're not doing some crazy fiction-on-reality feedback loop, because in that case we can stop right there. Apart from the blatant logical contradiction, this ultimately ends up denying the very distinction between reality and fiction."

https://vsbattles.com/threads/tolkien-tier-high-1-a-and-0-proposal.171747/post-6872497
Same here, but calling the proposal "infamy" is unpleasant.

• "At the end, I've discussed just about everything. Anyway, I want my username under the “Disagree” category so the world knows I'm not complicit in the infamy afoot."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

They seem to be implying I'm making some kind of plot here while also pretty much calling the people in this thread "ignorant" by saying they have not "realized the reality of this thesis". They then later call it a "hogwash thesis" and the "funniest wank"

• "But unlike you, I don't think people have realized the reality of this thesis, and I even find it hard to believe that you're actually defending it. We're on a reality-fiction loop: the character is stronger than the author, who is stronger than the fiction. To repeat myself, the argument is: Tolkien thinks the Valar are real, so the Valar are stronger than Tolkien, who is (almost) omnipotent, so they are. I can't believe anyone would go along with this completely hogwash thesis.
  
  That said, it would be the funniest wank on the site."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

They defend using fanfiction as an argumentative point, while also using abandoned drafts as part of their argument.

• "You're trying to dismiss a “super Valar” with contempt, but you are no one to declare which arguments are legitimate ; the Valar are themselves “super-maiar”, the latter being equal to High 1-A+ according to your thesis. Anyway it's a detail of the argument, that's not to mention the fact that Valar don't know things and can't create souls."
• "“You don't understand Tier 0” No: I maintain that limiting Valar to not being able to do X or Y is contigent to their nature. There's nothing to stop Eru from creating an uber-valar tomorrow that can kill other Valar (indeed, Eru will allow a human to kill Melkor). So killing a Valar is not an absolute impossibility, and for the rest, the argument is valid. The fact that Eru imposed the limitation doesn't change anything, since he could have done otherwise (and will, in this case)."
  • I was trying to make it clear that if a Tier 0 makes X thing impossible in a verse, then it's flat-out impossible and then they came up with a fanfic scenario."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I already agree with all of this even though my 'agree' doesn't matter here though but hey again and again fully agreed 💯 👍. You cooked well chef Tyranno.

vsbattles.com

Pretty much fine. Though they do accuse me of putting words in Tolkien's mouth, though that's fine as banter.

I don't think it's too bad.

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

I mean we are going in circles at this point. The mods accepted the revisions. I think the thread should be closed. We are pretty much just waiting on Ultima's re-evaluation of the High 1-A+ stuff. I will request the thread to be closed once that is done and initial responses dealt with since...

vsbattles.com

Again says that the people who agreed with me haven't understood my points. The language isn't bad here, but just a unpleasant attitude again.

• "I'll let Ultima speak for himself. The fact is, I doubt that most people who agree with you have really understood your argument."

Tolkien Tier High 1-A+ and 0 Proposal

Welp, I did try to move this conversation, but that was rejected by Ellbekarym. I'll keep my responses short. Apologies to Pein and Seed. In fact I had given in and started writing a reply. But that's fine, I prefer it; even if in a way you've proved me wrong, since one of the reasons I don't...

vsbattles.com

Reaffirms that I portray Tolkien as insane.

• "Indeed, I don't think Tolkien thought many of the things you've attributed to him."
  • Granted the language isn't bad, but he doesn't take it back even in a recent post.

He seems more annoying than hostile, and if what he was attacking you as opposed to your arguments, I could see warning justifications though. But ultimately, I don't even think it reaches that far.

 

[Antvasima]

Has this been handled yet?

Never mind. Bambu already handled it.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Hello.

This is an announcement from the HR group regarding recent private discussions.

We have decided to demote Eficiente in the advent of numerous reports of unproductive and hostile conduct towards users and other staff members. Specifically, these reports have demonstrated consistent issues with insulting other users' competence, knowledge, motives, and level of attention, which have not ceased or led to acknowledgement of the problem with such behaviour, despite multiple warnings regarding these issues.

Further discussion on this topic is not permitted.

That will be all.

 

[GrathOfLux]

@Eficiente We can discuss the matter in private. You're free to offer your thoughts and questions, but in line with my previous comment, that discussion will not be held here and so I will delete your comment.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Can someone ban @ImmortalDread this freak off the site for his behavior of the past and on the unpopular opinions thread?

 

[Damage3245]

Can someone ban @ImmortalDread this freak off the site for his behavior of the past and on the unpopular opinions thread?

Bro your acting like an obnoxious **** across the thread as the very first thing after the unban is indeed a rule violation.

You're a pedophile

If you're going to report someone on this thread, then link to the rule-breaking posts or behaviour, because otherwise you're just spamming the thread with complaints.

 

[Damage3245]

To actually address something that might be breaking the rules, @DaMonkeMan's comment here looks a lot like wishing death on another user of the forum.

 

[Arceus0x]

To actually address something that might be breaking the rules, @DaMonkeMan's comment here looks a lot like wishing death on another user of the forum.

me too bro, I didn't wish death but I've released most of my pent up anger on the mf. If we go down we go down together.

Now as for the actual reason we wanted to talk about Dread is that the only reason he came back is specifically to ragebait. Sure we took it hook line n sinker but that's still a banned member coming back to gloat and spread drama.
-Here's him supporting others sending memes of him and about him, even if they are topic banned memes
-Here's another example
-Here's more

So a member banned for impersonation, who emotionally manipulated and lied to an innocent man for 6 month and lied to this entire community about their gender for whatever reason comes back and the first thing they do is start baiting people into drama.
Idk how you people thought 1 year was enough for that kind of bullsh!t but it clearly wasn't enough.
They didn't come here to be productive, they came here to bait.

 

[Damage3245]

You can go ahead and add me in there, I backed every single comment and I made my stance in that thread clear as well.

me too bro, I didn't wish death but I've released most of my pent up anger on the mf. If we go down we go down together.

Okay, I understand, but you can't stand in solidarity on rule-breaking like this and expect to get treated the same without actually breaking any rules. My report is just for DaMonkeMan's comment currently - not for anyone else unless they've posted similar comments.

As for ImmortalDread, I'll go through the linked posts and rest of the thread.

 

[Damage3245]

This isn't the thread to argue about it on; if you want staff to take these reports seriously then you've got to wait for them to be addressed instead of arguing back-and-forth with each other.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Can someone ban @ImmortalDread this freak off the site for his behavior of the past and on the unpopular opinions thread?

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

Wait, english ships are female? So azur lane and kantai collection were right all along... Yeah, i didn't realize up until now Like now it can even recognize when a word is a name and shouldn't be translated because it starts capitalized in the middle of a sentence I mean, I could be...

vsbattles.com

Looking over the conversation, there's some rule breaking comments, but Dread was also clearly ragebaiting throughout the incident by posting provocative memes and adding fuel to the fire.

 

[Crabwhale]

Alright peanut gallery, you're all hilarious, now shut the hell up and let's actually handle this like adults.

 

[Crabwhale]

Dei, you are the last person to judge someone for off-site conduct.

I repeat, shut up. Anybody talking beyond this point will have their posting rights in this thread temporarily revoked.

 

[Da3ggman]

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

Hmm

vsbattles.com

Another death threat implication. Yall dawg need to behave and respect Christian femboys.

I already explained in the thread, but my intent is not to call for the death of you or anyone; the sanctity of life is something I hold most dear to me. My actual intention was to call out your hypocrisy of proclaiming that you "love Jesus" in an earlier message and yet, your past actions and lack of remorse showcase as being evidently not true.

However, I say that it wasn't the best verse nor the best way to illustrate the point, and that, along with making you seemingly feel hurt and disturbed, I sincerely apologize for, especially when you were already being bombarded with messages of people calling for your death and harm. It was inappropriate, and uncalled for.

 

[Crabwhale]

And now you're on probation. Congratulations.

I'm applying a ban of 24 hours. If you somehow get off these allegations, I'll remove it then.

 

[Crabwhale]

Alright, let's get the main thing out of the way before we tackle the side dishes.

I don't think the user ImmortalDread should be allowed to remain on-site.

The reason isn't so much what he's done since coming back as what is represented by the messages he's sending now. We give non-permanent bans, even very long ones, to users on the basis that if they ever come back, the time span will have been sufficient for them have improved their conduct. At least, that's always been my understanding and application of the concept.

By coming back and immediately going on a several page long bait tirade in that thread, Dread has demonstrated not only no positive change but has actively regressed in his on-site conduct. Quite frankly, with the way he's acting, he's no different to me than any other troll account, and we have never really showed any lenience towards those.

And all of that is not factoring in his off-site conduct, which has left most users who've interacted with him extremely uncomfortable and upset.

I am strongly advocating a permanent ban this time.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'll state my opinion publicly.

I will begin by saying that the circumstances before us are particularly egregious and unusual. I was not on this wiki during its most tumultuous times (having been banned for the ass end of that age), so I cannot speak to its entire history- but I have never seen a user generate such a miasma of hatred around them in my time here. This itself is not a rule violation; however, that Dread appears intent on instigating these acts of hatred means we have what I would call legitimate and altogether reasonable grounds to issue a major rule violation. It is little different than harassment, only on a large scale.

As I'm typing this I see Crab's message posted above me- I would agree with his conclusion that Dread ought to be permanently banned. Dread probably should have been permanently banned to begin with, but mistakes can be made, and the bureaucracy can obfuscate what must be done. Dread is little more than a troll at this point, and within a day of returning to the site has solely stirred the pot. We have nothing to gain by his presence.

As for the other users involved. Broadly speaking, I am in favor of some amount of clemency for those who verbally abused Dread, given the extraordinary circumstances- they were goaded and manipulated into doing it, and mystifyingly enough, they were goaded by none other than the apparent "victim"; thus it seems to me difficult to suggest as heavy punishments as they might otherwise receive. It is my opinion that anyone partaking in that thread who did not issue threats or wishes for harm or death may be appropriately considered innocent.

These more extreme actions ought to be more carefully considered, especially acknowledging that several of those doing them did so recognizing that they were consciously breaking the rules- the defense of manipulation or ragebaiting is harder to argue when one can take a step back and realize such things. The users in particular are as follows:

• DaMonkeMan: here, here, here
• DivineAura44: here

It's worth noting Arceus0x is a borderline case (here, here) but I wouldn't take him as doing anything worthy of a ban. Da3ggman also referenced the death of Dread (here) but clarified the mention of death wasn't the intent (take it with what grains of salt you want). I would consider everything else water under the bridge. My suggestions are as follows:

• Informal warnings for all participating in this stunt. Dread is an unusual case- clemency will not be the norm in the future.
• Formal warning for @Arceus0x. Even taking the above aside, he contributed to the atmosphere more than most- including the above makes it worthy of particular rebuking, in my opinion.
• A ban for @DaMonkeMan. He claimed he wanted to be banned anyways, I'm not sure whether he stands by that or whether he wants it to be permanent, but regardless, much of the non-Dread side of this situation arose from him, and practically all of the explicit death threats were made by him. It crosses a line one can no longer reasonably ignore. @DivineAura44 mentioned support for him, shown above, and so I would recommend a shorter ban. I'll wait to hear from others before discussing formal time suggestions.

 

[Crabwhale]

Bambu pretty much summed up my thoughts regarding the other participants in the thread.

I would like to extend a small formal warning also to @BoastJr @Robo432343 and @Shmooply for these posts. Seriously guys, knock it off.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I considered adding BoastJr's to the report, however given that prior to his ban, Dread did appear to suggest inappropriate things in private circles, I'm less inclined to punish people for accusing him of those things. Their actions are inappropriate for public banter, but not actually unwarranted- one just wishes they'd let it be handled cleanly.

Still, if that's your recommendation, I'll sign off on warnings for those three (although Shmooply in particular seems comparatively trivial).

 

[Crabwhale]

I've gone ahead and applied the ban to Dread. No point in waiting and I sincerely doubt anybody'll bring any evidence or desire to reverse the decision.

 

[DivineAura44]

I see no problem with the sentiments shared by the staff here today, I accept the ban length they see fit.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with just about everything Mr Bambu has said as well.

 

[Damage3245]

I agree with Mr. Bambu's assessment too.

 

[DaMonkeMan]

I'll state my opinion publicly.

I will begin by saying that the circumstances before us are particularly egregious and unusual. I was not on this wiki during its most tumultuous times (having been banned for the ass end of that age), so I cannot speak to its entire history- but I have never seen a user generate such a miasma of hatred around them in my time here. This itself is not a rule violation; however, that Dread appears intent on instigating these acts of hatred means we have what I would call legitimate and altogether reasonable grounds to issue a major rule violation. It is little different than harassment, only on a large scale.

As I'm typing this I see Crab's message posted above me- I would agree with his conclusion that Dread ought to be permanently banned. Dread probably should have been permanently banned to begin with, but mistakes can be made, and the bureaucracy can obfuscate what must be done. Dread is little more than a troll at this point, and within a day of returning to the site has solely stirred the pot. We have nothing to gain by his presence.

As for the other users involved. Broadly speaking, I am in favor of some amount of clemency for those who verbally abused Dread, given the extraordinary circumstances- they were goaded and manipulated into doing it, and mystifyingly enough, they were goaded by none other than the apparent "victim"; thus it seems to me difficult to suggest as heavy punishments as they might otherwise receive. It is my opinion that anyone partaking in that thread who did not issue threats or wishes for harm or death may be appropriately considered innocent.

These more extreme actions ought to be more carefully considered, especially acknowledging that several of those doing them did so recognizing that they were consciously breaking the rules- the defense of manipulation or ragebaiting is harder to argue when one can take a step back and realize such things. The users in particular are as follows:

• DaMonkeMan: here, here, here
• DivineAura44: here

It's worth noting Arceus0x is a borderline case (here, here) but I wouldn't take him as doing anything worthy of a ban. Da3ggman also referenced the death of Dread (here) but clarified the mention of death wasn't the intent (take it with what grains of salt you want). I would consider everything else water under the bridge. My suggestions are as follows:

• Informal warnings for all participating in this stunt. Dread is an unusual case- clemency will not be the norm in the future.
• Formal warning for @Arceus0x. Even taking the above aside, he contributed to the atmosphere more than most- including the above makes it worthy of particular rebuking, in my opinion.
• A ban for @DaMonkeMan. He claimed he wanted to be banned anyways, I'm not sure whether he stands by that or whether he wants it to be permanent, but regardless, much of the non-Dread side of this situation arose from him, and practically all of the explicit death threats were made by him. It crosses a line one can no longer reasonably ignore. @DivineAura44 mentioned support for him, shown above, and so I would recommend a shorter ban. I'll wait to hear from others before discussing formal time suggestions.

I don't care either way but I'd prefer a permanent one
I generally just didn't care for this site anymore anyway and I don't see my self coming back to it, even before this Dread stuff I didn't see my self returning after a while. So go ahead and make it permanent. Bye.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

With MonkeMan committing to a permanent ban, that leaves us with DivineAura. Relatively light actions all throughout, I wouldn't recommend anything more than a two week ban given the circumstances.

 

[Damage3245]

With MonkeMan committing to a permanent ban, that leaves us with DivineAura. Relatively light actions all throughout, I wouldn't recommend anything more than a two week ban given the circumstances.

I'd also support no higher than 2 weeks for DivineAura.