Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Abstractions]

Well, everything is connected, and you just used the standardised slogan "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence"

I believe it's completely rational that if someone threatened to strip you of your own autonomy or indicated they'd harm you through their speech that the consequence from that is that they could react in a manner that is level to the response, if someone threatens to commit harm to a vulnerable individual they have given reason for themselves to be pepper sprayed. This applies to interactions with police as well, there's instances where you can be punished for your speech in an interaction with authority.

But this is probably getting off topic.

 

[Moritzva]

Antvasima, while I agreed with your petition to open discussion and allow him to speak, I will definitely say that his defense has been far from solid. A ban of a decently significant magnitude is warranted, given the circumstance and the response given.

 

[Antvasima]

Antvasima, while I agreed with your petition to open discussion and allow him to speak, I will definitely say that his defense has been far from solid. A ban of a decently significant magnitude is warranted, given the circumstance and the response given.

Okay. I still think that 1 year seems harsher than what he deserved, but as I mentioned above, I seem to have been outvoted here.

Everybody please read through and try to consider the general points that I brought up in my more philosphical posts above though. I think that they are important in order to work against society as a whole gradually unravelling.

 

[Antvasima]

I believe it's completely rational that if someone threatened to strip you of your own autonomy or indicated they'd harm you through their speech that the consequence from that is that they could react in a manner that is level to the response, if someone threatens to commit harm to a vulnerable individual they have given reason for themselves to be pepper sprayed. This applies to interactions with police as well, there's instances where you can be punished for your speech in an interaction with authority.

But this is probably getting off topic.

Yes, but that is illegal speech that threatens or incites harm. I think that I already covered that I definitely do not remotely support that.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, it is late for me, and there is not really anything relevant left to say here, so I suggest that we all try to drop this topic.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

You yourself do not understand what a difficult situation you have created by turning an elephant from a fly? You decided to ban a person for a year because, yes, he may have slightly exaggerated his emotions, but nevertheless spoke out on the case (and now I am deliberately exaggerating so that people can understand the whole essence of the comedy) that a white humanoid creature, being of the human race and identified as male would not be biologically considered a black alien whose body consists of a futuristic toaster, simply due to the fact that he identifies himself as such due to some social divisions. This is wrong, it is contrary to biology and logic. And even more so, you should not turn a thematic platform for comparing the strengths of the characters into political, personal and ideological proceedings. The man gave his opinion. You must understand that not everyone will agree with your principles and, as emphasized above, this will mean that you cannot accept any opinion other than your own. What is at odds with the fundamental rules of the site, where each person must reckon with the opinions of others. As for me, Dart should get by with only a verbal warning, but not a ban.

P.s. I respect every "gender", but you don't have to be so overreacting.

I think it's best if you just drop this instead of initiating more arguments. Just move on.

 

[Campo1uc]

I think it's best if you just drop this instead of initiating more arguments. Just move on.

It is a bit sad that a person who a day ago calmly discussed the pages of the universes, made calculations and even contributed to the renewal of the universes, will simply disappear due to different worldviews either for a year or (most likely) forever. Although... to be honest, most likely it will simply go into an analogue of the fandom, where the "opinion" can really be "expressed" in an open form, without fear of a ban...

 

[Antvasima]

Well, he legitimately broke our rules, but I disagreed about how severely.

I think that it is sad to lose otherwise productive members in this manner though.

Anyway, I suppose that we will likely be forced to ban you as well, but it is up to the others to decide. I have other tasks to handle.

 

[Pikaman]

Anyway, I suppose that we will likely be forced to ban you as well, but it is up to the others to decide. I have other tasks to handle

Ant, why are you getting so edgy about this? You’ve been running this “cancel culture” narrative because a member was harshly punished for being a transphobic asshole and making comments that could have very easily become a major nuisance/cause of great offence to our membership, especially the portion of which that are trans

 

[SamanPatou]

Also, I must say this kind of behavior and drama has already had consequences on other people who got seriously offended by this, and acting like this makes it look like they don't mean anything to our eyes, as if their feeling weren't important.

 

[Antvasima]

Ant, why are you getting so edgy about this? You’ve been running this “cancel culture” narrative because a member was harshly punished for being a transphobic asshole and making comments that could have very easily become a major nuisance/cause of great offence to our membership, especially the portion of which that are trans

I have already explained why as succinctly as I could manage under the circumstances, and I am definitely not the lying sort. I am very concerned about freedom of speech quickly being eroded away depending on the media-mandated narratives of the day, and increasingly creating the foundations for massive societal upheaval level violent counter-reactions, rather than learning to genuinely get through our differences via peaceful dialogue, but I explained my views more thoroughly earlier.

Also, I get extremely offended by lots of things in this world, including a large amount of our featured fictions, which I consider as destructive mind-poison, but I do not wipe them from our wiki because of that.

Anyway, I do not deny that he broke our rules. I just disagreed with how severely he broke our rules, as he did not use slurs or spew genuine hatred as far as I could tell.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, for how long should we ban Campo1uc?

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

Anyway, for how long should we ban Campo1uc?

Why would he be ban? I'm confused and i just wanna clear things up.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

The guy simply defended his friend. Banning him for that would be pathetic

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I must say this kind of behavior and drama has already had consequences on other people who got seriously offended by this, and acting like this makes it look like they don't mean anything to our eyes, as if their feeling weren't important.

The point is that everybody's feelings and personal traumas are important, and should preferably be healed and taken into consideration if possible, but if we act on permanently banning everybody who strongly offend one group with their viewpoints, we would rationally have to permanently ban those whose views strongly offend other groups as well, for example, and then we would have virtually no members left, so as I mentioned earlier, I would much rather that people from very different cultural and ideological backgrounds try to learn how to get along together via polite dialogue.

That said, I personally instituted rules against attacking any group of people via this community, not just the ones that Fandom has focused on, so I am definitely against hate-speech of any form. I am just concerned about being too draconian recently, since I can see what is going on in society as a whole.

 

[Campo1uc]

<<I am confused because of the destruction of freedom of speech>> but I, perhaps, will decide to ban a person because he, without unnecessary emotions, insults, with a share of respect, spoke about the termination of social, gender and ideological proceedings in the thematic area for comparing characters and emphasized that the ban of the participant because of his opinion, perhaps overly emotional in manifestation, but, at the same time, in the case, is unreasonable. well done

 

[Antvasima]

Why would he be ban? I'm confused and i just wanna clear things up.

The guy simply defended his friend. Banning him for that would be pathetic

Well, I thought that he said roughly the same thing as DarthSpiderr in the post that I deleted, so I assumed that the other staff members would feel the same way about the issue.

But there is no pleasing anybody by trying to not be partisan in any direction it seems.

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Ant obviously comes from a good place.

Tbf, Darth was banned before he could defend himself, so it was an admirable move for Ant to call out the people that just permabanned him without looking at the context.

However, Darth's comments were very reckless and inconsiderate of others' feelings. He most likely wasn't thinking at all when typing that comment (I've done the same thing before, and I've tried my best to correct those mistakes).

I do think Darth should receive a lengthy ban, but that isn't really up to me.

However, Ant has no good reason to ban Campo. He was just sticking up for his friend. There's nothing wrong with that.

Hope this clears things up.

 

[Abstractions]

Tbf, Darth was banned before he could defend himself, so it was an admirable move for Ant to call out the people that just permabanned him without looking at the context.

There was no context that made that look better and the permaban was more intended as a placeholder (albeit admittedly not communicated properly), a lengthy ban is still in order however.

I believe Ant is being intentionally defeatist here with his proposal to ban the Campo1uc, despite the sensitivity of the subject matter I'd prefer if we avoided melodrama and stuck to dealing with Darth, thank you.

 

[Antvasima]

Ant obviously comes from a good place.

Tbf, Darth was banned before he could defend himself, so it was an admirable move for Ant to call out the people that just permabanned him without looking at the context.

However, Darth's comments were very reckless and inconsiderate of others' feelings. He most likely wasn't thinking at all when typing that comment (I've done the same thing before, and I've tried my best to correct those mistakes).

I do think Darth should receive a lengthy ban, but that isn't really up to me.

However, Ant has no good reason to ban Campo. He was just sticking up for his friend. There's nothing wrong with that.

Hope this clears things up.

Okay. No problem. I deleted the post that I thought the other staff members here would want to ban him for though.

You quoted it yourself. I understand that he just wanted to protect his friend though.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5033156

 

[RandomGuy2345]

There was no context that made that look better and the permaban was more intended as a placeholder (albeit admittedly not communicated properly), a lengthy ban is still in order however.

I believe Ant is being intentionally defeatist here with his proposal to ban the Campo1uc, despite the sensitivity of the subject matter I'd prefer if we avoided melodrama and stuck to dealing with Darth, thank you.

That's understandable, I was just saying that Ant didn't have to do what he did, because what Darth said was very reckless and inconsiderate.

I was just saying it was an admirable thing to do. Darth should receive a lengthy ban, like I said already.

Carry on.

 

[Antvasima]

There was no context that made that look better and the permaban was more intended as a placeholder (albeit admittedly not communicated properly), a lengthy ban is still in order however.

Yes, agreed. I just disagreed about how lengthy.

I believe Ant is being intentionally defeatist here with his proposal to ban the Campo1uc, despite the sensitivity of the subject matter I'd prefer if we avoided melodrama and stuck to dealing with Darth, thank you.

You should know me better than that by now. I am virtually mentally incapable of playing any social games whatsoever, and have very limited mental filters to what I say and perceive.

Given that it was decided that a seemingly thematically identical post from an established productive member warranted a 1 year ban, I genuinely thought that it would be deemed appropriate to ban his much less active friend as well.

 

[Abstractions]

You should know me better than that by now. I am virtually mentally incapable of playing any social games whatsoever, and have very limited mental filters.

I'm not saying it's intentional, I simply suspect that you're feeling rather mentally fatigued from the subject due to the adversity to your comments and don't really want to argue with it anymore. Instead you are pushing towards an action you'd believe we'd want, hence why I said it was defeatist and melodramatic.

Given that it was decided that a seemingly thematically identical post from an established productive member, I genuinely thought that it would be deemed appropriate to ban his much less active friend as well.

It proposed ideals we don't subscribe to, yes, but Darth's comment was rather heavily opinionated in a very negative way, and expressed how it was the "ultimate f'ing idiocy" and that he'd be harsher if he could if the translator let him. The icing on the cake was the unoriginal attack helicopter joke that is commonly used to disparage trans people. It's not exactly the same.

 

[Antvasima]

That's understandable, I was just saying that Ant didn't have to do what he did, because what Darth said was very reckless and inconsiderate.

I was just saying it was an admirable thing to do. Darth should receive a lengthy ban, like I said already.

Well, I fully expected to endure an awful lot of verbal abuse, and possibly worse, for taking a stand for my principles despite the risks involved, but I consider freedoms and liberties important, and am very concerned about far-reaching social unravelling, so I needed to express that despite the problems involved. I may be a bit of a coward, but even I have my limits.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm not saying it's intentional, I simply suspect that you're feeling rather mentally fatigued from the subject due to the adversity to your comments and don't really want to argue with it anymore. Instead you are pushing towards an action you'd believe we'd want, hence why I said it was defeatist and melodramatic.

Defeatist, yes. It is late here, and I don't have the time and energy to continue anymore, especially as I have other important work to do and need to listen to another meditation lesson before I go to bed.

Melodramatic, no. I couldn't deliberately do that if I tried, which I didn't.

It proposed ideals we don't subscribe to, yes, but Darth's comment was rather heavily opinionated in a very negative way, and expressed how it was the "ultimate f'ing idiocy" and that he'd be harsher if he could if the translator let him. The icing on the cake was the unoriginal attack helicopter joke that is commonly used to disparage trans people. It's not exactly the same.

Okay. I read both of them as simple "I identify as a [insert silly comparison here]" phrasing, which is why I thought that 3 months at most should be enough, but maybe I overlooked a wider context for Darth's comments then.

 

[Campo1uc]

While there is still such a chance, I want to ask. Is the Genos (Darth) downgrading discussion now nullified or can it still be considered within the discussion? Of course, there is no one to defend this topic now, but is it reasonable to block the idea itself because of what happened?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we should obviously still consider his expressed arguments there as valid.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, can somebody clarify everything that Darth did exactly, as I seem to have lost track? I thought that he simply made an offensive "attack helicopter"-style "joke".

 

[Damage3245]

I thought that the discussion on Darth was dropped now? His punishment has been handed out. Multiple staff members have expressed their views on this being appropriate.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I just wondered if I had misunderstood something.

 

[Lightning_XXI]

While it's over, one thing is certain for me, his initial ban was a (big) overreaction and done without a proper talk about it

I know it's a sensitive topic, but doing that weakens the whole forum, imagine if Ant never stepped out to talk for Darth ?

 

[Dereck03]

This user has vandalized several profiles. I've reverted the edits.

 

[Propellus]

Hit him in the head with the banhammer

 

[Dereck03]

Waiting for an admin to ban him. I can theoretically ban him but I was told I have no authority so hopefully some admin will ban him before he continues to vandalize.

 

[Abstractions]

This user has vandalized several profiles. I've reverted the edits.

Banned.

 

[Dereck03]

Thanks.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I was at work during the entire discussion regarding DarthSpiderr, and I mostly just read the first few posts up to his own defense and some counter arguments by Damage, Absractions, ect following it and I basically agree more with what they said. Darth literally said he didn't care if he got banned, but immediately attempted sock making instead of contacting via community central. Which is a blatant contradiction about "Not caring about getting banned".

And while I can agree with some of his points such as characters having an ability called "Boob telepathy" and the power to strip any biologically female character naked removing all armor power ups ect. Hence why I personally thought it should be okay to mention a character being transgender but of course always use pronouns of gender identification preference. We their general description and rating should have default as their general statement. But since this is a sensitive topic, I'd avoid going into too much detail and hope it doesn't come off that way.

Damage however is correct that using the infamous "Attack Helicopter" joke synonym (The Abrams Tank in this case) is grossly uncalled for and a terrible strawman. And I agree with Abstractions and Colonel that a year long block sounds better. Though it looks like the final decision was already applied.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it is still unclear to me whether or not all that was done here was an offensive bad joke.

If our staff consensus now is to systematically ban longtime members, especially longtime productive members, for as much as 1 year for that level of offense, I continue to think that it is a considerable overreaction, and potentially very long-term destructive for the coherence of a community of contributors from all over the world, as most of them are bound to hold views that are very offensive to somebody else here.

I strongly want a climate of friendly unifying collaboration, definitely not to act as fear-inducing socially divisive thought police, as this only serves to induce grudge-nurturing vindictive hatred between different "groups" in the long run. As such I remain a conscientious objector to this type of overly draconian policy.

 

[Damage3245]

He did not just make an insulting "bad joke" that was heavily transphobic; he doubled down on his stance and refused to apologize for it.

 

[Antvasima]

He did apologise twice in this thread as far as I could tell. It may not have been the kind of apology that you preferred, as he mentioned that almost anything will offend somebody, and that he did not think that his joke was particularly severe, but he did apologise as well as he was able.

Of course, I was quite rude, because this is my real reaction, and if this offended anyone, then I apologize. I only apologize to representatives of transgender people, if there were any.

I apologized for the part where I cursed at it, but not for the joke. Because she didn't directly offend anyone.

This is already ridiculous, with this method, anything can be thrown off to insult the feelings of someone.

Well, in that case, I'm sorry.

Anyway, I am not remotely primarily concerned about this particular case. I am concerned about that it sets a very bad precedent for the future regarding tolerance of offensive jokes and contrarian viewpoints.