• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

Moritzva said:
That's the even weirder part; the original thread (and Sniper's side) won, just not for Sniper's reasoning. Cal's logic won over a lot of people. It appears that Sniper does not agree with this and made another thread that specifically involves his own logic and points, except those were already denied in the past.
Click to expand...
In the original thread, the edits that were applied were the ones that completely nuked Arceus having all powers from plates instead of Cal's reasoning. That's why Sniper responded with this CRT, even though Cal's reasoning should've already been applied.

It's just turned into a confusing mess.
 
InfiniteDay said:
In the original thread, the edits that were applied were the ones that completely nuked Arceus having all powers from plates instead of Cal's reasoning. That's why Sniper responded with this CRT, even though Cal's reasoning should've already been applied.

It's just turned into a confusing mess.
Click to expand...
It is turning into a confusing mess, and making a new thread while debating in bad faith and ignoring warnings only makes it even more confusing. I don't even know where to start, as I was busy with exams while a lot of these things were happening and I have no idea what is actually accepted anymore.

Realistically, Cal's reasoning for Arceus having the powers of all Pokemon (Eternal Battle Reverie; read his argument on the first thread for more details) is the only one that, afaik, was actually accepted originally.
 
Propellus said:
Is it okay if I can state my own opinion onto this case?

I don't really see why Sniper should be off the hook for this one, considering he has shared his own account to other people just so he can avoid being punished one time when he got reported again before. So technically it should be slightly more longer than that.
Click to expand...
This is reasonable. If we should wait for anything, it should be on deciding if we should increase the length of the punishment due to his behavior.
 
I personally do not think that anything beyond 2 weeks seems warranted here.
 
Moritzva said:
You see, this is the problem. We had a lot of people agreeing on the ban previously, but because Sniper nuked his own account and went rogue, all the arguments and data have been buried. This is why we need to be harsh on this behavior, intentional or not, as it gums up the bureaucratic system.
Click to expand...
Speaking as an outsider, but if this proves to be true then it should probably stand to be longer than 2 weeks. Its messing with end users ability to judge or review RVR reports as well as in general being a massive time sink to resolve otherwise.

This is all resting on there being proof that messages being deleted/edited, and even then it'd still be just my own aforementioned opinion.
 
Well, I don't remember that happening, so I would appreciate further staff input here.
 
JohnConquest1 said:
Speaking as an outsider, but if this proves to be true then it should probably stand to be longer than 2 weeks. Its messing with end users ability to judge or review RVR reports as well as in general being a massive time sink to resolve otherwise.

This is all resting on there being proof that messages being deleted/edited, and even then it'd still be just my own aforementioned opinion.
Click to expand...
No no, messages weren't deleted (probably), I mean that he literally nuked his own account and gave his password to someone else. This resulted in him, essentially, derailing the entire report and getting himself banned indeterminately for the safety of his own account, only to come back later when he felt like it. This causes a lot of issues for us, because our report system was bypassed and now a lot of the people involved and data had are no longer immediately present, causing widespread confusion on the exact details.
 

The evaluation of the thread​

So my overview on the thread (it all started after majority of the staff members has agreed with it and none disagreed). Page 4 to be precise. It all starts when @Sniper670 applied the changes and @Moritzva join the thread asking for a reason of all those rush.

Now to be fair from both sides, @Moritzva asked a fair question what is the difference from the old thread and others, and also asked why the sudden rush. Now to understand the situation better, there were no rush:
Moritza entered the chat at this moment and asked why there is rush in the thread and asked for a fair difference between old and new one.
I assume the significance of cause is the following:
So many forth and back arguments from Sniper and other opposing party till Ant once again asked the staff members to evaluate it.
Each staff member explained their inputs regarding the OP. Mori once again explained her concerns and why OP should tell the difference between the thread prior and this new one, and Sniper responded to it by saying he actually did, but Mori dismissed it. One admin explained why Mori's concerns are partially false or fundamentally not reasonable to disagree, and Mori explained to it that she agreed and explained deeply her concerns once again.

Page 5​

Many back and forth arguments till Mori decided to report him there.

Conclusion​

I feel the main issue of this occurrence is the poor communication from both sides as Mori constantly asking Sniper to tell the differences while Sniper can't properly explain them or rather annoy Mori. There are no ban worthy comments as well as there are no insults found in the thread. It is rather a poor attitude from Sniper. I also recall Sniper also apologized, which is worth to observe that he is also trying to see Mori's issue.

Also, Sniper responses to Mori's verbal warning is not really defined as being bad-mannered, more like as being surprised (I had the same expression while reading the chat). Therefore, it would be better if Sniper stopped responding to verbal warning poorly and rather ask for clarification to his attitude, but not leaving out the other perspective side, he was found in pressure dealing with more than one opposing party.

Not excluding the fact that Sniper told Mori that her stance is not valued over other, which is actually partially accurate. One is that Mori arrived at the thread later (after everything was done, and the staff members agreed to it) and the other perspective is that Sniper got.

Note​

Sniper has constant bad history in the VSBW and got many warnings for the same poor attitude between staff and this is worth to note. Also, I am unable to provide which cases they are, but the fact still remains, whether it effects this specific case or has any relevance, I will leave it to the staff members.

Personal opinion​

I think it is more of poor communication between those two users rather being disrespectful. I would say that Sniper has some sort of attitude but as seeing here, he is trying his best to understand the concerns. At some points, he can be out of stress of repeating the same points over and over again.

So I don't see a ban worthy in this case, but rather Sniper trying his best to understand Mori as well as dealing with more opposing parties at once. Seems under stress, he refused to cooperate and not debating with Mori.

@Antvasima @Moritzva this is my evaluation, and I am trying to be neutral at this moment and also accommodating.
 
Last edited:
Moritzva said:
No no, messages weren't deleted (probably), I mean that he literally nuked his own account and gave his password to someone else. This resulted in him, essentially, derailing the entire report and getting himself banned indeterminately for the safety of his own account, only to come back later when he felt like it. This causes a lot of issues for us, because our report system was bypassed and now a lot of the people involved and data had are no longer immediately present, causing widespread confusion on the exact details.
Click to expand...
Please explain further. I do not quite understand what you mean in the bolded text.
 
Dread said:

The evaluation of the thread​

So my overview on the thread (it all started after majority of the staff members has agreed with it and none disagreed). Page 4 to be precise. It all starts when @Sniper670 applied the changes and @Moritzva join the thread asking for a reason of all those rush.

Now to be fair from both sides, @Moritzva asked a fair question what is the difference from the old thread and others, and also asked why the sudden rush. Now to understand the situation better, there were no rush:
Moritza entered the chat at this moment and asked why there is rush in the thread and asked for a fair difference between old and new one.
I assume the significance of cause is the following:
So many forth and back arguments from Sniper and other opposing party till Ant once again asked the staff members to evaluate it.
Each staff member explained their inputs regarding the OP. Mori once again explained her concerns and why OP should tell the difference between the thread prior and this new one, and Sniper responded to it by saying he actually did, but Mori dismissed it. One admin explained why Mori's concerns are partially false or fundamentally not reasonable to disagree, and Mori explained to it that she agreed and explained deeply her concerns once again.

Page 5​

Many back and forth arguments till Mori decided to report him there.

Conclusion​

I feel the main issue of this occurrence is the poor communication from both sides as Mori constantly asking Sniper to tell the differences while Sniper can't properly explain them or rather annoy Mori. There are no ban worthy comments as well as there are no insults found in the thread. It is rather a poor attitude from Sniper. I also recall Sniper also apologized, which is worth to observe that he is also trying to see Mori's issue.

Not excluding the fact that Sniper told Mori that her stance is not valued over other, which is actually partially accurate. One is that Mori arrived at the thread later (after everything was done, and the staff members agreed to it) and the other perspective is that Sniper got.

Personal opinion​

I think it is more of poor communication between those two users rather being disrespectful. I would say that Sniper has some sort of attitude but as seeing here, he is trying his best to understand the concerns. At some points, he can be out of stress of repeating the same points over and over again.

So I don't see a ban worthy in this case, but rather Sniper trying his best to understand Mori as well as dealing with more opposing parties at once. Seems under stress, he refused to cooperate and not debating with Mori.

@Antvasima @Moritzva this is my evaluation, and I am trying to be neutral at this moment and also accommodating.
Click to expand...
Thank you. 🙂
 
Thank you for helping out, Dread. What do our other staff members here think should be done?
 
Last edited:
Dread, it took two seconds of looking through your deep review to find that you missed Sniper responding to a warning with "LMFAO" and claimed Sniper didn't do anything at all.

You really ought to look into these things a little bit deeper if you're going to make reviews like this.

Furthermore, you entirely missed that Sniper was previously reported for the exact same behavior and has been like this on multiple threads, not to mention that I was incredibly transparent and direct with my communication.
 
Antvasima said:
Thank you for helping out, Dread. Whatdo our other staff members here think should be done?
Click to expand...
No problems and I am trying to be helpful and also providing transparency to the public and also staff members. It took me approx half hour, so I appreciate any kindness.
 
Moritzva said:
Dread, it took two seconds of looking through your deep review to find that you missed Sniper responding to a warning with "LMFAO" and claimed Sniper didn't do anything at all.

You really ought to look into these things a little bit deeper if you're going to make reviews like this.
Click to expand...
I assume because there were a lot of comments between you both. But I will add it. Thanks for the notice. But regarding the comment, I assume when he replied to it, he was surprisingly asking himself what is “attitude” in this case.

Again, I apologize for overlooking it, but it seriously gets me a time to summarize it as much as possible.
 
Dread said:
I assume because there were a lot of comments between you both. But I will add it. Thanks for the notice. But regarding the comment, I assume when he replied to it, he was surprisingly asking himself what is “attitude” in this case.

Again, I apologize for overlooking it, but it seriously gets me a time to summarize it as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Let's be real. I did not understand her "watch your attitude", and her repetion of it only served to annoy me. So that, is a result

But it's in the past and I apologize.
 
@Moritzva I added the comment and I apologize for overlooking it, but also to be fair to both sides, it is more being surprised to your warning rather being rude.
Again, I apologize for my deficiency.
 
Is the apology from Sniper670, along with his previous promise to try to treat you considerably better, sufficiently satisfactory for you, Moritzva?
 
Propellus said:
Honestly, if Sniper's going to insist on keeping up with this attitude and continue getting so many chances, then we need to keep an eye on him
Click to expand...
You're free to do so. But I'm generally a cool person so you'd probably lose interest in doing that
 
Moritzva said:
Furthermore, you entirely missed that Sniper was previously reported for the exact same behavior and has been like this on multiple threads, not to mention that I was incredibly transparent and direct with my communication.
Click to expand...
I only did the thread evaluation. I would rather not add his past history, as I don't know how is this relevant to this case precisely. Also responding to bold part, I agree with you, I assume it is more lack of communication from Sniper side, and not from his rudeness.

Pardon me, but I really don't see any relevance to his past history. I hope for more clarification.
 
Antvasima said:
Is the apology from Sniper670, along with his previous promise to try to treat you considerably better, sufficiently satisfactory for you, Moritzva?
Click to expand...
I am not acting solely out of personal offense, and while I do appreciate the apologies, I don't think that my personal leniency should usurp site rules involving this sort of behavior. I'm willing to say that I hold no grudge of the sort, and I only seek to make sure our rules are followed. I won't push for anything more than two weeks, however, as I can agree that may be harsh if Sniper is genuinely apologetic (though Propellus' concerns are still quite valid, as well as past concerns about site precedent).
 
Dread, it is best that you do not hijack staff discussions, here or elsewhere. It seems much better if you stop commenting here and let our staff members handle this, even though we seem to need to wait a while.
 
Moritzva said:
I am not acting solely out of personal offense, and while I do appreciate the apologies, I don't think that my personal leniency should usurp site rules involving this sort of behavior. I'm willing to say that I hold no grudge of the sort, and I only seek to make sure our rules are followed. I won't push for anything more than two weeks, however, as I can agree that may be harsh if Sniper is genuinely apologetic (though Propellus' concerns are still quite valid, as well as past concerns about site precedent).
Click to expand...
Okay. Thank you for being reasonable.
 
Antvasima said:
Dread, it is best that you do not hijack staff discussions, here or elsewhere. It seems much better if you stop commenting here and let our staff members handle this, even though we seem to need to wait a while.
Click to expand...
I was trying to be adjuvant enough. But sorry for taking my time and help staff member for this issue.
 
The initial help was good and appreciated, but then you started to make what seemed to be too many posts again, even though regular members should only comment here if they have something genuinely useful to say.
 
I agree that banning oneself and then deciding to unban oneself via request is not a satisfactory way to deal with troublemakers (duh). However, and I should note that my sample size in this judgement is precisely these past few posts: Sniper has, at the very least, said they're willing to cool off. We have a promise, and we can act on it accordingly if it is broken.

If I can ask, what did Sniper originally do? I see that Mori cites inflammatory behavior, but that is very much our bread and butter on some occasions, bread and butter that a great deal of staff members take part in. It is not good, but it is a slippery slope to banish people on those grounds alone. Could I get a link to the original discussion? (My apologies if I was actually involved in said discussion, but his name isn't ringing any bells).
 
I definitely think there's a certain threshold, like a month for example, where a self-requested ban would have essentially the same effect as a ban to the blocked user.

I say we just stick to our guns and dole out whatever ban length we'd normally give; if a user requests a 2 week ban after calling someone a 'c**k muncher', give them 3 to 6 months (like muuuuh) instead. If they ask for 3 to 6 months, give them 3 to 6 months.

There can be a bit of leniency, but we already look for that option if a user is normally benign or helpful.
 
Last edited:
I had, perhaps wrongly, inferred that this was a scenario where we hadn't doled out a punishment, but it seemed to be heading that way, but instead the user asked to be banned, only to come back later. If we're handing out a ban anyways, yeah, obviously what the user wants is no longer taken into account.
 
Reporting this "new" user.

*EDiT: @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless pretty much summarises what I was going to say (I accidentally posted before I could link all the relevant threats). To add on to the report:

*Spamming downgrade CRTs just before Christmas (where many supporters of the verses will likely be too busy to address them).

*In this thread the replies are getting noticeable heated and circular (at the end).

*If possible to avoid a conflict of interest both @Antvasima and @Eficiente shouldn't evaluate this report since they unironically support one of @LuciferX downgrade CRTs. Unsurprisingly it's the Marvel one.

I'm going to be very busy for the next few hours, so I won't have time to reply here but I implore you all to keep the replies civil and concise.
 
Last edited:
The_Axiom_of_Virgo said:
Reporting this "new" user
Click to expand...
I was just about to do the same.

Not sure how our rules are when it comes to this, but @LuciferX has made four downgrade threads shortly after his 1-B Alien X Upgrade got rejected (and closed). All the 4 threads were made within the span of a day, and all of them are about downgrading verses which he thinks the dimensions do not qualify for tier 1 (which was the main reason his 1-B Alien X thread got rejected). I think it's quite evident he is doing all of this out of spite or at least out of bad faith.

And he is likely not going to stop at just 4 threads...
 
Last edited:
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
I was just about to do the same.

Not sure how our rules are when it comes to this, but @LuciferX has made four downgrade threads shortly after his 1-B Alien X Upgrade got rejected (and closed). All the 4 threads were made within the span of a day, and all of them are about downgrading verses which he thinks the dimensions do not qualify for tier 1 (which was the main reason his 1-B Alien X thread got rejected). I think it's quite evident he is doing all of this out of spite or at least out of bad faith.

And he is likely not going to stop at just 4 threads...
Click to expand...
Speak of the devil: he made this thread too earlier
I have a feeling that he's sort of a sockpuppet of someone, we need the system to identify it
 
Well, @LuciferX made some legitimately good arguments in his Marvel Comics downgrade thread, and @Qawsedf234 and @Eficiente also thought that he seemed to make sense there, if I remember correctly, but if he is spamming other much more unreliable threads, I suppose that it is worth evaluating if he is being deliberately destructive or not.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
I agree that banning oneself and then deciding to unban oneself via request is not a satisfactory way to deal with troublemakers (duh). However, and I should note that my sample size in this judgement is precisely these past few posts: Sniper has, at the very least, said they're willing to cool off. We have a promise, and we can act on it accordingly if it is broken.
Click to expand...
Anyway, should we use this solution for @Sniper670 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FinePoint
  • Locked
Discussion Rule Word Salad
Replies
22
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
FlipLaScript
Loosening Up Tier 1 Rules
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Kanogami
Kanogami
Back
Top