- 165,617
- 73,270
- Thread starter
- #17,721
Thank you for helping out.I left the guy a message, since it was his first edit. If he does it again without recognizing the issue, ban 'im.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank you for helping out.I left the guy a message, since it was his first edit. If he does it again without recognizing the issue, ban 'im.
Well, honest logical arguments are fine, but arguing in genuine bad faith is not.If the downgrades are valid, their reasons for doing it aren't really important.
Basically it's only a rule violation if the downgrades both are extremely weak in basis, and comes from a place of spitefulness.
@TheGreatMaster12 is harassing Firestorm on his wall again.
He was banned before for doing this sort of thing, and was lifted early when he apologized. But he was later rude to people who believed in Doomslayer's Low 1-C upgrade, and of course back to the square 1 that got him banned in the first place. It seems like a longer ban than his old 3 month block might be warranted at this point. I think 6 months this time might do more justice.
Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?To clarify, we had previously given a verbal warning for off-topic grievances back in January.
I would not be against it since the behavior relapsed twice, following the early release.Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?
Aye, but at that point we have to whip out our ESP devices (read: tin foil hats). If someone doesn't like a verse, and that distaste leads them to do a thorough investigation about it's ratings, is that a rule violation?Well, honest logical arguments are fine, but arguing in genuine bad faith is not.
Honestly, if three months don't work, hit him with six, minimum. It's not really an offense in of itself to call someone a wanker, just a rude and childish thing. But targeted harassment is a different matter entirely. Suffer not the unapologetic asshole.Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?
In spite of hate/or malicious intent, that's report worthy, and that happened in the past, someone got banned couse of this, as it should be.Aye, but at that point we have to whip out our ESP devices (read: tin foil hats). If someone doesn't like a verse, and that distaste leads them to do a thorough investigation about it's ratings, is that a rule violation?
It shouldn't be, if it is. You've asked me to plenty of threads where I'd be banned for entering, if it was.
My opinion, their motive is relevant if they break other rules (spamming low quality CRTs, stonewalling, altered scans) and otherwise shouldn't be taken into account.
Nah, just saying it happened in the past and the user got banned (as it should always be).Hey dog, ban me then. Number one multi-year champion hater of Kingdom Hearts and anime (I have spoken on threads involving both a great deal of times, I am an unrepentant blasphemer).
Yes, that makes sense, but there is an enormous difference between genuinely arguing in bad faith, such as through misdirection, misrepresentations, outright lies, or what you mentioned above, and simply greatly liking or disliking a certain verse, but remaining faithful to our wiki's intended core ideals of accuracy and reliability above all else.Aye, but at that point we have to whip out our ESP devices (read: tin foil hats). If someone doesn't like a verse, and that distaste leads them to do a thorough investigation about it's ratings, is that a rule violation?
It shouldn't be, if it is. You've asked me to plenty of threads where I'd be banned for entering, if it was.
My opinion, their motive is relevant if they break other rules (spamming low quality CRTs, stonewalling, altered scans) and otherwise shouldn't be taken into account.
Well, they weren't actually banned for three months the last time, as their block was lifted quite early on, as far as I recall.Honestly, if three months don't work, hit him with six, minimum. It's not really an offense in of itself to call someone a wanker, just a rude and childish thing. But targeted harassment is a different matter entirely. Suffer not the unapologetic asshole.
I agree, but I think wires are getting crossed here. What you and Bambu are referring to are separate things. Bambu is just explaining that one's motivations for a downgrade are not per se material to whether or not the downgrade is valid. You're saying it's a problem if the arguments are dishonest that's a problem, which is true, but the two aren't mutually inclusive.Yes, that makes sense, but there is an enormous difference between genuinely arguing in bad faith, such as through misdirection, misrepresentations, outright lies, or what you mentioned above, and simply greatly liking or disliking a certain verse, but remaining faithful to our wiki's intended core ideals of accuracy and reliability above all else.
But if the user does it on spite of mocking, upsetting or "for the laughs "... doesn't matter how good their points are, is report worthy and that person should be banned.I agree, but I think wires are getting crossed here. What you and Bambu are referring to are separate things. Bambu is just explaining that one's motivations for a downgrade are not per se material to whether or not the downgrade is valid. You're saying it's a problem if the arguments are dishonest that's a problem, which is true, but the two aren't mutually inclusive.
You need to clarify exactly what you mean, because the first part of your sentence is very unclear. Are you speaking to their motivations or some action they've actually taken?But if the user does it on spite of mocking, upsetting or "for the laughs "... doesn't matter how good their points are, is report worthy and that person should be banned.
I'm talking in the case someone does it, along with their motivations.You need to clarify exactly what you mean, because the first part of your sentence is very unclear. Are you speaking to their motivations or some action they've actually taken?
Yes. Agreed. Thank you for helping out.I agree, but I think wires are getting crossed here. What you and Bambu are referring to are separate things. Bambu is just explaining that one's motivations for a downgrade are not per se material to whether or not the downgrade is valid. You're saying it's a problem if the arguments are dishonest that's a problem, which is true, but the two aren't mutually inclusive.
Yes. Also agreed.Anyways, I think we should drop this, I think I already have derailed the thread enough.
I was proposing it should be longer than 3 months even if just a little bit, but I suppose 3 months is fine but this time he will have to wait them out and I don't think we should believe the apology this time since that basically tells me his original apology might have been a lie. It also could technically be possible he was lying as he claimed we never warned him even though we clearly did unless he literally did forget all that. But he really wasn't supposed to forget those important incidents. Hence another reason to make it longer than 3 months, but 3 months is still a bare minimum.Well, the harrassment is clearly unacceptable, and the last quoted link above was only worthy of a warning at the time, yes, but since he received a 3 months block previously, and that was apparently removed due to him apologising to Firestorm808, would a new 3 months block be appropriate currently?
Immediately after getting banned again, he goes after me off-site again. I would reconsider a longer duration.
I'd say just block the dude from contacting youImmediately after getting banned again, he goes after me off-site again. I would reconsider a longer duration.
I have.I'd say just block the dude from contacting you
Shouldn't the dude be straight up perma-banned at this point?Immediately after getting banned again, he goes after me off-site again. I would reconsider a longer duration.
I think that would make more sense, we don't know what will happen next, @Firestorm808, I think you better block him at all, these things are very complicated, this is something very serious, which should be received with a harsh and brutal penalty.Shouldn't the dude be straight up perma-banned at this point?
If people think that's too harsh, 1 year trial should do. I have seen the man in action a bit but already from that alone I can tell it won't be pretty. Better safe than sorry.Shouldn't the dude be straight up perma-banned at this point?
You can't ping people unless you're staff or quote their message, btw.I think that would make more sense, we don't know what will happen next, @Firestorm808, I think you better block him at all, these things are very complicated, this is something very serious, which should be received with a harsh and brutal penalty.
You're living in his head rent-free, damn.I wouldn't be against a permaban. The guy feels like he's malding and can't keep it to himself.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Additionally, this one is not relevant to the vsbattle community. You can choose to block the individual in question, but this is not a sufficient reason to request an extension of time.Immediately after getting banned again, he goes after me off-site again. I would reconsider a longer duration.
But it shows they have no intention of stopping despite the ban.Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Additionally, this one is not relevant to the vsbattle community. You can choose to block the individual in question, but this is not a sufficient reason to request an extension of time.
I'll be able to post the screenshot after work.This is incorrect. The staff member in question could have simply blocked the user as soon as they received a message from them. It is not necessary to accept a DM from someone who has previously harassed you.
It is also important to note that in order to DM someone on Discord, you must either be friends with them or be in a mutual server. Therefore, the staff member could have taken steps to prevent the user from contacting them alternatively. In any case, if someone were to spam my DMs, I would simply block the user and report them to Discord.
It is worth reiterating that we no longer punish individuals based on off-site conversations. If we were to start doing so, a significant portion of our community would be banned. As a result, this case will not be treated any differently.
First, it's not "incorrect" simply because you have a difference of opinion. Second, we don't know if it was Discord or not, and it's entirely possibly that he was already in the official server. In any case, it's a moot point, the intent is what is critical here.This is incorrect. The staff member in question could have simply blocked the user as soon as they received a message from them. It is not necessary to accept a DM from someone who has previously harassed you.
It is also important to note that in order to DM someone on Discord, you must either be friends with them or be in a mutual server. Therefore, the staff member could have taken steps to prevent the user from contacting them alternatively. In any case, if someone were to spam my DMs, I would simply block the user and report them to Discord.
As I've already explained, it will be treated differently because the behavior is directly pursuant to an extremely recent ban for harassment on this very site. We don't need to pretend that this is some kind of slippery slope where people start posting private DM conversations here from other websites to get people banned. That's just not what's going to happen.It is worth reiterating that we no longer punish individuals based on off-site conversations. If we were to start doing so, a significant portion of our community would be banned. As a result, this case will not be treated any differently.
How can he not see the irony."You're a massive wanker Firestorm808, the Doom Slayer isn't even close to be ''Low Complex Multiversal'' level, he isn't even Universal, stop being delusional"
And this is harassment for you? I suppose then. So, on that different site, you could not block him right away?I'll be able to post the screenshot after work.
Second, I never said it was on Discord. The dude commented on my stuff from a different site
"You're a massive wanker Firestorm808, the Doom Slayer isn't even close to be ''Low Complex Multiversal'' level, he isn't even Universal, stop being delusional"