• 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)

ImmortalDread said:
Since this has been dealt with


Bump
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say dealt with.

Personally I'd be fine with a compromise of one week for Topaz.

I'm sorry! I really am!

I really tried my best to be civil even after experiencing arguments that I might've thought didn't come from a place of
genuine attempt at making ratings right
At the beginning at least, even when I didn't find arguments fair, I'd try to stay positive

I'm not gonna justify it by saying it's after a long exposure, but I've been really burned out recently due to personal life!

Take this as my final statement on my behavior, I genuinely apologized for acting that way!
I'll do my best to revert back to a more positive debater here, even if I'm antagonized,
I will also try not to antagonize anyone, either on purpose or emotionally!
Click to expand...
It's alright, even two weeks is practically nothing in terms of bans. Nobody is going insane over your actions, just... drop things when you're told to drop them. Thanks.
 
Alright, read the latest reports. Here's my thoughts on whether the provided evidence is bad behaviour or not.

Dread's Report

Georredannea15:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
  • Post 2: No.
  • Post 3: No.
Larssx:
  • Post 1: Kinda.
  • Post 2: Kinda.
Quintessence_PE:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
I don't think any action is really necessary here.



StrymULTRA's Report

The_Yellow_Topaz:
  • Post 1: No.
  • Post 2: Not really.
  • Post 3: Kinda.
  • Post 4: No.
  • Post 5: No.
  • Post 6: No.
  • Post 7: No.
  • Post 8: Meh, a tiny bit.
  • Post 9: No.
  • Post 10: Yes.
  • Post 11: Kinda.
Going from that to behaviour in this RVT itself.

I do think that Lephyr's post was phrased in a way that could mislead people, and that Topaz was within her rights to clear that up.

Contrary to what Strym said here, they did continue acting badly after the warning as Topaz demonstrated here.

I don't think that Lephyr should've interpreted Topaz saying "this part of the sentence is deceptive" as "Lephyr is a deceptive person", that's an incredibly unkind reading.

I think Topaz's response of calling that a "futile jab to further clog the thread" isn't great. But I think that Lephyr's move to "you're distorting my words and calling me a liar" is even worse. Topaz didn't do that.

I'm in Bambu's camp of wanting a 1 week ban. There were only a few things that were barely infractions.



Marshadow was topic banned for posting a large number of low quality CRTs. Dread claimed to have warned them, but since no evidence was provided I can't back this up.

About 2 months have passed of the 3 month topic ban. Although initially, a few staff members were suggesting it should only be 1 or 2 months long.

However, this claim about not knowing about the rule was already brought up when the ban was initially discussed. Since no new information is being brought up, I don't think this ban length should be re-evaluated.
 
Thank you for helping out, Agnaa. I think that you seem to make sense. 🙏

So should we block Topaz for a week rather than give her a strict warning?
 
Probably. There was a staff member instruction in a thread followed by a few mild infractions, and another very mild infraction here when reported, I think that nudges things just past warning territory.
 
Agnaa said:
Alright, read the latest reports. Here's my thoughts on whether the provided evidence is bad behaviour or not.

Dread's Report

Georredannea15:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
  • Post 2: No.
  • Post 3: No.
Larssx:
  • Post 1: Kinda.
  • Post 2: Kinda.
Quintessence_PE:
  • Post 1: Meh, not really.
I don't think any action is really necessary here.



StrymULTRA's Report

The_Yellow_Topaz:
  • Post 1: No.
  • Post 2: Not really.
  • Post 3: Kinda.
  • Post 4: No.
  • Post 5: No.
  • Post 6: No.
  • Post 7: No.
  • Post 8: Meh, a tiny bit.
  • Post 9: No.
  • Post 10: Yes.
  • Post 11: Kinda.
Going from that to behaviour in this RVT itself.

I do think that Lephyr's post was phrased in a way that could mislead people, and that Topaz was within her rights to clear that up.

Contrary to what Strym said here, they did continue acting badly after the warning as Topaz

Marshadow was topic banned for posting a large number of low quality CRTs. Dread claimed to have warned them, but since no evidence was provided I can't back this up.

About 2 months have passed of the 3 month topic ban. Although initially, a few staff members were suggesting it should only be 1 or 2 months long.

However, this claim about not knowing about the rule was already brought up when the ban was initially discussed. Since no new information is being brought up, I don't think this ban length should be re-evaluated.
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe dread said anything along those lines, even if she did, she's not staff.
You have to admit, going straight into a punishment is not exactly fair, and as far as I can tell, not the usual procedure.

Members who have engaged in toxic activity in threads have received lighter sentences in comparison for the most part. I have not really engaged in that behavior outside of the usual debating.
 
Your initial claim was that you weren't aware of the rule; whether you were informed by staff or a non-staff member wouldn't matter.

Whether someone is warned first or not depends on the offence.

Toxic behaviour seems inherently more easy to control and more intermittent, if someone gets warned after 2000 messages for 3 toxic ones, that implies that they're not toxic very often. We do sometimes jump straight to banning people for toxic posts, if they're in the first few messages they make.

On the contrary, 13 threads which staff members have described as incoherent and low quality demonstrates a strong pattern of behaviour.

Hopefully this clears up your questions; I see no impropriety in how the report was initially handled, and you have brought up no new evidence. So unless you bring up new evidence, I don't think anything should be done.
 
Agnaa said:
Your initial claim was that you weren't aware of the rule; whether you were informed by staff or a non-staff member wouldn't matter.

Whether someone is warned first or not depends on the offence.

Toxic behaviour seems inherently more easy to control and more intermittent, if someone gets warned after 2000 messages for 3 toxic ones, that implies that they're not toxic very often. We do sometimes jump straight to banning people for toxic posts, if they're in the first few messages they make.

On the contrary, 13 threads which staff members have described as incoherent and low quality demonstrates a strong pattern of behaviour.

Hopefully this clears up your questions; I see no impropriety in how the report was initially handled, and you have brought up no new evidence. So unless you bring up new evidence, I don't think anything should be done.
Click to expand...
Quick correction, it was 11 threads. Some of these were due to being asked to move my low 1-c threads to staff discussion.

I doubt every single staff member reviewed all 11 threads and formed their opinion of of that, low quality is subjective, as many non staff community members agreed with my threads, and each thread has used multiple scans to back up their claims.
Some threads had more minor changes than others, hence the short length.
 
Marshadow29 said:
No, I don't believe dread said anything along those lines, even if she did, she's not staff.
Click to expand...
Agnaa said:
Your initial claim was that you weren't aware of the rule; whether you were informed by staff or a non-staff member wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...
Agnaa said:
Dread claimed to have warned them, but since no evidence was provided I can't back this up.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As demonstrated earlier, you had over half a dozen threads open for the verse at the time. So just saying you only had 3 open isn't an adequate defence.

However, Dread's warning did come after you'd created those, and you didn't seem to create any more before the report, so I won't consider Dread's warning as a knock against you; you didn't seem to ignore it.
 
Agnaa said:
As demonstrated earlier, you had over half a dozen threads open for the verse at the time. So just saying you only had 3 open isn't an adequate defence.

However, Dread's warning did come after you'd created those, and you didn't seem to create any more before the report, so I won't consider Dread's warning as a knock against you; you didn't seem to ignore it.
Click to expand...
A few of those threads were pretty much abandoned and were forgotten to be closed, you can check the post history on those.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Asking for a thread ban and warning for @Georredannea15 and @Fixxed for continuing to post in this thread despite it being staff only,, and doing so despite being reminded multiple times that they do not have permission to comment.
Click to expand...
As I said, I had permission, but since about 2 months have passed, I forgot from whom I even got permission. However, I was one of the first to get permission and comment.
 
No, the rules only have that restriction for content mods. Thread mods, admins, and bureaucrats can permit people for any number of posts.

That was wrong, only bureaus can permit for any number of posts. So there probably wasn't permission for indefinite posts granted.

Qawsed seems to have a handle on it in the thread. No need to do anything here, imo.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
No, the rules only have that restriction for content mods. Thread mods, admins, and bureaucrats can permit people for any number of posts.

Qawsed seems to have a handle on it in the thread. No need to do anything here, imo.
Click to expand...
So can my ban be opened? But that's okay, I don't have anything else to write to that revision anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
9 10 11
Replies
419
Views
27K
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top