• 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)

Okay, having reread through the whole thread.

By the time of the first warning by a non-staff user, I didn't see anything particularly bad in Eficiente's comments.

By the time of the second warning by a non-staff user, I didn't see anything particularly bad in Eficiente's comments.

In the context of both of those, they were occasional parts of piles of text that could be read badly, or not.

...And after that Fujiwara went on to say stuff that's worse, both in frequency and magnitude.

Still, I don't think either of them deserve a warning or anything. At the end of the day, both were discussing behaviours/arguments, not people.
 
Last edited:
I largely agree with Agnaa's assessment. I think it warrants notice that multiple users asked Eficiente to cool his jets, but none of it was to the level of RVR bad and I think Fuji went off too harshly on him and in so doing, escalated the situation.

I'm not sure punishment is needed, but hopefully Eficiente can take this as a sign that, for whatever his intentions are, he debates in a manner that often feels insulting to others and can try to mitigate that in the future, and hopefully Fuji can recognize that vitriol might provide some short term release/satisfaction but often only serves to make the subject more defensive over what's going on, and can often be a rule violation unto itself.

I know this sort of response can be unsatisfying to both parties, but I think that is the best option here for now.
 
Agnaa said:
Okay, having reread through the whole thread.

By the time of the first warning by a non-staff user, I didn't see anything particularly bad in Eficiente's comments.

By the time of the second warning by a non-staff user, I didn't see anything particularly bad in Eficiente's comments.

In the context of both of those, they were occasional parts of piles of text that could be read badly, or not.

...And after that Fujiwara went on to say stuff that's worse, both in frequency and magnitude.

Still, I don't think either of them deserve a warning or anything. At the end of the day, both were discussing behaviours/arguments, not people.
Click to expand...
Deagonx said:
I largely agree with Agnaa's assessment. I think it warrants notice that multiple users asked Eficiente to cool his jets, but none of it was to the level of RVR bad and I think Fuji went off too harshly on him and in so doing, escalated the situation.

I'm not sure punishment is needed, but hopefully Eficiente can take this as a sign that, for whatever his intentions are, he debates in a manner that often feels insulting to others and can try to mitigate that in the future, and hopefully Fuji can recognize that vitriol might provide some short term release/satisfaction but often only serves to make the subject more defensive over what's going on, and can often be a rule violation unto itself.

I know this sort of response can be unsatisfying to both parties, but I think that is the best option here for now.
Click to expand...
Thank you for looking into it. Yes, I wasn't aiming for a warning or anything, but as a lack of a better option as I felt that anything I could do would be worse than pointless, that the thread will only be misremembered in the future, and to seek a fair second opinion.

When things like this happen, I do need to use this thread, right?
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Please don't, upon returning from a ban, attempt to return conversation to that ban.
Click to expand...
Mr._Bambu said:
Only reply to this thread in current rule violations relevant to you.
Click to expand...
whatever-shrug.gif

Anyway I apologize, I should have just left it on his wall, you're right.
I just found that post very odd.
 
Deagonx said:
I largely agree with Agnaa's assessment. I think it warrants notice that multiple users asked Eficiente to cool his jets, but none of it was to the level of RVR bad and I think Fuji went off too harshly on him and in so doing, escalated the situation.

I'm not sure punishment is needed, but hopefully Eficiente can take this as a sign that, for whatever his intentions are, he debates in a manner that often feels insulting to others and can try to mitigate that in the future, and hopefully Fuji can recognize that vitriol might provide some short term release/satisfaction but often only serves to make the subject more defensive over what's going on, and can often be a rule violation unto itself.

I know this sort of response can be unsatisfying to both parties, but I think that is the best option here for now.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I don't think either one of them have really on that thread specifically done anything punishment worthy. Eficiente did sound moderately abrasive and rather bold with his accusations about people "Mindlessly agreeing." And Fuji responded with a bit harsher comments that were also accusatory. Nothing really want too overboard for now. Also, if you have complaints about staff and their positions, it is best to compile a well crafted list of wrong doings (And preferably focus on most recent actions) and share with a member of the HR group. Yelling at staff is going to make other staff question if they were really all that bad or if they where responding out of retaliation against an provoke attempt.
 
Agnaa said:
Okay, having reread through the whole thread.

By the time of the first warning by a non-staff user, I didn't see anything particularly bad in Eficiente's comments.

By the time of the second warning by a non-staff user, I didn't see anything particularly bad in Eficiente's comments.

In the context of both of those, they were occasional parts of piles of text that could be read badly, or not.

...And after that Fujiwara went on to say stuff that's worse, both in frequency and magnitude.

Still, I don't think either of them deserve a warning or anything. At the end of the day, both were discussing behaviours/arguments, not people.
Click to expand...
I also did not notice any bad behaviour from Eficiente, just other members piling on him for very limited reasons.

Also, Fujiwara did say "shut the hell up lol" to him, which likely warrants a warning.
 
Agnaa said:
Eh, maybe? I'm more willing to be lenient on that since she elaborated it into an actual point. i.e. Shut up (because you're constantly rude to people).
Click to expand...
To me, I don't take issue with the "shut the hell up lol" but I do take issue with the following defamation not being close to reality. I want her to properly source so many bits of that in a proper, private conversation in which I can argue back, yet that's not going to happen, and I see this as a minor source of unnecessary stress & not having good time on the wiki. It's not disrespectful as she believes what she says nor an insult.
 
Agnaa said:
Eh, maybe? I'm more willing to be lenient on that since she elaborated it into an actual point. i.e. Shut up (because you're constantly rude to people).
Click to expand...
I think that a moderate warning should be issued. It is not acceptable language, especially to a staff member.
Agnaa said:
Fine with a short ban for that. A week to a month, I'd say.
Click to expand...
A month-long ban seems fine, but we may be too lenient.
 
Agnaa said:
First one yeah, seems like obvious filter bypassing to say the n-word.

3-6 month ban imo.
Click to expand...
Why is racism (N-word) banned for 3-6 months, and bad attitude towards transgender people (DarthSpiderr, no insults) is one year? Initially, he was generally banned forever, until others intervened.
 
Cyber_VERGIL said:
Why is racism (N-word) banned for 3-6 months, and bad attitude towards transgender people (DarthSpiderr, no insults) is one year? Initially, he was generally banned forever, until others intervened.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, we don't have specific guidelines on how long punishments are for certain violations. It's essentially just the collective whim of whichever staff members respond to the situation when it happens, so there's not much utility in comparing and contrasting different situations like that.
 
Deagonx said:
Generally speaking, we don't have specific guidelines on how long punishments are for certain violations. It's essentially just the collective whim of whichever staff members respond to the situation when it happens, so there's not much utility in comparing and contrasting different situations like that.
Click to expand...
This is very idiotic and unreliable. Your system is ****** up.
 
Cyber_VERGIL said:
This is very idiotic and unreliable. Your system is ****** up.
Click to expand...
Given that the first thing I saw when looking at DarthSpiderr's profile was a post from you saying "Someday you'll return, old friend" you are clearly just salty that your transphobe friend got banned for being a transphobe.

My advice is to stop being friends with transphobes instead of raging about inconsistent ban lengths. That said, stop cluttering up this thread.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that a moderate warning should be issued. It is not acceptable language, especially to a staff member.
Click to expand...
Said staff member has also repeatedly taken on a condescending attitude toward anyone who remotely disagrees with him and then acting like its their fault for being offended, in a manner that quite frankly is unbecoming of a thread mod. Hell, he essentially said he'd delete any further comments calling him out on this.

The initial "shut the hell up lol" is one thing but I'd say Fuji shouldn't even get a warning, as there's a legitimate complaint to be had here and she very much elaborated on that in that same response.
 
Deagonx said:
Given that the first thing I saw when looking at DarthSpiderr's profile was a post from you saying "Someday you'll return, old friend" you are clearly just salty that your transphobe friend got banned for being a transphobe.

My advice is to stop being friends with transphobes instead of raging about inconsistent ban lengths. That said, stop cluttering up this thread.
Click to expand...
I should note he also made a sockpuppet during that ban period yet Darth himself is not permanently banned.

Usually in serious cases like this, making a sockpuppet results in an insta-ban, but Ant chose to ban him for a year. For some reason.
 
Typically, the sock puppet receives a permanent ban, while the main account faces a longer duration of suspension. Therefore, Ant did not issue a permanent ban on the main account (or someone else; simply saying what we usually do in these cases @KLOL506). But as Deagonx here stated:
Deagonx said:
Generally speaking, we don't have specific guidelines on how long punishments are for certain violations. It's essentially just the collective whim of whichever staff members respond to the situation when it happens, so there's not much utility in comparing and contrasting different situations like that.
Click to expand...
We don't adhere to strict solid guidelines (since each instance has its entire context); instead, we rely on the outcome of staff member consensus for each punishment.
 
Deagonx said:
Given that the first thing I saw when looking at DarthSpiderr's profile was a post from you saying "Someday you'll return, old friend" you are clearly just salty that your transphobe friend got banned for being a transphobe.

My advice is to stop being friends with transphobes instead of raging about inconsistent ban lengths. That said, stop cluttering up this thread.
Click to expand...
I don't mind his ban. It's just stupid when different people are banned for the same offenses in different ways. I would have no questions if everyone got 6 months, or 12 months, that would be fair.

As for your advice, no one is guaranteed to support everyone and everything. I share similar views, but in a less aggressive way.

Okay, I will not continue this topic.
 
This is going to be off-topic but I am going to be frank. DarthSpiderr should've absolutely gotten a permaban regardless. We have no place for hate on our site regardless of what culture you are from, what country you are from or what laws they follow. I get that we want to respect Freedom of Expression, but this Freedom does not extend to expressing hatred for people simply wanting to live differently or who are different. Our website does not follow those principles of hatred, thus we should act accordingly regardless.

That is all I have to say regarding the matter. Hate will not be tolerated under any circumstance.
 
Cyber_VERGIL said:
I don't mind his ban. It's just stupid when different people are banned for the same offenses in different ways. I would have no questions if everyone got 6 months, or 12 months, that would be fair.
Click to expand...
Having a fixed set punishment duration might give the illusion of being fair, but even in the criminal justice system punishments for crimes are a range, with usual minimums and maximums, because the situation and the nuance around it, history of behavior, etc, all play a role in how people are punished. Deciding a fixed duration for an entire category of violations under the guise of fairness isn't particularly helpful, and I'd argue just based on comparing Spiderr's comment to the one mentioned above, a longer duration was justified for Spiderr.

That notwithstanding, this isn't the venue for challenging wiki policy, so refrain from derailing this thread any further.
 
I do not quite understand. Zexer seems to only have made a statement about homosexual dark-skinned people kissing, not used the n-word. Please explain.

Also, we do not have set punishments due to that we would lose all case-by-case flexibility, and I do not remember what DarthSpiderr did exactly, but it is of course possible that I was too lenient.
 
Antvasima said:
I do not quite understand. Zexer seems to only have made a statement about homosexual dark-skinned people kissing, not used the n-word. Please explain.

Also, we do not have set punishments due to that we would lose all case-by-case flexibility, and I do not remember what DarthSpiderr did exactly, but it is of course possible that I was too lenient.
Click to expand...

You may have clicked on the second link, not the first one. The original report mentioned two.
 
Antvasima said:
Zexer seems to only have made a statement about homosexual dark-skinned people kissing, not used the n-word. Please explain.
Click to expand...
There's two links in the comment. I understand your confusion, I missed the second link the first time as well. Each word is a different link.

Antvasima said:
Also, we do not have set punishments due to that we would lose all case-by-case flexibility, and I do not remember what DarthSpiderr did exactly, but it is of course possible that I was too lenient.
Click to expand...
I believe it is well known that you are philosophically inclined to view verbal trespasses a lot more leniently than others due to a strong affinity for freedom of speech, but there's nothing wrong with seeing things differently as we ultimately decide based on consensus.
 
Antvasima said:
I do not quite understand. Zexer seems to only have made a statement about homosexual dark-skinned people kissing, not used the n-word. Please explain.

Also, we do not have set punishments due to that we would lose all case-by-case flexibility, and I do not remember what DarthSpiderr did exactly, but it is of course possible that I was too lenient.
Click to expand...
He said the name of the country in Africa which is the hard r without the extra G as a way to simulate the popular slur.
 
Deagonx said:
There's two links in the comment. I understand your confusion, I missed the second link the first time as well. Each word is a different link.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the information. 🙏
Deagonx said:
I believe it is well known that you are philosophically inclined to view verbal trespasses a lot more leniently than others due to a strong affinity for freedom of speech, but there's nothing wrong with seeing things differently as we ultimately decide based on consensus.
Click to expand...
It isn't exactly a secret that I am a libertarian socialist, yes, so I am usually uneasy with permanently banning members based on a single transgression in the speech area, unless it is very extreme.
 
Cyber_VERGIL said:
Why is racism (N-word) banned for 3-6 months, and bad attitude towards transgender people (DarthSpiderr, no insults) is one year? Initially, he was generally banned forever, until others intervened.
Click to expand...
What specific slur word used is not relevant compared to other slur words; the words themselves are all equally taboo/controversial/offensive. But what matters more than any of the words is less about the individual words and more about the context in which they are used. If someone randomly said the R word in an adjective format didn't know it was a slur word; and more so called someone's argument that instead of a person. We typically just edit/remove the word and give the user a strict warning.

But Fandom does have a strict slur word sensitive policy that anyone who said the word out loud regardless of context may be global banned for 3-6 months. But in more severe/extreme cases where people are deliberately being more trollish or using racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, Christophobia, Islamophobia, Hinduphobia, ect as excuses to publicly (Or privately in DMs to their faces) harass people, then those cases may actually be permaban worthy.

In the case of zexer, he said "My N words" and bypassed slur word filter; it's hard to tell if he was trolling or just being casual, but a 3-6 ban would be a minimum though he clearly said it despite knowing full well the word was taboo given the slur filter. In Darth Spiderr's case, he was downright dissing what transgender even means and was quite blatant with his disrespect for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
540
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top