- 11,387
- 13,139
Actually do not. I've repeated it multiple times: staff reports are not for the RVR.
-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 61,177
- 14,747
Thats the thing though, Glass has no interest in RWBY unless he sees me in a thread, in which case he barges in solely to target me and make me blow up like this. Ive been telling you guys this for years yet you never listen.
- 13,119
- 20,830
Normally I'd agree, but at the same time I've seen Weekly reported quite a bit here so I'm not sure if we're still in warning territory or if the number of offenses have become enough for more serious action
- 61,177
- 14,747
Can yall ever take my side on this for once? Its been happening for literal years and ive told yall about it that entire time and yall enver listen to me and then you wonder why i get frustrated...
- 13,119
- 20,830
I got almost no history with you and am going strictly off of what I'm seeing, which is something very much report worthy. I have no bias against you, and it's not a matter of "taking sides"
- 20,060
- 10,838
@WeeklyBattles If I had no interest in RWBY to begin with I wouldn't have bothered to comment in these threads, idk why you constantly have this mindset that I'm just spiting you for the sake of spiting you these days when I just see arguments that I don't agree with and explain why. I do this for any series that I find some things to be questionable regardless of who's the supporters or not. Either way not gonna clog this thread up. I'll let the other staff decide this.
Last edited:
- 61,177
- 14,747
I mean ive reported him to HR multiple times and always got radio silence so i dont know what im supposed to do at this point
- 61,177
- 14,747
Meant more the royal you, the staff in general, sorry for the confusion, should have been more specific
- 31,370
- 34,117
The "IQ smaller than their shoe size" comment was going too far and was a borderline insult. As for the "Most cold, hateful, spiteful people I know" is fine if he thinks that way, he shouldn't be saying that publicly or to his face. The 3rd comment wasn't so bad but the "If he wants to lead with insults, I will gladly do the same" is always a really bad response and even if your opponent was insulting you, it really isn't good practice to insult back.
And yeah, what Glassman may have said on other threads shouldn't carry over to what was said in this vs thread. I read his posts and didn't really see or hear him say anything that bad on that thread specifically.
And yeah, what Glassman may have said on other threads shouldn't carry over to what was said in this vs thread. I read his posts and didn't really see or hear him say anything that bad on that thread specifically.
- 15,337
- 22,145
In that case I'd support a short block.
Not really a matter of "taking sides", in this instance there wasn't any misconduct on Glass's end that would've prompted vitriol.
If you have evidence of misconduct on his end I recommend bringing it to the attention of Human Resources.
- 61,177
- 14,747
Can we please not...? Look its just been a long and very stressful day for me today and a stressful week in general and Glass sent me over the edge, id prefer to not be blocked over something stupid like this.
As i said, i have made several HR reports and have only gotten radio silence, so i do not know what i am supposed to do at this point
- 15,801
- 12,066
Then you shouldn't have been on the site at that time. Look I get it, I've done it as well but we gotta know when to just not do something that would stress us out.
Then this is an issue.
- 4,602
- 6,514
I recall Weekly and Glassman have been in conflict with one another many times in the past. While I cannot say whether the claims that Glassman has been specifically targeting and trying to rile up Weekly have any basis in reality, I don't believe it would be fair to arbitrarily dismiss any investigation into this. I'd be discontent with basing our actions here entirely on a rather murky understanding of the situation between those two.
In regard to the current circumstance, simply put, Weekly's behaviour was unwarranted. I would ask for a punishment, but to be frank, I don't know what would be appropriate. I would intuitively advocate for a thread ban, but that seems like it'd be addressing the symptom over the disease.
However, beyond this, I would appreciate any efforts that can be made to gather information from the past interactions between Weekly and Glassman. If what Weekly says about having received "radio silence" from HR regarding reports made against Glassman in the past is true, then there are clearly unresolved issues here.
In regard to the current circumstance, simply put, Weekly's behaviour was unwarranted. I would ask for a punishment, but to be frank, I don't know what would be appropriate. I would intuitively advocate for a thread ban, but that seems like it'd be addressing the symptom over the disease.
However, beyond this, I would appreciate any efforts that can be made to gather information from the past interactions between Weekly and Glassman. If what Weekly says about having received "radio silence" from HR regarding reports made against Glassman in the past is true, then there are clearly unresolved issues here.
- 15,337
- 22,145
To clarify by "short" I mean just a 2 week warning block. I'm not a fan of giving warnings ad nauseam when it comes to repeat offenders.
I recommend starting a private group message with multiple HR members or any bureaucrats willing to listen whenever you're able to.
- 61,177
- 14,747
I know...
- 61,177
- 14,747
Man im already halfway through a week of working 12-14 hour shifts with another 4 days of the same that im dreading working, i really need some slack here...
I will do so when i get the time to
- 8,344
- 8,831
I can see your point on how hardworking can eventually push you up to this sort of situation. Believe me, I've done this in the past before. But the best way for you to do is at least think your actions through before doing these things. You being sent here a lot just isn't a good look onto you.
- 15,801
- 12,066
I don't personally agree with the block but if enough staff really think one is needed then the 2 week suggestion is fine enough with me.
It's not that long Weekly and the potential stress of this site isn't going to help you when your already doing a lot of work.
- 11,387
- 13,139
Going through adversity in real life does not justify acting badly someplace else. And even leaving that aside, you're acting like you don't know any better. A user as old as you, of all people, should know that this site does not make for a great wind down experience, what with the constant arguing and bickering. If you're going through the grind, there are literally a TRILLION different better things to do than debating the same ******* verse that has brought the same problems to you, over and over again. The definition of insanity, my friend.
That being said, I don't support a ban for this right now.
- 31,370
- 34,117
I relate to this very well, trust me on that. But I also agree with the others that Vs Threads really aren't the best. Casual general discussions may be better though. As the Battle of the Larynx teaches, a slow and steady debate to calmly take apart an argument piece by piece is more effecting then just trying to yell over your opponent. There is also a saying that someone who tries to dump their baggage on someone else will simply end up picking up even more baggage.
I don't support a block, but that's up to staff poll to decide. But I do think it is best if Weekly battles takes a break from debating on Vs threads if he is feeling stressed and wait to have the main stress taken care of before talking about the more serious topic.
- 61,177
- 14,747
I'll limit my wiki time for the next week so i dont get stressed out about this again
Twisted_Little_Raven
She/Her- 3,566
- 1,919
@WeeklyBattles You kinda going through what i used to with vs threads. Most of my reports came from them iirc. I found their nature toxic and unfair. Such as mindless fras or feeling like a member was out to get you. I felt similar with Moritzva back on fc/oc. If your situation is anything like that will probably result in a ban. I can tell nobody genuinely wants to ban you, otherwise they would have. Enough reports and sadly my friend you will be banned again. You did say you would limit wiki time, which is great if it helps, but i would be looking into potentially, maybe calling a quits or break on versus threads in general. I wouldn't be too surprised if another situation with Glass ends you up here and the staff will regrettably have to ban you. I would get reported all the time and ever since i removed versus threads from my attention, haven't once got reported or heated. But you're an adult so you do what you wanna do at the end of the day it is something i would consider though.
And yes radio silence on HR reports is problematic. It makes me wonder how many of them result in the same thing by other users. My bad for message i just wanted people to think its more than likely versus threads are his problem rather than him a problem. I just thought it would be a friendly advice at same time. I can tell nobody wants to actually ban him be sad if it happened. Not many people can get reported as much as me and you have and not get banned sooner, lets not waste our chances, look at the core of our problems, and be thankful
And yes radio silence on HR reports is problematic. It makes me wonder how many of them result in the same thing by other users. My bad for message i just wanted people to think its more than likely versus threads are his problem rather than him a problem. I just thought it would be a friendly advice at same time. I can tell nobody wants to actually ban him be sad if it happened. Not many people can get reported as much as me and you have and not get banned sooner, lets not waste our chances, look at the core of our problems, and be thankful
Last edited:
- 8,675
- 5,559
It is bewildering to me that a user on this forum can, prompted by nothing but the sight of a user that he hates, fly into such vicious personal attacks on said user and be met primarily with the thought that he should just be warned. Even though, for years, he's received warning after warning, slap on the wrist after slap on the wrist, several demotions and a ban, and has shown no signs of ever improving at all within that span of time.
Weekly is treated poorly, yes. A lot of users have it out for him, and will target and **** with him when he's done nothing wrong, because he's seen as an acceptable target. People will clamor for any chance to pick a fight and harangue Weekly and Weekly alone over shit they wouldn't bat an eye over with anyone else. It's happening right now on another thread, even. This is bad and things should be done about it, because even if Weekly isn't around, this sort of mindset will result in other users being targeted and harassed. It's unacceptable, and I don't think the people who participate in it so eagerly should be staff. We - well, you, I guess - should be better than that.
None of this changes the fact that Weekly's own behavior generally ranges from 'fine' to 'terrible'. He's already been banned for a year before - this isn't some unprecedented behavior. It's completely unacceptable, and the fact that somehow the wiki has reached the point where nobody even has the balls to suggest anything harsher than two weeks for something that would've had a new user out of the door for a month at least is utterly insane to me. Weekly's done a lot, yes, and he's had to deal with a lot of shit, yes. I still think he should suffer actual consequences for this.
Has some unfathomable change occurred since I retired? Is claiming that someone's IQ is lower than their shoe size, and then going on to describe them as one of the most vile, vicious, and hateful people you know now just something you'll just get a slap on the wrist for? What the **** do you need to do to get banned for just a month now? Threaten to murder someone? Christ.
Weekly is treated poorly, yes. A lot of users have it out for him, and will target and **** with him when he's done nothing wrong, because he's seen as an acceptable target. People will clamor for any chance to pick a fight and harangue Weekly and Weekly alone over shit they wouldn't bat an eye over with anyone else. It's happening right now on another thread, even. This is bad and things should be done about it, because even if Weekly isn't around, this sort of mindset will result in other users being targeted and harassed. It's unacceptable, and I don't think the people who participate in it so eagerly should be staff. We - well, you, I guess - should be better than that.
None of this changes the fact that Weekly's own behavior generally ranges from 'fine' to 'terrible'. He's already been banned for a year before - this isn't some unprecedented behavior. It's completely unacceptable, and the fact that somehow the wiki has reached the point where nobody even has the balls to suggest anything harsher than two weeks for something that would've had a new user out of the door for a month at least is utterly insane to me. Weekly's done a lot, yes, and he's had to deal with a lot of shit, yes. I still think he should suffer actual consequences for this.
Has some unfathomable change occurred since I retired? Is claiming that someone's IQ is lower than their shoe size, and then going on to describe them as one of the most vile, vicious, and hateful people you know now just something you'll just get a slap on the wrist for? What the **** do you need to do to get banned for just a month now? Threaten to murder someone? Christ.
Last edited:
- 61,177
- 14,747
I mean, in this specific case it was an unfortunate storm of Glass coming after me across three different RWBY related threads over the past few days as well as some stressful work stuff ive been dealing with, i should have backed down sooner and my behavior was unacceptable, i apologize and promise to back off of the wiki until im out of this situation so i dont blow up again
Last edited:
- 8,904
- 3,457
To be blunt?
Probably.
I've always been an advocate that our wiki is ridiculously, incredibly lenient on so many different things. We've cultivated a culture where you are allowed to say anything you want, whenever you want so long as you are acutely passive-aggressive about it. It's so exhausting, and it makes it harder and harder for me to engage with the wiki.
Weekly has haters. A lot of people shit on Weekly endlessly for the most minute of offenses and that's a problem. I also think we have an incredibly low bar for staff member behavior at this point, which I have other issues with. But in this moment? Yeah, Weekly ****** up. Weekly jumped the gun and said things that should have him banned, if they were to say it. Things that should have a lot of users banned. And we're just... shrugging, and saying "oh well, it's not a big deal."
I'm someone who has always tried to stand by Weekly. I've been impartial to the guy and I've fought for him in many occasions. However, this just isn't acceptable. Yeah, he's absolutely right that users will tear him apart for the most mild things, but he uses that as justification to act feral over just about anything. That's an issue. We shouldn't be allowing that.
I've said this for a while and I'll say it again: we need to get our house in order. Not just with Weekly, but with everyone, both staff and not.
Last edited:
- 9,881
- 12,887
I’m in agreement with Prom’s statement. She worded this incredibly well
- 20,060
- 10,838
@Moritzva I personally blame the whole "this user has contributed a lot in our site" excuse as the reason people who are either staff members or just been here for a long time get a lot of freebees with things that would get any new user banned. The fact we do not hold people who knows how this site works and has helped out for a long time on a higher standard, and should be punished as hard, if not more than your new member is baffling to me as they should be prime examples on what to do and not do on the site. It just reeks of bias and it gets really annoying, and I'm not specifically talking about Weekly in this situation, I'm talking about everyone else on the site who's been constantly reported either on this thread or to HR and don't get anything beyond a slap in the wrist for offenses that would've lead to a ban for any new user, but that's my personal two cents on the matter.
- 4,602
- 6,514
I can sympathise with this. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I would suggest a punishment for Weekly in this matter, but I'm uncertain what punishment would be appropriate.
Simply put, my problem here is that I believe we should be dispensing punishments with strong regard to what our intended consequences of the punishment will be. I don't see the point in, say, banning a person for 6 months if we have full reason to believe they'll return at the end of the 6 months and start causing the exact same problems. In such a circumstance, we would have enacted a punishment with almost no positive consequences.
Obviously, there is a case to be made for punishments being enacted for purely punitive measures (to feel as though someone has received "just deserts"), and our means of rehabilitating problematic users are very much limited. But in this case, my ultimate problem is that Weekly's behaviour is not just some absurd, irrational product of nothing - it's a direct consequence of his long-term poor treatment by the users of the wiki, and the feeling he possesses that he needs to be hostile and argumentative to defend himself from that treatment, resulting in treatment towards him only worsening and a vicious cycle.
By banning Weekly, what do we hope to accomplish? Once he's back, we'll see the exact same problems - we'll see people trying to **** with Weekly, and we'll see Weekly causing the same problems we see now. I don't see any way of truly producing better consequences without either addressing the way that Weekly is treated, or without addressing the way that Weekly responds to this treatment.
My purpose here isn't to downplay the problems that Weekly is causing. In fact, it's the opposite - what I want to do here is to acknowledge that these problems are serious enough that we want to prevent them from happening again in the future, and the fact that our natural approach to doing that clearly won't prevent the same problems later down the line.
Even if we conclude here that Weekly should be banned for this behaviour (which, frankly, I think is ultimately reasonable), I don't think we can just leave it at that. That will distance Weekly from the community for a time, and no more good will come from it. I believe we need to start addressing the underlying problem by allowing for and mediating open communication with Weekly about this conduct, preferably including some of the members who have been in conflict with him and vice versa. I don't see any long-term solution here that doesn't address this vicious cycle.
- 8,904
- 3,457
See, I agree with most of this. I think something should be done and I've always argued that we shouldn't be so flippant towards "borderline" behavior from users and staff alike.
Mind you, I said most of this. I will say that Weekly is not entirely a product of circumstance; he is still an individual prone to ridiculously stubborn thinking over the most random of things, and will get extremely indignant over it. I do not think we should entirely absolve him from blame in that department, as a lot of his behavior is his own to resolve and fix, and I am not willing to baby him. He's an adult.
With that in mind, yes, we should ban Weekly. But we should also take a step back and look at our standards, and what brought us here in the first place. How easy it is to harass and antagonize users as long as you straddle the line and stick to passing insults here and there. How hard it is to punish these users with even a month being a headache to get for egregious cases of barely concealed aggression across multiple threads.
How we do this? I don't know. I've tried to fight back against this for a while, and I haven't exactly made any progress. But I think it would be important. I fear where we will end up, otherwise.
- 61,177
- 14,747
Would it be possible to do the latter first...? I know i ****** up tonight but this is a rare instance where it is entirely based on circumstance, and i already offered to back off from the wiki willingly for the next week or so to prevent further damage. I would prefer to not be banned over what for once was just a stupid mistake of letting my IRL stress bleed into the wiki.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
Apologies for interrupting the Weekly stuff, but @AStrangeverse has made edits to Mario and Luigi's pages without any attached CRT. They're mostly benign, such as grammatical fixes, but he's also added an entire section to their optional equipment (which, to play devil's advocate, none of those additions were illogical), as well as saying that their power null has 71 layers with 0 reasoning and no linked CRT, despite that being a pretty significant change.
Since most of the edits aren't that harmful, this only deserves a warning imo.
Since most of the edits aren't that harmful, this only deserves a warning imo.
- 8,904
- 3,457
I don't think we can promise that, Weekly. The "latter" is a massive knot of issues significantly bigger than just you. And, at the end of the day, you're an adult. I've warned you about this before; people are going to antagonize you, but if you last out faster and harder, I can't support you.
The best I could do is say the ban shouldn't be permanent. If you plan on taking a break from the wiki anyways, might as well. Given how lax our current standards are, I can't support a permaban for you without making sure we are fundamentally altering our standards as a whole. That wouldn't be fair.
But that's all I can offer.
Twisted_Little_Raven
She/Her- 3,566
- 1,919
Tbh known users have always gotten more chances than newer users. Staff members as well. Some people can get reported 30 times and not be banned somehow. I wouldn't say this is something new @Promestein it has always been the case but yes staff were less lenient in past but the concept of "this person has contributed alot" or "is staff" thus more chances has always existed. I too was surprised after being banned for 5 years and seeing people not banned for blatantly insulting someone multiple times. Grath is right in the sense of, weekly can get banned and do the same thing next time around. Which is why if he does not do something about the core of his issues, it will happen again. Some people suggested vs thread bans, some of y'all think a ban idk. Known members and staff have always gotten off the hook. Last comment ill say since this doesn't really concern/relate to me
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
On Weekly...
Glass's behaviour in that thread did not prompt Weekly's response.
I'd endorse a ban of a few weeks at minimum.
With what I've seen of HR dealings in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if Glass hasn't been publicly punished for the HR reports because they weren't deserving of that. Something better than "radio silence" is warranted in cases like that, but that's an issue with HR group's communication style in general.
On Astrangeverse...
I'm gonna go undo those edits and warn them now.
EDIT: Turns out the edits were accepted in this thread, so I've revoked the warning.
Glass's behaviour in that thread did not prompt Weekly's response.
I'd endorse a ban of a few weeks at minimum.
With what I've seen of HR dealings in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if Glass hasn't been publicly punished for the HR reports because they weren't deserving of that. Something better than "radio silence" is warranted in cases like that, but that's an issue with HR group's communication style in general.
On Astrangeverse...
I'm gonna go undo those edits and warn them now.
EDIT: Turns out the edits were accepted in this thread, so I've revoked the warning.
Last edited:
- 61,177
- 14,747
Its not just that thread, its that threadplus the two previous threads he has been coming after me on over the past few days that lead up to this.
i still really dont think i should be banned for this when i already said i was going to step away to get through the stress of my current situation before coming back...
- 61,177
- 14,747
I know its bigger than me but ive been significantly affected by it to the point that im unfortunately a prime example of the outcome, you and Prom have both acknowledged as much. Im well aware that people will come after me but unfortunately im not the one that has the power to actively stop them from doing so...
- 31,370
- 34,117
I need to sleep soon, but I think it might have been a good idea to link those few threads before that one so staff could analyze them more properly.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,481
- 13,689
You can DM them to me and I'll report them to HR if I find them worthy, and perhaps even rescind my suggestion for a ban if I find them appalling enough.
EDIT: I've now seen the thread in question. Nothing in there is report-worthy, or the sort of thing that'd justify the response Weekly gave. I stand behind my call for a ban.
On the contrary, if you're already planning to take a break, why does it matter if you get banned or not?
I don't think we should rely on users to self-enforce bans for bad behaviour.
Seems like a bad idea, since that's more in the realm of HR.
Last edited:
- 8,675
- 5,559
The issue is, Weekly, when you talk about things like this, it doesn't really exactly give the impression that you actually think you did something wrong. 'I ****** up, but' is not a good way to start an apology or admission of guilt, especially not when it's followed by, 'but this is a rare instance'. These things are very far from rare instances with you, Weekly. I'm even going to ignore the part where you said this is entirely based on circumstance, implying that this actually was provoked and not essentially out of nowhere. You're always referencing your IRL stress as an explanation for your explosions on here or on Discord, so I fail to see how this is special.
I'd love to see you change, Weekly, but if you actually want to change you're going to have to admit that this is more than a one-time thing. No matter how many times I've seen you punished and removed from a space, all you talk about in the interim is how you've changed, but how nothing was really ever your fault to begin with. And when you come back, the same things happen. You're going to have to start accepting that at least some of these things are just actually your fault if you don't want to get banned again after the next block.
- 16,000
- 9,238
Part of the problem is, I have no idea how to present a fair and balanced punishment for Weekly without coming off as incredibly biased. He's burned bridges with damn near everybody that merely suggesting a ban could come across to him as targeted harassment.
I've mostly kept out of Weekly reports for that exact reason and I'm pretty sure others have too.
Similar threads
