Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Mr. Bambu]

I find myself in a difficult situation. I am one of many staff members with whom Weekly has carved out a personal feud with- as such, anything I've said against Weekly has been met more or less with the same implication as all others in my position. That we are coordinating some grand witch hunt against the man and that we should learn to simply regard him without our bias. That Weekly is much less of a problem than presented.

In light of these implications, convenient wards against staff members who feel more negatively about Weekly's deplorable behavior, I will speak only once. Grath wants a good outcome in which Weekly learns and decides to improve his behavior and becomes an actually productive member of this community. We would not extend such an ambition for just anyone, but I appreciate that this comes with the assessment that Weekly is not just anyone- he has tremendous amounts of edits (for better or for worse) and for many, this is a definite consideration.

After his year-long ban, I had thought that Grath's current aspirations were realized. Weekly seemed improved. There was not an incident worthy of note for some time. I was proven wrong, eventually, and have been proven wrong time and time again since. I have come to the conclusion that Weekly simply does not want to improve, and will continue to walk this line we've drawn for as long as we will tolerate his behavior. He is given inches, he has taken miles.

I would not be satisfied with any punishment less than two years, personally. I don't think that will change Weekly, but I admit our experimentation in changing Weekly has only yet resorted to one year (even that was light). These discussions about the best outcome for Weekly, what is best for him, have objectively never done anything. So I'm willing to be proven wrong: two years banned, and we'll see where we stand, if double the duration has changed the man.

Take that as my vote. Alternatively, I'd take permanent, too.

 

[Deagonx]

I fully agree with Bambu.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I got permission from user Antvasima to post on this thread:

After reading the arguments from both sides, let us reach a consensus and stop with all the thread cluttering which could exasperate even more drama. Not to mention, I see a few particular individuals seem to be systematically targeting Weekly and deliberately wanting to get him banned from both the forums and the wiki.

There isn't controversy that Weekly has indeed been toxic and received several warnings over the last 2 years, we can all agree on that, and I think either a thread-ban, topic-ban, or/and forum-ban seems completely fine considering the major source of drama and toxicity concerning Weekly all stems from threads that concern RWBY and vs thread removals. Not to mention, we can't also forget the actions of other users who also excruciated the feud between Weekly, as user Theglassman12 isn't an exception from aggravating the drama. I'm in complete agreement with users Arnoldstone18, Moritzva and Antvasima here;

Weekly has been targeted for all the mild actions he's done which causes users to frame him as an antagonist of our wiki. There's no way for him to improve if people are constantly harassing and slandering him on the site which causes psychological damage which would only result in worse unhinged behaviour since people are leaving him an impression. I wouldn't feel so good and act so nice if I was in Weekly's position that people of a particular community have been consistently badgering me which was unneeded then suffering the uttermost consequences which could've been far lenient responsibilities. It's not justice for everyone if Weekly is not included, he has been a long-time contributor since 2015 and he deserves the credit; no one is gonna change if one person has been banned and people kept bringing up all of his past drama and inciting ad hominem, I don't see how something like this is fair and beneficial to the improvement of Weekly's behaviour at all. Not at all, in fact, it only makes him feel worse about this community.

Mori's right about it's not just Weekly who should take responsibility for the unfathomable consequences of their actions but also everyone else who's been participating and augmenting this predicament. All of the consistent ad hominem, gaslighting, and character assassination needs to be stopped at once and we're all getting sick of following the same disastrous read. Weekly has been a mass contributor to the community for 8 years; we've rarely seen anyone who's been this active aside of Ant so I think we should give him some respect, especially with all the service he provided for the wiki over the past 8 years. Permanently banning him like he's some type of troll who needs mental rehabilitation is not justified and I don't agree with that; consistent harangue against Weekly is not going to make him a better person or feel better about this community; permanently banning him from both forums and wiki until 2 years so he can be appealed isn't going to change his perception of the community due to all the trauma he experienced on VSB. This is on our history, it'll only darken if we continue to condone this type of behaviour. Weekly has done some ****** up shit, I admit, but I think he at least deserves an apology from the people that caused him to be broken down to that degree of mental state.

As Ant said, Weekly has indeed been experiencing mental issues, especially considering all the systematic character assassination against him. We need to take Weekly's perspective into this and not just want to get him expunged from the community because we think he's troublesome and being a dick to either us or everyone in the community. I've been through mental trauma as well, and because of that, I've been perma-banned from this community for 2 years until I appealed last April; at the time I was experiencing intense mental trauma and having suicidal thoughts. I was young suffering from intense schizophrenia, paranoia and bipolar which caused me to be overly toxic and used alts to circumvent my ban on my main so I can engage with the community. Mental trauma made me insane, and me getting a permanent ban from the wiki didn't make me feel better at all. However, I gotta admit, I indeed did deserve the permanent ban because of all the shitposting I've done on the VSB internal discussion section and attempting to engage in the community that I was forbidden to be in with a different identity. After two years, I managed to recover from my mental health issues and have been wanting to be a better person ever since then. Credits to Ant for giving me a second chance, otherwise I wouldn't be indulging in this community of amazing people. And if it wasn't for that ban placed on me 2 years ago, I probably wouldn't take a break from the internet and re-adjust my life. However, I do agree that having mental disorders isn't a shield from punishment. And as humans ourselves, we all have to face the consequences of our actions despite having psychotic rage whatsoever and mental issues/disabilities are never a justifiable excuse.

I'm not trying to justify Weekly's action here but what I'm trying to imply is that we should try and understand him better. He's not the antagonist of VS Battles or anything, he's just a broken man who deserves some respect and dignity in this community. I'm in complete harmony with banning him from the community for a few months or so (or whatever that'll motivate him to take a break from the internet) and giving the best outcome possible for both us and Weekly. In other words, I wholeheartedly agree with DarkGrath's proposal for this case.

As said, we shouldn't antagonize Weekly all the time and truly give him a chance to improve. Also, Weekly, if you're reading this I hope you overcome all the shit that's been pressuring you in your life and take a break to rehabilitate from all the stress, agony and frustration that's been enforced on you. You've been a great contributor over the 8 years and I appreciate that; deep inside, I'm sure that the entire community appreciates your service, especially Antvasima who's been vouching for you on this case. With that said, you should take a break, thank you for your service. You have my respect. Hope everything goes amazing for you on this disastrous journey so-called "life", I'll be looking forward to your return and hope you recover from your quandary. Better yet, once you return I hope you can understand and respect other people's opinions as well, and if you think they're wrong, making your opponent convinced is always better than making your opponent an enemy.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I'll speak on this both as staff and as a user.

As staff, I can say Weekly has performed enough infractions to warrant actionable punishment against him. I believe a temporary ban of at least 1 month is warranted.

As a user, I can safely say Weekly needs to get off this platform permanently. I refrained from saying much, if at all, during Weekly reports so as to not raise the idea of a real "cabal" of people trying to get Weekly off the site. However, I must say the sentiment is not unwarranted; regardless of sincerity.

I believe there is a very real majority of people that feel the wiki is better off without Weekly, myself included. Most of them don't mean well. I however, do mean well. Weekly both off and on site has repeatedly stated that he only has objectively true takes. This is just impossible to take seriously at all. Outside of debates this is a non-issue, we squabble a bit and nothing comes of it. However, it very much matters when he says these things in actual debates and means them. There's no room on this wiki for someone who doesn't compromise at all under any circumstances.

Then there is the issue of Weekly's personal life. He has gone on record stating that he does pop into debates while he's on shift and he has stated that his workplace is far from relaxed at times. Like no hobby should ever take precedent over an actual job, one that he might be putting in jeopardy just to reply to a thread of no consequence. Besides this there's also the worryingly unhealthy obsession he has with the site? He has stated that this site is the only place where he has real friends and that's dangerously parasocial. Sure I'm sorta close to some of the people on here but that's no substitute to actually going out and having friends I can physically interact with.

I genuinely believe Weekly needs to get off this site and stop using it as a crutch for his personal issues because it does not benefit him or us in the long run. We can't keep citing his mental health as a factor in his behaviour because this very site is causing his mental health to depreciate. If that means we have to forcefully keep him off then so be it. But I will now and forever advocate for the permanent banning of Weekly, appeal notwithstanding.

 

[Propellus]

Sorry if I'm interrupting the Weekly stuff here

Strym just made an appeal to lift their ban here:

Antvasima

community.fandom.com

Do any of you remember that incident well?

The appeal didn't really seem like he's being sincere enough about his ban to me at first, which I eventually got suspicious of this and personally asked Dread off-site if he was still harassing her, and it occurs that it's still not the case. But I wouldn't really necessarily say no to his appeal, but rather just put him onto watch.

 

[ImmortalDread]

To get into practice – Vote Tally

• 1 month ban (& vs-thread perm ban): @Antvasima, @Moritzva, @Promestein, @DarkGrath
• At least 2 years ban/permanent ban: @Mr._Bambu @Deagonx, @Crabwhale, @Sir_Ovens, @Theglassman12, @Tllmbrg, @CloverDragon03, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Lonkitt, @Damage3245
• 2 Weeks ban upto 1 year (or vs-thread ban): @Agnaa
• No Ban/Neutral: DDM, @LordGriffin1000 (though said they are fine with a ban)

— Here is the statistical evidence of the user's history
— Here is the current report against the user

Note: You have permission to edit this post if I made any mistake or add yourself.

 

[Deagonx]

Sorry if I'm interrupting the Weekly stuff here


The appeal didn't really seem like he's being sincere enough about his ban to me at first, which I eventually got suspicious of this and personally asked Dread off-site if he was still harassing her, and it occurs that it's still not the case. But I wouldn't really necessarily say no to his appeal, but rather just put him onto watch.

Personally I'm against the appeal. It's good that he shows remorse but what's the point of a ban length if it can be commuted just by asking?

He brought up the appeal to me off site and I told him I wouldn't be supportive of it and he said "Well **** you too."

 

[Theglassman12]

Put me in for the 2 year ban. I don’t really see why him not improving from the behavior that gave him the 1 year ban to begin with should be met with a far less severe punishment. 1 month given everything we know of Weekly feels like we’re being too generous.

 

[Tllmbrg]

I support a perma ban in general personally

 

[Propellus]

Personally I'm against the appeal. It's good that he shows remorse but what's the point of a ban length if it can be commuted just by asking?

He brought up the appeal to me off site and I told him I wouldn't be supportive of it and he said "Well **** you too."

I didn't see that at first. But now that I did in that server, I'm reconsidering and just let him keep his 2 month ban.

 

[Agnaa]

Contrary to what people are saying, I think Weekly's improved. The behaviour he's gotten reported for has consistently been of a different kind than the stuff he used to get reported for, or less extreme than the stuff he got reported for. It's still at an unacceptable level, but I can see progress.

People have pointed out that the general framework of his underlying thought processes is similar, but I'm more interested in how often that actually causes issues, which seems to be less often, and results in less extreme issues, nowadays.

"Asking for a match's removal, getting a few agreements from non-staff and no disagreements, then applying it" is a lot better than "Getting a blog approved, stealth-editing it to substantially change the content, then applying the new thing that was never accepted by anyone onto a dozen profiles."

And one insult on a person's intelligence is a lot better than the amount of insults he used to fling.

In line with that, I don't want a ban longer than a year, but think that anything from 2 weeks to there (and any supplementary punishments, like a vs thread ban) can be justified.

Putting aside what Weekly did for a moment, what you’re saying is problematic

If two users in a hypothetical scenario commit the same offences, but one gets banned while gets off with a slap on the wrist merely because they’ve “contributed lots to the wiki”, that’s plain and simple bias and it’s unjust

Please don’t use wiki activity as a shield

I'd be fine with doing this, but I'd more move to treating new users more slaps on the wrist. There's been many times, even recently, where we've permabanned users for being hostile in their first 5 messages. I don't think you should advocate something so strict for everyone.

We had even a similiar case days ago, where Vappour got banned perm for sockpuppet, but at least he was being extremely sorry and none actually gave a damn and banned him with no mercy, oh and by the way, he added 10 verses and has 3k edits.

1 month and perm ban on CRT and Vs thread.

Do you not remember other relevant details about the case?

• We initially only advocated for extending the ban by one month, instead of making it a permaban, for sockpuppeting due to only using it to send mildly aggressive messages to one user and appeal a ban.
• We later learned he created many sockpuppets, which each had half a dozen infringements by themselves often leading to them getting banned. As soon as one account got banned, he'd start up a sockpuppet.
• He extensively lied about it, even feigning multiple Discord accounts.

That is SO far removed from Weekly's situation here, where the violation on the table here is (imo) one insult.

I think that's more comparable to Vapourrrrr's case as I initially thought of it before the recent sockpuppet info; where I suggested a one month ban.

Out of all the cases to pick for an attempt at showing bias/inconsistency, you picked one that actually perfectly reflected Weekly's, up until a certain point, and was treated accordingly.

Strym just made an appeal to lift their ban here:

Antvasima

community.fandom.com

Do any of you remember that incident well?

Since the ban was relatively short, and no misconduct was pointed out, I'd only want to reduce the length if Dread confirms the apology happened and that no bad behaviour has occurred since. And even then, to only do so modestly (perhaps by a few weeks).

 

[ImmortalDread]

Not commenting on other stuff; sure I could have pointed other cases that have bias, but this would me require a lot of work. Not worth it. But I don't think the only “violation” here is one insult, it's a constant consistent non-improved behavior.

Since the ban was relatively short, and no misconduct was pointed out, I'd only want to reduce the length if Dread confirms the apology happened and that no bad behaviour has occurred since. And even then, to only do so modestly (perhaps by a few weeks).

 

[Propellus]

Since the ban was relatively short, and no misconduct was pointed out, I'd only want to reduce the length if Dread confirms the apology happened and that no bad behaviour has occurred since. And even then, to only do so modestly (perhaps by a few weeks).

on the contrary of this, Deagon did say he would be against his appeal until he was met with these.

 

[Agnaa]

Does seem a bit strange to go from "I deserved a longer ban" in the apology, to "reduce my ban" in the appeal, but maybe he changed his mind again in those three weeks.

on the contrary of this, Deagon did say he would be against his appeal until he was met with these.

That sounded like a joke, so I checked the context, and surely enough, he immediately said it was a joke. I don't think that should count against the appeal.

Still, I'd only want to chop a week or two off.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Contrary to what people are saying, I think Weekly's improved.

I don't doubt this. But the reason behind why is because he really really really wants to remain here.

And if he does he can't go onto threads debating like his life depends on it. I see absolutely no way of him stopping this "I am objective truth" behaviour without separating him from the wiki entirely. At the very least, he should be banned from every VS or CRT related thread.

 

[Deagonx]

At the very least, he should be banned from every VS or CRT related thread.

This is a good compromise, at the very least. Since he doesn't appear to be capable of tactful disagreement

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I don't doubt this. But the reason behind why is because he really really really wants to remain here.

And if he does he can't go onto threads debating like his life depends on it. I see absolutely no way of him stopping this "I am objective truth" behaviour without separating him from the wiki entirely. At the very least, he should be banned from every VS or CRT related thread.

I've already accepted the terms of stepping away from vs threads, dont see why CRTs though

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

On Weekly, I'm more inclined to agree with the 2 year ban proposal (from personal experience I think that’s plenty of time to change and improve oneself) and then further investigating his claims of targeted harassment towards him. Imho they’re not incapable of changing.

Though regardless of the length we really do need to move away from the practice of empty warnings. The amount of second chances he got was honestly infuriating.

Strym just made an appeal to lift their ban here:

Antvasima

community.fandom.com

Do any of you remember that incident well?

Since Dread accepted his apology I’m fine with a reduced ban period at least.

 

[Agnaa]

In the interest of tossing up new options for consideration....

A fair few times on the wiki we've told people that they can't edit/create profiles unless they run those edits by another user first. In fewer situations, we've said the same thing for calculations. What if we did the same thing for forum posts?

Requiring him to state at the start of each post the person who approved it, doing an instaban of a predetermined length (say, 6 months) if he's found to have not asked someone for a post, etc.

Of course, these usually rely on someone offering themselves to review these, and we'd likely need multiple users to do so with how prolific Weekly is, so it may not end up being practical.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't really agree with that. It sounds like quite a headache and time sink for a user who's had a million chances. For my money, I prefer Bambus option or for a compromise a shorter ban with a permanent moratorium on the "arguing" sections of our wiki, pending review and proof of improved behavior.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I spoke on Agnaa's idea when he floated it on Discord. I think two years or permanent ban is the best option but this is a half-decent third, presuming we can find handlers willing to do this. I don't like it much, but I could accept it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with both Agnaa and GarrixianXD, this isn't to say that an insult to someone's intelligence is justified and a ban even if short is warranted. But at the same time; far too many people have been reporting him for things that have little to no offense, and people who claim that there is no hate group against Weekly are either oblivious to what is going on outside what they have witnessed, do not realize the errors of their own or friend(s) actions, or are fabricating details to make him look worse than he actually is.

First of all, not once has Weekly even thought about bribing. Even the people who banned him for a year considered the likelihood that it was a joke. Being a joke did not change the fact that it was not a very funny joke, it came at a bad timing, and it was clearly not made very obvious at the time. And AKM sama said it would have been permanent if it was serious. But still, Weekly has done nothing close since. As for the SCP writer conversation, I was actually informed some trolls pretended to be WeeklyBattles on places like Twitter. Wouldn't be surprised if that happen since trolls pretend to be various VSBW staff members to upload **** and gore all over the internet all the time. "Shoe sized IQ" comments are indeed bad, but no where near as bad. And clearly this is still a improvement as he was frustrated with many others calling him worse insults both onsite and offsite.

I remembered two years ago, I was informed one of our current Admins has legit committed grief mocking against him; I wasn't shown a screenshot and he said he should have when he got the chance. But mocking grief is indeed a very serious offense; it might have been offsite and private but it was still to his face. It might have been over 2 years ago, not sure if it was forgotten by the offender. But it's definitely a well owed apology.

And while in none of the links brought up recently have I seen Glassman behave too horrendously, I have remember him behaving worse on Bayonetta threads where he harshly belittled Weekly's intelligence and used his "Demotion" as an Ad Hominin.

Again, I am not going to stop what the staff majority decides and agree more with the compromise of Agnaa, Mori, Antvasima, ect. But at the same time, WeeklyBattles isn't the only one who is in need of punishment.



As for the Strym appeal, I got no objections to it. I can vouch he asked me to ban him and apologized to me for his harsh behavior and admitted to needing a short break and felt like venting out his frustrations to get a short ban instead of requesting a ban. And if he is apologizing to ImmortalDread, that does seem reasonable to me.

 

[Lonkitt]

I’m in favour of the two year ban

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I spoke on Agnaa's idea when he floated it on Discord. I think two years or permanent ban is the best option but this is a half-decent third, presuming we can find handlers willing to do this. I don't like it much, but I could accept it.

So two months and either a total vs thread ban or having all of my posts moderated by someone? Am i understanding that correctly?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So two months and either a total vs thread ban or having all of my posts moderated by someone? Am i understanding that correctly?

The specifics should probably be worked out after we decide if that can even work.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I don't really agree with that. It sounds like quite a headache and time sink for a user who's had a million chances. For my money, I prefer Bambus option or for a compromise a shorter ban with a permanent moratorium on the "arguing" sections of our wiki, pending review and proof of improved behavior.

I share these sentiments on the handlers proposal.

 

[Antvasima]

Isn't Weekly only being a problem in versus threads? If so, why can't we just permanently ban him from participating in that forum, combined with a relatively brief ban, and see if that works before we do anything more extreme?

Also, as Medeus said, some people really have been stacking up quantity over quality reports against Weekly in the hope that anything whatsoever will stick, which is a form of harrassment as it has caused a lot of stress for Weekly, and as Agnaa said, despite this Weekly is not nearly as bad as he used to be.

That said, Ovens is correct in that Weekly should focus a lot more on getting his regular real world life in order, rather than spending lots of stress-inducing time here, especially if he is already overworked and exhausted.

 

[Agnaa]

I think quantity is a serious concern for reports. And it shouldn't be overlooked that each of those incidents is causing stress for those on the other end of Weekly's behaviour.

Weekly's improvement gives me hope that these warnings and punishments aren't futile. It isn't to imply that his current level of behaviour should be allowed to continue.

 

[Crabwhale]

But at the same time; far too many people have been reporting him for things that have little to no offense

I've kept track of the reports made against Weekly in the past 8 months. You are ballooning the number of them with exaggeration. They are nowhere as prevalent as you make it out. Still enough to be relevant, don't get me wrong, but no one's spamming the things.

and people who claim that there is no hate group against Weekly are either oblivious to what is going on outside what they have witnessed, do not realize the errors of their own or friend(s) actions, or are fabricating details to make him look worse than he actually is.

First of all, I'm going to ignore the attempt to stealthily call me out here. The only thing I'll comment is that it's very unprofessional.

Second, I consider myself apt enough at picking up conversations about who, what and where, regardless of the place they happen. I've been in a good number of Discord servers, friend groups and general gatherings of VS peeps, and I can tell you that there has never been an agenda against Weekly in my extensive time spent there. There's been complaining, sure, and a lot of it as well, especially when he was still staff. But I consider the point moot and void when the complaints were mostly kept to themselves, and were legitimate, and the rule violations he committed at the time were also legitimate.

First of all, not once has Weekly even thought about bribing. Even the people who banned him for a year considered the likelihood that it was a joke. Being a joke did not change the fact that it was not a very funny joke, it came at a bad timing, and it was clearly not made very obvious at the time. And AKM sama said it would have been permanent if it was serious. But still, Weekly has done nothing close since.

That does not change the fact that rule violations have been committed multiple times.

As for the SCP writer conversation, I was actually informed some trolls pretended to be WeeklyBattles on places like Twitter. Wouldn't be surprised if that happen since trolls pretend to be various VSBW staff members to upload **** and gore all over the internet all the time. "Shoe sized IQ" comments are indeed bad, but no where near as bad. And clearly this is still a improvement as he was frustrated with many others calling him worse insults both onsite and offsite.

What is the relevance, exactly, here? As you said, trolls do this sometimes, way more often in the ancient days. I've had gorn bombs and profiles impersonating me, you've had them, anyone who's been staff long enough has had them.

I remembered two years ago, I was informed one of our current Admins has legit committed grief mocking against him; I wasn't shown a screenshot and he said he should have when he got the chance.

Awesome, so there's no evidence. Something that Weekly is notorious for not providing when the time comes to it. Why are you even bringing it up?

But mocking grief is indeed a very serious offense; it might have been offsite and private but it was still to his face. It might have been over 2 years ago, not sure if it was forgotten by the offender. But it's definitely a well owed apology.

Ignoring the "no evidence" part from above, no one in this thread that I see has been talking about what happened 2 years ago. The only who does this is you. I've noticed it in the January report as well, in the staff DMs. Glass even pointed it out to you. We're focusing on the here and now. Weekly's history may set a precedent but it's ultimately by his current actions that his fate is decided.

And while in none of the links brought up recently have I seen Glassman behave too horrendously, I have remember him behaving worse on Bayonetta threads where he harshly belittled Weekly's intelligence and used his "Demotion" as an Ad Hominin.

Again, WE ARE NOT JUDGING WEEKLY BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO. Comprehend that please, and while you're at it stop digging up prehistoric shit to use as a counter-argument.

Again, I am not going to stop what the staff majority decides and agree more with the compromise of Agnaa, Mori, Antvasima, ect. But at the same time, WeeklyBattles isn't the only one who is in need of punishment.

You've said this before. Yet you have done absolutely nothing in the intervening months to bring said people to justice. Again, where is the evidence? Why keep bringing it up?

And sure, let's say there's people who do deserve to get punished, does that suddenly change the votes of every other person? Does it suddenly invalidate everyone who decides Weekly is problematic? I really cannot comprehend your angle here, and your messages on the whole cases are increasingly incomprehensible to me.

 

[Deagonx]

Isn't Weekly only being a problem in versus threads?

His problematic behavior also often extends to CRTs, the underlying theme is that he is unreasonable in disagreements.

Also, as Medeus said, some people really have been stacking up quantity over quality reports against Weekly in the hope that anything whatsoever will stick, which is a form of harrassment as it has caused a lot of stress for Weekly, and as Agnaa said, despite this Weekly is not nearly as bad as he used to be.

I don't really agree with that. There are plenty of reports that don't quite surpass our threshold for action, but it isn't as though Weekly has been on the receiving end of any particularly egregious reports. I looked over Dread's list of each of his warnings. The only person who has reported him multiple times is Glassman and in each of those cases the staff agreed to issue a warning, three reports over the course of a year isn't exactly that crazy given that Weekly really is that routinely problematic and Glassman is often the one being forced to deal with it. Every other report was from a different user, none of whom have some grudge against Weekly.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Counting the votes, we have more support for a 2-year ban than any of the other options by a decent margin. I say this with the utmost respect to both you and DDM, but you two are the primary reason why Weekly has gotten away with 6-7 warnings in a year with no actual bans. It feels as though every time Weekly gets reported here you guys come to defend him, minimize his violations, or otherwise remind everyone that he is mentally ill or got bullied years ago on the site.

However, it's just no longer the case. I've read many of these threads where reports have cropped up, Weekly is the instigator. Weekly is the one bullying others. He insults, mocks, or laughs at any user who disagrees with him or who agrees with his debating opponents. He lies about evidence when he's losing an argument. He routinely declares himself objectively correct and stonewalls thread after thread after thread, he pretends to be a victim to garner sympathy and has spun up a conspiracy theory about a staff bias against him, to such an extent that several Admins have avoided involving themselves in his reports in order to avoid lending any credence to his paranoia. That's very problematic.

We've discussed this at extreme length, moreso than I think any other user I've seen. I think the votes speak for themselves and we should move forward with what the majority of the staff have decided for his poor conduct instead of prolonging this indefinitely.

 

[Agnaa]

While I'm generally sympathetic to, or agree with, this post, there's one part I wanted to counter:

Ignoring the "no evidence" part from above, no one in this thread that I see has been talking about what happened 2 years ago. The only who does this is you. I've noticed it in the January report as well, in the staff DMs. Glass even pointed it out to you. We're focusing on the here and now. Weekly's history may set a precedent but it's ultimately by his current actions that his fate is decided.

Again, WE ARE NOT JUDGING WEEKLY BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO. Comprehend that please, and while you're at it stop digging up prehistoric shit to use as a counter-argument.

Promestein: "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."

Deagonx: "Even recently, regarding his year long ban, he has indicated that he believes he was wrongly banned and that it was Bambu's fault."

ImmortalDread: "There is no undeniable sign of improvement, specifically he never even admits for bribing/trying to bribe Bambu."

M3X_2.0: "Let's not play dumb here, Weekly. Everyone know about your agressive and toxic behavior from years ago. The discussion isn't only about this specific case, it's a combination of everytime you ****** up."

Some of these are more explicitly judging him based on what happened years ago (like M3X's), but all of this involve references to actions from years ago, even if they also mention Weekly's thoughts on them today.

Counting the votes, we have more support for a 2-year ban than any of the other options by a decent margin.

idk if 9-6 is a "decent margin", and I don't like arbitrary cutoffs for stuff like this; if we looked at things at a previous point, we would've found an even more overwhelming 10-3 support for a 2-4 week ban. I'd rather specify a time in the future to look at votes if shit's getting close like this.

 

[Deagonx]

Some of these are more explicitly judging him based on what happened years ago

I must rebut this applying to my statement. I am referring to Weekly's current and ongoing insistence that Bambu was responsible for his ban, not judging him for those past actions themselves.

we would've found an even more overwhelming 10-3 support for a 2-4 week ban. I'd rather specify a time in the future to look at votes if shit's getting close like this.

That was largely before Bambu put forth his proposal for a longer ban. I was supportive of a 1 month ban + versus thread ban primarily because it seemed entirely possible that Weekly might skate with another ineffectual warning and I was eager for that trend to break, no matter what shape it took. However, many of the staff who voiced support for a shorter ban re-voted to Bambu's longer solution when it was presented, such as Lonkitt and Mav.

idk if 9-6 is a "decent margin"

That would be enough to decide any other matter on the site.

 

[Agnaa]

That would be enough to decide any other matter on the site.

I thought this strayed a bit off the topic of the report, so I left a message on your wall about it, but that ended up kinda walking back to the report itself. So anyone interested in our further discussion about it should go there.

 

[GrathOfLux]

That would be enough to decide any other matter on the site.

If you're referring to our rules regarding adding versus thread results to profiles based on vote tallies, I'd regard that as a rather inappropriate analogy - adding versus thread results and deciding user punishments are drastically different situations. In fact, I'd regard "votes" in general as an inappropriate way to resolve matters of user punishments, even if it's understandable why it's being called upon to address the standstill here. Simply tallying up how many people agree with one punishment over another doesn't prove in itself that the punishment is the best suited or most justified - our variance in our votes over time is a testament to this.

In this instance, I would rather we look to finding a compromise. I've mentioned in my posts that I would support a "short ban", but I've not been attached to the originally suggested 1 month period. If we are looking at Weekly's offenses holistically, and considering how we would treat similar offenses in other users, I think there is quite a reasonable argument to be made that 1 month is disproportionately low. If we're seeking fairness and justice in our treatment of this situation, we have a problem. On the other end of the spectrum, I believe a 2 year ban for what are problematic, but ultimately not deeply severe offenses is disproportionately high compared to how we'd treat these offenses in another situation. Again, if we're seeking fairness and justice in our treatment of this situation, we have a problem.

One thing that we effectively agree upon by this point is that Weekly should be blocked for a period of time. I would like to suggest that both the most justified punishment, and one which we should (hopefully) be able to agree upon, will be one in between the two values we've suggested so far. I am open to suggestions on this front.

 

[Deagonx]

If you're referring to our rules regarding adding versus thread results to profiles based on vote tallies, I'd regard that as a rather inappropriate analogy

Not just versus threads. A 9 to 6 vote in a CRT or staff discussion thread would also be passed, although we do not have specific guidelines for it.

Simply tallying up how many people agree with one punishment over another doesn't prove in itself that the punishment is the best suited or most justified - our variance in our votes over time is a testament to this.

This is of course true, but without an ability to determine an objective truth of the best punishment, and with wildly different -- yet firm -- stances ranging from no ban, one month, two years, to permanent, I just don't see how we can go about this any other way than a vote. Indecision or inaction is tantamount to doing nothing, which we can at the very least agree is the option with the least amount of support.

We could discuss further, and I am of course fine with that, but we must consider the fact that we've had more staff participation in this discussion than in nearly any other RVR report in recent history. Many people have posted lengthy and thorough assessments of Weekly's behavior on the wiki. There has been a great deal of heated back and forth about the matter.

I just don't see any reality in which we all come to a harmonious agreement about what to do. So what do we do, if not vote?

 

[Agnaa]

Actually whoops, I didn't count the "no ban" people. If we count those, then there's 9 in support of a 2 year ban, and 8 in support of something less than that, according to the count in Dread's post above.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I really think we should wrap this up sooner than later.

If you're referring to our rules regarding adding versus thread results to profiles based on vote tallies, I'd regard that as a rather inappropriate analogy - adding versus thread results and deciding user punishments are drastically different situations. In fact, I'd regard "votes" in general as an inappropriate way to resolve matters of user punishments, even if it's understandable why it's being called upon to address the standstill here. Simply tallying up how many people agree with one punishment over another doesn't prove in itself that the punishment is the best suited or most justified - our variance in our votes over time is a testament to this.

In this instance, I would rather we look to finding a compromise. I've mentioned in my posts that I would support a "short ban", but I've not been attached to the originally suggested 1 month period. If we are looking at Weekly's offenses holistically, and considering how we would treat similar offenses in other users, I think there is quite a reasonable argument to be made that 1 month is disproportionately low. If we're seeking fairness and justice in our treatment of this situation, we have a problem. On the other end of the spectrum, I believe a 2 year ban for what are problematic, but ultimately not deeply severe offenses is disproportionately high compared to how we'd treat these offenses in another situation. Again, if we're seeking fairness and justice in our treatment of this situation, we have a problem.

One thing that we effectively agree upon by this point is that Weekly should be blocked for a period of time. I would like to suggest that both the most justified punishment, and one which we should (hopefully) be able to agree upon, will be one in between the two values we've suggested so far. I am open to suggestions on this front.

If we're going for a middle ground between the quite short (a couple weeks to 1 month) and quite lengthy (2 years or permanent) ban periods suggested I'd personally go with 6 months or a year.

Still fully in favor of a 2 year ban period, of course, but I'm willing to compromise.

 

[Damage3245]

Actually whoops, I didn't count the "no ban" people. If we count those, then there's 9 in support of a 2 year ban, and 8 in support of something less than that, according to the count in Dread's post above.

I'm fine with switching to a 2 year ban.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Seems the majority decided 2 years ban. Are we really going for 3 pages of discussion? It seems a bit not coincidental that each time weekly got reported, we always extend it two pages of back and forth discussion?

• 1 month ban (& vs-thread perm ban): @Antvasima, @Moritzva, @Promestein (3)
• At least 2 years ban/permanent ban: @Mr._Bambu @Deagonx, @Crabwhale, @Sir_Ovens, @Theglassman12, @Tllmbrg, @CloverDragon03, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Lonkitt, @Damage3245, @Emirp sumitpo @Qawsedf234 (12)
• 2 Weeks ban upto 1 year (or vs-thread ban): @Agnaa, @DarkGrath (2)
• No Ban/Neutral: DDM, @LordGriffin1000 (though said they are fine with a ban) (2)

Moreover, @WeeklyBattles is already in Mori's server, he can always ban-appeal if he has a staff member who can vouch for him (the server is full of staff members)

 

[GrathOfLux]

If we're going for a middle ground between the quite short (a couple weeks to 1 month) and quite lengthy (2 years or permanent) ban periods suggested I'd personally go with 6 months or a year.

I would be comfortable with 6-12 months as a proportional punishment. In recognition of the general interests expressed so far, and the exceptional controversies surrounding this situation, I would lean on the high end and suggest a 1 year ban as a final compromise.