Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Deagonx]

I don't think this sort of thing should be considered a rule violation.

What are we supposed to do if someone actually hasn't read something, and is making claims debunked by the source material?

If the answer is "Do the same thing, but it'll be okay because you're right", then we're just punishing this user for being wrong in our judgement, which seems weird. Is Deagon so knowledgeable about Silver Surfer that he can make that call?

Let me put it this way, what purpose does it serve to accuse them -- correctly or not -- of not having read the source material?

If there's information in the source material that influences the outcome of the discussion, simply post it. Show, don't tell. Prove, don't accuse. No one should be forced to tolerate constant accusations of unfamiliarity with a comic during a discussion.

 

[Agnaa]

Let me put it this way, what purpose does it serve to accuse them -- correctly or not -- of not having read the source material?

If there's information in the source material that influences the outcome of the discussion, simply post it. Show, don't tell. Prove, don't accuse. No one should be forced to tolerate constant accusations of unfamiliarity with a comic during a discussion.

Yeah it'd be ideal to prove, but it seems fine to have claims in line with that. (And sometimes it wouldn't be possible to prove; if someone says that something happened which never actually occurred, you often can't actually post a scan of that, as the scene just doesn't exist).

How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?

We could technically operate like that, never discounting the other person's opinion or knowledge, and merely posting evidence for things, but that's really difficult to uphold, and I think the psychological toll and risk of abuse through reporting people one doesn't like makes extending these sorts of rules so far a bad idea.

 

[CloverDragon03]

How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?

There’s a stark difference between saying someone is wrong vs. claiming they never read the source material just because they disagree

 

[Agnaa]

There’s a stark difference between saying someone is wrong vs. claiming they never read the source material just because they disagree

I know, but if the argument is just that some accusations are okay because they're so low-impact, I think that "you haven't read this" would easily fly under that bar.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I know, but if the argument is just that some accusations are okay because they're so low-impact, I think that "you haven't read this" would easily fly under that bar.

“You’re wrong” has more to do with the argument itself

“You haven’t read this” is a personal accusation

 

[Deagonx]

How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?

Like Clover points out, this isn't really an equal comparison because "you're wrong" is not an accusation that can't really be proven or is inflammatory, it's just a fact.

I would object, however, to saying "You've clearly never seen the show, it's Vegeta's wife." Now, in an example like this we're talking about a piece of info so basic that indeed only someone that doesn't know the material wouldn't know it, but it's still not helpful to the point (Bulma being Vegeta's wife can be easily proven and then it can be left at that.)

If it's a piece of information that is more ambiguous, accusing over and over (five times in this case, that I could see) of people who disagree with you not having read the source material is just entirely unnecessary.

 

[Agnaa]

“You’re wrong” has more to do with the argument itself

“You haven’t read this” is a personal accusation

Eh, I guess you could make that argument, but iirc Deagon didn't care about the "personal accusation"/"attack on the argument" distinction.

And I wonder about similar situations, that don't quite go into accusations, but imply them.

If that's what we're going with, I'd consider this the mildest thing worth a warning, and add it to the tracker.

Like Clover points out, this isn't really an equal comparison because "you're wrong" is not an accusation that can't really be proven or is inflammatory, it's just a fact.

That's not necessarily true, most things on this site are arguable and can have reasonable people disagreeing, coming down to different standards of evidence and the like.

But meh, guess this is resolved until the next time a report about being slightly rude comes up.

 

[Antvasima]

Prom could be excluded on a similar basis, which would be 10-6

Prom was not fired and can become a bureaucrat again if she finds sufficient free time to help out properly again. She has a vote if she wants to.

Besides, there are 5 options and permanent ban is endpoint; 2 years is compromise as it was decided, and you conceded on this when Mav mentioned it.

I haven't conceded. I still think that we used an overly harsh overkill option.

 

[Antvasima]

Yeah it'd be ideal to prove, but it seems fine to have claims in line with that. (And sometimes it wouldn't be possible to prove; if someone says that something happened which never actually occurred, you often can't actually post a scan of that, as the scene just doesn't exist).

How far are you willing to go with this? If someone says "Goku's wife is Bulma", and I say "You're wrong, that's Vegeta's wife", and provide a scan, should I get punished because saying "You're wrong" is unnecessary, and isn't an accusation someone should be forced to tolerate?

We could technically operate like that, never discounting the other person's opinion or knowledge, and merely posting evidence for things, but that's really difficult to uphold, and I think the psychological toll and risk of abuse through reporting people one doesn't like makes extending these sorts of rules so far a bad idea.

I agree with Agnaa here.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Prom was not fired and can become a bureaucrat again if she finds sufficient free time to help out properly again. She has a vote if she wants to.

Not how it works. Prom's vote would be counted if she became a Bureaucrat again (or had another such staff role), but she doesn't currently. You don't just spontaneously give people votes based on convenience

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Antvasima, just because someone retired manually, doesn't mean we should overlook their opinions and her status as former Bureaucrat and being the lead Bureaucrat of FC/OC wiki are still worth mentioning. She her vote doesn't need to be discounted. Though she never gave a full opinion and a ban for a month was just a minimum. She definitely agrees with punishment but also suggests there are others that should be punished alongside Weekly.

But at the same time, I prefer if we don't drag the discussion on for too many posts.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't believe it is a practical use of our time to continuing nickel and diming every way way chop up the vote in order to try and alter a settled matter.

 

[Antvasima]

Not how it works. Prom's vote would be counted if she became a Bureaucrat again (or had another such staff role), but she doesn't currently. You don't just spontaneously give people votes based on convenience

It isn't a sudden development. I have consistently been very clear about that Promestein still has a vote when she wants to. She and DontTalk probably have the best senses of judgement in our entire community. It would be ridiculous to not consider her sufficiently reliable in this regard.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't believe it is a practical use of our time to continuing nickel and diming every way way chop up the vote in order to try and alter a settled matter.

It wasn't settled though. One of our members decided to apply a two-years ban before we had finished, and in cases with no overwhelming staff consensus, we should try to find a compromise solution.

 

[Moritzva]

When we have to debate the technicalities of which staff or ex-staff votes are valid in a staff vote, regardless of the strength of their points, you know we have a problem with staff votes.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't believe it is a practical use of our time to continuing nickel and diming every way way chop up the vote in order to try and alter a settled matter.

I agree with this, we have much more pressing matters to handle at this time, like some of our staff members getting hacked out of the blue.

 

[Antvasima]

But it isn't a new issue that only staff members who were enlisted to evaluate these types of issues should have evaluation vote authority. Our standards are clear in this regard.

 

[KLOL506]

Ant, I'm going to strongly suggest that you drop this matter immediately and focus on the other tasks at hand.

 

[Lonkitt]

I agree with this, we have much more pressing matters to handle at this time, like some of our staff members getting hacked out of the blue.

I agree

 

[Crabwhale]

It wasn't settled though. One of our members decided to apply a two-years ban before we had finished, and in cases with no overwhelming staff consensus, we should try to find a compromise solution.

This is the compromise solution. A not-insubstantial number of us would prefer him gone permanently. My stance on that has not shifted. I doubt the others' have either.

Also, again, you and DDM both agreed in the January debacle and the subsequent fallout that Weekly had a final line before him. He has crossed that final line multiple times since. I categorically refuse to grace this discussion with any more time or brain power. No user who has ever been banned before has gotten off light after reaffirming the reasons for their first punishment. Weekly is no exception.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay then. I still think that we are being too harsh, but I will drop the issue in lack of better options then.

 

[KLOL506]

Thank you for being reasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[Damage3245]

@Roirr; the appropriate response is not to spam emojis on the Rule Violations Thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, Roirr doesn't seem to have done anything particularly bad.

 

[Roirr]

@Roirr; the appropriate response is not to spam emojis on the Rule Violations Thread.

I didn't have any intention of spamming, I just thought sometimes being silent is the best answer, anyway, I wish you good conversations that I won't write here yet.

 

[Agnaa]

Anyone else have thoughts on Strym's appeal?

I've already said my support for reducing his ban by a week or two.

 

[Deagonx]

Anyone else have thoughts on Strym's appeal?

I've already said my support for reducing his ban by a week or two.

I am against reducing it, personally.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally consider doxing to be a very serious offence.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Who was doxxing? I haven't seen a recent report related to something like that.

 

[Antvasima]

Wasn't Deagonx doxed, or do I mix up the cases here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, probably a case mix up. That was someone else who doxxed him a long time ago and got permabanned for it. Styrm was banned for few months for being rude to ImmortalDread, but he has since apologized iirc. And am fine with a ban reduction based on the support gotten.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. My apologies for the mistake then.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Strym was banned for stating Dread "deserved" the harassment she's faced in our community since joining it, which did include the possibility of doxing, at least, so perhaps you were thinking of that.

 

[Deagonx]

Strym just had a history of rude/toxic conduct and had been warned several times prior. I'm against reducing the ban because it's pretty short as it is and it loses meaning if anyone can just have their ban reduced just for the asking.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I think that what we were told in private was done to Dread seems far more serious than what Weekly did.

 

[TheRustyOne]

This new user, Fã1DeChaves.

Edited Akame and Esdeath's speed to MFTL+ without linking to any CRT. This also appeared to be their very first edits to the wiki.

I reverted the changes they made.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Dropped him a message.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Recently, a conversation among over a dozen high-level staff members and related parties came to the conclusion that @Artorimachi_Meteoraft should be banned for one year.

The main reason for this is the repeated pestering of users in DMs, both on and off-site, after those users had already refused his requests.

The sheer scale this happened on, the fact that previous staff warnings weren't listened to, and the fact that he was previously permanently banned, all led into the ban and its length.

Some of the infringing conversations we found are linked here, but due to privacy concerns, not all are included, and others will likely be added as permission rolls in from the users involved:

• Screenshot 1, Screenshot 2, Screenshot 3

Coming back to this report to add that Artorimachi is still doing this exact shit off site to a close friend of mine (1, 2). He's also been spamming Discord friend requests, which he also did to me prior to his ban (and presumably other people). Obviously none of this substantiates a report by itself, but I think it shows that he absolutely refuses to learn from his mistakes and is continuing the exact behavior that led to a ban in the first place; I think a ban extension would probably be in order.

 

[Propellus]

Not sure if it's warranted a full report already but why is this kind of behavior acceptable when a staff is doing it, but it's immediately reportable when it comes from an user.

@KingTempest:
"motherfu- I SAID THE POSSIBLY IS FINE"
"Please shut the **** up"

This shouldn't be tolerable, no one was being rude or aggressive to him.

You're supposed to take that to human resources.