Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Antvasima]

I also think that Dread showed a very bad sense of judgement, and I have deleted her poll thread, given that it acted to demotivate far more of our valuable staff members than it encouraged for helping out.

I do not think that she deliberately intended to cause harm though, so a warning should be sufficient.

No more similar bad initiatives/stunts should be done in the future though. She should get clearance in private from our bureaucrats and super moderators first.

I think that extending Marshadow29's topic ban with 30 days and giving TheMonkeMan a 1 month ban should be enough. We get along quite well in One Piece threads, so he probably though that expressing himself like that was acceptable.

For the record, DontTalk has genuinely been absolutely crucial in my work to constructively rebuild our wiki, and has very reliably and faithfully helped me with that for over 8 years now, along with, as far as I have observed, having the best combination of knowledge, sensibility, intelligence, and common sense of all staff members we have ever had, which is why I appreciate him so much.

 

[Andytrenom]

I should apologise, I was the one who joked about making such a thread put the idea in her head

Should have done more to make it clear a thread like this shouldn't actually be done

 

[Agnaa]

As one of the main people involved, I'd prefer to defer to you and your suggestion of a 1 month ban for MonkeMan. Although I do also think that Marshadow should get banned for at least a few days, I'll wait for others to weigh in on that.

And, since it seems like the consensus is in favour of just warning Dread, I've added that to the warning tracker, and would consider the issue solved now.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Reporting @Nullflowerblush for his bad behavior towards other people and mocking his writings

if we're on the topic of coherency, your english could use a little work. that is none of my business, though

https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-6003727

In addition to him still mocking about whether he really speaks English or has another native language

Is English your first language?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-6003740

He also insulted this same person for the second time right here

Quit being halfwitted.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-6003952

It's not the second time he's said that word or made fun of someone to keep his ego.

Areth thou stupid or simply ignorant?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-discussion-thread-100.107592/post-5993576

I don't want him to receive a big punishment, but rather that he lowers his tone when talking to other people, although he helps a lot with DB, his bad behavior leave
s a lot to be desired

 

[Andytrenom]

Has he been warned before? Only the latter two warrant significant attention

 

[M3X_2.0]

Has he been warned before? Only the latter two warrant significant attention

I’m sure he has been reported before, although the warning tracker doesn’t have anything on him (prolly because it was made after he was reported)

 

[DarkGrath]

Reporting Nullflowerblush for his bad behavior towards other people and mocking his writings

if we're on the topic of coherency, your english could use a little work. that is none of my business, though

Is English your first language?

Ordinarily, these two would not constitute poor behaviour. They can be phrased as legitimate statements and questions. However, looking at the thread, it is clear in the context that these statements were made not as a legitimate inquiry and instead as an attempt to intentionally demean the other user. I believe this meaningfully changes the situation, though I can see above that Andytrenom did not see it the same way.

Quit being halfwitted.

Areth thou stupid or simply ignorant?

These two statements are unambiguously inappropriate for a civil discussion, and should be addressed.

If there are no objections, I'll leave the user a warning on the thread, particularly regarding the latter two statements.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I think that extending Marshadow29's topic ban with 30 days

I really dont think the topic ban extension is fair, as my level of participation in the thread was practically non-existent, but the main issue i have is with the extension I received in August. I got reported for breaching the topic ban, however I argued back saying that 90 days has already passed, which is a common mistake to have,as pretty much any other site uses 30 day periods, and even you an agnaa make the distinction of referring to 30 day periods. Probably shouldn't have argued back, but whatever.

 

[Antvasima]

If there are no objections, I'll leave the user a warning on the thread, particularly regarding the latter two statements.

A warning seems to be all that is required here, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

I really dont think the topic ban extension is fair, as my level of participation in the thread was practically non-existent, but the main issue i have is with the extension I received in August. I got reported for breaching the topic ban, however I argued back saying that 90 days has already passed, which is a common mistake to have,as pretty much any other site uses 30 day periods, and even you an agnaa make the distinction of referring to 30 day periods. Probably shouldn't have argued back, but whatever.

Okay. That seems to have been a simple mistake then.

 

[Agnaa]

Okay. That seems to have been a simple mistake then.

They were explicitly told on their message wall the exact date the topic ban would end. When told after 90 days had passed (two days before it would be lifted) that their topic ban still applied, they obstinately argued that it didn't.

It wasn't lengthened for making a mistake, it was lengthened for making a mistake, having the mistake pointed out, but putting their fingers in their ears and arguing that actually the mistake never happened. Going "Staff voted for 3 months, which is 90 days, not 92 days, so I should be unbanned right now. Bambu's in the wrong for saying it would last until August 3rd."

You can read the events of that here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I don't think that we should be very harsh here though, given that the time had almost passed.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, I guess I can take it as just making me unimpressed, and suspecting a lack of improvement, but not as something worthy of even a short ban.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

They were explicitly told on their message wall the exact date the topic ban would end. When told after 90 days had passed (two days before it would be lifted) that their topic ban still applied, they obstinately argued that it didn't.

It wasn't lengthened for making a mistake, it was lengthened for making a mistake, having the mistake pointed out, but putting their fingers in their ears and arguing that actually the mistake never happened. Going "Staff voted for 3 months, which is 90 days, not 92 days, so I should be unbanned right now. Bambu's in the wrong for saying it would last until August 3rd."

You can read the events of that here.

Given that I believed my ban was already past my expiration date, ( and i was being threatened with an extension), I felt the need to defend myself. Shouldn't have done that, but that was my thought process.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm more in line with Agnaa here given Marshadow's past issues. The violation may not have been severe in and of itself but I think it undermines us to apply a topic ban and let the same person slip in multiple posts in spite of it. This is exacerbated, in my view, by his decision to obtusely argue about the effect date of his ban by insisting that it end 3 days earlier than he was told because he insisted on it being 90 days after the last time he posted about Nasuverse because it was "3 months" (which is silly, because 7/12 months are 31 days, only 4 are 30 days).

I think the topic ban should likely be extended again. He needs to be mature enough to properly adhere to his topic ban for the full duration, not arbitrarily ignoring it once he is "close enough" to the end.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, did he misunderstand or misremember and break his topic ban time before he was told about that he was mistaken? If so it is considerably less severe.

 

[Deagonx]

Well, did he misunderstand or misremember and break his topic ban time before he was told about that he was mistaken? If so it is considerably less severe.

The first time he broke it, it was to August 3rd and he posted on August 1st. Bambu's wall post very clearly said August 3rd. He then argued here in RVR that August 1st was 90 days from the last Nasu post he made, therefore his topic ban should end on August 1st because 90 days is three months.

When it was pointed out to him that Bambu's wall post very clearly states "August 3rd" not "90 days from the last Nasu post" he continued to argue here for 4-5 posts insisting that his topic ban should end on the 1st. He was being rather difficult and unreasonable on top of violating the topic ban, so we extended it a month. Him violating this again is what makes me think it should be extended once more.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems more like a case of lacking common sense than any malicious intent, but we can extent his topic ban a bit if it is necessary.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Has he been warned before? Only the latter two warrant significant attention

At worst, he seems like the type who makes occasional slips; nothing he's done warrants a ban, but the warning he got from DarkGrath is sufficient.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

The first time he broke it, it was to August 3rd and he posted on August 1st. Bambu's wall post very clearly said August 3rd. He then argued here in RVR that August 1st was 90 days from the last Nasu post he made, therefore his topic ban should end on August 1st because 90 days is three months.

When it was pointed out to him that Bambu's wall post very clearly states "August 3rd" not "90 days from the last Nasu post" he continued to argue here for 4-5 posts insisting that his topic ban should end on the 1st. He was being rather difficult and unreasonable on top of violating the topic ban, so we extended it a month. Him violating this again is what makes me think it should be extended once more.

past offense aside, an extension on the grounds of "hey man, you just need 1 vote" is needlessly harsh. And considering pretty much everything else uses the 30 day standard, that was a pretty reasonable conclusion to come to, not out of trying to find a way to slide past my ban, as before this, I hadn't gotten reported before ( besides posting in a discussion thread, but that didnt go anywhere, for obvious reasons). One of the staff members in the thread even said " You waited 3 months, you can wait 2 more days" or something along those lines. I dont think defending myself against an unfair extension was being "difficult and unreasonable".

 

[Antvasima]

Well, maybe we can give a 10 days extension or so to the topic ban, to not be overly harsh.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Reporting @Veronica for breaking one of the rules imposed on DB and her attempts twice in a row in the same month

Do not attempt to downgrade Goku from 2-C with the argument that he didn't maintain the power of Super Saiyan God; it's made clear he did, and downgrade attempts have been repeatedly rejected

link rule

her first attempt, she has already been warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist when trying to revive the subject

Second attempt with same arguments and different titles

 

[KingNanaya]

Reporting @Veronica for breaking one of the rules imposed on DB and her attempts twice in a row in the same month



link rule

her first attempt, she has already been warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist when trying to revive the subject

Second attempt with same arguments and different titles

you're allowed to argue for a discussion rule to be removed as long as you bring new information. Veronica made it sound like there was additional information that she had, although not in the OP (not sure why).

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Reporting @Veronica for breaking one of the rules imposed on DB and her attempts twice in a row in the same month



link rule

her first attempt, she has already been warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist when trying to revive the subject

Second attempt with same arguments and different titles

She also went to other threads and spammed in order to get attention to her own.

I deleted one of those comments here
But even on the DB discussion thread she has spammed her views over and over

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Reporting @Veronica for breaking one of the rules imposed on DB and her attempts twice in a row in the same month



link rule

her first attempt, she has already been warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist when trying to revive the subject

Second attempt with same arguments and different titles

For added context: The original thread that added the rule. She has been attempting the same downgrade for months and doesn't show any signs of stopping. I would honestly argue for a topic ban at this point.

 

[Antvasima]

A topic ban seems reasonable then.

 

[KLOL506]

For what it's worth, Veronica also DM'd me about this out of the blue. IDK why, I suppose I'll never know.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

For what it's worth, Veronica also DM'd me about this out of the blue. IDK why, I suppose I'll never know.

Advertisement?

 

[KLOL506]

Advertisement?

Maybe. Who knows.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

A topic ban seems reasonable then.

I understand she seems very passionate about discussing DB, and on other topics of the verse I seem to remember she did brought interesting points, so I wouldn't say it needs to be a permanent topic ban. 1/3 months seem reasonable to me, maybe 6 at maximum to see if she cools down on the spam. Am open to other suggestions too.

 

[Antvasima]

Giving TheMonkeMan a 1 month ban should be enough. We get along quite well in One Piece threads, so he probably though that expressing himself like that was acceptable.

So should we reduce his ban length?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Having been a part of her repeated threads on the same topic, I'm in support of a topic ban for Veronica

 

[PlozAlcachaz]

I'd like to request some staff to evaluate Dread's comments here. I consulted a staff member, and they indicated this might be worth posting, we'll see.

Dread made some mocking and indirectly snide comments targeted toward several people on the thread. She characterized the initial situation as making her into some "crazy woman" evaluating things in bad faith. I wouldn't normally think of such a thing beyond a joke, but she did a similar thing again. She characterized these interactions as people deliberately trying to question her common sense itself. If it seems like the previous two comments were exaggerations, this last one puts that to rest imo. This entire comment takes a very condescending and mocking tone, ending with her mischaracterizing the situation by saying, "But hey, a statement is always valid, no matter the ridiculousness!"

You can look at mine and BestMGQScalerEver's comments for further context. At no point did either of us say anything to the effect of "we always need to accept statements." I was consistently expressing that we should not say it's automatically unreliable just because it's a statement and kept asking for context for further evaluation. Even if these were not direct insults, some of these remarks go beyond the realm of arguments by contributing to a toxic atmosphere and making insinuations about people's intent. This should not escalate anything beyond a warning, but I was told this may be worth bringing up. If this is not substantive enough for a RVR post, I will understand.

EDIT: I made changes to this post to slim it down for brevity.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'd like to request some staff to evaluate Dread's comments on this thread. I consulted with a staff member, and they indicated this may be report-worthy when I asked.

Dread made multiple mocking and indirectly snide comments targeted toward several people she did not agree with on the thread. She characterized the attempts to cast doubt on her opposition as making her into some "crazy woman" evaluating things in bad faith. I personally wouldn't have made much of it if she hadn't done the same thing again, characterizing these interactions as people deliberately trying to question her common sense itself. If the previous two instances just seemed like an exaggeration of her comments, this last one should put that to rest. This entire comment reeks of taking a very condescending and mocking tone, ending with her literally mischaracterizing the situation by saying, "But hey, a statement is always valid, no matter the ridiculousness!"

You can look at mine and BestMGQScalerEver's comments for further context if you don't trust my assessments. At no point did either of us say anything to the effect of "we always need to accept statements." I was consistently expressing that we should not say it's automatically unreliable just because it's a statement and kept asking for context for further evaluation. MGQScaler took a more assertive role considering he created the CRT, but the condescending attitude and bad faith mischaracterizations toward people willing to doubt her was incredibly unwarranted.

It's nothing that would really escalate beyond a warning, but it was still very unbecoming, rude, and unnecessary to make such remarks.

Being frank, reading through her comments on the thread, she was met with the age old "it's useless to talk to you anyways" (which for the record is by far the closest comment to a rule violation in there) comment just before she complained about being dismissed. So her complaint was legitimately valid. She never insults any entity in that thread, she attacks the claims and dismisses attempts to bring up outside examples (which may or may not be valid comparisons, hard to say).

She didn't do anything report worthy here, her behavior is about par on that thread.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

While I don't think she said anything extreme yes, the joke about deleting the outlier page still seemed quite unnecessary as well as a strawman to those disagreeing with her. As for the topic, I am neutral, but I can vouch a lot of people found the opposition against the thread, questionable.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't care about any of those posts, since they weren't attacks on people, just on arguments.

 

[PlozAlcachaz]

Being frank, reading through her comments on the thread, she was met with the age old "it's useless to talk to you anyways" (which for the record is by far the closest comment to a rule violation in there) comment just before she complained about being dismissed. So her complaint was legitimately valid. She never insults any entity in that thread, she attacks the claims and dismisses attempts to bring up outside examples (which may or may not be valid comparisons, hard to say).

She didn't do anything report worthy here, her behavior is about par on that thread.

Fair enough. If that is your determination of the thread, I would like to rescind my request for any further evaluations on it. I do believe the thread was starting to get out of hand, and it was probably a good thing it was closed when it was by OP request. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate this matter; it is greatly appreciated. I will hope that any threads going forward just don't reach such a point again so that situations like this don't happen.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think it is remarkably easy for users to become flustered when faced with multiple people haranguing them for their stances on a variety of aspects of a particular issue, and that's why I generally try to lean generously on reports of minor scuffles like this. People get frazzled, it's best for everyone to just take a step back and breathe for a bit. Plus, if we gave out warnings every time, we'd have half the site banned by the weekend.

It's good that you raise concern on matters like this, I encourage you to do so, but be aware that a lot of borderline cases are deemed unworthy of even a warning.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Being frank, reading through her comments on the thread, she was met with the age old "it's useless to talk to you anyways" (which for the record is by far the closest comment to a rule violation in there) comment just before she complained about being dismissed. So her complaint was legitimately valid. She never insults any entity in that thread, she attacks the claims and dismisses attempts to bring up outside examples (which may or may not be valid comparisons, hard to say).

She didn't do anything report worthy here, her behavior is about par on that thread.

About this I don't think she did anything either as the OP of the thread and person she talked to. I was just frustrated at that time due to other things aside from that.

 

[ImmortalDread]

????

1. Not a single message is redirected to anyone, BUT TO myself. Because people was ranting about my common sense in off-site servers while at the end, when dareaperman in fact listed all inconsistencies, then my doubts about the statement being invalid was valid
2. the outlier deletion was literally metaphorical

If I was disrespectful, I would be pointed out by OP or by anyone present in the thread at that time or even privately by OP. I tried to be completely reasonable while being opposition and addressed them all of them respectfully.

Is it not against rules to falsely report people like that? Because it currently stated in Ant's OP.