Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Veronica: Violating a topic ban is grounds to have said ban extended, makes sense to me. Further infractions should warrant outright ban time, however.

Per Bambu's suggestion, seems an outright ban is in order. I have also closed the Vs Thread.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'd agree with that since she's violated the topic ban multiple times now

 

[Antvasima]

HollowVanity made a complaint about his ban here:

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Also, would a 3 months block be appropriate for Veronica, or is that too harsh? Perhaps 1 month would be sufficient?

 

[Dereck03]

HollowVanity made a complaint about his ban here:

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Okay, their whole argument is simply based on "I'm kidding, I'm joking, I'm trolling". They were told to stop with their condescending attitude and tasteless jokes repeatedly and never stopped. Reaching the point of annoying and disrespecting other users with their "jokes".

First of all, only joke with people around you or friends, don't go around treating others with your tasteless jokes and your condescending attitude and excusing yourself behind that "it's a joke".

First of all they complained that I deleted their comments and started calling me a cringe because I didn't keep up with their jokes, but what they were doing is further damaging the reputation of TR and CRT itself by derailing it with their antics.

I'm not willing to have back a user who is 100% here to cause trouble and categorize their entire behavior as "just kidding, so bear with me".

 

[DarkGrath]

Also, would a 3 months block be appropriate for Veronica, or is that too harsh? Perhaps 1 month would be sufficient?

I would think 2 months would be appropriate here. Violating a topic ban isn't a severe rule violation, but doing it a second time after being warned for a prior instance and informed that further violations would result in a ban is a definite sign that some action needs to be taken. 1 month seems too lenient to give any apt time for Veronica to shape up, but I wouldn't want to over-extend and make this out to be a more severe problem than it is.

 

[Dalesean027]

HollowVanity made a complaint about his ban here:

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

He mentions me directly and I'll say this personally doesn't do anything for me as he's still accusing me of having an agenda against the verse while also saying he never said things like that and funnily enough the things he linked were calcs that aren't viable by out standards anymore as we had the new reaction and perceptions thread sorted out which once again makes Therefir's the better one to go with as the one dread did was via the standards that we had for a brief period prior. This just shows a lack of research on Hollow's part and his insistence to paint a negative picture of any staff who disagrees with him.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think 2 months is a good ban length for Veronica. And I agree with Dereck regarding HollowVanity.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, their whole argument is simply based on "I'm kidding, I'm joking, I'm trolling". They were told to stop with their condescending attitude and tasteless jokes repeatedly and never stopped. Reaching the point of annoying and disrespecting other users with their "jokes".

First of all, only joke with people around you or friends, don't go around treating others with your tasteless jokes and your condescending attitude and excusing yourself behind that "it's a joke".

First of all they complained that I deleted their comments and started calling me a cringe because I didn't keep up with their jokes, but what they were doing is further damaging the reputation of TR and CRT itself by derailing it with their antics.

I'm not willing to have back a user who is 100% here to cause trouble and categorize their entire behavior as "just kidding, so bear with me".

He mentions me directly and I'll say this personally doesn't do anything for me as he's still accusing me of having an agenda against the verse while also saying he never said things like that and funnily enough the things he linked were calcs that aren't viable by out standards anymore as we had the new reaction and perceptions thread sorted out which once again makes Therefir's the better one to go with as the one dread did was via the standards that we had for a brief period prior. This just shows a lack of research on Hollow's part and his insistence to paint a negative picture of any staff who disagrees with him.

Okay. I will ban his new account then.

 

[Antvasima]

I would think 2 months would be appropriate here. Violating a topic ban isn't a severe rule violation, but doing it a second time after being warned for a prior instance and informed that further violations would result in a ban is a definite sign that some action needs to be taken. 1 month seems too lenient to give any apt time for Veronica to shape up, but I wouldn't want to over-extend and make this out to be a more severe problem than it is.

I think 2 months is a good ban length for Veronica.

Okay. That seems fine then.

Is somebody here willing to give her a 2 months block here and in our wiki combined with an explanation post for her please?

Also, are her VSBW forum and wiki account usernames identical or not?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay. That seems fine then.

Is somebody here willing to give her a 2 months block here and in our wiki combined with an explanation post for her please?

Also, are her VSBW forum and wiki account usernames identical or not?

I took care of it, and I found a Fandom account with her username, but it appears to be completely blank. So it might have been one of the accounts approved before the suggested rules about users needing to prove legimacy before approval. Though she has proved she was human at least and not a bot. And I also wrote the ban reason as this.

Repeatedly makes unruly Dragon Ball threads while ignoring her topic ban, Stomp Thread rules, and Discussion Rules

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

HollowVanity made a complaint about his ban here:

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

I earnestly believe HollowVanity to be Vapourrr, and I earnestly believe that he is here to cause problems.

With that said, I do think the specific things he was banned for were jokes, just not very funny ones, as he made similar jokes in other situations that made it all an example of absurdism. He wasn't legitimately threatening to kill anyone. I know users on this forum that make similar (albeit funnier) jokes.

If we want to keep him banned, I think there are good reasons to do that. But I also think our current reason is a little flimsy.

And for the record, I similarly agree with the 2 month proposal for Veronica's ban. Not much to add on that aside from this.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Given that Vapourrrrr has been an untrustworthy and unruly liar in the past, that seems very likely, yes. I suppose that it seems best to keep him banned.

 

[SlendVeny]

With that said, I do think the specific things he was banned for were jokes, just not very funny ones, as he made similar jokes in other situations that made it all an example of absurdism. He wasn't legitimately threatening to kill anyone. I know users on this forum that make similar (albeit funnier) jokes.

As the person who was getting threatened(Albeit jokingly), I feel like doing that and then going "All right, I'm pissed and I'm gonna take it out on my elderly relatives," is kind of a really weird response to someone. All this added up kinda makes me think this person needs a general break from the internet.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

With that said, I do think the specific things he was banned for were jokes, just not very funny ones, as he made similar jokes in other situations that made it all an example of absurdism. He wasn't legitimately threatening to kill anyone. I know users on this forum that make similar (albeit funnier) jokes.

Yeah, I recall he done further than that such as spamming threads and doing unapproved edits that later got reverted. Anyway, I agree could the reasoning could been improved regarding the ban (outside of course the obvious blatant fact he is a suspected sock puppet of Vapour). Although I do think jokes (as well as his hostility towards staff members) combined with the previous reports is pretty much said it all.

Not sure I should comment here but removing n6 rather than removing n3,n4 and n5 is really weird since n6 literally covers all of the topics those 3 threads present. They are also created by the same user and the user was already warned about spamming threads.

"Okay. That seems fine then, but I think that I reverted several of Hollow's edits earlier today, since they seemed unapproved.

Would you be willing to properly handle all of the these edits instead?"

I wasn't asked but the edits are still allowed

 

[KLOL506]

Reporting Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for doubling down on her claiming that her vote count stands despite some of the members agreeing with Low 1-C and some still waiting for others to respond before giving a vote, then she claims that those votes are valid without even consulting the staff members on whether they gave a concrete and definite vote or not. She has also become significantly more aggressive since then, even getting a warning from Theglassman12 prior to chill out. She refused.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Reporting Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for doubling down on her claiming that her vote count stands despite some of the members agreeing with Low 1-C and some still waiting for others to respond before giving a vote, then she claims that those votes are valid without even consulting the staff members on whether they gave a concrete and definite vote or not. She has also become significantly more aggressive since then, even getting a warning from Theglassman12 prior to chill out. She refused.

I literally counted Elizhaa agreeing with low 1-C, you can LITERALLY JUST CHECK THE OP OF THAT THREAD.

Saying the revision looks fine, or that one side's points make sense, IS A VOTE. That is ALWAYS how it has been. This is just straight up lying, and from where I'm standing, is just a petty attempt to get me banned for one reason or another.

Also this report is hilariously hypocritical seeing as your response was to tell me to shut the fuck up.

 

[ImmortalDread]

She has also become significantly more aggressive since then, even getting a warning from Theglassman12 prior to chill out. She refused.

For more information, she had similar aggressive attitude and behaviour which is pointed in this list. I think, seriously, some actual action is required (since she recently got officially warned not long ago).

At this point, officially warning her does not seem to be improving.

 

[KLOL506]

I literally counted Elizhaa agreeing with low 1-C, you can LITERALLY JUST CHECK THE OP OF THAT THREAD.

My response was largely about Qawsedf, not Elizhaa, the latter not mattering because you added her AFTER YOU GOT WARNED. Which is already plenty bad enough for you as is.

Saying the revision looks fine, or that one side's points make sense, IS A VOTE. That is ALWAYS how it has been.

Once again, not upto you to decide when they literally say "I'll wait for more opinions to pour in". That is also how it has always been.

This is just straight up lying, and from where I'm standing, is just a petty attempt to get me banned for one reason or another.

Let's not bullshit each other here, Fuji, your behavior has been less than adequate in this thread from where I'm standing where Tanin keeps clarifying on the standards (Regarding the Low 2-C shit, which he is actually correct on), and you just keep brushing him off with your aggression. The staff will decide what to do with you from here onwards, don't clutter this thread.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

My response was largely about Qawsedf, not Elizhaa, the latter not mattering because you added her AFTER YOU GOT WARNED.

Qawsedf didn't disagree, he said the revision looked fine. So yes, the votes are counted accurately.

Once again, not upto you to decide when they literally say "I'll wait for more opinions to pour in". That is also how it has always been.

And it's not up to you to discredit their opinion when they AGREE WITH MY POINTS.

 

[KLOL506]

Qawsedf didn't disagree, he said the revision looked fine. So yes, the votes are counted accurately.

Once again, he literally just said he'd wait and see what the supporters had to say so instead of jumping to conclusions, actually let the man decide for himself?

Once again, don't put words into their mouth.

And it's not up to you to discredit their opinion when they AGREE WITH MY POINTS.

Fuji, just stop for once and let staff evaluate this. Neither of us are qualified here to clutter the thread like this or enact judgment upon this. It's out of our hands now.

I am asking staff to delete further bickering beyond this and evaluate this on their own.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

And it's not up to you to discredit their opinion when they AGREE WITH MY POINTS.

So opinion based on half information is a vote? If it an opinion then keep it at the level of opinion. No one is saying opinion is wrong or right.

It's just that you are taking undue advantage of something very simple extrapolated to extreme ends.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Leave this last post up, because it does give some context. Here is exactly what Qaws said, so staff aren't relying on our word alone.

 

[KLOL506]

Just to offer a few 2 cents. To be fair, if he said “I’ll wait for more responses” after saying the comments look fine, that doesn’t really seem to be a vote.

That’s just saying the revision looks good at first glance, but will wait to see what other potential more informed users of the verse will speak about.

That's exactly what he said.

"I mean, your comments look fine but I'm not familiar with DMC. I'll wait for more responses."

Ultima gave a similar response as well.

DDM also said that just because one agrees with the premise, doesn't mean they agree with the end result, and that we should wait for them to concretely state that. That is literally how our voting process has always worked.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think this should be a rule violation, but I agree that what Qawsedf posted would not constitute a vote. It's easy to reach the conclusion that it might, so I think we can just remove him from the vote count and move on.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

It is a vote, and has always been considered such. If Qaws has changed his opinion, then by all means let him correct me. But he did in fact agree with the OP, so until that changes, I'm not removing the vote.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't think this should be a rule violation, but I agree that what Qawsedf posted would not constitute a vote. It's easy to reach the conclusion that it might, so I think we can just remove him from the vote count and move on.

BTW, the vote stuff wasn't the only report.

Fuji has been aggressive yet again, Glassman straight up warning her not to do stuff like that. She does it anyway, here.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't think this should be a rule violation, but I agree that what Qawsedf posted would not constitute a vote. It's easy to reach the conclusion that it might, so I think we can just remove him from the vote count and move on.

I suppose you missed a point (or may not see the report due to derailment), it is consists of two elements

• Possible vote manipulation (which she recently got reported for and officially warned and yet despite still insisting not to cooperate)
• And aggression despite being warned (similar behaviour in the past with absolute no improvement)

The whole report is here:

Reporting Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for doubling down on her claiming that her vote count stands despite some of the members agreeing with Low 1-C and some still waiting for others to respond before giving a vote, then she claims that those votes are valid without even consulting the staff members on whether they gave a concrete and definite vote or not. She has also become significantly more aggressive since then, even getting a warning from Theglassman12 prior to chill out. She refused.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

BTW, the vote stuff wasn't the only report.

Fuji has been aggressive yet again, Glassman straight up warning her not to do stuff like that. She does it anyway, here.

Neither of these are aggressive, unless this site works on elementary school rules.

Possible vote manipulation (which she recently got reported for and officially warned)

"Vote manipulation"
Dread.
Qaws said the OP looked good but that he'd also wait for more responses.
I counted that as him agreeing for the time being.
That isn't vote manipulation. You can literally see it in the OP where I make it clear that his opinion is subject to change. But it HASN'T changed, so I have no reason to remove it.

 

[KLOL506]

I suppose you missed a point (or may not see the report due to derailment), it is consists of two elements

• Possible vote manipulation (which she recently got reported for and officially warned and yet despite still insisting not to cooperate)
• And aggression (similar behaviour in the past with absolute no improvement)

Not to mention the fact that she has been warned multiple times before for aggressive and rude behavior.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

If this was a full on agreement vote, why would he then say “I’ll wait for more responses” right afterward?

This sounds counter intuitive

Because it's possible to start with one opinion and go "but I may change my mind later". Won't change the validity of your initial opinion, it just means your opinion could change depending on the other side's argument.

I regularly do this, where I'll agree/disagree with a thread, see some points brought up that change my mind, and then ask the OP to change my vote. Idk why that's so hard for people here to understand.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I suppose you missed a point (or may not see the report due to derailment), it is consists of two elements

• Possible vote manipulation (which she recently got reported for and officially warned and yet despite still insisting not to cooperate)
• And aggression (similar behaviour in the past with absolute no improvement)

The whole report is here:

I'm the one that warned her, Dread. I am aware of the issues surrounding Fujiwara of late. However, I do feel it is sometimes easy to, in the pursuit of justice, be overzealous in condemning behaviors. The lines are blurred, and so what might otherwise be an innocuous mistake is considered treason. I don't believe this particular offense to be intentional vote manipulation if someone else did it.

I think slamming a warning every time there's a small misunderstanding is too much. That's not to say that Fujiwara isn't doing things worthy of warning- I agreed with the previous recent offenses. But this specific issue is a tad heavy-handed.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm the one that warned her, Dread. I am aware of the issues surrounding Fujiwara of late. However, I do feel it is sometimes easy to, in the pursuit of justice, be overzealous in condemning behaviors. The lines are blurred, and so what might otherwise be an innocuous mistake is considered treason. I don't believe this particular offense to be intentional vote manipulation if someone else did it.

I think slamming a warning every time there's a small misunderstanding is too much. That's not to say that Fujiwara isn't doing things worthy of warning- I agreed with the previous recent offenses. But this specific issue is a tad heavy-handed.

Bro, she literally just disagreed with you on removing the vote and said she won't do it despite what you said. If that's not warning-worthy by its own IDK what is.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

She does it anyway, here.

Checking the cited example, I don’t think this is bad enough to constitute action being taken. The aggressive part her message (“Absolutely ******* not”) amounts to crude language rather than a personal attack.

Frankly I also agree with Mr._Bambu that we shouldn’t be heavy-handed in regards to misinterpretations of the vote count. Imho just get further clarification on their vote, edit the OP if need be, and move on.

 

[Deagonx]

This seems like a nothing burger. I am not sure why an argument or report was needed here, couldn't Qawsedf simply be asked if he is comfortable with his vote being counted as an agree? And until the thread reaches a sufficient amount of agrees from staff -- which it has not yet even if you count Qawsedf's vote -- this is doubly not relevant. I don't think it was really productive to challenge the tally in the first place let alone bring it to RVR for her not conceding. Ant had already replied "noted" to the explanation of what Qawsedf specifically said.

 

[Crabwhale]

Agree with my fellow staff members.

Also, Elizhaa is a dude, fyi.

 

[KLOL506]

Agree with my fellow staff members.

So I'd assume we should just remove Qawsedf's vote until he clarifies concretely then?

Also, Elizhaa is a dude, fyi.

TIL

 

[Deagonx]

So I'd assume we should just remove Qawsedf's vote until he clarifies concretely then?

I wouldn't agree with altering Fuji's personal tally against her will, as it is her own post, but until the thread reaches its conclusion I don't see this as being terribly important, and you are of course free to keep your own tally which does not mention that vote.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Bro, she literally just disagreed with you on removing the vote and said she won't do it despite what you said. If that's not warning-worthy by its own IDK what is.

@Qawsedf234 would you mind clarifying if you actually wanted to vote at this time but were willing to change later, or if you intended to wait to vote at all for further intel?