- 11,266
- 12,719
This is funny to me.Oh okay, then you should also get a warning lol
But yes in general don't be a dummy and get a proper revision going in order to add or remove something.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is funny to me.Oh okay, then you should also get a warning lol
Okay, i thought it was kinda legal to add specific no brainer abilities when the profile is a recent one, and it was forgot to be added to the sandboxThis is funny to me.
But yes in general don't be a dummy and get a proper revision going in order to add or remove something.
It could be permissible if at the moment of creating a profile you have forgotten something and you add it within minutes of creating it, but here it has been more than half a day since the profile was created, it would need its own CRT at that time.Okay, i thought it was kinda legal to add specific no brainer abilities when the profile is a recent one, and it was forgot to be added to the sandbox
Technically, I believe the posts were actually directly relevant.Stop commenting irrelevant stuff.
Agreed, but I want to emphasize that even if Chase had said that yesterday it wouldn't help his case. If he has an issue with Chase off-site that should stay off-site. I know you didn't say otherwise, but I want to make that clear to anyone reading.so using old evidence here to prove actual claims here doesn't sounds valid.
Yeah, I'm not saying that it matters or not the date in which it was said, but it is an attempt to revive an old case that was dismissed with the same old evidence to try to try something against chase when he doesn't even act that way anymore, that's why it's important to emphasize the fact so that people don't keep assuming things about him.Agreed, but I want to emphasize that even if Chase had said that yesterday it wouldn't help his case. If he has an issue with Chase off-site that should stay off-site. I know you didn't say otherwise, but I want to make that clear to anyone reading.
------
Bottom line, harassing Chase on his message wall for liking some innocuous comments about what kind of person you think he is isn't acceptable, and responding to an RVR report about it with a SS of Chase using a slur or saying something gross on Discord isn't acceptable, and repeatedly posting horrible accusations about him when the comments get deleted is just adding fuel to the fire and is just insisting on creating public drama despite mod intervention.
Marshadow is mad because he got threadbanned from the Nasu general discussion thread for using it as a venue to respond to Nasu CRTs, which he is explicitly not allowed to do, and some users clowned about it in the thread after it happened. All Chase did was like some of the comments and Marshadow decided to make a scene about it because he was upset, and now he's trying to do the same thing here. I think it's pretty unacceptable, and this in combination with the proxy violation of his topic ban lead me to believe he should be banned for at least some period of time.
He's referring to the staff. In the comments of the post he made on Chase's wall when he was warned what he was doing might be wrong he said "the staff hopefully aren't disciples of epstein."I find that "disciples of Epstein" thing too vague to do anything about.
Please clarify exactly where those "defending pedophilia" statements come from, and provide screenshots of them so we can appropriately evaluate the context.
Of course, I just don't think he should be going onto other people's walls to start drama about it because Chase liked some comments.I don't think we should ban people for opinions like that.
I suppose I really strongly don't believe that referring to me as a "disciple of epstein" or "defending pedophilia" are tame. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of a more unsettling accusation that could be made.And NecoScaler's comments towards you seem pretty tame (such as "you might not have intended to do that, but you ended up defending pedophilia"), or were broad and shitposty enough for me to not really classify them as an attack.
Yeah, if there's more of it like that it may bump up the ban time, but just from the stuff on his own wall and Chase's wall I'd only ask for a one week ban.Of course, I just don't think he should be going onto other people's walls to start drama about it because Chase liked some comments.
"disciple of epstein" was lobbied at the staff as a whole, based on a collective reaction to a report. That collective nature diminishes it greatly, for me.I suppose I really strongly don't believe that referring to me as a "disciple of epstein" or "defending pedophilia" are tame. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of a more unsettling accusation that could be made.
I couldn't say I agree. He said "The staff hopefully aren't disciples of Epstein" and then, specifically in response to my participation in the report, said "I was wrong about there being no disciples of Epstein.""disciple of epstein" was lobbied at the staff as a whole, based on a collective reaction to a report. That collective nature diminishes it greatly, for me.
Right, a description of an extremely offputting and grotesque action, assigned to me, because I did my job."defending pedophilia" is a description of an action, not a person
One of these things is not like the other. I'm not saying staff should be immune to being called out for things, I am saying that this description is so disgusting and so completely beyond the pale that it was clearly made out of childish malice and it is not something we should allow at all.If staff members handle a situation badly, such that people can read it as dishonesty, bigotry, or "defending pedophilia", we NEED users to be able to call that out, without fear of getting banned because we decided that actually the staff were right.
This is an incorrect reconstruction of events, as far as I can tell.I couldn't say I agree. He said "The staff hopefully aren't disciples of Epstein" and then, specifically in response to my participation in the report, said "I was wrong about there being no disciples of Epstein."
While NecoScaler did mention you threadbanning him, he still used "defenders" as a plural. And didn't just talk about the threadbanning; also mentioning the evidence against Chase that was brought up.And if there were any ambiguity left over from that, it is eliminated by him describing my threadbanning him and immediately saying "we got Epstein defenders."
I think NecoScaler saying "might not have intended [to defend pedophilia], but that is what you ended up doing" is a pretty tame way of calling you out for that. Like hell, NecoScaler didn't even say the words "defend pedophilia", as far as I can tell. If we permaban for something as indirect as that, how do you think NecoScaler should have called you out? Because I sincerely cannot think of a much kinder way to talk about something like that.One of these things is not like the other. I'm not saying staff should be immune to being called out for things, I am saying that this description is so disgusting and so completely beyond the pale that it was clearly made out of childish malice and it is not something we should allow at all.
This is my feeling as well. While the wall-post on Chase's wall was more or less pointless drama bait, I had no intention of advocating for severe punishment, only that we should make it clear that it's not okay to instigate drama.As such, if we are going to give NecoScaler a temporary ban, I think that it should primarily be due to his comment about staff members.
I would like to clarify that I did not make a comment on the forum nor interacted with Marshadow, but I only liked the posts made by SweetDao and DeagonX regarding his threadban and I made a comment on a Discord server saying that his threadban was justified and it was not overexgerration on the moderator's part. But as soon as I made that comment, he started to spam my profile's wall.I think he just saw Chase like some comments he didn't like and decided to go after him since he couldn't respond to the comments themselves after being threadbanned.
If NecoScaler is sincere in his view of Chase, and is just upset about that some of us seem to be defending him despite the extreme sentiments he has expressed, maybe two weeks or so, but all forms of drama should be heavily discouraged and handled in a much more proper manner, so maybe I am being too lenient?But that aside, how long of a punishment do you feel is warranted for that?
Perhaps Chase is a peculiar member of our community with many controversial characteristics, but he hasn't done anything wrong on-site and we can't simply ban him because we don't like him. If there is evidence of him associating with illegal activities such as pedophilia, then that should be discussed rather privately due to its heavy-disturbing topic, but as of now, merely his acting as a degenerate off-site isn't enough to warrant any punishment.Also, I have removed NecoScaler's thread ban, so he can explain himself. He does not seem anywhere near as malevolent as Chase, so he has a right to defend himself as well. However, please make sure to behave yourself properly.
Also, if the screencapture we were shown was accurate, I personally think that we should permanently ban Chase from our community without a chance for any appeals in the future. I do not want extremely malevolent and degenerate people being a part of this place.
I usually don't get involved in this but here you have to take some things into account, those screenshots are months old, Chase was reported with the same thing but the case was dismissed, as his behavior had nothing to do with VSB related but AFB and off-site servers not related to VSB at all and most of them were shit-talks. If there is any evidence that Chase has behaved in the same way on the forum or affected the forum then I wouldn't mind reviewing it and giving a verdict. Also, which junior/young members have been affected? None as far as I can tell as he has never behaved that way here on the forum.Also, I have removed NecoScaler's thread ban, so he can explain himself. He does not seem anywhere near as malevolent as Chase, so he has a right to defend himself as well. However, please make sure to behave yourself properly, Neco.
Also, if the screencapture we were shown was accurate, I personally think that we should permanently ban Chase from our community without a chance for any appeals in the future. I do not want extremely malevolent and degenerate people being a part of this place, especially given that the majority of our members are quite young.
And again, evidence that he acted that way here? I'll be glad to see it and know what members have been affected. From what I know of him on my server his behavior was a complete improvement from what those SS dictate so I'm skeptical to continue to hold that view, mainly because they were mostly shit-talks with lot of controversial stuffs, but at the end, shit-talks about anime and/or VN characters.He apparently enthusiastically advocated for casual lolicon-rape and extreme racism. If that is his true personality, I don't want genuinely evil people around the mostly young members in this community.
I'm certainly not a fan of him either but I don't have enough evidence to prove that mindset of his. If the majority of the staff here is going to advocate for his eviction or present enough evidence to prove that mindset of his then I won't contest it; I'm just saying that we shouldn't ban someone simply because they have controversies unrelated to our site.He apparently enthusiastically advocated for casual lolicon-rape and extreme racism. If that is his true personality, I don't want genuinely evil people around the mostly young members in this intended to be kind and friendly community.