Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Dr._whiteee]

@Dr._whiteee I understand your viewpoint. Just a couple of things though.

1. I don't think simply using the religion is the issue, rather how it's being used (specifically, the belief that it's being misused to get an upgrade out of it). This is not necessarily my stance, I just felt it was worth mentioning that I'm not sure if the simple use of Buddhism is the problem
2. Pheonks isn't a staff member on our wiki, but on the FC/OC Battles Wiki

1.) Udl is a theravada Buddhist and largely attacked the thread from his religious perspective. My thread concerned Japenese buddhism which largely has different esoteric takes from his school of Buddhism. Regardless, Udl could have handled himself in a much better manner throughout the thread and wasn't called out until he made overtly offensive remarks, which still have yet to be published. And that doesn't excuse several non-buddhist mods from taking the stance that I was wrong (I am a rational buddhist and did not care to self disclose) in addition to people such as Lightning and the numerous other Buddhist who have espoused ideals similar to mine. So let me ask you, do my views not count? were mods not extremely dismissive of my potential beliefs?
2. Is he not an admin? I swore I saw that title under his name recently?

 

[Dereck03]

That post seems pretty stern and directly opposed to the narrative given earlier, verbatim

To give more context to this, here is the comment made by Udl against Dr. Whitee's argument. I showed it to Garrixian and she told me that it is an attack to your arguments completely bad translated literally by Google TL.

很多愚蠢的论点

呢樣嘢咁蠢，令到我用另一種語言回應

This was handled quickly and resulted in an Official Warning that was immediately added to the warning tracker so this is something that can be set aside and is not a "Downplay" as you put it, otherwise Udll would not have been given a Warning.

Also, shouldn't a reaction from a mod of this level warrant a report in the RVR? Should other mods have not gotten a say? I've seen much less reported to the thread and didn't know single mod quiet actions were a thing.

I can see why you think this way, personally I don't think it's the best way to respond and even more so as a staff member but it's a way of saying what happened. If you have a personal complaint remember that it should be sent to HR and not RVT.

if you read the quote. Does it not come off as a way to say a insult? "If I show you the cross, and say "This is the Symbol of the Christ" I am not then saying Christ is a wooden cross, you buttered crumpet."
"You linked said blog in the Original Post. Don't make it out now that I rooted through your garbage and dug up dirt on you."
So do we think this is aight to say? "Likewise, you never actually addressed the fact you were splicing, just that I was wrong to call you out for slimy behaviour, which is just tone policing, and I don't care for it"
so two people are debating. a debate like these is where you purely debate in a logical way, bring up evidence for your arguments etc. It's expected that both hold a civil debate without insulting each other or framing somebody's character in a negative way. yet somebody doesn't do that. Do we not think this way of behaving is frowned on? Udl admits to not caring if they said somebody had slimy behavior or not, as well. I think you get my point already.
And yes I get the idea of the frustration here. I just don't see as to why we'd go "well meh its fine" when this isn't normally accepted, no? Like we aren't gonna forego civil manner of discussion and all that stuff, especially for that long, yes?

I kinda get your point but as i said before i don't find the buttered crumpet an insult, blame my ESL ig.

The "Don't make it out now that I rooted through your garbage and dug up dirt on you" has have a direct confrontation from Dr. Whitee accusing Udl of something and Udl responding and while I won't say it's the best way to debate I don't think it's reluctant to resort to that type of debating. That happened while I was AFK so I have nothing to say for myself as I was never available to address that discussion.

And the last is a sarcastic comment that is the same as what I mentioned about the 2nd comment, nothing more to say on my part.

 

[Phoenks]

2. Is he not an admin? I swore I saw that title under his name recently?

I am only admin on FCOC. Also, I just sent a joke at the start of the thread before anything had even been stated yet. It was very lighthearted, not sure how it "poisoned the well."

 

[Udlmaster]

I was gonna post a whole comment going through some of the absurd things being said.

I just invite everyone to read the thread themselves and make up their own minds on the subject.

if I google it the only thing that comes up is this,

It is literally that.

I jokingly called him a buttered breakfast item, because the joke is, is that the "insult" is so pathetic that it's not insulting, just funny.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

This was handled quickly and resulted in an Official Warning that was immediately added to the warning tracker so this is something that can be set aside and is not a "Downplay" as you put it, otherwise Udll would not have been given a Warning.

I meant the method of staff intervention, but you're about to cover that so we can drop this point.

I can see why you think this way, personally I don't think it's the best way to respond and even more so as a staff member but it's a way of saying what happened. If you have a personal complaint remember that it should be sent to HR and not RVT.

Sure, but the way in which it went about gives me no assurance as a member that those things (recoding of the warning, etc) happened, usually a post is brought to the attention of the RVR and a decision is made. In this case, I personally felt that Uld was using objectively defamatory debate tactics which culminated in his deleted post, which is a pattern of behavior that should have definitely been more reviewed IMO.

I kinda get your point but as i said before i don't find the buttered crumpet an insult, blame my ESL ig.

I mean I guess, like I said, I was perturbed but didn't say anything, but if special interventions were given for that warning I'd like to know why.

The "Don't make it out now that I rooted through your garbage and dug up dirt on you" has have a direct confrontation from Dr. Whitee accusing Udl of something and Udl responding and while I won't say it's the best way to debate I don't think it's reluctant to resort to that type of debating. That happened while I was AFK so I have nothing to say for myself as I was never available to address that discussion.

I didn't mind this rhetoric personally regarding this specific line.

And the last is a sarcastic comment that is the same as what I mentioned about the 2nd comment, nothing more to say on my part.

Eh, I think you skipped a bunch of lines of Udl claiming things about my intent very early on in the debate which no doubt correlate to poisoning the well. I can link of you'd like but the thread is already dead and what's done is done, but still, the thread was handled terribly (multiple posts without specifying permission, mods being impartial with no official evaluation of the thread, etc).

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

I kinda get your point but as i said before i don't find the buttered crumpet an insult, blame my ESL ig.

ive found stuff like this https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=buttered crumpet
(doubt its reliable)
and https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/crumpet#google_vignette
idk. that's the only two thing i could find and still idk.

anyways with all this discussion we've had. ima move on. if yall wanna add in warning then sure, I don't mind. Just saying it again already. still disagree with the behavior being justified and yada, you get the rest.

edit: maybe I should say this too. I apologize for questioning Udl being a buddhist.

 

[Dereck03]

anyways with all this discussion we've had. ima move on. if yall wanna add in warning then sure, I don't mind. Just saying it again already. still disagree with the behavior being justified and yada, you get the rest.

I would not say that I agree on a warning as such since I am sure that apart from the debate there were many misunderstandings in arguments, possible insults, etc. I would simply say that it was a thread that lacked moderation and could have been handled in a better way than the one it was left in.

It would be better for me to resort to a verbal warning/advice both for Udl to rethink their way of debating and if they feels that something is disrespectful to them to address it in a proper way without so much sarcastic comment as well as for the other side to think "If the other side makes X rude, sarcastic or whatever comment then I will do it too".

 

[Deagonx]

People keep trying to downplay the Udl deleted comment but let's look at Deagon's response

No one is downplaying, but it was settled days ago, and the comment didn't stay up for very long. I removed it and told Udl what he did was wrong and added the warning.

As to the main report I don't think either side really did much to demand staff intervention aside from what I already did.

This has gotten out of hand for how minor it is, I believe.

 

[TheGunsFinalWrath]

I would not say that I agree on a warning as such since I am sure that apart from the debate there were many misunderstandings in arguments, possible insults, etc. I would simply say that it was a thread that lacked moderation and could have been handled in a better way than the one it was left in.

It would be better for me to resort to a verbal warning/advice both for Udl to rethink their way of debating and if they feels that something is disrespectful to them to address it in a proper way without so much sarcastic comment as well as for the other side to think "If the other side makes X rude, sarcastic or whatever comment then I will do it too".

yeah I'm mainly frustrated with the lack of moderation tbh. Also. Fair on your part.

ye that works out well. This would have been a far much better convo to look at if things were fine and chilling. (im talking about the thread btw. not this one) thank you.

 

[KingTempest]

How the flying **** are you trying to use buttered crumpet as a report worthy insult

 

[Damage3245]

The three main perspectives that have been offered as to actions moving forward are '1-3 month ban', 'permanent ban', and broadly, 'something more than 3 months but less than permanent'.

For the final perspective, I would like to consider a 6 month ban, and to advocate for this conclusion. If others wish to offer their final opinions in the light of the discussion, you may say so below and I will add your stance to the tally.

1-3 Months: Antvasima, Mr._Bambu, LordGriffin1000

6 Months: DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus, ByAsura, Damage3245, CloverDragon03

Permanent: Crabwhale, Maverick_Zero_X, LordTracer

It looks like the middle of the road approach we should go for here is a 6 month ban, then we escalate it to permanent if the offenses continue.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Permanent: Crabwhale, Maverick_Zero_X, LordTracer

I vote permanent for Crabwhale and Maverick's reason

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It looks like the middle of the road approach we should go for here is a 6 month ban, then we escalate it to permanent if the offenses continue.

For the simple interest in getting this through, to handle other crises, sure.

 

[Antvasima]

Unfortunately, I was busy earlier, but to revisit the Shmooply case, I just want to say that I find the now deleted posts with extremely unwarranted and meanspirited accusations directed towards Bambu completely unacceptable. That is not the kind of behaviour that should be performed against one of our most trusted, reliable, moral, and valuable staff members, or anybody else here for that matter.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

It looks like the middle of the road approach we should go for here is a 6 month ban, then we escalate it to permanent if the offenses continue.

Fine with me.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like 6 months will be the average consensus solution, yes.

 

[Lord_Farquaad69420]

I think a user messed up the entire profile for gojo https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Satoru_Gojo#Present_Day

 

[ZespeonGalaxy]

I think a user messed up the entire profile for gojo https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Satoru_Gojo#Present_Day

Vandalization reports go here

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Vandalization reports go here

Yes

I think a user messed up the entire profile for gojo https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Satoru_Gojo#Present_Day

By the looks of it, it's mostly a summary overhaul, and there was a second edit fixing format. Though I did not see a URL to a recent content revision, but the user seems like someone who has had plenty of experience. I doubt they were a troll/vandal. Think he forgot a content revision link, but better to ask him.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Think he forgot a content revision link, but better to ask him.

Yeah, he recently asked to open gojo's profile in all purpose thread

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like 6 months will be the average consensus solution, yes.

So about this.

@DarkDragonMedeus

 

[BoastJr]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/touhou-discussion-thread-3-eternal-fantasy-edition.136230/post-6336101

To get back to a recent topic, what is the consensus for Fuji's punishment for her previous outburst ? if a short ban is ensued then how long would it be ?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So about this.

@DarkDragonMedeus

I changed the block settings based on majority consensus

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, Medeus.

 

[Agnaa]

TheGunsFinalWrath​

While, as far as I can tell, Udl did technically start hostilities with the insult "you buttered crumpet", and a deleted message that google translates says means "you posted arguments so stupid I responded in another language" (the latter of which was apparently deleted before TheGunsFinalWrath saw), on top of those both being directed to someone else, I find those far too tame in substance to merit such an escalation, or any more response from staff than it got.

Still, as a first offense from a relatively new user, I'm willing to let this slide with just a warning.

Re this post: Mods are allowed to notice behaviour in a thread, warn for it, and add it to the tracker, without bringing it to the RVR. The RVR usually exists for contentious actions, or actions that non-staff members are reporting.

Re this post: Simply disagreeing with your CRT is not being "extremely dismissive of your potential beliefs".

---

Bambu & Zark​

Unfortunately, I was busy earlier, but to revisit the Shmooply case, I just want to say that I find the now deleted posts with extremely unwarranted and meanspirited accusations directed towards Bambu completely unacceptable. That is not the kind of behaviour that should be performed against one of our most trusted, reliable, moral, and valuable staff members, or anybody else here for that matter.

I want to say that those accusations were reasoned and evidenced (even if ultimately subjectively), but more importantly, that they were only done in response to nigh-identical allegations coming from Bambu. I completely oppose any attempt to only moralize one aspect of that conversation.

While I hope the hatchet was buried behind closed doors, as from my PoV they're both ultimately Good individuals who have simply been hurt by previous bad situations. If we are going to dig it up, I think Bambu has more culpability to not start accusations like that in the future. Assuming and explicitly saying that you think the other person is incapable of approaching a situation rationally rarely leads to anything productive.

EDIT: I've talked to Bambu about this further, off-site. While I wanted to make one public comment to indicate that a staff member should not be immune when accusing others of such things, the infraction's ultimately minor, and is one that involves a staff member. So I'd prefer further talk, particularly about the Bambu aspect, to be done in private.

---

Other​

Most aspects of my previous look at recent reports weren't followed up other than the Shmooply one. To summarize, and perhaps clarify, my views:

• I think Mehmetnegsss should be given an instruction on how to helpfully contribute, and probably warned.
• I think BranicWorld should be given an instruction on how to helpfully contribute, and potentially warned.
• I think Luci5678 should be given a strict warning or a short ban, in the range of a few days.
• I think LIFE_OF_KING should be given a short ban, in the range of a few days.
• I think Deidalius' case should be considered by others, as I don't know enough about the new standards. But I am concerned about us applying the principle of "risking danger to users" consistently between that case and Shmooply's, as Shmooply didn't call for violence against trans users; simply expressing transphobic attitudes towards site users was considered enough, by many who argued for 6 months or permanent based largely on the off-site aspect.
• I think Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara should be given a short ban, in the range of a few days to weeks.

 

[Reiner04]

I actually had one question I was hesitant to ask about but my curiosity, Is being racist, feminist, sense of superiority over certain culture, group, religion, race, cast or disliking certain culture, beliefs or groups itself is a punishable offence- or to having it severe enough to wish/do harm to other community? I see a very grey line about it amongst different mods so I just couldn't get the exact answer reading stuff. I'll rest here.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

• I think LIFE_OF_KING should be given a short ban, in the range of a few days.

I still dont get why I would be banned when the things that I have done were

1- Saying cope to someone nonstop (This one is fair)
2- Saying "Fu.ck you" in a nonserious way (No one got offended at all)
3- Making jokes about a downgrade that everyone was already joking about

Nothing here seems really that deep

EDIT: Should the second warining really be considered a real warning at all? I mean, not even Ant agreed with the report

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

I think this is worthy of a report, @The_Yellow_Topaz started to be very aggressive towards us

I don't think swearing like that is allowed here.

Manga Z gets f*cked

He was being a little aggressive with colleagues

I'm talking canon, keep your Toeiverse to yourself

Making jokes about people

Do the math then Einstein

Besides telling someone he's pulling something out of his ass

I'm not a DB fan, primarily. You pulling a number out your ass and saying the boost would happen in the first second of the fight constitutes a passive growing ability on that level.

I think these comments are mean and we shouldn't allow something like this in a great place like this

 

[The_Yellow_Topaz]

I think this is worthy of a report, @The_Yellow_Topaz started to be very aggressive towards us

I don't think swearing like that is allowed here.


He was being a little aggressive with colleagues



Making jokes about people



Besides telling someone he's pulling something out of his ass



I think these comments are mean and we shouldn't allow something like this in a great place like this

We're reporting for the tamest stuff ever now? In the DB Discussion thread of all places!?

Can we stop wasting moderator's time? Invalid reports really need to cause repercussions because this is ridiculous.

Me saying Manga Z gets screwed by Saitama isn't report worthy.

Me saying to "keep Toeiverse to yourself" isn't aggressive.

The tamest stuff you could even attribute as "passive aggressive" is me replying to a person, who said they wanted to do a calc based off a nothing burger, which I was mildly sarcastic towards telling them to do the math based on the statement they were defending.

Also, literally there were two or three people calling out the dude pulling Saitama's numbers out of his ass (which he was, Saitama has no canon rate of growth), but you reported me?

Sorry, this is clear personal spite against me.

 

[Damage3245]

This does not seem report-worthy. Topaz could chill out a bit, but nothing here is too serious.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Sorry, this is clear personal spite against me.

Unfortunately I have no grudge against you, but you went too far when you said those things.

 

[FinePoint]

Topaz is being a bit sassy, but I don't see anything which constitutes a genuine rule violation.
If you feel that there is personal resentment between you two, then perhaps it is best to simply stop engaging with each other.
If you express that wish to Topaz, and they continue replying to all your posts with rudeness, perhaps then we would have reason to label it as targeted.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Topaz is being a bit sassy, but I don't see anything which constitutes a genuine rule violation.
If you feel that there is personal resentment between you two, then perhaps it is best to simply stop engaging with each other.

I don't even talk to him much, for me he's not a problem

 

[FinePoint]

I don't even talk to him much, for me he's not a problem

Alright, it seems this issue essentially resolves itself then.

 

[FinePoint]

@LIFE_OF_KING should likely be reprimanded for this comment which is pretty egregious.

How do I see what the original comment was?
It seems gone now, but I don't see the normal "message deleted" text I typically see.

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

How do I see what the original comment was?
It seems gone now, but I don't see the normal "message deleted" text I typically see.

The link doesnt work since threads are now updated to create new paes after each 40 mensagens instead of 100

Calculation Evaluations (New forum)

Please stop discussing this in this thread.

vsbattles.com

 

[Catzlaflame]

@LuffyRuffy46307 Not that it is significant or anything, but I notice that this is upwards of the third time that you have reported a user for an interaction that isn't particularly report-worthy (all of which were, to my recollection, Drangon Ball related). In the future, maybe it would be wise to contact a Thread Moderator or Administrator to assess your concerns before you officially report it.

 

[FinePoint]

The link doesnt work since threads are now updated to create new paes after each 40 mensagens instead of 100

Calculation Evaluations (New forum)

Please stop discussing this in this thread.

vsbattles.com

Thank you.
After reviewing your posts, I agree that a ban is simply not warranted.

Your intentions seem purely comedic rather than malicious, and while I'd suggest that you be a bit more careful since it's easy to misinterpret that sort of comedy as rude over a public text-based medium, I simply don't see anything which suggests that anything beyond a warning is necessary.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

@LuffyRuffy46307 Not that it is significant or anything, but I notice that this is upwards of the third time that you have reported a user for an interaction that isn't particularly report-worthy (all of which were, to my recollection, Drangon Ball related). In the future, maybe it would be wise to contact a Thread Moderator or Administrator to assess your concerns before you officially report it.

Okay, I'll do as you advised me, I'll come straight to you when someone does this.

 

[Deagonx]

• I think LIFE_OF_KING should be given a short ban, in the range of a few days.

I'm fine with that, as well.