Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[CurrySenpai]

@GreatIskandar14045 kinda of made his name public here tbh.

Why does it matter, why the hell are you leaking personal dms on a messenger site with real life names. Did you ask for his consent???

 

[StrymULTRA]

Why does it matter, why the hell are you leaking personal dms on a messenger site with real life names. Did you ask for his consent???

He already gave consent to others to do that lol.

We're friends, so is ok.

Edit: He also said he doesn't care if I share DMs stuff here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I can see multiple angles here, but I will say some things.

While I do agree offsite or behind their back comments are mostly not the same as onsite or in their face comments; the latter generally needing to be taken far more seriously. It does still leave a bad taste in my mouth when someone says something "Cruel or edgy, or prone to bigotry" and it isn't until shortly after they are reported for to them excuse themselves by saying, "It's a joke," or "It's just edgy humor." Even if those are jokes, I am never really a big fan of them being made or revealed at bad timing.

The Dereck case seems to have been resolved, he wasn't a fan of the joke but at the same time he doesn't seem to feel too strongly about it or anything worth reporting by the looks. But honestly, I am sure the phrase "Transhater" is objectively even worse than transphobia if you want to take the literary descriptions 100% literally. (The main issues are that it contains some hints of being sexist and/or genderist). And I know there is still an ongoing case regarding GreatIskandar that isn't looking well on his end. But I agree with a lot of things Antvasima said and also experienced a lot of the same things he had to for the past years regarding the trolls posting **** and gore (Including a few cases of CP) on our message walls, and people harassing us across multiple platforms. As well has my own experience IRL being bigoted for a combination of mental health issues and Spiritual values. I also agree with the "Do to others as you want them do to you" comment especially. Mr. Bambu and DarkGrath also raised a lot more points too that I can agree to.

Also, the "Suicide comment" offsite was something while they accepted an apology a while back, they didn't forgive it outright. And now they more or less regret the policy. So far, I do agree with the 3 to 6 month ban. But the "Discord back" thing could also be discussed on Discord.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Hate to interrupt the case but what happened to the guidelines of not allowing blue names to comment on RVRT?

This is a staff thread and only staff are eligible to comment here by will. If you have nothing to contribute to the case other than sharing your own personal view whatsoever then please refrain from commenting and potentially making the situation worse for everyone. Or at least get permission from a thread moderator or administrator.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm also in favor of 6 months.

 

[Antvasima]

I largely agree with Bambu, DarkGrath, and Medeus here. A 4 months ban seems like a reasonable compromise/consensus solution then, since this happened offsite and I think that it is a first time offence.

But for gods' sakes StrymULTRA, please use your time off to attempt to learn from this by taking to heart everything they said about tolerance for those different than you, and try to stop posting bigoted comments, regardless if you are just trying to be "funny" or edgy or not. If you continue, we will likely be forced to give you a longer ban the next time.

And also, do not create any sockpuppet account in the meantime. It will only lead to a greatly extended ban period for you.

 

[Antvasima]

What happens if someone says they support Israel or Hamas and claim that Israel is modern day Nazi Germany or Hamas a terrorist org or says decolonization type shit? Or supports biden or trump in a discord server. I'm asking cause ever since the first ban we've been moving more and more into going banned for the slightest opinion we don't like which wasn't even posted on vsbw but a dm or private discord server.

Also, for the record, concerns about enormous numbers of innocent human lives being lost through a very onesided massacre shouldn't be conflated into a context of bigotry or cheering for a favourite sports team. But that is all that we should say about that subject. Discussion discontinued in that regard.

 

[Abstractions]

Reporting @StrymULTRA for reasons that I hope are obvious. This is an off-site matter, but I would like to cite Shmooply's permaban as precedent case, as that was for more or less the same reason (ie; overt transphobia).

I want to comment on this because this situation has led to several off-site conversations and I'm tired of having them, so I will use my response here to set the record straight as to no longer have this matter be misinterpreted.

Shmooply's ban was carried out not out of off-site behavior, but because the commentary within said posts being reflective in his on-site conduct - he was initially only going to be warned for the joke he had made within his report on Topaz until said off-site information illuminated us to the idea that he wasn't joking. When questioned about it, he declined to defend himself, it could have only been taken at face value at that point. He was treated to have been not joking.

This ban for some reason has set the precedent in people's minds that we thought police off-site (evidently even by some of our own staff): we do not.

Strym in this circumstance is at least offering clarity upon his position and saying that he's only engaging in edgy humor that he doesn't mean anything by, whether or not this is the truth is a different matter but I would prefer it if the two instances not be compared to one another.

I would also prefer to not have to rehash this in the future. Thank you.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we apply Strym's ban, or wait for him to respond first?

I think that a ban might prevent him from seeing our posts here, so I would personally prefer option 2.

 

[Abstractions]

So should we apply Strym's ban, or wait for him to respond first?

I don't think I even support a ban, the thing I'm on the fence about is the suicide comment and he already apologized for that months ago, which was accepted at the time.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Noted. Perhaps we should shorten the ban further then?

 

[StrymULTRA]

So should we apply Strym's ban, or wait for him to respond first?

I have a last thing to say about this whole situation.

I am just kinda very disappointed at how this wiki is going, this new offsite rule really makes people afraid of saying stuff that is even slighty over the line on other places, because now there's a chance that someone in the future will find it, post it totally out of context to a VBW member, and they'll begin to report, starting a ban over something that neither didn't happen on site, nor has truly impacted anyone outside of "omg this guy is actually an evil person who is prolly even a nazi, ban him ASAP!".

The whole reason why Shmooply was banned, as I said, was only because of them making a transphobic joke onsite, directly against Topaz, the offsite stuff included him admitting to be unironically one and not one who makes jokes out of edgyness.

Reio35's ban was also for him directly being homophobic towards people onsite, not just his comments offsite, which were indeed a basis here.

I didn't do anything against Fuji, just made some crass jokes in places where she's not and that's it, on the other hand, nor have made transphobic stuff onsite. Heck, our offsite rules do not cover this kind of stuff, but people seem to convenientely forget about it.

I think that a ban might prevent him from seeing our posts here, so I would personally prefer option 2.

What about we move this on the private forum? It's literally made for this kind of stuff, heck, having screenshots here posted in a public place is kinda making me feel "exposed" with all these OOC screens.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally do not mind if you create a thread in our private forum instead.

 

[CloverDragon03]

If a private thread is made, that's fine and all. But I don't think this:

I didn't do anything against Fuji, just made some crass jokes in places where she's not and that's it, on the other hand, nor have made transphobic stuff onsite. Heck, our offsite rules do not cover this kind of stuff, but people seem to convenientely forget about it.

Covers the full story. Because yeah, you didn't do so to Fuji directly, but you have made such comments directly to another trans user before - that being Curry.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Covers the full story. Because yeah, you didn't do so to Fuji directly, but you have made such comments directly to another trans user before - that being Curry.

How in the damnation was I supposed to know that?

I never talked to them before, nor had any true interaction with them before.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Curry saying "I have a YouTube channel and a male voice. Transgender people exist" in response to what you seemed to be saying - at least in my eyes - is pretty blatant as far as saying you're trans without actually saying it goes

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The sole reason I think this does fall against our offsite rules is the fact that some of it was directed towards Curry (to her face, specifically). I think that was a poor play and is the worst of the evidence brought up. Mixed with existent warnings for at least somewhat related matters (causing a stir amongst other users), I think some level of action is justified. If we want to pivot away from action (shall wait to hear from the rest of the class on that), I would be satisfied with a "last warning" affair. My wish in this situation is that Strym approach these matters more delicately.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Curry saying "I have a YouTube channel and a male voice. Transgender people exist" in response to what you seemed to be saying - at least in my eyes - is pretty blatant as far as saying you're trans without actually saying it goes

It was more an argument dismissing mine about Topaz not being female with this comparison, not Curry literally having a YT channel.

This is like super forcing, come on.

 

[CloverDragon03]

It was more an argument dismissing mine about Topaz not being female with this comparison, not Curry literally having a YT channel.

This is like super forcing, come on.

How is it "super forcing" to bring up that you said "trans people don't exist" directly to a trans woman who was pretty open about the fact that she was, in fact, trans. Come on now

 

[StrymULTRA]

How is it "super forcing" to bring up that you said "trans people don't exist" directly to a trans woman who was pretty open about the fact that she was, in fact, trans. Come on now

They never told me directly "I am a transwoman", so I just assumed they weren't.

Don't try to warp my thoughts like that, it's just you wanting me to get banned for the sake to at this point.

 

[CloverDragon03]

They never told me directly "I am a transwoman", so I just assumed they weren't.

Don't try to warp my thoughts like that, it's just you wanting me to get banned for the sake to at this point.

Not making yourself look better with the motive accusations. I just felt that what I mentioned before was a pretty clear indicator that she's trans.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Not making yourself look better with the motive accusations. I just felt that what I mentioned before was a pretty clear indicator that she's trans.

I hope you do realize the entire reason Curry made this comparison was me claiming that Charmander has a YT channel (which is this, only that he deleted all the vids fsr).

Curry never sent in the screenshots that she's a transwoman, just that she made an example of "if I am a transwoman, me having a male voice doesn't mean I am not trans", plus there's no proof she has a YT channel anyway (not one that I know of at least).

 

[CloverDragon03]

To me, it seemed clear that she was outright using herself as an example to say "yeah, trans women with male voices and YouTube channels exist, I'm one such person." If that's not how you saw it, then what else can I really say?

 

[StrymULTRA]

To me, it seemed clear that she was outright using herself as an example to say "yeah, trans women with male voices and YouTube channels exist, I'm one such person." If that's not how you saw it, then what else can I really say?

Ok, what is her YT channel?

Because this is getting unironically in a semantics debate and I am not tollerating that.

I just interpreted that message as this, how was I supposed to know she's actually a trans person, given that was my first ever interaction with her?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Ok, what is her YT channel?

Because this is getting unironically in a semantics debate and I am not tollerating that.

I just interpreted that message as this, how was I supposed to know she's actually a trans person, given that was my first ever interaction with her?

I don't need to go searching for a YouTube channel just to make a point. First of all, that's weird. Second, my point was about interpretations of what's being said. I literally just said that if you didn't see it that way, there wasn't much else for me to say.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that only bureaucrats, administrators, and thread moderators should discuss this issue here from this point forwards. Strym can answer questions from them though.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I'd also like to make a little report about the Pet Pevees thread, for 7 pages straight people have done nothing but dogpiling me and adding even more drama.

This is the reason why Slander Threads got removed after all.

 

[Antvasima]

Bullying is obviously not acceptable in any direction.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Bullying is obviously not acceptable in any direction.

Not that the reactions were much better, too, especially from @GarrixianXD, who is supposed to be a staff.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

I'd also like to make a little report about the Pet Pevees thread, for 7 pages straight people have done nothing but dogpiling me and adding even more drama.

This is the reason why Slander Threads got removed after all.

Bullying is obviously not acceptable in any direction.

I'm an avid watcher of the pet peeves thread and I attest that I have no protests if staff members must delete plenty of messages there to make sure it stays on-topic and doesn't be a replacement for slander threads. I wouldn't be bothered at all, because I think the thread is gaining such a bad reputation contrary to its purpose. This leads me to how I also want to attest that it is not primarily a replacement for slander threads, so deleting the entire thread would get rid of a lot of fun history that wasn't breaking the rules.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Not that the reactions were much better, too, especially from @GarrixianXD, who is supposed to be a staff.

Excuse me but I was rather referring to the discussions about the High 1-B Fungus Manipulation thing when I typed out “”. Though, perhaps it appeared out of context and be quite misleading so I’ll delete my comment.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm an avid watcher of the pet peeves thread and I attest that I have no protests if staff members must delete plenty of messages there to make sure it stays on-topic and doesn't be a replacement for slander threads. I wouldn't be bothered at all, because I think the thread is gaining such a bad reputation contrary to its purpose. This leads me to how I also want to attest that it is not primarily a replacement for slander threads, so deleting the entire thread would get rid of a lot of fun history that wasn't breaking the rules.

I think that this seems reasonable.

Excuse me but I was rather referring to the discussions about the High 1-B Fungus Manipulation thing when I typed out “”. Though, perhaps it appeared out of context and be quite misleading so I’ll delete my comment.

No problem. I know that you are a good helpful and hardworking staff member.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think I even support a ban, the thing I'm on the fence about is the suicide comment and he already apologized for that months ago, which was accepted at the time.

Okay. Noted. Perhaps we should shorten the ban further then?

The sole reason I think this does fall against our offsite rules is the fact that some of it was directed towards Curry (to her face, specifically). I think that was a poor play and is the worst of the evidence brought up. Mixed with existent warnings for at least somewhat related matters (causing a stir amongst other users), I think some level of action is justified. If we want to pivot away from action (shall wait to hear from the rest of the class on that), I would be satisfied with a "last warning" affair. My wish in this situation is that Strym approach these matters more delicately.

I think that only bureaucrats, administrators, and thread moderators should discuss this issue here from this point forwards. Strym can answer questions from them though.

So, what should we do here?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Other people who voted for a ban would need to speak up. I will find myself in agreement with either light punishment (such as the aforementioned ban of a few months, which reaches what I would consider the maximum sentencing) or a final warning. That still leaves the votes strongly in favor of a ban, so we can wait a bit longer for more staff or perhaps for other staff to be swayed by Aly's argument. Your call.

 

[Antvasima]

We can send a ping/notification the administrators and thread moderators who commented regarding this issue previously to state what they think should be done.

If that does not prove sufficiently conclusive, we can send a notification to our remaining administrators to see what they think.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@DarkDragonMedeus @DarkGrath @LephyrTheRevanchist @Maverick_Zero_X @Deagonx @Propellus

If you guys have any changed opinions deriving from Aly's post above, I encourage you to speak on it. Silence will be taken as remaining true to your prior positions.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am alright with retracting my proposal for a ban via Abstractions voice of reason. But agree with a final warning; he clearly did not intend for his jokes to be taken seriously. But at the same time, we should not be excusing total lack of common sense as it's still a heavily bad influence to be saying slanderous comments and slur words even if offsite or not spoken with ill intent. But a final warning to avoid pursuing this type of thing regardless of taste in humor is reasonable, or at least try to make sure the places you make them are much more secure; such as a one on one DM with someone who also shares the type of humor that you both agree to not share DMs of your jokes.

 

[Dereck03]

I am alright with retracting my proposal for a ban via Abstractions voice of reason. But agree with a final warning; he clearly did not intend for his jokes to be taken seriously. But at the same time, we should not be excusing total lack of common sense as it's still a heavily bad influence to be saying slanderous comments and slur words even if offsite or not spoken with ill intent. But a final warning to avoid pursuing this type of thing regardless of taste in humor is reasonable, or at least try to make sure the places you make them are much more secure; such as a one on one DM with someone who also shares the type of humor that you both agree to not share DMs of your jokes.

Since I didn't comment on this issue but was there from start to finish in this whole back and forth I agree with this opinion. But if I am outvoted then so be it.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I am alright with retracting my proposal for a ban via Abstractions voice of reason. But agree with a final warning; he clearly did not intend for his jokes to be taken seriously. But at the same time, we should not be excusing total lack of common sense as it's still a heavily bad influence to be saying slanderous comments and slur words even if offsite or not spoken with ill intent. But a final warning to avoid pursuing this type of thing regardless of taste in humor is reasonable, or at least try to make sure the places you make them are much more secure; such as a one on one DM with someone who also shares the type of humor that you both agree to not share DMs of your jokes.

Hey, I'm back!

I suppose this is reasonable. Primary reason to consider a ban, as I explained in my last comment on this (and which Grath graciously expanded upon), is indeed how the situation can bleed and affect people on-site. However, if we are willing to seriously consider the joking aspect, then a final warning is fine with me.

 

[GrathOfLux]

My stance is not much different. I don't believe a warning would be in-line with how we have acted on such matters in the past, especially so with the suicide comments (even with full consideration to the mitigating factors; I don't find the apology scans provided nearly as compelling as others have, evidently). Consistently, I would say these are offenses we instigate a ban for - for good reason - and I know precedents in rule violations are of importance to a lot of staff. I feel it would be dishonest to not note this, and my stance is largely the same that this warrants a ban to make our standpoint on such misconduct clear and ensure it is adequately disincentivised.

Even so, I have always placed higher value on keeping things in-order than upholding precedents. StrymULTRA, to my knowledge, has not been reported for issues of this sort in the past - he has been reported for other kinds of disruptive behaviour according to the tracker, but not in a way that I believe would directly translate to this matter. And it doesn't often happen, but it hasn't been unheard of in the past for someone warned for misconduct to never cause any further problems and ultimately remain a productive member of the site, which is arguably the ideal outcome. With this in mind - if the understanding on StrymULTRA's part is quite clear that we should not hear of similar issues in the future, and it really is the consensus of the staff that this is all it will require to avoid such issues in the future, then I won't drag this out by contesting a warning. I hope it is understood that my stance above is still what it is, and that I would not extend this reasoning twice.