Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I agree a 1 month ban is appropriate (especially since the user agreed to taking a break from the site).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think continued discussion would be justified; I do think Bambu's application was a bit hasty.

He asked for it to be applied. I also would have rathered more discourse, but if the dude wants it quick, I won't be complained to for not doing it quick.

 

[Antvasima]

I think continued discussion would be justified; I do think Bambu's application was a bit hasty.

I also think that a 1 month ban was overly draconian. I do not think that Omnificence behaved badly enough to warrant it, and he has evidently been dealing with a lot of stress and trauma, and apologised multiple times.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I will reiterate, since I am being called "draconian", that he specifically asked for it to be done immediately, presumably to get the timer going. I will also say that his apologies fall flat when he has repeatedly apologized and then mere minutes later doubled-back on them, displaying much the same behavior. I do not consider myself an unreasonable individual, and dislike the connotations of "draconian".

 

[DarkGrath]

I also think that a 1 month ban was overly draconian. I do not think that Omnificence behaved badly enough to warrant it, and he has evidently been dealing with a lot of stress and trauma, and apologised multiple times.

I'll reiterate Bambu's point that Omnificence expressed that he was fine with a ban of a few weeks to a month, that he wanted to take a break from here, and that he would rather Bambu got it 'done with' for his own sake.

Okay. I really do want a break from here, anyway, thank you. I'm fine with a month or a few weeks-long ban.

Please, though, for my sake, get it over with.

I don't think it is a fair assessment to denote that this was a draconian decision. I think it is fine to continue discussing whether the punishment should have been lighter (and if the agreement is as such, then to lower the punishment accordingly), but this was not an unreasonable course of action for Bambu to take under these circumstances.

With that out of the way, I don't think a month is a poor decision, and I would ordinarily think something closer to 2 months for an issue like this would be more appropriate. But I'm content leaving it as it is. Whether or not he was levelling them for ill intent, I would hope that giving respect to his circumstances for now - with the expectation made clear that he should shape up his conduct when he returns - is the best course of action.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay then, and I apologise if I caused offence. I should have used the phrase "overly harsh" instead, although I was referring to the punishment and not you personally. Sometimes I mess things up due to English not being my first language.

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

Hello. Two days ago, I wrote a comment in this thread. It was like, "Will this affect the Elder Scrolls?" or something like that. So that's the problem. This comment is not there, I noticed it the next day. I thought, "Okay, maybe I didn't leave a comment, but I do remember that I edited a grammatical error in a posted comment or something." The next day, I made another comment that responded to a comment from LazerDim8000, who, as luck would have it, also mentioned TES. I again wrote a comment in this thread, responding to his comment, and I quote:

"I see, that makes sense.

Are there any plans for the Elder Scrolls? Daedric princes are listed as examples of characters with BDE, and I’m guessing not much will change other than the ratings for the Daedric Princes, aetherius, the Dovahkiin, and Alduin?".

I absolutely remember responding to his comment and checking to see if I left it to make sure, and after a while I even double-checked. Everything was in place. Today he is not there either.

I may be making a big deal out of a mountain, but is it POSSIBLE that someone is deleting my comments? I'm not sure about this. I don't see any other explanation. I have no proof because the first time I thought it was my mistake so I didn't take notes. I don’t know if you are able to see the history of deletions, so I wrote here, maybe yes.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Hello. Two days ago, I wrote a comment in this thread. It was like, "Will this affect the Elder Scrolls?" or something like that. So that's the problem. This comment is not there, I noticed it the next day. I thought, "Okay, maybe I didn't leave a comment, but I do remember that I edited a grammatical error in a posted comment or something." The next day, I made another comment that responded to a comment from LazerDim8000, who, as luck would have it, also mentioned TES. I again wrote a comment in this thread, responding to his comment, and I quote:

"I see, that makes sense.

Are there any plans for the Elder Scrolls? Daedric princes are listed as examples of characters with BDE, and I’m guessing not much will change other than the ratings for the Daedric Princes, aetherius, the Dovahkiin, and Alduin?".

I absolutely remember responding to his comment and checking to see if I left it to make sure, and after a while I even double-checked. Everything was in place. Today he is not there either.

I may be making a big deal out of a mountain, but is it POSSIBLE that someone is deleting my comments? I'm not sure about this. I don't see any other explanation. I have no proof because the first time I thought it was my mistake so I didn't take notes. I don’t know if you are able to see the history of deletions, so I wrote here, maybe yes.

Just something to note, but when my messages are deleted they usually notify that it was and the resaon behind it, something like this basically.

Check your notifications, maybe they are there.

 

[Damage3245]

Hello. Two days ago, I wrote a comment in this thread. It was like, "Will this affect the Elder Scrolls?" or something like that. So that's the problem. This comment is not there, I noticed it the next day. I thought, "Okay, maybe I didn't leave a comment, but I do remember that I edited a grammatical error in a posted comment or something."

If you mean these comments, then yes, somebody deleted them:

@Ultima_Reality has deleted several comments in the thread to prevent clutter, it seems.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ultima_Reality has deleted several comments in the thread to prevent clutter, it seems.

For that purpose, yes. That thread isn't really the place for miscellaneous questions.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Ultima's actions here seem perfectly acceptable and reasonable, given how important that thread is for our wiki.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Reporting these users for derailing threads, and bringing up other verses and CRTs for argument for their own CRT and verse. report is regarding @MasqueTLDF

We need to make it clearer that stuff like this is against the rules since it is a offence that happens on at least a weekly bases.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Reporting these users for derailing threads, and bringing up other verses and CRTs for argument for their own CRT and verse. report is regarding @Grabbing_dragon and @MasqueTLDF

We need to make it clearer that stuff like this is against the rules since it is a offence that happens on at least a weekly bases.

The Grabbing Dragon guy was just following the instruction of a staff member, and I was barely involved in the discussion until others started talking about it, and it isn't derailing if it's related to the discussion at hand.

Also, in the discussion rules, there's no rule against this from what I've seen, This is a completely false report.

 

[GarrixianXD]

The Grabbing Dragon guy was just following the instruction of a staff member, and I was barely involved in the discussion until others started talking about it, and it isn't derailing if it's related to the discussion at hand.

Also, in the discussion rules, there's no rule against this from what I've seen, This is a completely false report.

Firestorm only asked them to link the thread, not for you people to derail the thread with irrelevant content from another verse. And you're wrong; our discussion rules goes against derailing discussions that does not pertain to the main topic.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Firestorm only asked them to link the thread, not for you people to derail the thread with irrelevant content from another verse. And you're wrong; our discussion rules goes against derailing discussions that does not pertain to the main topic.

All I said was "Exactly" and the digital guy started talking about before me and I just responded. So why am I getting reported and not him too? And it did pertain to the main topic as it's another example of a 2-A rating from a simiilarly worded reasoning.

 

[GarrixianXD]

All I said was "Exactly" and the digital guy started talking about before me and I just responded. So why am I getting reported and not him too? And it did pertain to the main topic as it's another example of a 2-A rating from a simiilarly worded reasoning.

This shouldn't be for me to deal with. But for clarity, I'm not only referring to you but everyone who was derailing the thread, including @Digital_Franz. Though, you are the OP of the CRT so I'm sure you should get a pass.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

All I said was "Exactly" and the digital guy started talking about before me and I just responded. So why am I getting reported and not him too? And it did pertain to the main topic as it's another example of a 2-A rating from a simiilarly worded reasoning.

What about everyone else who kept derailing the discussion even though I kept reeling the conversation in? How come the people who are doing what they are supposed to are the ones getting reported? I was insulted in the thread, I reeled the topic in when others started talking about AP ratings, I'm obviously not malicious as I've been trying to be kind throughout the whole discussion, but when a staff member asks for something and someone else responds, I get in trouble? Not to be rude but this is totally unreasonable.

 

[GarrixianXD]

What about everyone else who kept derailing the discussion even though I kept reeling the conversation in? How come the people who are doing what they are supposed to are the ones getting reported? I was insulted in the thread, I reeled the topic in when others started talking about AP ratings, I'm obviously not malicious as I've been trying to be kind throughout the whole discussion, but when a staff member asks for something and someone else responds, I get in trouble? Not to be rude but this is totally unreasonable.

You're the OP of the thread so you shouldn't get punished. Grabbing_dragon didn't derail so the report shouldn't cover them either, unless there are deleted comments. But I do see other users derailing the thread, but then again, it'll be other admins and thread mods to deal with once evaluating the situation upon that discussion. Especially since I'm a content mod, I can't see any deleted comments there.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Firestorm only asked them to link the thread

And that's exactly what the grabbing dragon guy did, he absolutely didn't even discuss beyond that. He literally ONLY did as he was told but he got reported as well. It isn't my place to tell you how to do your job and I really hope my wording doesn't come off that way but as I've outlined, I've done nothing wrong and have been completely cordial, and you've said I was excused and if the other guy didn't do anything wrong either. Why wouldn't he get punished for falsely reporting us?

 

[Digital_Franz]

This shouldn't be for me to deal with. But for clarity, I'm not only referring to you but everyone who was derailing the thread, including @Digital_Franz. Though, you are the OP of the CRT so I'm sure you should get a pass.

I just wanted to mention the fact that the example does not meet the criteria of the discussion since I was also participating but he wanted to prove me wrong without even having any knowledge of the verse.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

I just wanted to mention the fact that the example does not meet the criteria of the discussion since I was also participating but he wanted to prove me wrong without even having any knowledge of the verse.

"without even having any knowledge of the verse." I said before, I do have some, I'm just not an expert. And if you can make the claim that the example doesn't meet the criteria, why didn't the involved staff member mention that? And couldn't I therefore make the claim that it does fit the criteria?

 

[Digital_Franz]

"without even having any knowledge of the verse." I said before, I do have some, I'm just not an expert.

Not what you told me in the discussion thread a while ago.

And if you can make the claim that the example doesn't meet the criteria, why didn't the involved staff member mention that? And couldn't I therefore make the claim that it does fit the criteria?

I don't want to argue here for long but Firestorm isn't going to take the time to read this long thread. He tagged Elizhaa so what would follow in the thread was not going to be a simple no from Elizhaa but a long discussion. So I wanted to cut it short.

 

[MasqueTLDF]

Not what you told me in the discussion thread a while ago.

I don't want to argue here for long but Firestorm isn't going to take the time to read this long thread. He tagged Elizhaa so what would follow in the thread was not going to be a simple no from Elizhaa but a long discussion. So I wanted to cut it short.

"I'm not very knowledgeable on Tensura so if you could explain, that would be helpful." Direct Quote, I never said i didn't have any knowledge, I just said I didn't have a lot.

Sure.

 

[DarkGrath]

I've reviewed the thread linked above. It was difficult to piece together the actual problem being brought up and what the individual users are being accused of, so for clarity, I'll provide a brief timeline of the issues in the thread being brought up in this report for other staff members to review:

• Firestorm808 asked MasqueTLDF if there are any precedents in other verses for an upgrade being given on the reasoning provided;
• Grabbing_dragon answered by saying 'web novel Rimuru' had gotten such an upgrade, and linked to the thread where it was accepted at Firestorm808's request;
• Digital_Franz entered the thread to state that Grabbing_dragon was incorrect, and that Rimuru did not receive an upgrade under the same reasoning;
• MasqueTLDF began to argue with Digital_Franz about this, asserting that Grabbing_dragon was correct;
• A portion of the thread from there was dedicated to the debate on Rimuru's rating, leading to the report about derailing.

Frankly, I do not think any punishments are necessary here. This spawned from a misunderstanding over another verse's justification that, due to being relevant to Firestorm808's request, led to disagreement and debate. It wasn't even technically irrelevant to the topic at hand, considering that the underlying debate in question was over whether a precedent for the reasoning provided in the thread did or did not exist, which does contribute to how a thread is resolved. I don't think any individual here can be claimed to have been derailing this thread, and it seems as though the thread has largely moved away from this point as it is. I will, however, keep an eye on the thread - due to certain comments which were leaning in a hostile direction which have seemingly calmed down for now, and which I hope will remain as such.

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

If you mean these comments, then yes, somebody deleted them:

@Ultima_Reality has deleted several comments in the thread to prevent clutter, it seems.

Ok(

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Yo

Not to dredge up a month old report literal hours after being unbanned (I've got nothing better to do on a thursday night, sadly), but I've just noticed I am unable to post in the pet peeves thread. I know why this is the case; Ant explains here that it was a consequence of my ban (which just ended, if you weren't aware). This is interesting because this was never agreed upon as part of the ban; The only mention of such was from Deagon (which you can see here, and was referenced by Ant), but that was specifically as a compromise. As in, as opposed to a forum ban, I would simply be banned from the pet peeves thread. Curiously, Ant says he was following Deagon's suggestion, but Deagon's suggestion was a thread ban as an alternative to a forum ban, not to combine the two. I will give Ant the benefit of the doubt and say he misunderstood Deagon's suggestion, though it is still a mistake that should be fixed.

Obviously, the time for compromise has long since passed seeing as a forum ban was the decided upon course of action. Ant seemed to agree with Deagon under the pretense of banning people who "severely abuse" the thread. This is curious because only a single actual rule violation occurred in that thread; The other two in recent memory were tossed out because we collectively (and correctly) realized the reports were silly. It's interesting that a single valid report results in a permanent thread ban, when I have almost never seen this phenomenon repeated for anyone else regardless of their own RVR reports. People who are forum banned are almost universally allowed back onto the threads they frequented when they return, in spite of their conduct; If Ant did not misinterpret Deagon's words, then I would ask why my situation is different from that of almost everyone else on the site.

TL;DR: A thread ban was never agreed upon anywhere. The "severe abuse" Ant mentioned was in regards to a single ban-worthy comment, which has since been dealt with (both via the comment being deleted, and a month-long ban being carried out). Undo it, or bring the old report back up for re-evaluation if you really feel that strongly about it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't think this needs a great deal of commentary (the user in question alleges that he's done, anyways) but I'm announcing to the class that I've added @Theoretical to the warning tracker for continued aggressive behavior here, after warnings from other staff members to stop doing it. Instances here, here, and others that staff can see that have been deleted for containing literally nothing aside from pot-stirring comments. The examples linked are those later in the thread: there are examples earlier, read at your leisure, if that's your cup of tea.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yo

Not to dredge up a month old report literal hours after being unbanned (I've got nothing better to do on a thursday night, sadly), but I've just noticed I am unable to post in the pet peeves thread. I know why this is the case; Ant explains here that it was a consequence of my ban (which just ended, if you weren't aware). This is interesting because this was never agreed upon as part of the ban; The only mention of such was from Deagon (which you can see here, and was referenced by Ant), but that was specifically as a compromise. As in, as opposed to a forum ban, I would simply be banned from the pet peeves thread. Curiously, Ant says he was following Deagon's suggestion, but Deagon's suggestion was a thread ban as an alternative to a forum ban, not to combine the two. I will give Ant the benefit of the doubt and say he misunderstood Deagon's suggestion, though it is still a mistake that should be fixed.

Obviously, the time for compromise has long since passed seeing as a forum ban was the decided upon course of action. Ant seemed to agree with Deagon under the pretense of banning people who "severely abuse" the thread. This is curious because only a single actual rule violation occurred in that thread; The other two in recent memory were tossed out because we collectively (and correctly) realized the reports were silly. It's interesting that a single valid report results in a permanent thread ban, when I have almost never seen this phenomenon repeated for anyone else regardless of their own RVR reports. People who are forum banned are almost universally allowed back onto the threads they frequented when they return, in spite of their conduct; If Ant did not misinterpret Deagon's words, then I would ask why my situation is different from that of almost everyone else on the site.

TL;DR: A thread ban was never agreed upon anywhere. The "severe abuse" Ant mentioned was in regards to a single ban-worthy comment, which has since been dealt with (both via the comment being deleted, and a month-long ban being carried out). Undo it, or bring the old report back up for re-evaluation if you really feel that strongly about it.

On this matter: your use of that thread was very much negative, and we have specifically banned people from that thread (and its siblings) in the past for using it like so. Such is the condition under which the thread is allowed to exist, that intentional troublemaking results in excommunication. I also wouldn't have read Deagon's post as you do: "Compromise and threadban Fuji", I read the two as additive. I don't think Ant was wrong to read it as such.

Still, it wasn't really discussed much, and the end result didn't have it included, so it should be stricken, presuming you use the thread towards its intended purpose, rather than causing trouble again.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

after warnings from other staff members to stop doing it.

I don't recall getting warned tho.

here

But.. But... I was reciting what deagon said within the thread himself in the last "instance".

others that staff can see that have been deleted for containing literally nothing aside from pot-stirring comments.

From what I remember the only comment that got delete was me telling him to calm down, which isn't indicative of aggression.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It's like a wise man named deagon once said, saying no is trying to contradict the source material itself!!

This is not the same as a quote. This is painting a paraphrasing in a demeaning light, because you disagree with what was said.

From what I remember the only comment that got delete was me telling him to calm down, which isn't indicative of aggression.

I can see all of the deleted comments on that thread. So can the other staff.

I don't recall getting warned tho.

There was a broad warning to cease all derailment. Others largely ceased following that (or, at least, haven't picked up the habit again- let us hope they continue to not do it).

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

There was a broad warning to cease all derailment. Others largely ceased following that

That's for derailing tho, everything I said had substance behind it, nonetheless I agree I was being passive aggressive.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

On this matter: your use of that thread was very much negative, and we have specifically banned people from that thread (and its siblings) in the past for using it like so. Such is the condition under which the thread is allowed to exist, that intentional troublemaking results in excommunication. I also wouldn't have read Deagon's post as you do: "Compromise and threadban Fuji", I read the two as additive. I don't think Ant was wrong to read it as such.

Still, it wasn't really discussed much, and the end result didn't have it included, so it should be stricken, presuming you use the thread towards its intended purpose, rather than causing trouble again.

With all due respect, your reading of Deagon's post seems a bit at odds with the definition of the word compromise; It's meant to be something where people can meet in the middle, but according to you Deagon actually intended a harsher punishment than normal, which doesn't sound like a compromise based on my understanding of the term. Still, I'll let Deagon speak for himself on the matter, if he wishes.

Then again this is just me being pedantic because you already agreed to undo the thread ban so idk why I'm even posting this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

"We could compromise, and take the lower route in terms of punishment, and additionally ban her from the peeves thread", was my reading, actually.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

On a completely unrelated note, someone should maybe ask @Georredannea15 to calm down in this thread:

A concept may be more abstract than an another concept. It may even cover it, so what you are saying here is a bullshit similar to personal standards

You can deny it all you want, or you can fly on wings about it, but it doesn't change the fact

What is the relevance of this issue? You can continue with your minimal crisis, maybe some other memories will come to your mind, huh?

After being bullied by Nasuverse supporters and Ultima, everything is hard, isn't it?
Anyway, isn't it a bit aggressive of you to come here and say that? Or did I say something that's not true? Or something that's offensive to you? I'm sorry, but what I wrote was the truth.

So there is no need to act aggressively

The "aggression" in question here was Deagon asking them to knock it off, a request which was obviously ignored.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

On a completely unrelated note, someone should maybe ask @Georredannea15 to calm down in this thread:




The "aggression" in question here was Deagon asking them to knock it off, a request which was obviously ignored.

Yeah.

For the sake of your thread, I'd avoid throwing around the word "bullshit" regarding concepts the other side believes to be true, because I foresee it being a headache, but the linked post is unacceptable and tiring. I'll police the thread.

Currently issued warnings:

• RaveeCPN: 1
• Georredannea15: 1

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah.

For the sake of your thread, I'd avoid throwing around the word "bullshit" regarding concepts the other side believes to be true, because I foresee it being a headache, but the linked post is unacceptable and tiring. I'll police the thread.

Currently issued warnings:

• RaveeCPN: 1
• Georredannea15: 1

In fact, if Fuji had not used this word and lit the fuse, everything would have proceeded calmly. Because everything was normal until then

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

In fact, if Fuji had not used this word and lit the fuse, everything would have proceeded calmly.

I am truly baffled at how me saying the word "bullshit" is the cause of you insisting that Deagon being harassed and insulted for his takes on Fate scaling is a good thing. Really confused on what the correlation between those two events is, as well as concerned at how the presence of someone using a curse word is apparently enough to cause you to begin an incoherent tirade against an unrelated third party.

 

[CloverDragon03]

In fact, if Fuji had not used this word and lit the fuse, everything would have proceeded calmly. Because everything was normal until then

Wasn't this stuff directed at Deagon though? Like I agree that was uncalled for and would prefer such things to be avoided (as Bambu's already pointed out) but I don't see how this affected your tirade about him

 

[Georredannea15]

I am truly baffled at how me saying the word "bullshit" is the cause of you insisting that Deagon being harassed and insulted for his takes on Fate scaling is a good thing. Really confused on what the correlation between those two events is, as well as concerned at how the presence of someone using a curse word is apparently enough to cause you to begin an incoherent tirade against an unrelated third party.

The way you treat me, I will treat you the same way. You told me that, and I said that you. That's all

Apart from that, the reason I did this to Deagon was because instead of responding to me in a "normal" manner, he responded in a more offensive way. I was annoyed by this and i said "No need to be so aggressive"

 

[Deagonx]

I would like for the back and forth to end at this point. The warning was issued and the matter should be considered settled.