Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Hellformer]

What clarification is needed? He listed them based on what they said. OP clearly listed @Qawsedf234 as disagreeing with 1-A since he specifically stated his disagreement. OP is only obligated to list votes according to what the staff says. I don’t see why he would add Plancks in disagreement with 1-A when he never said he disagreed.

Which is why I said that he should clarify it for once to avoid reports. So that you have verbatim comments to back up your vote for agree/disagree. Just to be on a safer side.

 

[StrymULTRA]

1. I didn't know that I had to further clarify that, as I thought it was obvious enough.
2. Even then, nothing says that I cannot add a 1-A thread if there are staff disagreements.

So what is the point of this report, exactly?

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

What clarification is needed? He listed them based on what they said. OP clearly listed @Qawsedf234 as disagreeing with 1-A since he specifically stated his disagreement. OP is only obligated to list votes according to what the staff says. I don’t see why he would add Plancks in disagreement with 1-A when he never said he disagreed.

Is 3 (Agree)/1(Disagree) + 1 (Agree with 1-B and agree with event is an anti-feat for 1-A)? So he need more staffs

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

Says who?

@Qawsedf234 say disagree with it so 3/1

 

[StrymULTRA]

Is 3 (Agree)/1(Disagree) + 1 (Agree with 1-B and agree with event is an anti-feat for 1-A)? So he need more staffs

Says who?

Either answer this, or drop it. I don't wanna spam the RVRT for this, but you're just spamming the same points even after that 2 staff are telling otherwise.

 

[StrymULTRA]

@Qawsedf234 say disagree with it so 3/1

Even then, nothing says that I cannot add a 1-A thread if there are staff disagreements.

It is NOWHERE said in the rules that I cannot add a CRT without any disagreement, it's absurd to think it is necessary.

 

[Reiner04]

Alight. I think enough been said now and nothing new is being brought more than what already said.

Which is why I said that he should clarify it for once to avoid reports. So that you have verbatim comments to back up your vote for agree/disagree. Just to be on a safer side.

The report is on Strym, not Plancks. I don’t personally see how it’s report-worthy. A 3-1 staff consensus isn’t too much of a stretch for a CRT that has been sitting there for four months. That said, I am resting my case here.

 

[Reiner04]

@Hellformer Qawsed has nothing to do with report. Unless u want him to discuss the scaling and things here which RVT is not the place for. Refrain from making further comments unless something new to add on.

Edit: guess I will tag plancks considering he is one of main players mentioned in the Report. @Planck69

 

[Antvasima]

A 3-2 staff vote conclusion is not sufficiently conclusive to apply a tier 1 upgrade revision, yes. A 3-0 vote with knowledgeable staff members and administrators included would probably be sufficient. A 3-1 vote also seems insufficient, especially as @Qawsedf234 is one of our most knowledgeable staff members regarding our higher tiers.

 

[Antvasima]

A strict warning, but not resulting in that people in our community who dislike Sean can get him permanently banned for almost any small issue afterwards.

@Mr. Bambu @Agnaa

Would you be willing to draft up something partially based on this?

I'm not sure what you mean by "draft"- are we to set specific clauses to this warning?

Well, just a draft text for what his warning should say.

Also, just so this issue is not forgotten.

Staff help would be very appreciated.

 

[StrymULTRA]

A 3-2 staff vote conclusion is not sufficiently conclusive to apply a tier 1 upgrade revision, yes. A 3-0 vote with knowledgeable staff members and administrators included ould be sufficient. A 3-1 vote also seems insufficient, especially as @Qawsedf234 is one of our most knowledgeable staff members regarding our higher tiers.

No I am sorry Ant, but allowing a single staff to get veto on this is absurd, especially if the thread was there from 4 damn months to be completed, and Qawself didn't answer despite being pinged multiple times from other staff in the thread.

Are you actually suggesting that I should have waited for a single staff that didn't answer even days after being called? Let's not be absurd.

 

[Antvasima]

I am just saying that our rules do not allow such revisions to pass, so you would need a larger number of approving staff votes as a counterweight. My apologies, but we need to have safety standards.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I am just saying that our rules do not allow such revisions to pass, so you would need a larger number of approving staff votes as a counterweight. My apologies, but we need to have safety standards.

No they don't.

There's not a single rule mentioning that tier 1 revisions need a bigger gap to get passed, and it's not even the first time, either.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

No they don't.

There's not a single rule mentioning that tier 1 revisions need a bigger gap to get passed, and it's not even the first time, either.

• The review and approval of content revisions that affect Tier 1 and/or Tier 0 ratings or that are highly controversial should preferably be conducted by a larger number of staff members in order to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed changes. It is essential that these revisions are evaluated by staff members who possess a reasonable level of genuine understanding and expertise in these areas in order to maintain the accuracy and quality of the revised material.

 

[StrymULTRA]

...Isn't 5 staff already a big number though?

Plus it says conducted, not approved.

 

[Antvasima]

Really? I thought that we mention that threads need a clear staff consensus to get passed, not have extremely unclear results, which should be self-evident otherwise, given that we were much do define it for our versus discussions, and definitely cannot have much lower standards for our much more important content revision discussions.

 

[Antvasima]

...Isn't 5 staff already a big number though?

Plus it says conducted, not approved.

Only if they all approve of a revision thread. It would set a horrible precedent if we start to allow tier 1-A revisions to get passed with a vote of 3-2, with the most knowledgeable involved staff member being opposed to it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Instead of arguing more here, we could reopen the thread for more continued discussion, and more staff who haven't voted can evaluate.

 

[Antvasima]

Instead of arguing more here, we could reopen the thread for more continued discussion, and more staff who haven't voted can evaluate.

That seems like a good idea, but the revisions that have been applied based on this in our wiki also need to be reversed.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Really? I thought that we mention that threads need a clear staff consensus to get passed, not have extremely unclear results, which should be self-evident otherwise, given that we were much do define it for our versus discussions, and definitely cannot have much lower standards for our much more important content revision discussions.

Let me get this straight: I don't want to keep a thread that was dead from 4 months going just because of some veto thing. Qawself was online after being called in the thread, and didn't answer despite days passing. Is this not an indicator that he's no longer interested?

Only if they all approve of a revision thread. It would set a horrible precedent if we start to allow tier 1-A revisions to get passed with a vote of 3-2, with the most knowledgeable involved staff member being opposed to it.

No one in Gravity Falls is 1-A, there is only a 1-A realm to where none scales from. The report purposely masked this to make it look worse.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

That seems like a good idea, but the revisions that have been applied based on this in our wiki also need to be reversed.

Instead of arguing more here, we could reopen the thread for more continued discussion, and more staff who haven't voted can evaluate.

He should also ask the staffs, which have experience in 1-A to review the topic:

Tiers Low 1-A to 0​

• Executor N0
• Albert-Moriarty
• Ultima Reality
• Elizhaa
• PrinceofPein
• Agnaa (Only knowledgeable in the theoretical standards, not the practical application of which verses qualify)
• Everything12
• TheUnshakableOne
• Ovy7 (Not that knowledgeable on the math/set theory side)
• Rakih Elyan
• IdiosyncraticLawyer
• RatherClueless
• Astral Trinity439

 

[Antvasima]

A 3-2 staff vote conclusion is not sufficiently conclusive to apply a tier 1 upgrade revision, yes. A 3-0 vote with knowledgeable staff members and administrators included would probably be sufficient. A 3-1 vote also seems insufficient, especially as @Qawsedf234 is one of our most knowledgeable staff members regarding our higher tiers.

I am just saying that our rules do not allow such revisions to pass, so you would need a larger number of approving staff votes as a counterweight. My apologies, but we need to have safety standards.

Really? I thought that we mention that threads need a clear staff consensus to get passed, not have extremely unclear results, which should be self-evident otherwise, given that we were much do define it for our versus discussions, and definitely cannot have much lower standards for our much more important content revision discussions.

Only if they all approve of a revision thread. It would set a horrible precedent if we start to allow tier 1-A revisions to get passed with a vote of 3-2, with the most knowledgeable involved staff member being opposed to it.

In any case, it seems like our rules need to be clarified in this regard.

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Mr. Bambu @Agnaa @GrathOfLux @Qawsedf234

Are you willing to have a private discussion with me about the issue please, so we can create a staff forum discussion thread regarding it afterwards? It seems very important.

 

[Antvasima]

Let me get this straight: I don't want to keep a thread that was dead from 4 months going just because of some veto thing. Qawself was online after being called in the thread, and didn't answer despite days passing. Is this not an indicator that he's no longer interested?

Probably, yes, but we cannot just overrule a knowledgeable administrator regarding the issue. The vote for such a high-tier revision should probably be something like 6-2 or 5-1.

No one in Gravity Falls is 1-A, there is only a 1-A realm to where none scales from. The report purposely masked this to make it look worse.

Okay. My apologies for misunderstanding then.

 

[Reiner04]

, it seems like our rules need to be clarified in this regard.

I also think if there are strict rules regarding Tier 1 or above then they need to be clearly written to avoid misunderstandings. Since I have seen "several" staffs saying that more than 2 is appreciated but not a necessity even for Tier 1 thread and has seen many Tier 1 crts passing with 2 staff difference. Also that rules regarding them are highly vague.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Probably, yes, but we cannot just overrule a knowledgeable administrator regarding the issue.

Overrule? Idk if you're saying that Qawself can reject a thread from passing entirely despite other staff say otherwise, I think you're being unfair rn.

Plus he didn't answer despite days passing, it's on him, not me.

The vote for such a high-tier revision should probably be something like 6-2 or 5-1.

You talk as if I didn't call enough staff there, we can't just make a thread die only because it's Tier 1. Like, if an obscure-ish verse gets a cosmology CRT that almost no staff is interested it, shouldn't it have more leeway?

Plus I did see other Tier 1 threads pass with less, but no, when it's me it's suddenly a problem!

 

[Antvasima]

I also think if there are strict rules regarding Tier 1 or above then they need to be clearly written to avoid misunderstandings. Since I have seen "several" staffs saying that more than 2 is appreciated but not a necessity even for Tier 1 thread and has seen many Tier 1 crts passing with 2 staff difference. Also that rules regarding them are highly vague.

Yes, it seems to be a problem, and we cannot just expect our members to intuitively understand this, even if it seems self-evident.

 

[Antvasima]

Overrule? Idk if you're saying that Qawself can reject a thread from passing entirely despite other staff say otherwise, I think you're being unfair rn.

Plus he didn't answer despite days passing, it's on him, not me.

Did only Qawsedf234 reject your revision, or was there another staff member who did so as well? If he was the only one, you simply need to gather two extra staff votes as a safety precaution.

You talk as if I didn't call enough staff there, we can't just make a thread die only because it's Tier 1. Like, if an obscure-ish verse gets a cosmology CRT that almost no staff is interested it, shouldn't it have more leeway?

Plus I did see other Tier 1 threads pass with less, but no, when it's me it's suddenly a problem!

It isn't remotely about you personally. It is about that 3-2 votes being accepted sets a terrible precedent for our wiki in general, especially for tier 1 or 0 revisions. Also, several wrongs do not make a right, as I keep repeating, but as you can see above, I am trying to begin to organise some less confusing and unclear standards regarding this issue.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Did only Qawsedf234 reject your revision, or was there another staff member who did so as well? If he was the only one, you simply need to gather two extra staff votes as a safety precaution.

As Reiner said above, only he did. Planck said that he agreed with the non 1-A option, but also said he'd be inclined to change his mind depending on what other staff say, but he didn't appear in the thread anymore, either.

It is about that 3-2 votes

3-1, really.

I am trying to begin to organise some less confusing and unclear standards regarding this issue.

So can you at least not make me waste months of work over some misunderstanding and vague wording in the rules? I'd like to not have something that was worked on very hard nulled over this, thank you very much.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if you gather two more staff approvals or one more administrator approval, it should probably be fine, in lack of better options.

 

[Reiner04]

Guess I will reopen the thread in that case.

Edit: done.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Well, if you gather two more staff approvals or one more administrator approval, it should probably be fine, in lack of better options.

I'll try to get @Planck69 to give a more solid instance then, as he did sound pretty vague.

But can we not revert the thread? I think it'd be a complete waste if it is lol.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we don't know for certain if it will be approved yet.

 

[Reiner04]

Well, we don't know for certain if it will be approved yet.

Plancks is fine with second Option. So guess thread is concluded. Tho, I think rules will have to iron out things brought up here. That said, this topic is closed. I believe.

 

[Planck69]

To be clear, I do think that a Tier 1 thread shouldn't just close on a 1 vote difference, but that should be properly hashed out.

 

[Antvasima]

Plancks is fine with second Option. So guess thread is concluded. Tho, I think rules will have to iron out things brought up here. That said, this topic is closed. I believe.

Okay, so is there a 4-1 vote now then? Strym told me in private that he has changed his mind from 1-A to 1-B though, so I suppose that issue likely has to be straightened out.

To be clear, I do think that a Tier 1 thread shouldn't just close on a 1 vote difference, but that should be properly hashed out.

Yes, definitely. We will need a staff discussion thread regarding the issue.

Also, thank you for helping out.

 

[Reiner04]

Okay, so is there a 4-1 vote now then

Yeah.

Strym told me in private that he has changed his mind from 1-A to 1-B though, so I suppose that issue likely has to be straightened out.

I guess so. Given staff consensus is on 1-A favor. I wouldn't mind reopening the thread if he wish so. @StrymULTRA let me know on my wall if u want thread to be reopened.

Edit: reopened per users request.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Yeah.

I guess so. Given staff consensus is on 1-A favor. I wouldn't mind reopening the thread if he wish so. @StrymULTRA let me know on my wall if u want thread to be reopened.

Sure.

The issue here is that I already did find 1-A a bit weird, and just added it because I was pretty done and didn't care much anymore, but I suppose that can be a reasonable option.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, Reiner.

 

[Antvasima]

A strict warning, but not resulting in that people in our community who dislike Sean can get him permanently banned for almost any small issue afterwards.

Just another reminder that we still need to handle this.

I am fine with if the warning says that he will be banned for a quite long time if he significantly breaks our rules again, and that he needs to stop using generalised insults against Digimon supporters, just not that he will be banned permanently for the slightest silly infraction.

@Mr. Bambu @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Just another reminder that we still need to handle this.

I am fine with if the warning says that he will be banned for a quite long time if he significantly breaks our rules again, and that he needs to stop using generalised insults against Digimon supporters, just not that he will be banned permanently for the slightest silly infraction.

@Mr. Bambu @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus

Okay. Generally we'd just evaluate it at that point.

Then we say that. This final warning indicates that if you, @Super_Ascended_Sean_Pazdera, continue with your behavior as is, a report against you has the grounds to result in a ban. This will occur if we determine whatever breakage of our rules you commit are deemed significant, which will include generalized insults against fandoms you're disgruntled with. As Ant has wished for me to clarify, in painstaking detail, we don't ban people for very small infractions- I ask that you don't take this as permission to actually do them. Behave, in a word.

I'm going to add this to the warning tracker now.