-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Rule Violation Reports (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 7,941
- 12,055
I don't think the previous ban is related enough to change anything. I simply thought it appropriate to at least mention. I will deliver the warning:Okay, a strict warning then instead, I suppose. Is somebody in our staff willing to officially deliver it and update our warning tracker?
@Giannysmag
This is an official warning that you must abide by our site rules, particularly in regards to being appropriate:
It has been found that in many cases you have been in violation of this rule.
This site has a large population of minors, and so you are to immediately cease needlessly mentioning sexual topics, making sexual jokes, and making sexually charged comments towards other community members.
Giannysmag
Any/All- 6,325
- 10,540
- 178,202
- 91,346
- Thread starter
- #29,964
Thank you.
Is somebody willing to update our warning tracker as well please?
Also, perhaps we should add a link to it to the first post in this thread?
- 9,152
- 10,031
I share the same sentiment.
- 7,941
- 12,055
If you mean this warning tracker, then I already did, and it's already linked too.Thank you.
Is somebody willing to update our warning tracker as well please?
Also, perhaps we should add a link to it to the first post in this thread?
- 1,728
- 1,633
forgot to write this this morning, but I retract this report.
I was told the underlying context of the message by another user, and that it was written in a bout of anger.
I apologize to the Mage Association staff team for causing unnecessary controversy over a misunderstood message.
However, while this doesn’t involve the reported user, I do not appreciate the constant hostility I’ve gotten from members (and some staff,even), for scaling ideals for Type-Moon, that doesn’t exactly match up to theirs, to the point where I’ve been harassed by alt discord accounts. ( a previous instance of I have reported here, but it went nowhere due to being unable to tie the account to a user here.)
I also do not appreciate the slimy attacks on myself, for the purpose of silencing the arguments I make. (such as abusing the discussion rules to shut down discussion,even though the arguments are mostly completely new, threats of reports because of my arguments, or most recently, trying to make me a shonen manga villain of the week because I posted a thread yesterday (Mother’s Day) by coincidence? be for real. )
Such things are completely unnecessary.
Anyways, that is all.
- 8,829
- 9,419
We're not asking for any more favors for improvement from him. He's already been given too many chances enough. We actually want him to stay out
- 16,140
- 5,608
We already said many times to not bring him back. Not that it matters since like I said earlier, he'll find a way to come back anyway by making a sock, and I suspect he's here as another account.Thank you for helping out.
Also, Charmander wonders if there is anything he can do to prove and redeem himself so he is allowed to return.
Antvasima
community.fandom.com
- 35,160
- 41,776
What the others said, at this point Charmander is just looking for an excuse to return to create chaos. IP Ban him and forget he exists, if we find any of his sockpuppets we hit them hard with a permaban. Best we can do at this point.
- 5,187
- 4,308
Honest question, what is the point of him returning if he is completely able to just create a new alt account without anyone finding out, and when they do, they just create another?
So my main question is, what would the point of him returning to his main even do, if he can already access the site?
So my main question is, what would the point of him returning to his main even do, if he can already access the site?
- 7,941
- 12,055
Because him being able to return on his main account gives him the chance to redeem himself, while him returning on an alt only solidifies our mistrust.
- 7,941
- 12,055
Because they asked a genuine question, and I felt like answering it, which are the only two posts you could be referring to.
- 13,880
- 22,738
Wasn't sure if I should comment but like...
Yeah no, especially after all the socks, much less that they also didn't show any changes in aggressive behavior plus why he got banned to start with, we shouldn't be entertaining this
Yeah no, especially after all the socks, much less that they also didn't show any changes in aggressive behavior plus why he got banned to start with, we shouldn't be entertaining this
- 24,360
- 37,869
Just now seeing this. Tbh, what could go wrong?Are any other staff members here willing to give GodlyCharmander a final chance?
- 35,160
- 41,776
A lot. Clover pretty much elaborated all there is to say on the matter.
- 178,202
- 91,346
- Thread starter
- #29,981
If KingTempest if also willing to give Charmander a final chance, that makes 4 staff members with voting rights regarding this issue (bureaucrats, administrators, and thread moderators) in favour of it.
Which ones are against it?
Which ones are against it?
- 35,160
- 41,776
I'll tag some more staff to evaluate.
@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @Planck69 @Sir_Ovens @SamanPatou @GrathOfLux @Abstractions @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Colonel_Krukov @Firestorm808 @GyroNutz @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @LephyrTheRevanchist @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @Armorchompy @Emirp sumitpo @Dalesean027 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Theglassman12 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Nierre @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless Everything you need to know about Charmander is here.
@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @Planck69 @Sir_Ovens @SamanPatou @GrathOfLux @Abstractions @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Colonel_Krukov @Firestorm808 @GyroNutz @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @LephyrTheRevanchist @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @Armorchompy @Emirp sumitpo @Dalesean027 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Theglassman12 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Nierre @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless Everything you need to know about Charmander is here.
- 12,494
- 16,896
I am abstaining from voting, that's why I haven't commented on the topic.
- 7,941
- 12,055
Well, since it's closer now, and my previous argument mostly focused on an emotional urge to be forgiving, I will instead offer a practical stance in favor of Charmander's return, related to the question I answered previously.
Our desired outcome is to have reasonable people who debate within our rules and not to have people evade bans with alts.
If someone, even after being banned for an entire year, is still this interested in the wiki, it seems extremely likely to me that denying their appeal would lead them to making alts and trying to evade their ban, because we will effectively be telling them that if they want any hope of ever participating again it is their only option.
And I don't think this is a decision which can't be reached by a moral person. If they consider themselves reformed, they can argue they only plan on doing good things with this alt, and that they'd be helping us without us even knowing it, and since they have no chance to appeal it's their only way to do so.
Instead, if we set a precedent that someone who has served significant punishment, and is still interested and polite about it, can have another chance to participate normally, we incentivize them to simply wait a reasonable time then come back as a normal member without deception which we can monitor more easily, rather than setting the precedent that a permanent ban is probably final and your only hope to ever participate again, regardless of personal growth, is to break the rules.
Therefore, I think giving Charmander another chance is a reasonable way to generally encourage reform and honesty as opposed to deception.
From the perspective of basic human psychology, I think it is greatly beneficial to us if our incentives match our desired outcomes.
Our desired outcome is to have reasonable people who debate within our rules and not to have people evade bans with alts.
If someone, even after being banned for an entire year, is still this interested in the wiki, it seems extremely likely to me that denying their appeal would lead them to making alts and trying to evade their ban, because we will effectively be telling them that if they want any hope of ever participating again it is their only option.
And I don't think this is a decision which can't be reached by a moral person. If they consider themselves reformed, they can argue they only plan on doing good things with this alt, and that they'd be helping us without us even knowing it, and since they have no chance to appeal it's their only way to do so.
Instead, if we set a precedent that someone who has served significant punishment, and is still interested and polite about it, can have another chance to participate normally, we incentivize them to simply wait a reasonable time then come back as a normal member without deception which we can monitor more easily, rather than setting the precedent that a permanent ban is probably final and your only hope to ever participate again, regardless of personal growth, is to break the rules.
Therefore, I think giving Charmander another chance is a reasonable way to generally encourage reform and honesty as opposed to deception.
- 13,880
- 22,738
I'm not exactly enthusiastic about the idea of "we can rescind our permanent bans just because someone asked nicely." If anything, I'm concerned about the level of obsession with the wiki that yields the making of multiple sock accounts and repeatedly trying to appeal a permanent ban even years later.
Also, let's say we chose to keep Charmander banned. By your logic, the resulting creation of alt accounts is our fault when realistically it absolutely isn't
Also, let's say we chose to keep Charmander banned. By your logic, the resulting creation of alt accounts is our fault when realistically it absolutely isn't
- 3,009
- 2,000
I'm not a staff member & I don't wanna derail, but if he does return, would it be better to offer him limited privileges on this wiki such as not making CRTs or editing any pages? Just to be sure he doesn't act up again?
Sorry... just thought I'd offer a suggestion.
Sorry... just thought I'd offer a suggestion.
- 7,941
- 12,055
That's sort of a straw man. I specifically mentioned that they also already served a reasonably lengthy punishment. Obviously the more severe the infraction the longer we would consider satisfactory before we consider rescinding it.
Again, I never said that. It is possible to indirectly influence something without it being your fault.
- 13,880
- 22,738
We're not influencing anything, we're just enforcing rules. And said rules should probably implicitly say "asking nicely isn't enough to rescind a permanent ban." Again, especially given the multiple sock accounts. That's not a strawman, that's literally what's happening, it's just asking nicely and making promises that have been made and broken multiple times as is
- 35,160
- 41,776
Some people I don't think should have their ban rescinded for very obvious reasons, makes the worth of a permaban meaningless, especially if they have been banned for prior nefarious reasons and are being this obsessive, especially considering the prior offenses and that Charmander has shown zero evidence of shaping up even when using those sockpuppets (If he actually cared or bothered his Topaz sock wouldn't have gotten a temporary ban for bad behavior to begin with).
FinePoint, I am sorry but I simply do not see a good enough reason to bring this man back to the wiki under any circumstances whatsoever.
FinePoint, I am sorry but I simply do not see a good enough reason to bring this man back to the wiki under any circumstances whatsoever.
- 7,941
- 12,055
Well of course certain things are not able to be feasibly forgiven, I do not argue against that.
I simply don't think this is quite that extreme.
- 3,009
- 2,000
Isn't there a way to stop someone from making sockpuppet accounts on a wiki? Doesn't this website have a feature where you can somehow block the IP address of a user?
Just a question I had.
- 35,160
- 41,776
We have IP checks but as you can see from the Vzearr situation, even that isn't enough. They somehow always find a way and by the time we figure out what the hell is going on, it's already too late, damage is already done.
At this point IDK if even an IP ban will work. We just gotta keep banning sockpuppets over and over until they get tired and leave for good.
- 7,941
- 12,055
And you don't see how allowing a chance at reform might be far less effort than that?
- 13,880
- 22,738
Less effort doesn't make it better. I don't trust that this chance at reform will work out, and if the socks really keep coming ad infinitum it speaks to an obsession with the site that I would prefer not to enable
- 35,160
- 41,776
We've already gone about this song and dance about this alleged attempt at "reform". Charmander has time and time again with his actions showed that he is incapable of reform. If he really cared he would have waited at least 2-3 years without making any sockpuppets in-between and made a proper appeal, and even assuming it was just to contribute, he would've at least tried to keep a good image of himself on his behavior, but instead we see his Topaz sock get hit with a ban for bad behavior that ultimately contributed to the permaban of the account down the line later (Hell, how do we know he isn't further destroying any chance of leniency with another sockpuppet right now?). Also, what Clover said.
It's not about effort. It's about maintaining the well-being of the community and being consistent with how we enforce our rules around here and ensuring there aren't too many loopholes to abuse.
- 21,748
- 13,687
I'm not really seeing a point in letting Charmander back given the track record he has, so count me for him remaining banned.
- 7,941
- 12,055
Anyway, I gave them an informal warning, since it's just one incident and nobody else has commented on it in a while, and I don't want to wait too long.Can someone tell me what this user said to me in original post?
CodeCCLL
vsbattles.fandom.com
Obviously let us know if it gets any worse, and if any staff think the punishment should be more severe, please say so.
- 5,703
- 5,015
Not to derail, but what did Charmander do to even deserve a permaban? Was he just being a salty @$$h0le or something actually crimminal?
- 19,382
- 12,159
About the GodlyCharmander thing, as someone who had to deal with him many times through the years with also basically all of his 3 socks (TioKill, Sans015 and The_Yellow_Topaz), I think I need to say my piece.
I do not believe the Wiki has anything to gain from him at all, because the basis of the appeal is just him doing puppy doll eyes and making some promises. Besides, I think that it's a really weak appeal, because of the following:
Last, but not least, this is undermining the purpose of a permanent ban. Charmander did perma-ban worthy offenses not one, but 3 times in a row. Removing the ban just because of him begging for it literally defeats the purpose of it, especially when he did broke the promises he made in all the socks he made. "But he'd make more socks" isn't an argument either, it's the equivalent of allowing Vapourrr (or anyone, really) back because of them being able to make a sock using a VPN. We didn't allow Vzearr to stay on the Wiki despite him being a literal staff even after that he openly confessed to be Vapourrr, so why is Charmander ok to stay?
It's a terrible precedent that contradicts something that did happen with the same situation if Charmander is allowed to be back. I am not staff, so my input won't matter much here, but I think this Wiki would have to reconsider how to deal with people who spam socks to circumvent bans in order to be consistent with both its own ruling and allow him back.
I do not believe the Wiki has anything to gain from him at all, because the basis of the appeal is just him doing puppy doll eyes and making some promises. Besides, I think that it's a really weak appeal, because of the following:
- If he had truly this level of patience, he could simply avoid making the last 2 socks after the TioKill one, given that they were all made some months after the perma-ban of the previous account.
- I think that he should be very, very aware of the fact that getting caught with a sock is always grounds for a perma-ban. He didn't learn his lesson for basically all the 3 times this happened, so why should you guys allow him the 4th time? Only so that he breaks rules, gets banned, then cooks another sock again? This is literally the Vapourrr situation, only that this time it's being helped by the staff at this point.
- According to the timeline made by Ant that I linked above, Charmander already did say that he's sorry for badmouthing AKM and the other staff in basically every appeal of his (his 1st appeal for reference), only that he literally did so again as Topaz as he was being antagonistic against also staff in one of the reports against him. He clearly also broke his promise to behave, as Topaz was also noted to be generally really combative (something Charmander was also known for), and this was a pattern made from his previous socks as well. If Charmander was truly sorry, he wouldn't have broken his promise to behave so many times across all of his socks.
Last, but not least, this is undermining the purpose of a permanent ban. Charmander did perma-ban worthy offenses not one, but 3 times in a row. Removing the ban just because of him begging for it literally defeats the purpose of it, especially when he did broke the promises he made in all the socks he made. "But he'd make more socks" isn't an argument either, it's the equivalent of allowing Vapourrr (or anyone, really) back because of them being able to make a sock using a VPN. We didn't allow Vzearr to stay on the Wiki despite him being a literal staff even after that he openly confessed to be Vapourrr, so why is Charmander ok to stay?
It's a terrible precedent that contradicts something that did happen with the same situation if Charmander is allowed to be back. I am not staff, so my input won't matter much here, but I think this Wiki would have to reconsider how to deal with people who spam socks to circumvent bans in order to be consistent with both its own ruling and allow him back.
Last edited:
