Ant suggested a warning, and you replied you had done so. Obviously it wasn't added to the tracker.
Naturally we should have more staff members weigh in, as this is a complex case, I was just giving my current thoughts.
Well, it was just that I coudn't find the rule before back then
I escalated your previous informal warning to an official one by me.
You had it explained to you pretty explicitly before. Please don't let it happen again.
ok, i understood
Thank you for being reasonable.
It was an instruction message, not intended as a warning for the tracker. Notice how I didn't tell him he was being warned for it. You can even find my comment on the original report from that thread where I found them clueless, and so I simply explained what they needed to do and took care of it. It was the first time he got reported, and thus a warning of misconduct was not necessary. That's why I didn't add it to the tracker. Simple as that.
Alright. So what do you think should be done in this instance?
Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning.Never mind. I saw some of Mahek's preceding posts here, not just his one deleted post.
Considering that, I think that he should remain thread-banned.
^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message (unlike the also mentioned preceding messages (again, PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning) that were specifically directed at CRIMINALS, particularly ATROCITY CRIMINALS).I think that Mahek just reacted to that Homie890 made a statement about doing something potentially life-threatening. Given that Mahek seems to be autistic, he took it literally, got worried, and wanted to warn about the consequences. I think that he seemed to mean well.
I think that Mahek just reacted to that Homie890 made a statement about doing something potentially life-threatening. Given that Mahek seems to be autistic, he took it literally, got worried, and wanted to warn about the consequences. I think that he seemed to mean well.
No hard feelings to Giannysmag, to be clear, cause I completely understand the logic and appreciate the attempt at ensuring the punishment was fair and specific instead of broadly closing the thread, just that again there was very little consideration of other contributing factors and circumstances as mentioned above.Sorry for the late response and numerous edits, I just came back from work, and was very busy the last two days so I had no time to come online and explain myself... which also allowed for Giannysmag to suggest the thread ban (again, singling me out), also, TIMEZONES
Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Examples_in_protists My blind ahh read altruism as autism lmao,vsbattles.com
Just a note that our forum does not register any sockpuppet activity from that member.
I think that this seems reasonable.
I would appreciate further staff input regarding this.
Just clarifying, by further staff do you mean just Crabwhale and Finepoint or other staff in general including HR as well as other mods? (just asking as to how many will be involved in this)I would appreciate further staff input regarding this.
To be clear, Giannysmag actually did suggest I thread ban Homie too. It was my personal judgement not to.
As for the Johner situation:I think that this seems reasonable.
It's probably the part about it happening before (albeit under very specific and rare circumstances, Queen told me (and I also searched it up) that it's only happened a few times in pregnant women) that led me to believe it to be, despite being rare, still worth noting/mentioning as a a possible risk.
Personally, I think that violence against criminals is ultimately pointless, and only increases the chance they re-offend if/when they get out.
I meant any staff members with evaluation rights who are willing to help out here.
^To be fair, life imprisonment without parole or a whole life order/tariff often means they'd NEVER come out (then again, yeah usually it's both used as a safety measure to isolate criminals from society AND also potentially give more time to find evidence that could determine for certain whether prisoners are in fact guilty or innocent even after trials and verdicts are done, and indeed evidence has been found long after trials that have confirmed either the guilt or innocence of several prisoners, hence lending credence to the idea of suspects and prisoners being innocent until proven guilty aka presumption of innocence), so usually the chances of recidivism or reoffending is low cause they're already practically sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison/jail. That said, yeah I'd agree as to why'd you'd consider violence pointless against criminals who DO have the chance to come out of prison/jail (though then again said criminals are already liable to be stigmatised even after being released, and even possibly subjected to lynching or vigilantism and retributive justice by members of the public who feel that said criminals have not been punished enough, and then there's corruption of the legal and law enforcement systems in various regions, so that complicates matters a lot more).
Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning.
^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message (unlike the also mentioned preceding messages (again, PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning) that were specifically directed at CRIMINALS, particularly ATROCITY CRIMINALS).
Atrocity crime - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Mostly the timing and purpose of the messages (preceding messages being prior to Crabwhale's warning and the message about embolisms being merely an explanatory warning message that was not targeted at any being in general as Ant has already said and which I confirmed) since the other issues (euphemism misunderstanding, my overestimation of the frequency of air-inflow-caused embolisms in the female reproductive system, and context of me responding to Homie) have already been explained:Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)#Examples_in_protists My blind ahh read altruism as autism lmao,
Not sure if I should provide screenshots of the conversation between me and Queen in Discord reaffirming what I have stated...
Also I find it a bit odd that Homie was not involved in this especially because most of my messages were in the context of responding to their messages where they themselves also spoke about imprisonment and introducing air into a person's bloodstream (not to say I want them to be in trouble, just that no one included that factor and I alone was singled out).
I was already intending to cease the graphic topics due to Crabwhale's warning; it was mostly a matter of converging factors as explained above that led to the thread ban.I meant any staff members with evaluation rights who are willing to help out here.
For the record, I also don't mind if we remove your thread-ban if you are willing to try to behave well and not spam too much.
This really isn't the place to have such an elaborate debate, as it will clutter the thread and distract from the core issue.
Technically it would be whether the thread ban is justified since it's already sorta given that I did partially violate the rules initially (cause that's why the warning was given in the first place) but the ban may have been too excessive or unreasonable given the aforementioned factors:
(Since there's now a new page I should probably use this reply ^ to link back to the start of the conversation so that everyone has the necessary context.)Wait a sec, the preceding posts happened PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning.
^And yes I meant to warn about what air being introduced into the bloodstream could do, I wasn't mentioning it in the context of anyone specifically being targeted in that message (unlike the also mentioned preceding messages (again, PRIOR to Crabwhale's warning) that were specifically directed at CRIMINALS, particularly ATROCITY CRIMINALS).
Atrocity crime - Wikipedia
welp this is vs battles wiki not convince johnner wiki, so let the staff in the APRT decide.
As implication that the user doesn’t want the conversation to be continued, but not particularly explicit. Also, it wasn’t much conversation as far as I can see. @johnner If he doesn’t wanna engage on a topic, then thats that. it doesn’t matter if “the scans are right there” or not.
I don't have much to comment on besides the warning I've already provided for him.
Fair enough, though then again I usually feel the need to respond to many different people at once cause I find their messages interesting, I understand why that would be a bit overwhelming and/or otherwise unnecessary... (Though I'm not sure still if it is better to reply to multiple people within one message or break up said replies into different messages, especially if two or more people are talking about the same topic.)
(More information/explanations in earlier messages in the RVR as explained here)
True, though in a way it's context dependent...Excessive verbosity seems like a recurring problem for you Mahek. Please make a continuous effort to keep it under control.
I feel as if plenty of time has passed if anybody else was wanting to weigh in on Mahek.Excessive verbosity seems like a recurring problem for you Mahek. Please make a continuous effort to keep it under control.
Alright. I have done so.Yes. I think that seems fine.
By the way, I still think it's very important that we finalize this thread regarding the rules to avoid future confusion.Thank you for helping out.
Thanks again.
Per a request from Chariot, and given the nature of his offense, we've approved a limited appeal in the form of allowing him access to the wiki for the duration of his ban, so that he may continue to work on sandboxes and CRT prep for this time. If you see him editing, then, it is not an anomaly. That is all, thank you.
