- 34,584
- 35,019
I think that a warning at the least it's definitely warranted.
-
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
- 13,493
- 14,688
I mean, I completely agree with a ban, and frankly not sure why he's still around.
I was going to write up something when I saw your report and saw you went for a warning and so I didn't want to push for anything more, but seeing how Leph brings it up then I share the same sentiment.
I have no idea how long he's been back since his demotion, but he has constantly been in and out of drama since then and I haven't seen any sign of improvement IMO. All I've seen from his behavior is bickering and snarky comments towards other users and staff if they disagree with him, but I will admit that I do not interact with him that much so I cannot say he's always like that.
I was going to write up something when I saw your report and saw you went for a warning and so I didn't want to push for anything more, but seeing how Leph brings it up then I share the same sentiment.
I have no idea how long he's been back since his demotion, but he has constantly been in and out of drama since then and I haven't seen any sign of improvement IMO. All I've seen from his behavior is bickering and snarky comments towards other users and staff if they disagree with him, but I will admit that I do not interact with him that much so I cannot say he's always like that.
- 35,091
- 41,701
If memory serves it's been
My own experience with him has been nothing short of dreadful, to say the least. But I won't bother elaborating on that as Bambu has already showcased with evidence exactly how that usually goes down. Dead horse and all that.
All in all, I too support a ban. As for the duration? I have no control over that, much as I would like to suggest one (If I speak I am in big trouble). In the hands of admins and bureaucrats.
Last edited:
- 34,698
- 42,089
I'm in agreement with Nierre and KLOL
- 24,315
- 37,746
I'd say a warning already happened, in the thread, by multiple staff, and it was glossed over.
The initial remarks before the warning really aren't that deep, it's just light banter (including his) until this comment
Bambu warned him, but not just him but technically the whole thread.
Vzearr has a stigma against the HST (like most people), but it comes off more as disrespect than actual meaningful disagreement. Most staff don't touch the HST, for very good reason, but instead he touches it and he just throws jabs, like his random jab here in a demon slayer thread.
It's one thing to have an opinion on a group's scalers, it's another to openly antagonize. Do as you will, I don't like saying people should be banned, it's usually a last case scenario for me but I'm more graceful than others
The initial remarks before the warning really aren't that deep, it's just light banter (including his) until this comment
Bambu warned him, but not just him but technically the whole thread.
When Bambu asked him to stop, he jabbed back at him instead of actually trying to progress with the thread (deleted message so I won't beat dead horses).
Vzearr has a stigma against the HST (like most people), but it comes off more as disrespect than actual meaningful disagreement. Most staff don't touch the HST, for very good reason, but instead he touches it and he just throws jabs, like his random jab here in a demon slayer thread.
It's one thing to have an opinion on a group's scalers, it's another to openly antagonize. Do as you will, I don't like saying people should be banned, it's usually a last case scenario for me but I'm more graceful than others
- 51
- 14
A ban for this is ridiculous, he clearly thought they were being rude and started to be kind of rude back, which is a normal human reaction, banning for such a trivial matter is insane. He obviously didn't make it any better in here but now he's probably actually upset, still doesn't warrant a ban and probably not even a warning besides verbal.
- 24,315
- 37,746
You're missing so much context it's ridiculous
Vzearr has a large resume of bad behavior on this wiki, having 2 strikes based on antagonizing behavior
First Warning, Second Warning
Everybody was verbally warned in that thread by Random-Helper323, and he responded to that with this
With a series wide insult to the fanbase. And he was warned for it by Bambu.
In later messages which were deleted to the public except the staff, he responded to his warning by calling him a biased corny guy and "the definition of a corrupt staff member", taunting him after with more statements, and overall being antagonistic. And that was that thread alone, not even the rvr in here, where he continued.
So no
- 12,488
- 16,859
Originally had deleted it for being a non staff comment about the situation, but undeleting it based on KingTempest's response, so it retains proper context. This is not an invitation to comment again on the situation, as it has been resolved (so I will also delete CodeCCLL's comment, apologies).
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,068
- 29,754
It's worth noting, for posterity, that this ban is not simply for Vzearr's deleted comments on the original thread, but also for his response here, as well as a side conversation including Lephyr, myself, Damage, and DDM wherein Vzearr continued the trend of behavior. I recognize that it sucks that not all of this can be public, but I do want it to be known that there are deleted comments and tangential conversations that have amounted to this action being taken; however, even the forward-facing stuff of blatantly ignoring warnings probably constitutes enough of an infraction for a ban.
Now. The matter is settled, and we ought not dwell on it.
Now. The matter is settled, and we ought not dwell on it.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,068
- 29,754
@Avaritia_603 Non-staff are not permitted to speak on the RVRT, unless they are directly involved in a case; you are not. If you would like to discuss this with KingTempest, do so off-thread; the same goes if you would like to discuss with other staff members. For now, the matter is resolved in regards to this thread.
- 20,576
- 15,242
Saying this just as a heads up, but it seems like Vzearr and Avaritia_603 most likely communicate with each other offsite to target and debate against verses, you can briefly see that here by reading the through the Lookism CRT
Only sharing because it looks like suspicious behavior of them both trying to attack verses based on some sort of spite and this is now also showcased recently with this new Thread against One Piece.. Not suggesting any actions to be done only for staff to be made aware
Only sharing because it looks like suspicious behavior of them both trying to attack verses based on some sort of spite and this is now also showcased recently with this new Thread against One Piece.. Not suggesting any actions to be done only for staff to be made aware
- 24,315
- 37,746
Thanks for that but collaborating to downgrade isn't really a crime. Could show motive but he (Avaritia) hasn't done anything report worthy so I guess this is more of a bookmark for the future instead of anything specifically. The spite reasoning is just an assumption. People collaborate based on hyperfavoritism, spite isn't an issue if the line of logic is valid. It's not like 2 staff bouncing back and forth using their evaluation status to implement things.
- 20,576
- 15,242
yee that is what I meant by saying just as a heads up
- 18,197
- 19,635
After considering it, I'm not sure about a one month ban.
Tensions started with a snide comment by That_moron2, which Vzearr responded to in kind. Vzearr then made a snide comment towards KingTempest. Kachon123 made a slightly snide comment about the thread as a whole. After which, Random-Helper323 vaguely told everyone to calm down. At this point, I don't think any comments made have been rule violations, but they have stepped up the temperature a bit, so it's understandable for Random to try to bring that back down.
After that, Vzearr made a direct and false insult against multiple users in the thread. That_moron2 responded with an image indicating they found Vzearr's post funny. Mr. Bambu warned Vzearr specifically, and people in the thread in general, over this. Bambu's warning makes sense; Vzearr's post was a rule violation and a significant escalation in that. That_moron's post was, to some degree, mocking, but not to the extent of being a rule violation; it's probably good to get them to calm down too, but their post is not the most important to tackle, there.
After which Vzearr made these largely-visible responses denying all wrongdoing, deflecting, and insulting people.
Taking all that (and his extensive history) into consideration, I'm not sure one month would be sufficient. I'd want something like 3 months, with it possibly getting reduced to 1 month on appeal. If he ultimately can't own up to his behaviour there being much worse than anyone else's, it's hard to trust him to act better when he returns; it's not really a moment where he was overcome with anger, he feels justified in this.
holy shit Agnaa arguing for a longer ban for someone being rude?!?
Tensions started with a snide comment by That_moron2, which Vzearr responded to in kind. Vzearr then made a snide comment towards KingTempest. Kachon123 made a slightly snide comment about the thread as a whole. After which, Random-Helper323 vaguely told everyone to calm down. At this point, I don't think any comments made have been rule violations, but they have stepped up the temperature a bit, so it's understandable for Random to try to bring that back down.
After that, Vzearr made a direct and false insult against multiple users in the thread. That_moron2 responded with an image indicating they found Vzearr's post funny. Mr. Bambu warned Vzearr specifically, and people in the thread in general, over this. Bambu's warning makes sense; Vzearr's post was a rule violation and a significant escalation in that. That_moron's post was, to some degree, mocking, but not to the extent of being a rule violation; it's probably good to get them to calm down too, but their post is not the most important to tackle, there.
After which Vzearr made these largely-visible responses denying all wrongdoing, deflecting, and insulting people.
Taking all that (and his extensive history) into consideration, I'm not sure one month would be sufficient. I'd want something like 3 months, with it possibly getting reduced to 1 month on appeal. If he ultimately can't own up to his behaviour there being much worse than anyone else's, it's hard to trust him to act better when he returns; it's not really a moment where he was overcome with anger, he feels justified in this.
- 35,091
- 41,701
He said this, so I suspect he's not gonna be backing down, if anything he might double down on his tirades against us (Specifically Bambu, me and you- Agnaa).
Just something to note and keep in mind in advance once he returns.
- 7,828
- 11,779
Vzearr has received a lot of additional leeway and sympathy, and I think it understandable to be annoyed at this point and swing the other direction.
I try to be strictly practical, and from that perspective their repeated abuse of that leeway and clear unwillingness to admit wrong and insistence on continuing to make it something personal bodes very poorly for any chance of genuine reform.
It feels to me like this is a kind of resentment which will only continue to build, and at the very least being lenient has clearly not worked, so we ought to try being more strict. That is to say, I wouldn't be opposed to extending their ban to three months.
On an unrelated note, was the situation involving Napoleonic01 ever dealt with?
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,068
- 29,754
Let me preface this by saying that I acknowledge that the following is a flawed perspective.
In situations like this, where I have a history of conflict with the user, I prefer to defer to the wisdom of others on things like ban duration. I over-correct for my own mind. I was against Vzearr's return to begin with; to erase bias, I leave extreme actions to others. This obviously leaves issues. I can weigh in but I muzzle myself to prevent unfairness from escaping from me.
If it is so desired, I would be fine with a 3 month ban. That is, I am not personally opposed if we wished to increase it.
In situations like this, where I have a history of conflict with the user, I prefer to defer to the wisdom of others on things like ban duration. I over-correct for my own mind. I was against Vzearr's return to begin with; to erase bias, I leave extreme actions to others. This obviously leaves issues. I can weigh in but I muzzle myself to prevent unfairness from escaping from me.
If it is so desired, I would be fine with a 3 month ban. That is, I am not personally opposed if we wished to increase it.
- 1,073
- 405
Hey Bambs I have a question (this has nothing to do with your current ban discussion) Can someone be reported if they are intentionally ignoring others argument and spitting random bullsh*t sorry for the profanity
- 6,379
- 5,933
That sounds kind of subjective.
- 13,826
- 19,655
Depends on what you mean by 'spitting random bullshit.' If they are intentionally derailing or clogging the thread, then yes, they can be given a warning. However, if they are simply arguing for a different interpretation or belief without being aggressive or disrespectful, then no. Most of the time, its case-by-case.
CodeCCLL
He/Him- 3,338
- 2,258
- 14,997
- 10,468
the entire thread is calling everyone biased so i thought its ok for me to joinThis message is directly inciting many staffs against many members by name, so someone needs to delete it and give Robo a warning. Or it could be a direct warning to everyone in the general thread.
- 13,826
- 19,655
While it is okay to express discontent regarding a thread's results, conclusion, or a specific judgment, please ensure you do not name individuals or accuse them of bias. Doing so can derail the thread of its original topic and lead to unnecessarily heated back n forth bickering and insults. If you have a strong basis for an accusation, report it according to our guidelines rather than addressing it publicly. Make sure to follow this approach in the future.
- 177,607
- 90,580
- Thread starter
- #31,945
I would much prefer if Vzearr only keeps his 1 month warning ban. His offences did not seem particularly severe, and he needs my help and I don't want his mental state to deteriorate further. 
- 35,091
- 41,701
@Mr. Bambu @Agnaa @LephyrTheRevanchistI would much prefer if Vzearr only keeps his 1 month warning ban. His offences did not seem particularly severe, and he needs my help and I don't want his mental state to deteriorate further.
- 34,584
- 35,019
It's not our responsibility to be lenient on rule-breakers for the sake of their mental state. Otherwise every rule-breaker would claim to be having issues.I would much prefer if Vzearr only keeps his 1 month warning ban. His offences did not seem particularly severe, and he needs my help and I don't want his mental state to deteriorate further.
I don't think the ban needs to be raised to 3 months, but the consensus on a ban being required seemed fair.
- 35,091
- 41,701
I agree with Damage. We are not a therapy group. There are people who have it off far worse than Vzearr who are in more desperate need of help but don't get it. It's all good that you care about him but there need to be hard limits to this kind of shit. We have given him plenty of leniency time and time again and he refuses to change. He has mocked staff members every step of the way, makes excuses, displaces blame, does a great many things, in fact, except take responsibility. Hell, he even declared that he will not stop until he has Bambu "exposed for what he hides", which sounds like a threat to me. The fact that we are only giving him a 3-month ban (Anyone else would have been permabanned for this) is already lenient enough as it is.
A consensus has been reached, Ant. Please do not try to override it behind the staffs' backs. If nothing else, wait for everyone else who was involved in the voting process to respond back. And if they disagree with you, then that shall be that. But do not try to veto their consensus like this or if they disagree with you again afterwards, it gives off a bad image.
If need be, I will tag more admins to take a look.
A consensus has been reached, Ant. Please do not try to override it behind the staffs' backs. If nothing else, wait for everyone else who was involved in the voting process to respond back. And if they disagree with you, then that shall be that. But do not try to veto their consensus like this or if they disagree with you again afterwards, it gives off a bad image.
If need be, I will tag more admins to take a look.
Last edited:
- 24,315
- 37,746
To be blunt, I'm surprised he's still even on the site after the vapourr fiasco. He's had a lot of chances and he's gotten leniency some members here could only dream of.
A 3 month ban is nothing compared to what he genuinely needs. I'm against anything below that
A 3 month ban is nothing compared to what he genuinely needs. I'm against anything below that
- 12,488
- 16,859
I already said what I wanted to say. As mentioned on my og comment, whatever's the consensus, I'll support it.
- 35,091
- 41,701
@Planck69 @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Dereck03 @Maverick_Zero_X @Just_a_Random_Butler @Qawsedf234 @Firestorm808 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Celestial_Pegasus @GrathOfLux @SamanPatou @Colonel_Krukov @GyroNutz
@Reiner04 @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Catzlaflame @UchihaSlayer96 @Emirp sumitpo @Nierre @Dalesean027 @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless @Vietthai96 @Imaginym @Godernet @Duedate8898 @CrimsonStarFallen @Mr._Propeller_Hat @Armorchompy @LordTracer Your input regarding this matter would be appreciated.
- 22,767
- 23,543
It's a repeat offense for similar past behavior. I'm fine with a three month escalation ban.
- 16,286
- 17,801
I’m also in favor of three months, and I echo the sentiments of KingTempest and Nierre in that I don’t understand why he was allowed back in the first place.
- 18,197
- 19,635
You can provide counsel off-site; I have his Discord usernames, if you want to communicate with him there.I would much prefer if Vzearr only keeps his 1 month warning ban. His offences did not seem particularly severe, and he needs my help and I don't want his mental state to deteriorate further.
But if his behaviour was due to his mental state being compromised right now, and that risks worsening over the month ban, I think it's wise to lengthen it up to three months with the option of reducing it back down if he improves before then. Hopefully three months is enough for his life to develop into a better place regardless.
That's not what he said, he said:
Says nothing about continuing his previous behaviour. Just that he will do everything he can to expose Bambu's bad behaviour.
And I, personally, think that we must not take punitive action against users for desiring to highlight rule violations staff members have committed. That's why HR is open to contact from banned members.
I'm not really sure how to action that, but I'm willing to hear it out if you have some concrete examples.
But this thread isn't really the best place for that; could you DM me (or any other user you wish to discuss this with) instead?
- 6,379
- 5,933
While the interaction was pretty bad, I do agree that Vzearr should be allowed to express dislike or a belief in some bad behaviour. Without evidence it kind of seems defamatory, and I think Bambu is innocent, but we can't explicitly stop people from accusing staff of wrongdoing.
There is of course a risk that such allowance could allow people to defame others on the forum, but I think the solution is to give staff and normal users the same protection from such things.
I have had a positive experience of working with both Bambu and Vzearr, so I'd prefer it if both of them could be okay.
There is of course a risk that such allowance could allow people to defame others on the forum, but I think the solution is to give staff and normal users the same protection from such things.
I have had a positive experience of working with both Bambu and Vzearr, so I'd prefer it if both of them could be okay.
Last edited:
- 35,091
- 41,701
That is what the HR is for, where you report staff wrongdoings. Doing it in public only makes things worse and leads to too much controversy and destabilization.
In any case, the staff votes seem to be more in favor of the 3 month ban with a chance to appeal it down to 1 month, but of course, we can always wait for more staff to give input.
- 6,379
- 5,933
True. If someone keeps expressing accusations without evidence there does reach a point where it becomes defamatory or harassment. As I said, I believe Bambu is innocent.
All the same, criticism should be allowed.
The 3 months seems to be accepted.
- 18,197
- 19,635
Yeah, fwiw I do think that some of the claims Vzearr made err on the side of defamation/harassment. It's just that "I will expose you!" is too vague to really be worthy of reprimanding.
And yeah, votes seem modestly in favour (something like 4-2) in favour of 3 months, so I'll go extend it.
