- 1,874
- 991
this is also true
-
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
- 24,342
- 37,799
I am very biased towards his return so I'm not gonna vote in the name of all things fair and true
- 6,546
- 6,137
Honestly, I like Vzearr, but that was not good behaviour and I don't think Mr Bambu being ranted at like that is fair.
- 177,971
- 90,997
- Thread starter
- #32,244
Review on the Final Group and Yogiri’s True Form (Instant Death)
Currently there's a 1A black clover thread lolvsbattles.com
heyo, am posting this here because its like the third time a comment like this comes from this user, he said he will keep spamming CRT until staff or us get like super mad, here is the message itself:
Why all these off-topic comments? Fine, I will reopen the same topic again and again, despite all of you. Go ahead and keep trying to ruin it. There is no respect, nothing at all not even respect . Someone opens a topic and it turns into nonsense, mockery, provocation, sabotage, threats, hostility, and clowning… very nice. But the topic will be reopened if it gets ruined, over and over again. Let’s see who gets tired first.
Oh yeah he also erased all of the insults, so he deff knew what he was doing lol
So what should we do regarding this issue?
@SomebodyData
- 35,117
- 41,744
There's this comment but I didn't wanna mention it since most parties were in the midst of derailment at the time until Qawsedf came in to cool things down.So what should we do regarding this issue?
It is still concerning how he said he'd report whoever closed it on the basis of it being rejected. To report someone merely for rejecting a thread with the appropriate number of votes is certainly pushing it to say the least. His claims of "I do not accept any staff member coming, giving their opinion, and closing the topic as was done in previous topics—without me responding or seeing the opinions of other staff members—while also ignoring everyone here who agreed on the topic." are also quite untrue as I remember Griffin and Qawsedf and some other admins clearly disagreeing with the topic and many verse supporters (A couple of them also being thread mods) also stating why they disagree, so in the end it wouldn't matter even if OP found the disagreements unsatisfactory as disagreements are still disagreements and would still stand.
- 12,494
- 16,891
That is not what was said.
What he's actually complaining about is when a thread is closed without even given the chance to respond to those who disagreed and see if he can convince them. Reporting a staff member for that is fair enough, as they are showing a complete unwillingness to even acknowledge opposition.
It's not, because he isn't talking about Griffin or Qawsedf there, but making a general statement of the reason he would object for the closure until given the proper time to respond.
Let's look at the proper context, please.
Edit: No comment on the rest, but this post in particular I would not use it to make a case against the dude.
- 22,808
- 23,731
If it was a first offense, I can see a reasoning behind reducing ban length. But its a second offense for similar behavior. If they have improved that's great, but it doesn't change that the full ban length should be maintained.
If there is a reduction, the most i see is just making it mid-February rather than mid-March.
- 7,913
- 11,971
For someone new to the way we do things, I can understand their frustration. In a vacuum, losing the ability to defend yourself is a very frustrating thing.
Perhaps they simply don't understand how slow-paced and open to appeal our platform is, and that your thread being closed is something that could always be re-evaluated.
That said, they obviously can't spam re-open closed topics, so if that threat was serious that deserves something, but otherwise it seems like they mostly need instruction.
Also, sorry I've been way less active the past few weeks, there's been some medical complications and I'm still regularly in pain, waiting on a specialist.
SomebodyData
Waiting for Walpurgisnacht Rising and Metroid 6...
VS Battles
Administrator
Human Resources
- 14,760
- 4,158
I agree with FinePoint tbh, he left a message on my wall and I explained to him the issue and a bit on how the wiki works; hopefully we'll be able to resolve this without the need of any bans or warnings.
If anything escalates, I'll let you all know but I'm optimistic atm.
- 1,874
- 991
Thank you yall for giving him advise on the site 
- 12,785
- 23,075
Hello, Last year, I made this report about the same user using multiple accounts, and after I caught him, he disappeared from the forum, but now it turns out that one of his accounts, more specifically Nosgalia, was permanently banned by Ant on the grounds that it is ThienDe01's account, meaning that it is the same user who created another sockpuppet to evade punishment. What should be done in this case? Simply give them a long ban, since last time it was proposed to ban one account permanently and the other for three months, but another was created to evade the ban.
- 34,734
- 42,180
Sock Puppetry and especially in repetition is definitely grounds for bans longer than 3 months.
- 19,361
- 12,109
We literally have permanently banned GodlyCharmander for keeping to spam sockpuppets, why is this any lesser?
- 12,494
- 16,891
Because sock puppet alone is not noted to also carry a permanent ban duration. Our rules leave it open ended:
—Here
Meaning, it would depend on the severity of infraction (reminder Vapourr/Vzear himself successfully appealed his comeback from his ban of making sock-puppets by genuinely showing himself helpful, to use a recent and relevant example).
So it's not an automatic permaban, would depend on context. (This is not an invitation to debate Charmander's situation, just clarification on why I can understand Dereck's hesitation to go with the highest severity punishment)
- 12,494
- 16,891
Looking further into the past case, the three month ban was proposed as a sort of "trial ban" as you were unsure what length to propose for these cases.
As you yourself raised in the past case, Nosgalia was actively using his sock puppet accounts to effectively troll. Even Ant wanted to give a harsher punishment than just 3 months.
Given that past context, I would've agreed with a permanent ban right there. However, since that time, has ThienDe01 gotten in trouble? Or have they shown themselves to have shaped up? I would now support a ban of 3 months if they have genuinely shown themselves at the absolute least, to have stopped his trollish behavior of the past, with the ban reason being that he fully originally intended to ban evade.
- 12,785
- 23,075
Well, that was just an initial suggestion, Ant suggested more time, but no one followed up on the matter.
You need context. He was a complete troll on the Echitesu account but behaved normally on the Nousgalia account. Now, with the Thien account, he's the same as he was with the Nousgalia account, so take it with a grain of salt.
- 12,494
- 16,891
If he has gone for a whole year outside the spotlight and isn't getting into trouble, then 3-6 months would be fine with me (again, for the full intention of ban evading).
- 7,913
- 11,971
I don't remember that incident exactly, but I did "like" Ant's comment about 3 months being too lenient.
Regardless, if they've done it again, the new punishment needs to at least be more severe than the first one, I would think.
Generally, I think a permanent ban is a reasonable response to repetitive sockpuppeting/ban-evasion, and also a reasonable first response if they seem malicious, such as if they were trolling.
Regardless, if they've done it again, the new punishment needs to at least be more severe than the first one, I would think.
Generally, I think a permanent ban is a reasonable response to repetitive sockpuppeting/ban-evasion, and also a reasonable first response if they seem malicious, such as if they were trolling.
- 177,971
- 90,997
- Thread starter
- #32,259
I think that @AKM sama gave that ban, not me. Maybe he knows more specifics.
Also, @ThienDe01 : Your attention is required here.
- 291
- 64
I don't know what I did to be accused here.I think that @AKM sama gave that ban, not me. Maybe he knows more specifics.
Also, @ThienDe01 : Your attention is required here.
With Dereck's accusation, I'm being accused of being a clone of two other people. But I'm not, that's the only thing I can say.
And I will pay attention to and comply with the terms and conditions and accept the punishment here if I cause any negative impact on the community as you have mentioned. Thank you for the reminder.
- 12,494
- 16,891
Seems this is right. Which brings me...
If AKM didn't make a mistake, this is a very bad response and outright paints you as malicious enough to straight lie even when caught. With this, I would take the severity of the sock puppet to permaban level, as quite clearly you have no qualms with breaking the rule and I can't with good conscience give the benefit of the doubt with trusting you further.
So it all comes down to if @AKM sama made a mistake. Maybe both users used a similar VPN and thus it looks like they had a similar account. But I find it extremely unlikely given they frequent the same verse. But hey, extraordinary things can happen.
- 5,176
- 4,272
I will say, I have had a problem in the past with a VPN I have that automatically registers me as the same IP as a banned user... (Thus blocking me from certain sites, and such), So that may have been the issue, if both @Dereck03 and @Antvasima 's findings are true... What we may be seeing is that they don't normally match, but when the VPN is on, they do....
(I feel like this holds valid enough input to post; if not, delete this.)
(I feel like this holds valid enough input to post; if not, delete this.)
- 12,494
- 16,891
But yeah. Absolute best case scenario. Now we just have to wait for AKM and what let to the ban of the other account, because my instincts tells me it looks like something that was discussed on PMs, by the way AKM wrote the justification: "Old account of ThienDe01" as is to suggest, Thien contacted AKM as if to inform of the change in account. Specially because AKM sometimes handle a bulk of accounts like that periodically, as can be seen with how he handles request on his message wall on the wiki, so it likely slipped under the radar by how old the case against Nousgalia was. But this is strictly my speculation.
- 34,734
- 42,180
I think a permaban is in order than if they were outed for abusing multiple accounts.
- 177,971
- 90,997
- Thread starter
- #32,266
Well, if they actually abused the accounts and engaged in ban evasion, but not if it was a more harmless case of having two overlapping accounts that did not do anything bad, AKM asking them which one they wanted to use, and then banning the other.
- 12,785
- 23,075
Just to remind you, he still has another account that you said had overlaps, which is @Echitesu That was the account he used to troll, and that account has not been banned, so if you decide to ban the other account, then he should not go unpunished and should receive some kind of punishment at the very least.
- 12,494
- 16,891
Then yeah, permaban.Also, no it was not merely an IP overlap between the Thien and Nous accounts.
This was determined in the original report, actually. By you, hereOur forum has not registered any overlaps for Echitesu that I can see.
Combined with Dereck noticing their exact pattern of behavior and comments.
- 12,785
- 23,075
You said they were.There are overlaps for their accounts, yes.
One of their accounts needs to be permanently banned, and we need to decide regarding the ban time for the other one.
- 177,971
- 90,997
- Thread starter
- #32,272
Hmm. In that case the information about that older overlap seems to not currently be stored by our forum anymore. That is obviously not good at all. I will have to ask our system manager if the storage time can be significantly increased in that regard.
- 12,785
- 23,075
Well, to sum up, if there was already a clear overlap between Echitesu and Nousgalia, and now there was more than just a single overlap between Nousgalia and Thien, and he denies the accusations, then we already know the outcome.
- 12,494
- 16,891
DDM and I seem to agree that a permaban is warranted, at least
FinePoint too, but more with the idea of it around breaking the rules on making sock puppets
Nevertheless, I believe the conclusion is pretty clear. Ban justification should read something like: "Making sock puppets to ban evade, attempted to lie about it when caught"
- 12,494
- 16,891
I applied the ban, then. Also to the wiki accounts (even Nousgalia one, as it seems it got forgotten by AKM when banning the forum one)
- 177,971
- 90,997
- Thread starter
- #32,279
He has more than doubled our forum's storage time for that information now.Also, I asked our forum system manager about this, but he has not responded yet.
