Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Vzearr]

Just something I noticed is seems like the ones that are related to TR are the main problem TR? Or is this just a circumstance due to a limited number of circumstances?

Forgive me for stepping in I just want to answer this.

Tokyo Revengers can not be the issue, it is the members who surround it, whether that be me, dale, or one of the other ten members who surround it. However that is up to staff to decide, banning the Tokyo Revengers verse is not a necessity. It is the banning of members who directly cause controversy to spread around the verse. A verse cannot be a problem, it is the members of the verses circle that are the problem.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Can I suggest that whenever Vzear starts a thread, there should a staff (preferably with no bad history with him) that constantly watches it? If the staff is busy, Vzear shouldn't make any more comments until the staff is back online to prevent more threads being overheated.

I think that is putting too much of the onus on the matter to Vzearr. I think it would be inappropriate to single him out for issues like the ones in the thread above, which had multiple precipitating factors. Not to mention, Vzearr was the one who attempted to bring the topic of the thread back after the disruption. If the thread can continue civilly from here, I don't think any specific action is necessary.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Tokyo Revengers seems to mean a lot to Vzearr, just like One Piece means a lot to me, or other franchises mean a lot to other members.

Yeah, but I am worried it may cause more issues for him than it's worth, since the change in tone and action is noticeable. (And let's be honest, we do not wanna have to start punching a user for their love for a verse...) But eh, I am not staff so I have no idea how this should be handled...

 

[FinePoint]

I think that is putting too much of the onus on the matter to Vzearr. I think it would be inappropriate to single him out for issues like the ones in the thread above, which had multiple precipitating factors. Not to mention, Vzearr was the one who attempted to bring the topic of the thread back after the disruption. If the thread can continue civilly from here, I don't think any specific action is necessary.

I agree with this.

Advice I'd give anyone is to step away temporarily if they feel themselves get heated and wait for staff if the entire discussion becomes that way. Going back-and-forth usually only leads to escalation.

 

[Thermor]

I agree with this.

Advice I'd give anyone is to step away temporarily if they feel themselves get heated and wait for staff if the entire discussion becomes that way. Going back-and-forth usually only leads to escalation.

I want to say that people who is generally disliked (namely @Azertyhuuh), tend to get targeted intentionally by ragebaiting them. I'm afraid if multiple bad actors act the same way against Vzear, things will go downhill for his mental health and leads to more severe punishments.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I am strongly opposed to our members deliberately targeting, provoking, harrassing, or baiting Vzearr or anybody else in our community.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Yeah, we should keep an eye out for that. Remember there have been other issues between members, where one would provoke and then step back while the other got angry and argued with staff.

 

[Random-Helper323]

roblox verses getting ignored because we're so controversial

Don't derail, please.

 

[Agnaa]

Vzearr makes a claim in the thread that a character (Manjiro Sano) has fear hax capable of instantly paralyzing people for extended periods of time, and uses these scans to support this (as well as a few others that he lies about, but w/e). He deliberately cuts images from the first scan and the second scan to claim that the person in the second scan that was defeated was immediately taken out because Manjiro had paralyzed him, but this is not true, as the confrontation happened off-screen and we did not see how Kakucho responded to Mikey's fear hax or how the confrontation played out to lead to Kakucho's defeat.

The images come from chapter 231 of Tokyo Revengers, which he would know if he has read it, which he has. It would be impossible to mistakenly make this claim, as it is impossible to read this chapter without seeing the very clear cut between scenes that would not support the claim that Manjiro's fear hax is as potent as Vzearr claimed it to be. Unless he was reading with his eyes closed, it is physically impossible that this is not a deliberate attempt to lie.

EDIT: @Dalesean027's post also displays an instance of Vzearr deliberately withholding context to support a narrative, but that is unrelated to this.

Yeah this seems pretty open and shut. Earlier he says that the entire scene is them being frozen and knocked out, while those few scans give that impression, the whole scene in Chapter 231 (and beyond, seems like the later scans come from a later chapter) shows them doing a lot of fighting in-between.

It's not always misrepresentation to fail to include certain scans (people can gloss over them, or legitimately think they're not relevant), but given the view Vzearr was proposing about the fight, and the blatant relevance of what was missed, this seems quite bad.

But I'm off to work, will give a view on what I think should happen in light of this, then.

Now that I've had more time to look at the chapters at hand, I was wrong earlier. I significantly misunderstood it since I wasn't familiar with the manga.

This chapter (231) featured two fights happening simultaneously. Senju vs South, and Kakucho vs Mikey (Mikey is also known as Manjiro Sano, in other scans). Mikey is wearing the white coat, Kakucho is wearing the darker vest, while Senju is wearing the black coat, and South is wearing the jeans without a shirt.

The chapter started with Kakucho and Mikey fighting, before cutting to Senju and South fighting, eventually having Mikey interrupt the fight between Senju/South by taking out Kakucho.

The first image in Vzearr's album is the last image of the first segment of Kakucho/Mikey's fight. The second image is the next image we see of their fight. The third and fourth images are two sequential ones from chapter 262.

Knowing all of this, the 231 omission makes a lot of sense in a vacuum. It seems really weird to put them in concert with scans from chapter 262. Especially given the context of what just happened in the thread; Dinozxd posted three albums, one scans from earlier in chapter 231, one containing the scans from chapter 262, and another containing scans from a chapter I'm not familiar with. Arceus and Azontr responded to these, saying they didn't sufficiently evidence an inability to move, and asking for scans that support Vzearr's view. Vzearr said the full scene was them being frozen, kicked and knocked out by Mikey, then posted the album in question.

So, a minor concern I have is the misrepresentation of the "full scene"; there was more stuff earlier in the scene. Kakucho and Mikey fought for a bit, before Mikey talked about being empty inside, leading to it cutting away.

The more major concern is with the exclusion of earlier stuff in that scene, yet the inexplicable inclusion of chapter 262 stuff, despite no context being added there. Combined with the odd absence of the second album Diozxd posted. Those missing scans show the album wasn't a compilation of all the fear stuff, so why was chapter 262 stuff included with no distinction, explanation, disclaimer, etc? Why was that posted when people were asking for the "full feat"?

---

With all that in mind, my view is a lot less confident/solid than it was before. I'd be fine with anything from a mild warning, to a permanent unappealable topic ban from TR. I'll leave that up to other staff to decide with this (hopefully) improved set of information.

 

[Vzearr]

Can I ask what you mean by this? Yeah, I didn’t include earlier parts of the fight because those parts don’t show the effect being argued. What went through my 1:00 am mind at the moment was that I should show the full interaction, not every panel in the chapter, because those wouldn't sufficiently explain anything. Basically, I selected scans based on relevance to the claim, not to reconstruct the entire fight.

 

[Antvasima]

I still do not think that this seems to be any serious misdemeanour.

 

[Agnaa]

Can I ask what you mean by this? Yeah, I didn’t include earlier parts of the fight because those parts don’t show the effect being argued. What went through my 1:00 am mind at the moment was that I should show the full interaction, not every panel in the chapter, because those wouldn't sufficiently explain anything. Basically, I selected scans based on relevance to the claim, not to reconstruct the entire fight.

More important part, to me, is why you included two scans from c231, and two scans from c262, when asked to (and claiming to) "show the whole scene".

Especially when those two scans from c231 are far from showing everything (they're missing ~3 scans relevant to fear specifically, and another ~3 scans showing earlier parts of the fight).

In what state of mind would those not be important, while those two scans from 31 chapters later would be?

 

[Vzearr]

More important part, to me, is why you included two scans from c231, and two scans from c262, when asked to (and claiming to) "show the whole scene".

Especially when those two scans from c231 are far from showing everything (they're missing ~3 scans relevant to fear specifically, and another ~3 scans showing earlier parts of the fight).

In what state of mind would those not be important, while those two scans from 31 chapters later would be?

Alright I get what you mean now I think. At the time, I wasn’t thinking what you're implying; The reason I didn’t include more of 231 is that those parts are before Mikey actually enters DI, and my argument was focused on what happens once he’s in that state. So I didn’t really consider the earlier fighting as directly relevant to the specific effect I was arguing. For 262, that wasn’t meant to be part of the same sequence; it was just another example of similar behaviour. I didn’t separate that clearly, though, so I get why it looks like I was mixing scenes.

 

[azontr]

I think that Vzearr has likely not deliberately lied or caused trouble here, and his personal mental health situation is quite horrible, so I ask our staff to please try to show empathy and compassion for him.

Sir, with all due respect, this is not really an excuse anymore. I do not particularly care whether he lied or if he simply improperly utilized scans; his conduct has not been appropriate from the get-go in that thread. That is undeniable. People with mental health issues are not people that are incapable of making deliberate actions that they must take responsibility for. I have mental health issues that i must deal with, demons that I must fight, and things in my life that affect my psyche. I would not ask you to be lenient with me if I were to behave or debate inappropriately.

I know I said I would not comment after my last posts, and I apologize for my indiscretion in rejoining the conversation, but as the initially reported party and simply personally I felt the need to address this. I genuinely believe that your willingness to excuse what is, even if it is not a deliberate attempt at lying or manipulation, at the very least a warrant to be warned in some manner, based on mental health issues that many others suffer, including myself but are able to be completely fine in the forum, is concerning. We are all going through things on the inside that we may not tell People about. Just because it does not affect our forum activity does not mean that anyone is going through "Hell" in comparison to us, and personally, I find the insinuation to be offensive.

If Vzearr is going through things, then I give him my best regards, genuinely. I have no hatred for him. But I would like him to be held accountable for his behavior as any other user would be, as any other staff would be.

 

[Arceus0x]

Also like, the part where Vzearr ignored the vote and tried to pretend it was against rules still stands, that's still, as Bambu said earlier, a rule violation.

 

[Dinozxd]

I think I can comment on the topic of Vzearr now that Agnaa mentioned my name (I also think I indirectly caused the supposed rule violation in question by linking Mikey's fear hax feats).

First of all, I didn't crop images in the album I posted here to lie about the feat. They are albums I made for Mikey's profile to showcase his fear hax in the most efficent way as possible. They're still linked in it. I want to reply to the chapter 231 thingy as I think that's where the report came from.

Spoiler: Chapter 231 breakdown

Here's chapter 231 in it's entirety. The chapter starts with Mikey taking a beating from Kakucho without hitting back. After he activates his Dark Impulses, Kakucho is seen shocked, stunned and seems to not be able to move for multiple panels.

After that, the chapter cuts to South and Senju fighting where Senju gets knocked into the ground by South after a few panels. When South touches Takemichi to push him away from the way; Takemichi gets a future vision of South laying dead on the ground. Takemichi starts wondering who caused that to happen to South (Takemichi's visions don't have a set time of precognition, btw) After that, we see Kakucho getting thrown by Mikey which implies that he is going to be the one who kills South (spoiler alert, he does).

Now that I did a breakdown of the chapter, I'll get into how the fear hax feat could be interpreted differently.

Spoiler: Interperation of the feat

The primary concern with the feat seems to be if Mikey fear haxed and floored Kakucho immediately, or if there was an actual fight between them. I think that question best can be answered with assuming the time it took for Mikey to beat Kakucho after he fear haxed him. This can't be done with just counting panels though because they don't always mean that time has passed in between. That's not how comic or manga panels work.

The only scan where there's an implication of the time frames of Mikey vs Kakucho and Senju vs South is this scan here in chapter 229, right before Kakucho went up aganist Mikey and Senju went up aganist South. The panel shows all of the matchups in similar poses aganist each other, which implies that both fights started at the same time. There's no other point where the time frames of each fight allign. We only see the aftermath of Mikey vs Kakucho (Kakucho losing off screen and getting thrown towards South by Mikey), and Senju getting knocked down by South. (dropping the full chapters in between so everyone can read them for themselves: C229, C230, C231). We don't know what's happening between Mikey and Kakucho in this nor this scene because we don't see them.

That's why both what Vzearr and Azontr interpreted from the feat could be true. It's up to interperation.

 

[FinePoint]

Vzearr's reason for not including earlier scenes makes sense to me (even if we can agree it was suboptimal) as a mistake a reasonable person might make.

Despite their past I don't think we should jump to conclusions and assume the worst. Hanlon's Razor or whatever.

 

[Reiner04]

I can also see a reasonable chance of mistakes or misunderstandings here, especially when it comes to scans. That said, in anycasem in future it would be better to simply include the relevant scans along with any in-btw panels to avoid such confusion, if possible. Even if it’s not feasible to include all the in-btw scans, at least refer to the chapters and make it clear and explicit that there are additional panels in between. That way, others can check them as well in case they interpret things differently @Vzearr

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Vzearr's reason for not including earlier scenes makes sense to me (even if we can agree it was suboptimal) as a mistake a reasonable person might make.

Despite their past I don't think we should jump to conclusions and assume the worst. Hanlon's Razor or whatever.

I disagree, but I also accept that, over time, I have come to be jaded regarding Vzearr and his intentions. If it came to a vote, I would vote in favor of action over a warning. However, acknowledging the past's influence on the present, and the need to attempt to offset bias, I will also be content with a warning to be very careful regarding this sort of thing. Tokyo Revengers is, and probably always will be, on exceptionally thin ice. Clumsy mistakes should be avoided with extreme care.

 

[Antvasima]

So a light or regular warning instruction then?

 

[FinePoint]

So a light or regular warning instruction then?

That seems fine to me.

 

[Crabwhale]

I will preface my assessment of this situation by stating that I am not as involved in the wiki as I used to be. I do not have the knowledge of it I used to have, I do not have the familiarity with its going-ons and userbase as was the case even a year back, barring personal friends of mine whom I speak to about unrelated topics most of the time.

That being said there is one name that I have consistently, by happenstance or just pattern recognition, have observed coming across my door. Vzearr's original ban is a murky, half-remembered affair for me. There was a lot of confusion about who said what about who when that entire thing was breaking out.

However, I have made one thing consistent and clear in all my rulings. Continued cases of problematic behavior are not something I particularly wish to tolerate. When you continuously divert attention and staff towards your shenanigans despite knowing that you are on thin ice, I am not inclined to be particularly charitable. And furthermore, let me state it thus: nobody should care what your mental state is.

If you are inside an unwell headspace, number 1: this wiki is an argumentative, sometimes outright hostile place that is not conductive to helping you. Number 2: plenty of people here, maybe even the majority, are in one way or another dealing with mental issues. This hobby is not exactly known for attracting the most stable base of people that engage in it, so if your conduct is bad then you have no excuse whatsoever.

I don't know what precisely the punishment should be for this particular infraction. I definitely think something more than a warning, I do not believe it should cross over into anything too severe, even if I believe the initial unbanning was a mistake. However, what I urge my fellow staff to do is to prevent this from degenerating into an eternal pity party that gives a particular user an infinite get-out-jail-free card for whenever they don't wanna behave.

 

[FinePoint]

let me state it thus: nobody should care what your mental state is.

I'd picture it a bleak world where in the pursuit of justice we are unable to show even a little care to what someone may be going through.

What we do here isn't exactly easy, and someone's scans not quite spanning the length we would prefer strikes me as a minor and easily fixable mistake that one would expect to be common. All it takes is one other knowledgeable member to point it out.

I don't support infinite pity, but I think it also sets a dangerous precedent if someone's record renders them unable to make even minor mistakes without the assumption that it be for some malicious end.

 

[Crabwhale]

My dude, we are not therapists. We are not councillors. We are not family or any sort of close authority figure or loved one. We are randoms online. And we all have our issues to deal with. I'm not saying we should mistreat the individual in question, far from it. But there is a time and a place for speaking on such matters. And this wiki is neither of them. It is not our responsibility, nor should it be expected of us. This is a hobby site for hobbyists, if one is facing problems relating to their mental wellbeing, there are other avenues to pursue.

I don't support infinite pity, but I think it also sets a dangerous precedent if someone's record renders them unable to make even minor mistakes without the assumption that it be for some malicious end.

You mention the word "precedent" in your message, and that word is precisely what I am talking about. Precedent. Continued behavior in the same pattern. I do not wish to condemn others simply for their history. We have given many individuals that have reformed and many others that haven't their due over the years. My issue is with consistency in such behavior.

 

[FinePoint]

My dude, we are not therapists. We are not councillors. We are not family or any sort of close authority figure or loved one. We are randoms online. And we all have our issues to deal with. I'm not saying we should mistreat the individual in question, far from it. But there is a time and a place for speaking on such matters. And this wiki is neither of them. It is not our responsibility, nor should it be expected of us. This is a hobby site for hobbyists, if one is facing problems relating to their mental wellbeing, there are other avenues to pursue.

You mention the word "precedent" in your message, and that word is precisely what I am talking about. Precedent. Continued behavior in the same pattern. I do not wish to condemn others simply for their history. We have given many individuals that have reformed and many others that haven't their due over the years. My issue is with consistency in such behavior.

It's hard for me to argue with such a practical approach. I have wondered a few times if the wiki is even healthy for them in the first place, given its nature.

Very well, you've convinced me.

I still think the severity here doesn't warrant more than a warning, but I'll concede that something harsher doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

 

[Vzearr]

I get that the issue isn’t just this post but the pattern behind it, that's at least what I think you're saying.

For this specific case, I wasn’t trying to misrepresent anything; I just picked scans I thought were directly relevant instead of showing the full sequence. Looking back, I can see how that comes off as misleading when the full context matters. That’s on me. I should’ve just posted the full scene instead of selecting parts of it. Going forward, I’ll make sure to include complete sequences when asked so this doesn’t happen again. However, I think the implication of a harsher punishment for such a case is an overdraw. The issue here comes down to poor presentation, not intent, and treating it as a pattern of misconduct feels disproportionate to what actually occurred in my opinion.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. I also don't think that anything serious seems to have happened here that warrants severely disproportionate retribution.

 

[Antvasima]

For the record, I also still think that we should at least try to show consideration to people who are going through particularly severe personal difficulties, if their transgressions are not of a serious or malicious nature. I don't want this community to be a meanspirited or callous environment to be in.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yes. I also don't think that anything serious seems to have happened here that warrants severely disproportionate retribution.

The way I see it, there are three points worth considering.

Firstly, the accusations of underhandedness. It has been debated to the point that it's unclear whether it must have been intentional on Vzearr's behalf to present information in such a way that was misleading. For this, I would favor just a warning for now.

Secondly, the generally rude behavior. Normally, I would consider this also only deserving of a second, separate warning. However, then there is what Crab is talking about.

The fact is that Vzearr has received many warnings already for this sort of thing. He was also banned and stripped of staff rank for underhanded behavior. The fact is also that Tokyo Revengers was literally just re-introduced. That it is already a problem again is a factor, in my opinion, that adds weight to these rule violations, at least in the sense that I think it should be considered whether it was a good idea to allow it back-- or, at least, if we feel Vzearr should have the ability to interact with the verse. Agnaa mentioned a belief that a topic ban on TR might be in order, and I think it isn't a terrible idea, given how quickly it's gone south. Whether we want to hammer that in completely as permanent or unappealable or not, I think there's something to be said for all this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

For the record, I also still think that we should at least try to show consideration to people who are going through particularly severe personal difficulties, if their transgressions are not of a serious or malicious nature. I don't want this community to be a meanspirited or callous environment to be in.

Vzearr's relevant track record entries are arguably the most serious of any user on the site.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Honestly, I do think Vzearr moved far too quickly with making those threads, and it got heated and didn't cool down.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, Vzearr is in a confused and rather irrational mental state, so I think that it is most likely that he just didn't think things through properly than that he had any deliberate deceitful intentions, but I suppose that a topic ban for him regarding Tokyo Revengers might be acceptable, as long as he is still allowed to help other members assemble evidence for content revisions for the verse in question, and I also yet again ask him to PLEASE make a serious ongoing effort to stop shooting himself in the feet over and over.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I think we are getting significantly off-topic by bringing up Vzearr's hypothetical mental health situation every few messages, and that furthermore, it's really quite inappropriate to markedly speculate on these things in a person's own presence when they themselves have said they don't want to share it here.

We should show Vzearr respect and consideration, because he is a human like the rest of us. And truthfully, I actually think that not everyone has done this, and that furthermore has contributed some part to the issues we've seen. But we do not need to single him out for this. All of our users deserve that, regardless of whether we actually know the details of their circumstances - I think that's rather uncontroversial, and that it's all we need to know right now.

 

[Vzearr]

The way I see it, there are three points worth considering.

Firstly, the accusations of underhandedness. It has been debated to the point that it's unclear whether it must have been intentional on Vzearr's behalf to present information in such a way that was misleading. For this, I would favor just a warning for now.

Secondly, the generally rude behavior. Normally, I would consider this also only deserving of a second, separate warning. However, then there is what Crab is talking about.

The fact is that Vzearr has received many warnings already for this sort of thing. He was also banned and stripped of staff rank for underhanded behavior. The fact is also that Tokyo Revengers was literally just re-introduced. That it is already a problem again is a factor, in my opinion, that adds weight to these rule violations, at least in the sense that I think it should be considered whether it was a good idea to allow it back-- or, at least, if we feel Vzearr should have the ability to interact with the verse. Agnaa mentioned a belief that a topic ban on TR might be in order, and I think it isn't a terrible idea, given how quickly it's gone south. Whether we want to hammer that in completely as permanent or unappealable or not, I think there's something to be said for all this.

I’m gonna be honest here, this doesn’t feel like a situation where a topic ban is worth it for me.

What happened here wasn’t some calculated attempt to mislead people. It was just me picking scans that I thought were directly relevant to the point I was making. I was focused on DI specifically, so I didn’t think the earlier parts mattered as much. And yeah, I should’ve separated 262 better, that's my fault. But that's not me being dishonest.

And more importantly, it’s not something that proves I can’t engage with Tokyo Revengers properly. A topic ban should only happen if someone clearly can’t handle a verse without causing constant issues, and I don’t think that’s what this is, it was an honest mistake.

Also, I care about this verse. Like, a lot. That’s why I’m even putting in the effort to argue it, gather scans, and try to build arguments in the first place. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t be here doing this. I've spent 4 years on this verse, it shows I truly care about it.

At the end of the day, this was just poor presentation. Not intent, not deception. A warning is fair.

I get you say that I'm being rude, but there are constant states where I show myself to be kind, and not derailing. Sometimes I'm a bit off topic but that's common for a heated place of debate.

 

[Antvasima]

I think we are getting significantly off-topic by bringing up Vzearr's hypothetical mental health situation every few messages, and that furthermore, it's really quite inappropriate to markedly speculate on these things in a person's own presence when they themselves have said they don't want to share it here.

We should show Vzearr respect and consideration, because he is a human like the rest of us. And truthfully, I actually think that not everyone has done this, and that furthermore has contributed some part to the issues we've seen. But we do not need to single him out for this. All of our users deserve that, regardless of whether we actually know the details of their circumstances - I think that's rather uncontroversial, and that it's all we need to know right now.

Yes. We should obviously try our best to be considerate to our members in general here.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Well, Vzearr is in a confused and rather irrational mental state, so I think that it is most likely that he just didn't think things through properly than that he had any deliberate deceitful intentions, but I suppose that a topic ban for him regarding Tokyo Revengers might be acceptable, as long as he is still allowed to help other members assemble evidence for content revisions for the verse in question, and I also yet again ask him to PLEASE make a serious ongoing effort to stop shooting himself in the feet over and over.

I think a restriction on number of threads at once might be easier than a topic ban. That latest thread was a real mess though.

 

[Antvasima]

I’m gonna be honest here, this doesn’t feel like a situation where a topic ban is worth it for me.

What happened here wasn’t some calculated attempt to mislead people. It was just me picking scans that I thought were directly relevant to the point I was making. I was focused on DI specifically, so I didn’t think the earlier parts mattered as much. And yeah, I should’ve separated 262 better, that's my fault. But that's not me being dishonest.

And more importantly, it’s not something that proves I can’t engage with Tokyo Revengers properly. A topic ban should only happen if someone clearly can’t handle a verse without causing constant issues, and I don’t think that’s what this is, it was an honest mistake.

Also, I care about this verse. Like, a lot. That’s why I’m even putting in the effort to argue it, gather scans, and try to build arguments in the first place. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t be here doing this. I've spent 4 years on this verse, it shows I truly care about it.

At the end of the day, this was just poor presentation. Not intent, not deception. A warning is fair.

I get you say that I'm being rude, but there are constant states where I show myself to be kind, and not derailing. Sometimes I'm a bit off topic but that's common for a heated place of debate.

I think that this seems reasonable, and that some people seem to be overreacting here, but again, you REALLY need to make a great effort to stop shooting yourself in the feet over and over, as it gets you into lots of trouble.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I’m gonna be honest here, this doesn’t feel like a situation where a topic ban is worth it for me.

What happened here wasn’t some calculated attempt to mislead people. It was just me picking scans that I thought were directly relevant to the point I was making. I was focused on DI specifically, so I didn’t think the earlier parts mattered as much. And yeah, I should’ve separated 262 better, that's my fault. But that's not me being dishonest.

And more importantly, it’s not something that proves I can’t engage with Tokyo Revengers properly. A topic ban should only happen if someone clearly can’t handle a verse without causing constant issues, and I don’t think that’s what this is, it was an honest mistake.

Also, I care about this verse. Like, a lot. That’s why I’m even putting in the effort to argue it, gather scans, and try to build arguments in the first place. If I didn’t care, I wouldn’t be here doing this. I've spent 4 years on this verse, it shows I truly care about it.

At the end of the day, this was just poor presentation. Not intent, not deception. A warning is fair but cmon', a topic ban for a mistake?

I get you say that I'm being rude, but there are constant states where I show myself to be kind, and not derailing. Sometimes I'm a bit off topic but that's common for a heated place of debate.

I find it hard to offer you a debate around your interpretations, of your own actions. You did the deeds.

A topic ban is appropriate in the event that a user is deemed to have some significant malfunction in regards to their activity related to a particular verse. Your relationship with Tokyo Revengers is essentially textbook in that regard. Your activity with TR inevitably leads to conflict, beyond what is to be expected for a site that deals extensively in conflict. It is the very fact that you care so much about the verse, one feels, that causes these issues.

I would feel a topic ban to be appropriate for the verse. I don't mind Ant's suggestion that Vzearr be allowed to work with supporters to gather scans and things.

 

[Vzearr]

I find it hard to offer you a debate around your interpretations, of your own actions. You did the deeds.

A topic ban is appropriate in the event that a user is deemed to have some significant malfunction in regards to their activity related to a particular verse. Your relationship with Tokyo Revengers is essentially textbook in that regard. Your activity with TR inevitably leads to conflict, beyond what is to be expected for a site that deals extensively in conflict. It is the very fact that you care so much about the verse, one feels, that causes these issues.

I would feel a topic ban to be appropriate for the verse. I don't mind Ant's suggestion that Vzearr be allowed to work with supporters to gather scans and things.

Hey Bambu,

I get what you’re saying that my involvement with TR is bad, but it's like the issue is something inherent to me engaging with the verse. But I don’t think that’s actually what’s being shown in discussions involving Tokyo Revengers. What happened in this situation wasn’t me being unable to engage with the verse, it was me presenting scans poorly. That’s a general mistake. It’s not something that proves I can’t handle the topic itself.

Also, the idea that my activity with TR “inevitably leads to conflict” feels really one-sided. This is a debate-heavy site, beef doesn’t come from one person alone. There are multiple people involved in every thread, multiple interps, multiple disagreements. It’s not accurate to isolate me as the sole source of these "beefs". Especially when I believe you can accept that some users definitely start controversy in TR threads. It's not only me.

There are plenty of times where I’m not the one escalating things. So separating me out like I’m uniquely responsible for the existence of conflict in TR threads just isn’t fair in my opinion.

You're a staff member, and I disagree with you here, but I must leave this up to staff as I do not have a place to keep debating.

Also, I won’t lie, yeah I care a lot about this verse. But I don’t think that should be treated as the root of the problem. If anything, that’s why I’m even trying to argue it properly in the first place. The people who care are the ones who actually put in the effort.

 

[Antvasima]

Would a topic ban only for versus threads concerning Tokyo Revengers be a reasonable compromise solution?