- 24,349
- 37,823
Sorry for being late*
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That makes more sense. No problem.Sorry for being late*
I'm sorry. Please do not ban him for more than a month.
I just reread everything. He didn't even do anything ban worthy. Is that seriously what we consider ban worthy???
That makes more sense. No problem.
Anyway, I don't think a decision to ban was actually reached per-se, they self-requested a permaban while it was still in discussion.
I did suggest an actual, outright ban. I don't think it is the topic that is the problem. I think GodlyCharmander has not really taken any warnings to heart, and in his case, where he was allowed back under such stringent conditions, I fail to see a way to get it through to him than actual repercussions. Even if every offense tends to be a petty insult-slinging fest, he needs to avoid these.Yeah, at most a topic-ban was on the table and even that was just a suggestion.
But he wanted a perma-ban and it was their own decision. After that began discussion of a ban. If he changes his mind he can reach out to any staff.
I would also prefer if we unban him. This does not sit right with me.I'm sorry. Please do not ban him for more than a month.
I just reread everything. He didn't even do anything ban worthy. Is that seriously what we consider ban worthy???
He requested it when he threw a fit for being considered for any punishment at all. If you'd like to contact him and see if he feels differently now that he's maybe calmed down, we can do that, though I still feel at least a one month ban for the sheer number of incidents stacking up is more than justified, given his circumstances.I would also prefer if we unban him. This does not sit right with me.![]()
@KingTempestOkay. Is somebody who knows Charmander willing to talk with him please?![]()
I reached out to them through that latest thread, told them it should be temporarily closed.@Shattas has 5 active CRTS with 3 of them being in the same verse
The max is active CRTs is 4 with only 2 being allowed of being from the same verse
- https://vsbattles.com/threads/little-thorn-michael-myers-update.192724/
- https://vsbattles.com/threads/thorn-michael-myerss-subsonic-speed-is-being-removed.192671/
- https://vsbattles.com/threads/michael-myers-thorn-timeline-upgrades.187543/
- https://vsbattles.com/threads/freddy-krueger-dw-lifting-strength-upgrade.189888/
- https://vsbattles.com/threads/remove-maniac-cop-3-explosion-from-durability.187170/
I would largely agree, but his reaction here on the RVRT was beyond childish. Crab described him as holding our rules in contempt and I think that's a fair way of putting it. Any consideration of action resulted in his throwing a tantrum.His behaviour has improved as far as I am aware. His offenses seem to have been very minor.![]()
From my perspective, we allowed him to return to the community under the condition that he would behave maturely. He then happily was rude to everyone and crashed out the second anything more than a warning was even considered. He broke the contract. I have made a considerable effort to see that this was not a case of "walking on eggshells". I have extended the benefit of the doubt and I have aimed to be fair. He was being an ass.Well, from his perspective he feels unfairly targeted by other members in order to shut up his objections to their preferred statistics, which results in him subjectively walking on eggshells.![]()
I am in agreement with this sentiment. We have a major problem with being too lenient on repeat rule-breakers who mock and insult us at every whim. This has to stop.-snip-
The problem is that he was on the promise that he'd behave well, especially when some staff during his last re-appeal did say that the next ban should be permanent no matter what:Again, his offences have been minor as far as I am aware.![]()
That being said, the main compromise was if it's been over a year since their last sock was created, exposed, and banned, then a final chance trial could be considered. I obviously do not want to repeat the same mistakes we did with Twisted Little Raven or Sean Pazdera, but we could still give GodlyCharmander a chance. But let this be very stern, we need to make the final chance One final chance. If they get banned again, that one and final ban must remain permanent with no chance to appeal. That is the most reasonable compromise I can guarantee.
As i have said in this post, if he come back, i recommend to put him under strict observation, if he actually improving, we can loosen our restrains over him over time, but if he do not change and one rule violation, i propose instant ban
Just to clarify my stance in this Charmander case, i'm neutral. If his ban is kept, so be it; if his ban is going to be lifted, then keep him under watch and punish him harsher in case he wrecking thing up. Though I also hope that in case he returns, people don't ragebait him as well
This is one is also just an exaggerated viewpoint. There are multiple people who are very openly against our current Undertale/Deltarune statistics, who also happened to make multiple CRTs on the matter, with some even passing, but none of them behave as Charmander does towards the supporters, nor act with this kind of attrition towards them when expressing disagreements. It's only Charmander the one who makes discussions hard to continue literally every time there is a disagreement with someone else by how obnoxious he is towards people commiting the crime of not sharing his viewpoint.Well, from his perspective he feels unfairly targeted by other members in order to shut up his objections to their preferred statistics
I completely agree with this, Charmander is quite literally the third user in this year alone that gets back with an apology from a permanent ban that had as one of the reasons behind it the abuse of sockpuppets (the other two being Super Ascended Sean Pazdera and Vapourrrrr) that gets banned once again for falling in exactly the same behavior that caused their first perma ban in the first place.I am in agreement with this sentiment. We have a major problem with being too lenient on repeat rule-breakers who mock and insult us at every whim. This has to stop.
Charmander should not be allowed back in nor should he be allowed to reduce his ban period whenever he likes. Actions have consequences, and he needs to learn the meaning of that for once.
Try to refrain from commenting in the RVR thread, okay?I completely agree with this, Charmander is quite literally the third user in this year alone that gets back with an apology from a permanent ban that had as one of the reasons behind it the abuse of sockpuppets (the other two being Super Ascended Sean Pazdera and Vapourrrrr) that gets banned once again for falling in exactly the same behavior that caused their first perma ban in the first place.
This is clearly a pattern that has to be stopped, as we cannot go on in giving this much leniency and faith to clear troublemakers who only feel bad for themselves and not what they did, by basing on just their words and nothing else.
For the record, I think the idea itself that any ban be truly 'permanent' is irrational to begin with.Permanent bans only work as a deterrent if “permanent” actually means permanent. The moment it becomes routine to appeal and get reinstated after some cooldown period, everyone learns the real rule is “wait it out and write a good apology,” and the punishment stops doing its job for the cases it’s supposed to be reserved for, the genuinely severe ones.
If you find their repeat behavior reason to immediately deny their appeal, I'd find that perfectly logical.If said appeal happens several times by now and they've been doing the exact same thing that causes them to be banned in the first place, they don't deserve anymore chances. They themselves need to prove that they've gotten better and will shape up, and if they don't they've essentially betrayed the trust of other staff members who had to deal with their behavior and resort to banning them in the first place. There's giving second chances, and there's just being completely ignorant to the issue at hand.
Read through it. Soulking instigated and behaved the worst of them, but once Foriaa became aware that he was dissing as a Bleach supporter, both were playing the back-and-forth. I'm acknowledging this as a mitigating factor, I don't think Foriaa's actions were even bad enough to warrant a formal rebuke, just a "please don't bother doing that in the future".It seems like @Soulking22334 is being very rude and condescending within the following thread. A warning is probably in order.
![]()
Minor Naruto Revisions | Part 1
Susanoo was melting from Mei's ability, which btw, doesn't have any stated heat output There's no mention in the story of the lava's temperature, so I'll assume it's much higher than normal. That's your logic. but Principle of Minimal Departure exist here. Unless something is stated, shown, or...vsbattles.com
It seems like @Soulking22334 is being very rude and condescending within the following thread. A warning is probably in order.
![]()
Minor Naruto Revisions | Part 1
Susanoo was melting from Mei's ability, which btw, doesn't have any stated heat output There's no mention in the story of the lava's temperature, so I'll assume it's much higher than normal. That's your logic. but Principle of Minimal Departure exist here. Unless something is stated, shown, or...vsbattles.com
read my replys before post 52 i was respectfulI would agree with a formal warning to Soulking. Going to a CRT for a verse you very obviously oppose and consider yourself a rival of can be done, but rules and basic respect still must be witnessed and adhered to. This was just picking a fight.
Yeah, but the rest of the conversation was also basically respectful. You went off track when you started being condescending towards Foriaa's logic, and it devolved from there. I read the thread already.read my replys before post 52 i was respectful
Yes, I know I lost my temper and did what I did ,I’m not denying it. What I’m saying is that condemning me and blaming me doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t make sense for him to be advised to avoid the issue from now on. either we both get punished, or neither of us does.Yeah, but the rest of the conversation was also basically respectful. You went off track when you started being condescending towards Foriaa's logic, and it devolved from there. I read the thread already.