Rule Violations Reports - 58

[Antvasima]

That may very well be, but this isn't just about knowledge regarding the source material. It is about trying to maintain some measure of critical standards.

 

[The_Impress]

It isn't about knowledge, it is about reliability and trust that are in question here, and you can see that one may trust those who have extensively worked for the wiki over, let's say, a new account.

No one ever had a problem over you not being "smart" or "important" enough. It's like, getting a second opinion

 

[JJSliderman]

The problem I have is the standards seem very random.

Mewtwo gets upgraded to 4-A based on one feat, and yet Kung Fu Panda characters with 5 Tier 4 and above feats don't?

I don't get that.

 

[The_Impress]

Well, if there were to be a proper discussion about the statistics amongst those knowledgeable on the matter that wouldn't be derailed by any sort of aggression, then maybe we can come to a mutual level of understanding regarding the changes you've proposed. That was what was being proposed there.

Anyhow if you want to discuss this further, move it to my message wall I suppose

 

[Agnaa]

If Mewtwo has one 4-A feat and only ever struggles against other god-tiers of the verse, while Kung Fu Pands has 5 tier 4 and above feats, with one High 3-A feat, yet they face dozens of tier 8 threats that they can't overcome through sheer strength, the former does seem more reliable than the latter.

Granted, this may not exactly represent the situation since I don't quite know either verse. But simply "One 4-A feat, five tier 4 and above feats" isn't enough to say which of those is more consistent.

 

[JJSliderman]

Alright, sorry for clogging this thread.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

The problem I have is the standards seem very random.

Mewtwo gets upgraded to 4-A based on one feat, and yet Kung Fu Panda characters with 5 Tier 4 and above feats don't?

I don't get that.

Mewtwo also has an entirely different form that only appears once that got him to 4-A. Don't false-equivalency.

 

[The_Impress]

Is there a staff warning needed for this matter, for record-keeping sake, or is it fine as it is?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this seems fine as it is.

 

[Agnaa]

Seems resolved to me tbh.

 

[The_Impress]

Celestial Judge is harbouring this weird anti-staff mentality where he pointlessly accuses staff for being biased, alongside being rude himself. Another example here (Another thing to note, I legit just dropped by the thread with little to no context of what was going on, only to receive this.) Upon general remarks on his behaviour as well, He shows this bizarre confidence and makes these pointless challenges for other staff to report him.

I legitimately could care less, but given he was literally warned less than a week ago, and now thinks he's immune or whatever, I think some action is to be in place.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. A strict warning seems in place then.

 

[The_Impress]

I mean, this'll be his third warning, and in the previous official warning I gave him, I made it a point for it to be the final warning of sorts.

I don't think another warning will suffice...

 

[fandom_101dividedbyzero]

im not a staff...but maybe a 3 day-week block might do?

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Nah a month might suffice here.

 

[Dienomite22]

I only made a slight glance into the threads but I don't see anything ban or block worthy though his attitude is uncalled for and could lead to something reportable. I don't think he should get banned or blocked just yet but he will likely do something to grant him a ban or block in the future if this keeps up. I would ignore him for now but he is on thin ice.

 

[The_Impress]

He was already on thin ice, and I don't think calling why a certain person was eligible to be staff for no reason, and openly challenging others to block him, literally less than a week before he was warned about these offenses, doesn't deserve a ban.

But oh well, if there is to be given a warning, I'm afraid I can't do it in an unbiased or fair way, so I'd prefer if someone else were to do so

 

[Dienomite22]

It just seems like he has a severe case of a crappy attitude in my eyes but if I ran things (god forbid), someone asking for a block or ban would get exactly that. I would just keep watch on him for now.

 

[fandom_101dividedbyzero]

well...i dont have the patience to read all of the wiki rules pages, however, most wikis do have rules against insulting staff...so, use that if you have it

 

[Dienomite22]

I would agree with a ban or block if he straight up insulted staff (as in calling them swear words or harsh name calling) but if it's minor accusations like thinking staff is biased for or against something then I don't believe that is ban or block worthy since everyone including staff does that.

 

[The_Impress]

You were literally cherry picking in your revision I can't believe they made you a staff member.

It's okay ill just keep calling you out, im pretty sure you have sockpuppets somewhere to. I don't have proof I just know. A lot of your actions are very spiteful. I bet you are in a small group with some of the people here on the wiki and talk about downgrading verses. I bet you guys have sockpuppets on stand by as well. No I don't have proof and of course you will deny it, but just know, I know.

I'm well aware I could be I could care less, like I said above I can see right through him, Also how did you even find this? Were you just bored and looked at my recent activity? Or did you and Damage talk in a discord about me. Regardless, again I don't care.

Sockpuppets, staff conspiracy, pointless spite and stalking. Again, I don't think these are minor accusations in the slightest...

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

 

[Dienomite22]

@Zark2099

Those are pretty minor and common accusations on this wiki except for the "stalking" one since he probably just think everybody watches him because he was reported before rather than people are actually stalking him. I have seen similiar accusations done staff side towards regular users but it is treated as minor because it was understood that it's just petty banter. I'm not trying to call out staff or anything like that, I'm trying to highlight how minor these accusations are.

 

[fandom_101dividedbyzero]

insulting staff, thats actually against the rules on a lot of wikis

 

[The_Impress]

I think a slight bit more input from other members may be helpful, to avoid accusations of power misuse to fly around

Harassing staff, General Discourtesy seems like an appropriate reason

 

[The_Calaca]

Zark's suggestion seems good enough to me. Celestial is clearly not interested in being respectful towards other people, especially staff members.

 

[The_Impress]

Textwall

I swear, I have yet to see a single such accusation fly where literally everyone was cool with it, even in staff discussions, where in this thread itself, DDM was chastized for doing such.

Also, just because petty banter is petty banter, doesn't mean it isn't rude and disruptive.

 

[Udlmaster]

It's okay ill just keep calling you out, im pretty sure you have sockpuppets somewhere to. I don't have proof I just know. No I don't have proof and of course you will deny it, but just know, I know.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

^

 

[The_Impress]

I think a slight bit more input from other members may be helpful, to avoid accusations of power misuse to fly around. Personally I agree with a month long ban

Harassing staff, General Discourtesy seems like an appropriate reason

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Sorry about being a bit strayminded.

 

[Dienomite22]

@Zark2099

I could provide example of these accusations flying but I don't want to start unnessary drama, for the sake of peace all I have is my word on this.

I don't think much of petty banter becuase I've seen so much of it on verses boards and sites but I guess that doesn't mean others doesn't think of it the same way also so it could just be me. I just don't want this to lead to people getting banned for having a snarky attitude or making slightly rude comments. I've seen Celestial's past reported comments and find those block or banned worthy but not this.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that is a valid point.

 

[Udlmaster]

Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

^

I mean, he just flat out just accused someone of breaking TOS and then immediately said he had no evidence and he just knew.

It seems he needs a bit of time get out of that mind set of just flagrantly accusing people of stuff like that.

So 2 weeks to a Month might be best.

 

[The_Impress]

Textwall

Snarky comments don't include going on a tangent in a general discussion and accusing the other person of breaking rules, calling them a hypocrite, and using ad hominem constantly to counter legit CRT discussions.

Also, a factor that literally 5 DAYS ago he was given a warning to stop this behaviour, and he didn't heed to it, speaks for itself.

 

[fandom_101dividedbyzero]

Okay, so is a 1 month ban appropriate, and if so, what should the banning reason say?

^

I mean, he just flat out just accused someone of breaking TOS and then immediately said he had no evidence and he just knew.
It seems he needs a bit of time get out of that mind set of just flagrantly accusing people of stuff like that.

So 2 weeks to a Month might be best.

^

 

[Wokistan]

I think it's less the comments themselves and more that he's already been warned several times and is clearly not improving. I can slap on 3 weeks if we want to hit the median.

 

[The_Impress]

I can agree to Wok's suggestion

 

[Dienomite22]

snip

I honestly see nothing report worthy besides derailing from the sound of it. He's just being an a hole. I don't mind him getting ban or blocked for a couple of weeks to a month for derailing and his attitude though.

 

[The_Calaca]

Agreed.