Rule Violations Reports - 58

[Yobo_Blue]

While that's true, it is a bit of a argument cause when it's explicitly argued and the person in question refuses to drop certain things. Though I suppose there is a level of subjectivity in each offense.

 

[Agnaa]

There's no issue with continuing to argue when something hasn't been resolved. Multiple members leaned to agreeing with Earl, with two members providing strong opposition. There is no issue with Earl continuing to argue in a situation like that.

However, if there was unanimous disagreement and the thread had been closed, yet he continued, that's when it starts becoming a reportable offense.

 

[Gewsbumpz_dude]

Ok (kind of a late response but whatever) Ant. The thread wasn't unrelated because it heavily involved a Goosebumps character and was literally in the tags, and nearly every single thread I advertised on there WAS ALSO involved in Goosebumps (if you can't tell, they are connected to the same thing) unlike what Stalker Maggot advertised. For the thread you say (the large size one, which is also the one with the Goosebumps character), I don't understand why its unrelated outside of the minor fact that it involved large size. I don't want to come off as aggressive or anything, but it comes off as illogical.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

There's no issue with continuing to argue when something hasn't been resolved. Multiple members leaned to agreeing with Earl, with two members providing strong opposition. There is no issue with Earl continuing to argue in a situation like that.

However, if there was unanimous disagreement and the thread had been closed, yet he continued, that's when it starts becoming a reportable offense.

I'll have to take your word for it I think we need to make some of these standards more clear.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Hmm.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Ok (kind of a late response but whatever) Ant. The thread wasn't unrelated because it heavily involved a Goosebumps character and was literally in the tags, and nearly every single thread I advertised on there WAS ALSO involved in Goosebumps (if you can't tell, they are connected to the same thing) unlike what Stalker Maggot advertised. For the thread you say (the large size one, which is also the one with the Goosebumps character), I don't understand why its unrelated outside of the minor fact that it involved large size. I don't want to come off as aggressive or anything, but it comes off as illogical.

It wasnt unrelated but it was still derailing

Though, its a minor issue and not really ban worthy

 

[Gewsbumpz_dude]

Well Ant probably should have worded his little message better, I just felt like I had to clarify it all

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

While I've had a lot of issues in my discussions with Earl, overall I'm relatively neutral. But I don't think there was much of an issue with this thread. Katanagatari's abilities were played up a fair bit, and eventually the thread agreed to his downgrades (and more).
ALSO, I never saw him say he "would not drop the argument unless what they wanted to change was changed", and I don't quite know if something like that is report-worthy? I've had a similar attitude against things that Earl has argued before (like Low 2-C Medaka Box).

Slightly unrelated, but was Earl behind the Monogatari profils as well? (Katanagatari and it are by the same author). As a fan of the series I noticed some minor exaggerated things about Shinobu's page.

 

[Agnaa]

Slightly unrelated, but was Earl behind the Monogatari profils as well? (Katanagatari and it are by the same author). As a fan of the series I noticed some minor exaggerated things about Shinobu's page.

No. BLANK originally created the pages for Koyomi and Shinobu, and I've updated them (and created the rest of the profiles) since. Please direct concerns about it to my message wall/discord.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Ok, thank you. Reached you out there.

 

[Antvasima]

I personallly haven't noticed any bad behaviour from Earl recently, and think that he seems mostly harmless, but then again, I do not monitor the versus thread discussions.

I do not think that he has any ill intent though. At worst he can be forbidden from participating in certain types of versus discussion threads.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Earl shouldn't be banned. I say this acknowledging that he, like others, is on the list of users we could be overly lenient towards. I say this acknowledging that Earl still takes part in some pretty big wanking issues with verses he is involved with.

With those two acknowledgements aside, the guy is generally productive and hasn't had any truly major issue since the last time he was on the slate for banning. His behavior hasn't improved much, but it clearly has improved enough that someone like Ant, who watches the wiki like a hawk, hasn't noticed any major controversy that would display ill intent. Even taking into account versus threads, which are known to have these issues with practically anyone, Earl isn't doing anything notably wrong. Stacking up small issues to equal a death sentence seems a bit odd.

Generally Earl just wants his characters to be seen as strong, it's something many users on this wiki are guilty of. He's more brazen about it, but imo he's fine to keep for now. Same as before, any major slip up and he should be banned- but major slip ups haven't happened, just annoyances. If we banned people for being annoying we'd have an empty wiki.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Mr. Bambu. Still, it might be good if you or some other staff member investigates the linked versus threads a bit. They might warrant an instruction/light warning to Earl, so he tries to avoid being a problem in the future.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

I match Ant's thoughts on the issue.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Should I notify Earl or has someone else already done so?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

While I do agree with what Bambu said, I never specified banning him kek. I'd just like it if some punishment was looked at or at least discussed. It doesn't have to be a ban.

 

[Sadistic_Sleuth]

Suspecting this is a Creeplord/Cryptlord sock

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Yeah I felt that way too but I didn't wanna accuse someone without evidence.

 

[Antvasima]

@Yobo

Well, first somebody in the staff needs to investigate a bit, and then determine whether or not an instruction/warning is necessary.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

"Remember to inform members via their message walls if that you have reported them here, in case they have performed severe enough rule-violations to risk being blocked. However, this should only be used in uncertain cases, not if they have done something instantly ban worthy, or if their offenses are minor." I am referring to the, which says it should be done in uncertain cases.

Personally on the issue I support Earl receiving another versus thread ban.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Kind of wish someone would have at least informed me on this but eh. Anyway on to the points:

1. "Doctored scans". That was just people assuming i did that.

Well it's still possible that he simply took an edited scan and took it as real instead of actively trying to lie. Not likely, but possible.

This is what saikou said in my defense (which is the truth btw, back then i had used a scan from a previous giorno CRT), but the answer to that wasn't even a fact:

Knowing Fire I doubt that.

So basically it was just assumed i edited that myself via majority vote. Not only was this before my first match ban but it's also still accusing me on what people think is the truth.

2. About GetBackers, no one said that. It was just Matthew and a couple of other people that assumed that the profiles were likely very wanked cus i was the creator, and the only "problems" that were found were very VERY minor stuff (like forming knives from your blood not being body control). Up to this day nothing has been really debunked about the series there have been questions about the "high end 2-B or baseline 2-A" tier, which wasn't even in the original profiles to begin with. Also i wasn't even the main man behind the hax on their profile, i need to remind people everytime that i wasn't alone creating these profiles.

3. You're taking the match out of context. The difference in potency literally does not apply there was never an argument of Limbo bypassing Reinhard's 1-A stuff.

4. Operator couldn't be reached because Yhwach would lack knowledge. And the warframes "wouldn't be broken by anything in cano". Again idk if you have first hand experience in these fights or if you're just giving it a quick skim, but you're forgetting very important context. As you're making my arguments sound NLF with the little bits you're posting.

5. That thread, oof. First of all that isn't even a versus thread, it's a fun and games board. And second of all being a fun and games board, i don't have to stick to what's on the profiles, im not arguing fights here, just told another member that "yes there are higher D stuff in Rakudai" and even gave the description of the ability. I don't see why you're using this considering to my knowledge you haven't read the untranslated novels of rakudai where this comes up, so ugh...idk.

6. You're bringing up a thread where i was actually right and using it as an argument that im bad? Several people actually agreed with the OP (me) in that thread and the changes were applied. So....(?)

And those last threads just feel like you take every debated thread and put it there. That's like banning all the people who used to argue for Reinhard vs GEoM back in the days.

 

[Antvasima]

It doesn't sound like Earl has done anything particularly bad then.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I didn't take every debated thread I saw with you for the record. I just took those that had some questionable rudeness, like insulting the OP. It wouldn't be a issue if the comments weren't particularly pointed, but I suppose that's for the staff to decide, even if people agreed with you, it doesn't make your actual conduct instantly okay either.

I'm not going to respond to your points since the staff tend to take issue with that, unless they ok a discussion, but I hope they'll be able to look at it and evaluate it objectively.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Insulting the OP? Can you quote cases?

And "questionable rudeness" everyone has "questionable rudeness" doesn't mean it's "actual rudeness".

I mean in one of the threads you linked earlier, you literally have this for a comment:

I've had to debate this salty ************ who literally admitted that he won't change his mind for nearly a full day.

Yet you completely overlook that. Which is what i meant by "not have first hand experience and just see the thread as a whole lacking tons of context".

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Insulting the OP? Can you quote cases?

And "questionable rudeness" everyone has "questionable rudeness" doesn't mean it's "actual rudeness".

I mean in one of the threads you linked earlier, you literally have this for a comment:

I've had to debate this salty ************ who literally admitted that he won't change his mind for nearly a full day.

Yet you completely overlook that. Which is what i meant by "not have first hand experience and just see the thread as a whole lacking tons of context".

Yes, in Stella vs Lux for example, where you stated

">op

>Doesn't know which form is in play

You're not a good OP are you?"

Besides, this isn't a report on Hl3 (who already received a warning anyway). Other people being rude doesn't make your conduct okay fire.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Wait, don't tell me you're counting this comment as an insult:

Firephoenixearl

>op

>Doesn't know which form is in play

You're not a good OP are you?

First of all, me an Ion are rather friendly, second of all how is that even an insult? I believe you need to differentiate between a joke and an insult, not to mention even if it were with ill intent that's not even an insult that's worthy of anything like warnings or punshiments.

About the other people being rude, i never said it makes what i do ok or anything like that. It was more to say that even cases of extreme rude behaviour/insults like that at the end of that thread just capped at "It would do you well to stop being so hostile". So even an extreme case didn't really resort to punshiments, let alone things like "you're not a good OP" jokes to friends.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

(Just as a fair warning Earl, it's technically against the rules to argue on the RVT, so this will be the last time I respond to you before staff evaluate, and I suggest we both do that)

We've established before even being friends doesn't always make that okay, so it's still something that would need to be looked at.

That did end up giving the person in question a warning though, and they had significantly less of a history, so a warning at least is justified based on our standards,

 

[Firephoenixearl]

It's against the rules to argue on RVT? That i didn't know. Well that seems a bit weird, shouldn't we allow a person to argue for the stuff he's done?

 

[Yobo_Blue]

It's against the rules to argue on RVT? That i didn't know. Well that seems a bit weird to say the least, shouldn't we allow a person to argue for the stuff he's done?

Yes but those are the rules for reasons neither me, you, or anyone else can understand. I don't agree with it, but what can you do?

 

[Moritzva]

If you don't agree with it, why the hell are we standing around here and simply accepting it? We're human, not robots. "Not being able to argue" on this thread actively stifles any chance at discussion. Rules or not, everyone is entitled to speak on their behalf when accused.

So, no, Earl should be able to continue in his defense.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I mean me disagreeing with rules is usually frowned upon (from experience) so eh.

I'll at least wait until Ant is online

 

[Andytrenom]

You can defend yourself when necessary, the verdict is just typically left to the staff instead of being argued together with regular members

 

[Yobo_Blue]

If you don't agree with it, why the hell are we standing around here and simply accepting it? We're human, not robots. "Not being able to argue" on this thread actively stifles any chance at discussion. Rules or not, everyone is entitled to speak on their behalf when accused.

So, no, Earl should be able to continue in his defense.

Fair I guess. I've personally tried to argue it and create compromises but they tend to be rejected

 

[Firephoenixearl]

We've established before even being friends doesn't always make that okay, so it's still something that would need to be looked at.

Yes doesn't make it ok when it's a full on insult or heavy swearing.

"Not a good OP" jokes on friends don't fall under that category, otherwise we would have banned 90% of the site.

 

[Antvasima]

@Staff members

So what do you think that we should do here?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't think Earl did anything particularly bad. Then again, I don't partake in too many of the same threads as him, but during the times I do see him. He's generally well behaved and not particularly malicious. I can understand why some people might consider him annoying, but he's by no means a harmful person. And as he said in his defense, he's not using excessive profanity or frequently accusing people of "Pulling headcanons out of their ass" just for saying something they disagree with. Also, he was only blocked once, and it was for a week. "Wanking or downplaying verses" isn't really ban worthy, unless they're super aggressive about it.

And with all that said, I too agree that arguing back and forth on this thread is ill advised.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should we dismiss this complaint against him then?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

And with all that said, I too agree that arguing back and forth on this thread is ill advised.

I kind of felt like i had to argue in this one as there was significant context missing, but ok will keep that in mind.

 

[First_Witch]

I'm am no staff anymore but i agree with Bambu on the topic Earl.

Yes, Earl can be obnoxious sometimes when it comes to debating and yes he kinda comes of as being full of himself sometimes, but he's harmless and a swell guy otherwise. Some people dislike his way and mindset but chucker, humans are sometimes like this.

Let's not try to punish someone just because he thinks differently or is disliked by more people than others on this website.

 

[The_Impress]

I don't see any legitimate rudeness and if wanking and downplaying verses was a thing to get banned for, literally everyone is guilty of it, whether they were aware of it or not. It's poor judgement, which would make you unreliable if anything, not banned or chastised via forum bans.

I personally don't see anything a normal user wouldn't do, so I'm for not taking action and dismissing the complaint