• 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 Violations Reports - 63

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that it's dishonest and in bad faith.

His main account should receive an extended ban, at the very least, and his sockpuppet should be perma-banned.
 
This is... frustratingly disappointing, especially from someone who should certainly know better.

I will say he does know he did wrong, and me and the other people in that server did grill him about it pretty badly. That being said, he doesn't deserve to get off scot free, especially for something so blatantly against the rules.

A month long ban, possibly longer, and perma-ban the socks. That's my opinion. I know him and consider him a friend on the site, but I can't in good faith suggest he be let off the hook.
 
I think that KnightOfSunlight makes sense, given that these were extremely rare offenses that did not cause any actual harm.
 
Well, I suppose he should at least get a long ban of at least 1 year and be forbidden when he comes back from being able to give an opinion on SS threads, as has happened before with a certain user, who was banned for talking too much or wanking about Medaka Box.

And as it is known, he pointed out so much dishonesty, that he was the real dishonest one, his arguments are nothing more than wanker, and I strongly recommend that to avoid a repeat, as a punishment, that he can no longer oppose until a long time.
 
1 year seems very excessive for this level of offense.
 
It was agreed anything less than a months is far too generous, but some argue that a year seems too harsh for someone even with socks was still very well behaved and constructive. However, it's still a serious offence to make socks. Though I wouldn't call creating socks/alts "The absolute worst offence;" that title goes to something like encouraging people to commit you know what.

I'd say 3 to 6 months seems more reasonable for his main Upgrade account, his socks should be banned indefinitely for sure.
 
How about 1-2 months, and not allowing him to participate in certain threads afterwards?
 
Anywhere between 6 months and a year is fine with me, no matter if he's well behaved we'd be setting a bad precedent if we gave him a lenient punishment simply based on his otherwise good behaviour.
 
GyroNutz said:
Anywhere between 6 months and a year is fine with me, no matter if he's well behaved we'd be setting a bad precedent if we gave him a lenient punishment simply based on his otherwise good behaviour.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with you, 9 months seems good to me, what do you think?

Of course, we still have to apply that he should be banned from being present in SS threads.
 
I lean towards the Mid End, besides that he should be forbidden from commenting on Saint Seiya, since @Agnaa saw that he leans on to have his threads accepted within the work since mid-2018.

Moreover @Medeus makes sense, however as @GyroNutz said, we should not apply a lenient punishment based on his good behavior, if we do not, we will just setting a bad precedent for other cases.
 
I can't agree with that. Banning someone from the verses they care about will only make them leave the wiki entirely, and given that the current consensus is leaning on half or more of a year, I'd say he has plenty of time to learn his lesson without us doing that.

This is his first offense, and while a serious one, is not a reason for him to be forcibly exiled from every verse he cares for.
 
@Knight That really isn't our problem, this kind of thing is usually an infinite ban and we're being lenient as is but not doing so.

Besides, one man can't only love a single verse, example, Fire Phoenix has verses he still enjoys and revised despite not being on MB threads
 
I also disagree with completely banning him from Saint Seiya threads as he's been one of the most constructive users debating them. It's not like for verses far more controversial, we ban a whole bunch of fanbases even if they've had a history of systemically harassing the wiki from ever commenting on those threads. We ban people for legitimately breaking rules among other things, but we don't just ban some rather well behaved members who've occasionally been problematic from their favorite verses. Nor should we just ban entire fanbases in general.

And it seems Knight agrees with 3 months seems like plenty of time to reflect on his actions.
 
I would like to add that this seems massively out of character for him, which makes me think that there may be something we don't know, such as life issues or otherwise.

Certainly wouldn't change the severity of his offense but it does provide a reason.
 
Hold on,

I think we're all focusing too much on the sockpuppets and ignoring the part where he tried to make up a conspiracy to ban Alonik. Go to Alonik's original post for more context, but this 'good' behavior is quite frankly, bs. If he was willing to do such a thing to another member, and actively erase evidence, why on Earth would we allow him to come back to the wiki.
 
I can tell you right now that how a person acts on a wiki paints the faintest of a portrait of who they are in real life.

I'm not saying he's a bad guy, but you know very little about a person's character by how they act.
 
SomebodyData said:
Hold on,
I think we're all focusing too much on the sockpuppets and ignoring the part where he tried to make up a conspiracy to ban Alonik. Go to Alonik's original post for more context, but this 'good' behavior is quite frankly, bs. If he was willing to do such a thing to another member, and actively erase evidence, why on Earth would we allow him to come back to the wiki.
Click to expand...
Quoting this so it isn't ignored, please read Alonik's original comment first.
 
SomebodyData said:
Hold on,

I think we're all focusing too much on the sockpuppets and ignoring the part where he tried to make up a conspiracy to ban Alonik. Go to Alonik's original post for more context, but this 'good' behavior is quite frankly, bs. If he was willing to do such a thing to another member, and actively erase evidence, why on Earth would we allow him to come back to the wiki.
Click to expand...
He didn't try it just with alonik, kek. But you are right, he accuses dishonesty and is conspiring against the opponent, if he cannot be banned, then he should be prohibited from commenting on any SS thread, besides that his actions have to be closely watched, since he proved to be unreliable and conspirator.
 
He did not say anything about getting Alonik banned. He likely just genuinely believed that Alonik was trying to downplay a franchise that he cares about, and wanted to inform a staff member about it. That sort of thing is fairly commonplace here.

Again, he has been a very well-behaved and constructive member in general. Anything more than 3 months is very excessive. Also, I agree with Medeus that he shouldn't be forbidden from taking part in threads afterwards, as he has generally been helpful and constructive.
 
Again, he didn't try to get Alonik banned. He was just suspicious about something and wanted to inform a staff member about it. Alonik is trying to get him banned though.

A permanent ban for a very well-behaved and constructive member who has twice used a sockpuppet to agree with himself seems ridiculously excessive.
 
<Very Well Behaved and constructive

This means nothing Ant. Being polite but hiding that you commit a crime does not excuse you of it and we are being too lenient as is.
 
@Antvasima

Alonik is now trying to get him banned for his sockpuppet and his attempt at banning Alonik.

What do you think was the end goal of calling Alonik's activity part of a conspiracy? He clearly wanted him banned, heck why would he delete the message if the intention was pure? There is a difference between downplay and conspiracy.
 
@Madotsuki, because being polite while trying to frame a user for a conspiracy and using sockpuppets is any less permabannable?
 
@Ant

Apparently you are closing your eyes to his actions, it is not just the case that he used another account to support himself, but that he accuses dishonesty when anyone supports a view contrary to yours, that he tried conspire against me and alonik on the SS thread (which is funny since in his fake, he gives me points for some things), since you say he is a good samaritan, but a good samaritan don't conspire against his opponent accusing he of dishonesty, when he plotted against us, and the evidence is present on the table, and yet, having this kind of attitude for 2 years, you are still closing your eyes.

And by passively taking this attitude, you encourage others to do the same, as long as they are active in wiki, this is the same as closing your eyes and throwing everything away.
 
Also Schnee, if you were go to jail or prison for a crime and you have had very good behaviour, you can actually get time taken off your sentence or even get released before your time is up, which I would say can be just like the case here. We should reward good behaviour, not dismiss it. It's not all black and white, it isn't just being either a good person or a bad person, there can be an in-between like a person who does bad things AND good things, which doesn't push them to just one side of the story. Please acknowledge that there are two sides of the story here and do not just focus on the bad things that he has done.
 
@Schnee

Context matters. We cannot go around and give people who almost always behave very well, and have done 2 minor bad things, draconian punishments comparable to the trolls that have spammed me and others with ****, gore, and death threats, without giving them any chance whatsoever.

@SD

Again, he didn't say anything about banning Alonik, just that he was suspicious about something, which he likely was, and Matthew cannot even ban anybody anyway. Let's not make excessive assumptions please. I do not have a bad impression of him at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Homie890
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
779
Deleted member 40688
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top