• 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.
There was no one, at all

Funny thing is he contacts staff for the first thread but correct me if I'm wrong, he did not contact them for this second thread.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I just want us to make certain that there really was no staff members that accepted his changes.
Click to expand...
I think Bob may have misunderstood? Sera agreed to certain facts, but disagreed with the majority of changes, yet Bob seemed to think that Sera agreed with them until he double-checked the thread (after which he was fine with us undoing the changes).
 
That's a horrible precedent then, Agnaa. Anyone doing that should be punished for it.
 
I wasn't even aware the input it got wasn't enought back then, I thought the first thread was enought and all of that, but we are still here for a reason.

I'm totally open minded to fix the mistake I and others may have done with applying stuff, but a ban really is uncalled for, I tried my best to make the series as accurate as I can, not to just wank it for the bias of it or stuff like that, so I'm totally willing to help in removing what may be agreed on the other CRT that got highlighted then proceed to start that stuff from scratch accordingly.
 
Hmm. He did break the rules but he is on the way to undoing them. If you ban him now it'll leave the profiles in a bad state. How about after the profiles have been fixed and staff agrees with it you can then discuss about the ban?
 
I mean, is kinda impossible not talking after it has been found out unless he wants to avoid the staff by acting like he's not here.

That said, I don't think applying stuff without a CRT and applying outright rejected stuff is quite the same.
 
I also think that a ban is an overreaction. Especially given that it will screw up Bobsican's ability to be invited and transfered to the new forum. He is a well-behaved member after all.
 
Promestein said:
That's a horrible precedent then, Agnaa. Anyone doing that should be punished for it.
Click to expand...
If that's what we want to set, sure, but given how repentant he is a one month ban seems excessive to me.
 
Thank you for being reasonable.
 
Is somebody willing to place an official warning on his message wall?
 
Thanks.
 
How is that report worthy? Because "you can die on that hill"? If so, that's an expression used in debates in general, he's not telling Astral to die.
 
AstralKing has quite the record for acting condescending and incredibly antagonistic, i also see nothing wrong with Lance's comment. Reporting him for such a statement is making a mountain of out a mole hill to be frank.
 
I am quite aware my wording at times does get aggressive, but not sure that's the best example. I just don't like the recurrence of nitpicking as a counter when the context of a line is contested.

But there's not much beyond the calling that thingy bullshit.
 
I shared some of Schnee One's experiences with Lance and I believe he has articulate my position also well enough so I agree with Schee One's points there.
 
Aernasilver said:
All he is doing is calling you ignorant. That is not report worthy - you need thicker skin.
Click to expand...
I've noticed you guys are very selective and quite frankly, do a shotty job when it comes to this stuff. I believe the correct term would be "Incompetent", but if you want to ban or reprehend me for saying this, which let's be honest, is no more harmful than calling someone "ignorant" and "stupid", then that just goes to show the hypocrisy here.

If you guys think that is acceptable, as if arguments haven't started for less that have gotten people Permanently banned, then cool. I'm gonna start attacking people in similar fashion and telling them to "Have a thicker skin".

All it does is contribute to Toxicity here but....you guys seem to be lax and ok with that, so cool.
 
We're not going to ban or reprehend you, we're just saying that calling someone ignorant isn't report-worthy, so mentions of that aren't super relevant to this thread.

Also for some reason I feel like you'll end up going farther than this guy did when you start "attacking people" so you should probably try to avoid that...
 
There is a difference between calling someone ignorant and attacking them.

If you want to get banned for it then sure.
 
Dude, chill. Not every arguement gets a rule violation. It's not nice, but we're not the thought police. Hell, the only reason why those arguments have gotten people banned isn't because how they started, but because they escalated. Just tell him to take a step back, take a break, and calm down. There's really nothing to report here.
 
Aernasilver said:
All he is doing is calling you ignorant. That is not report worthy - you need thicker skin.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Order here. Saying that he needs "thicker skin." shows that you don't care about other people's feelings which is very horrible for you. Everyone's feelings matter, you should never be blamed for having emotions, being emotions makes you a human being. What if I said something horrible to you? You would get angry/sad/defensive etc. When someone is upset that they've been verbally mistreated, that's not them being too sensitive, that's them having a normal reaction to mistreatment. Negative feelings towards negative treatment is normal. Be more empathetic next time and improve on how you treat other people.
 
@Madotsuki24 But we've already decided that we don't want to punish people for anything that could upset anyone, so at some point we do have to say "get thicker skin", or something less blame-y like "disengage from the situation".
 
Milly Rocking Bandit said:
Ignorance isn't a bad thing, unless you choose to stay that way. I see no problem with Aerna is saying.
Click to expand...
What does ignorance have to do with this?
 
Agnaa said:
@Madotsuki24 But we've already decided that we don't want to punish people for anything that could upset anyone, so at some point we do have to say "get thicker skin", or something less blame-y like "disengage from the situation".
Click to expand...
If I went up to you and called you something nasty and you got upset because of it, that can get me consequences can it? So why is the situation with Aerna any different?
 
You're already presuming that it's something reportable by calling it "something nasty". I don't think calling someone ignorant is "something nasty", so even if someone gets upset by it, I don't think there should be consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
114K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
816
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