• An important announcement about how to solve problems with your discussion thread notifications, and other important issues.

    Please click here for further information.
  • Important information regarding the linking of images from Fandom wikis.

    Please click here for further information.
  • Important information regarding upcoming advertisements in this forum.

    Please click here for further information.

Rule Violations Reports - 64

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
Please report any rule violations in this thread. Notifying us of such incidents is highly appreciated.

Additionally, kindly report any sockpuppets that you come across.

Only report violations regarding the wiki rules. False reports due to personal vendettas are unacceptable.

Also, this thread should be for reporting actual rule-breaking, not every single little disagreement.

In cases of extreme vandalism or trolling, you can report the accounts at the VSTF wiki.

If blocked members create sockpuppet accounts to circumvent their block repetitively, or several are created at almost the same time, you may contact the Fandom Staff, to politely request permanent range IP blocks.

You can also find specific users with the Search Function by typing with the format: "User:Username"

Here is a useful page for discovering sockpuppet accounts: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Log/newusers

Notes:

All staff members, kindly follow and bookmark this thread.

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.

It is against the Fandom rules to upload any offensive images to the wiki, so in order to show screencapture evidence of extremely bad behaviour, you must use external sites, such as Gyazo or Imgur, in order to not get globally banned yourself by the higher-ups:

https://gyazo.com

https://imgur.com/

https://pasteboard.co

Do not derail the Rule Violation Threads with irrelevant nonsense or internal disputes. It is solely for making serious, warranted reports of violations of the Site, Discussio, and Editing Rules, and not for discussion or side comments. Such posts should preferably be removed by the staff, and if a member continues to derail after being repeatedly told to stop, this will result in a temporary ban.

Given the extreme levels of systematic harrassment towards this community, kindly remember to not share/post any evidence of malware or child abuse publicly in order to prevent unwillful distribution. Submit any evidence of child abuse and severe systematic threats to the police.

If something goes outside the jurisdiction of the VS Battles wiki bureaucrats, or even the global Fandom staff, you need to report it personally to the authorities.

Also, absolutely do not click on any random links from suspicious users. You could potentially access content that contains dangerous malware or illegal types of pornography, alternately tracks your IP address and location. If you are uncertain, please use this page to verify that the links are not dangerous.

However, do not feed the trolls by discussing their behaviour here, as they get excited and motivated by any form of attention. Strictly report them to the staff, who then block them and mass-delete their contributions.

If there are genuine serious problems with the behaviour of certain staff members, do not cause drama by extensively arguing about it here, but rather contact the Human Resources Group.
 
16,502
1,633
Continuing from the last thread,

I agree that he should be banned for some length of time, but I believe that anything more than a year is far too harsh, tho I will not speak to the number of months. He is usually a helpful member of the community albeit with a bit more "fervor" than i feel most would like. If we want people to act well, then don't ban those who act well with the same sentences as those that don't, unless of course the crime is so severe that any other things they may have done would play no factor in the judgement, but as far as I see, this is not one of those cases.
 
4,393
455
The way I see it, nothing is wrong with UGM's message on Matt's wall. He was curious about a "possible conspiracy" (in his own words) and was trying to discuss about it with Matt, that's it. What he said on Matt's wall doesn't break the rules, isn't looked down upon and isn't even a sign of bad intention. Him deleting the thread could have been done for many different reasons, namely embarrassment for Alonik calling him out on it rather than him "deleting evidence", which said evidence doesn't indicate anything besides UGM being suspicious about the possibility of a conspiracy. We can't say UGM was attempting to ban Alonik because he removed a thread that was about him trying to discuss concerns about a possible conspiracy against a verse with Matt.

Unless some evidence suggests otherwise, he wasn't attempting to ban Alonik.

He should be banned for 6 months though. I really dislike sockpuppet bs.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
I agree with Dienomite, but think that 6 months is a bit much.
 
5,849
781
Can someone bring Upgrade so he can explain himself about the "conspiracy"?

He definetly stll should get a severe punishment from the socks.
 
Regardless of how active, proficent, and good a user is at gathering evidence, making CRTs, etc, attempting to push your point against downgrades (which I would assume have basis, and enough support to agree with) shouldn't be accepted, and imo, is worthy of a permaban. Like was said before, it would be a lot different if he admitted it was him, he attempted to hide it and erase the evidence.
 
716
80
Newendigo said:
Can someone bring Upgrade so he can explain himself about the "conspiracy"?

He definetly stll should get a severe punishment from the socks.
This is ridiculous, to say at least, do you ask to bring him here? Really? He will say everything possible to support himself that he did not do anything wrong, or that he deserves minimal punishment, he is still well blocked.
 
5,849
781
Yeah, I say is not ridiculous to ask for more context of the conspiracy thing, he will still get punished regardless.

Either that or just ban him already if there is nothing more to say and the evidence is enough.
 
1,579
115
Okay, I'm going to post what I said from earlier here, so everyone gets the picture.


A harsh sentence never works, especially for a first offense which is made up by good behaviour and productivity on the wiki. An appropriate sentence can help the offender by taking steps to improve themselves and have their ban lifted at the right time to show their improvements. For example, in America, if you committed armed robbery, you would get around 15 years but if you did the exact same crime in Japan, you would only get around 5 years, three times less than what you would get in America, which is what I love about the Japanese justice system, because they put more work into helping the prisoners rather than handing out their consequences. The quicker you can get help and improve, the quicker you will be able to be redeemed and get out and lead a better life, but I don't want this to get political, so I'll keep it to a minimum, but can you see what I mean here?
 
1,579
115
What good comes out of a harsh sentence? I see it as someone who isn't bothered to see the dynamics involved in the psychology of someone and they just want to get rid of the person, showing absolutely no awareness of the needs of the offender, whilst a shorter sentence will make it feel like not a consequence, but more accurately, an opportunity for better care. America's justice system is horrible, you get put in prison for a long time in a cell, no theraputic help, just some small out of your cell and that's it and end of your sentence, they say "Here's $200, now get out and find a job.", how does that help in any way? Also, America's crime rate is MUCH higher than Japan's, so it clearly doesn't work, which is what can apply here, to find out what the right method to handle the case is.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
I don't mind harsh sentences, if they are warranted, but this member does not seem to have been proven to have done anything particularly bad, and is also generally productive and well-behaved. He shouldn't be punished just for being suspicious and wishing to talk with Matthew in private. I have had plenty of people who have contacted me about similar concerns via my fanfiction.net account over the years.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
Right so lets assume that sockpuppets isn't permabannable by itself, that accusing a member of a 'possible conspiracy' to a staff member is somehow okay when you disagree with their opinion:

Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less. If you think he isn't capable of being manipulative, and by extension manipulating all of you, I want you guys to reflect on this.

The fact is, this is similar to what happened to Mikoto, bannable offenses being reduced because the community liked them (not referring to the entire sockpuppet abuse that happened later on), and eventually the manipulation becoming clear.

There will be a massive shadow of doubt behind verses the guy supports and threads both before and after this. Remember that this guy was capable of making a sockpuppet account all the way from 2 years ago, only getting caught because of a discord conversation, something by extreme chance. This is of course, assuming he only made one sockpuppet.

If you guys still want to reduce the ban after all of that, then go ahead, but it really paints the staff in a bad light and honestly, it'd be an accurate one.
 
5,227
624
I read he made that sock 2 years ago and has only used it twice in those 2 years. That's why I am wondering why is there such excessive punishment going on.
 
4,393
455
He didn't accuse Alonik of anything, he was suspicious about a possible conspiracy against the verse and wanted to discuss it. Unless we have actual proof that he was attempting to ban Alonik then that whole thread on Matt's wall should be dropped. Him lying about a sockpuppet and everything isn't proof that he was attempting to ban Alonik. Sure it makes him untrust worthy but that doesn't mean he's guilty of trying to get another user unjustly banned.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
Right, which is why he coincidently deleted only just before getting caught despite having over 2 weeks to delete it.

If I can be frank again, the argument that its somehow coincidental is just inane giving what we know. He's been shown to delete evidence. Why would he delete the thread as he gets called out if its a simple suspicion?

To argue such, is to say it has nothing to do with him being called out by the user that caught him, but then why delete it?

And since he did delete it right before the post accusing him, why would he do such? To save face? Perhaps, but the timing was off by weeks. I'd understand if he did it even a week ago, but how coincidental is it the day before the post?
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
I also do not think that he tried to get Alonik banned. He just wanted to talk in private with a staff member. That is nothing out of the ordinary. And he also only used the sockpuppet twice, and not in a manner that is genuinely destructive for the wiki. I think that there are a lot of overreactions going on here. Context matters. A ban is fine. A permanent ban, or even 1 year, seems very excessive.
 
4,393
455
Why would he delete the thread as he gets called out if its a simple suspicion?

Embarrassment or anything else is possible (we weren't given a reason so we can't make up one). The thread doesn't have anything to indicate an attempt to ban Alonik and no evidence suggest that's what he was attempting to do unless I missed something. Him lying about sockpuppets isn't proof.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
Again, both of you are ignoring context.

Mention the timing when you argue on his behalf, and your entire 'maybe he's embaressed or something' falls apart.

Like I said, this sounds like a Mikoto situation (minus the aftermath), where a popular member does bannable things but gets their ban reduced for being popular. I bet if I looked at the previous RVT I would find several kudos on posts defending Upgrade to a consistently wild degree.
 

Kepekley23

VS Battles
Retired
15,318
7,288
> Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less

This is indeed extremely bad.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
@SD

Well, we need some input from staff members that are more distanced from the situation. Promestein thought that 3-6 months was appropriate for example. Would that be acceptable?

@Kepekley

What did he lie about?
 
4,393
455
@SomebodyData

What context is there? He did this bad thing so we can assume he was trying to do this bad thing? That's not how that works.

The timing is his discord name being called out on in a vs thread. He already thought his discord name was cringe worthy and he could've just not want his discord to be put in a vs thread. Your interpretation could be right as well but there still no way to prove that was intention with this so called evidence. Where is the evidence that he was attempting to ban Alonik? An assumption about his motive isn't evidence.

I don't know the Mikoto situation and I'm not familiar with UGM so I can't make a comparison between them.
 

Monarch_Laciel

VS Battles
Retired
21,783
4,792
That wasn't really what I was trying to show with those screenshots, more just demonstrating that he seemed to know an unusually specific detail about the sock account to provide more evidence that the sock was his. Which we've all well established by now.
 

Monarch_Laciel

VS Battles
Retired
21,783
4,792
Antvasima said:
@SD

Well, we need some input from neutral and reliable staff members here.
Ant, you've had several staff members -including admins no less - provide "some input". Which of them have not been neutral and reliable?
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
@Antvasima Prom mentioned that before more things got brought up.

As for the lies: "Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less."

Monarch went to Discord to question him, Upgrade knew about the sock account's age but was still arguing for his innocence. Basically Monarch was trying to investigate and Upgrade didn't come clean, even after being exposed.

EDIT: Monarch gives more context above.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
@Monarch

I am not disparaging any staff members. I am just noticing that some of the people here seem rather worked up regarding this issue. It was a poor choice of words though. I rephrased it.

I don't even know this member. I just don't want us to be far too harsh against well-behaved members that do comparatively harmless rule-violations.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
@SD

Well, I suppose that worsens the issue. I still don't think that more than 6 months seems warranted though.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
@Ant If I seem worked up, I apologize. When the post was originally posted, I was pretty calm. Today I find myself having to debate people on offenses that would usually result in a ban, individually. Some for a few weeks and others for a few months, but the main ones being permabannable.

Now I see people trying to reduce the ban, which worries me since this seems to be confirmation that popular members can avoid the complete banhammer. Add to the fact that this brings back Mikoto flashbacks (Again, I illiterate before the sockpuppet mess).

@Dienomite22

Like I said, timing is the context. He wasn't embarrassed for weeks, but suddenly the day before he gets called out its deleted?

That too, is a point. It shows right before being called out, he was already taking measures to hide evidence. During nearly the exact same time as the conspiracy post was deleted, mind you. I'm begging the question, basically, "why would he do this at this point in time" and then pointing out he was deleting evidence during this exact point in time.
 
4,393
455
@SomebodyData

He wasn't embarrassed for weeks, but suddenly the day before he gets called out its deleted?

Getting called out is embarrassing yes. Having your private discord be spotlighted in a vs thread when it was meant for a specific person is something no one wants. His hiding of evidence is likely because his discord was now known to people he didn't want to know and because he had obvious sockpuppet dirt. Once again, no proof of attempting to ban Alonik.

We can make up many excuses and explanations for why he did this but it will never be proof unless he or someone has proof that he was deliberately attempting to ban Alonik.
 
8,919
3,111
Like I mentioned in the last thread, he has been hiding evidence. Deleting old posts where he used the sock to agree with him on threads.

We have proof, clear as day, that he was using socks to support himself in threads, and that he was burying that evidence.

This isn't some accident, this is outright manipulation.
 
4,393
455
@Agnaa

This is about whether or not UGM was attempting to get Alonik banned. He's guilty as hell of sockpuppet foolery.
 
605
223
Having your private discord be spotlighted in a vs thread when it was meant for a specific person is something no one wants.

Well, he wasn't ashamed when it came to trying get me out of the thread, by taking screenshot of our PM's and putting something out of context to accuse me of being dishonest, right?
 
716
80
Agnaa said:
Like I mentioned in the last thread, he has been hiding evidence. Deleting old posts where he used the sock to agree with him on threads.

We have proof, clear as day, that he was using socks to support himself in threads, and that he was burying that evidence.

This isn't some accident, this is outright manipulation.
Yes, thanks for reciting this.

Are you guys still closing your eyes to something he's been doing for years, but still just want a minor ban? The staff really accepts such a thing as long as no one says anything and even when they do, the punishment is so minor just because he is a good Samaritan in the eyes of others, but in reality, he is totally conspirator either against his opponent or against his arguments.
 
4,393
455
Alonik said:
Having your private discord be spotlighted in a vs thread when it was meant for a specific person is something no one wants.
Well, he wasn't ashamed when it came to trying get me out of the thread, by taking screenshot of our PM's and putting something out of context to accuse me of being dishonest, right?
Link to the post, please. May change my view.
 
5,227
624
Archaron said:
Are you guys still closing your eyes to something he's been doing for years, but still just want a minor ban? The staff really accepts such a thing as long as no one says anything and even when they do, the punishment is so minor just because he is a good Samaritan in the eyes of others,
Punishment is coming but what did he really do to deserve excessive punishment?
 
605
223
Just take a look at my original comment, the context is there; https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3953166#378

If you pay attention, you will see that I linked a comment of it, that he takes print from his own discord to try to gain advantage in the discussion just trying to put me out of context because I provided him with a website where he had all saint seiya guides (that he had not)
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
99,900
20,945
@SD

No problem. I am not the best informed about this situation. As I mentioned earlier, I am just reluctant in general to give very harsh punishments to members who have generally behaved well.

Promestein might be better suited to properly evaluate this issue.
 
4,393
455
Alonik said:
Just take a look at my original comment, the context is there; https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3953166#378
If you pay attention, you will see that I linked a comment of it, that he takes print from his own discord to try to gain advantage in the discussion just trying to put me out of context because I provided him with a website where he had all saint seiya guides (that he had not)
I stand corrected on his action steming from embarrassment but the point remains the same. I don't see how he was attempting to get you banned with the evidence presented thus far.
 
605
223
I didn't say he was trying to ban me in that specific case that i quoted, I said he didn't measure efforts to print his own Discord when gave him an advantage (read the context of it).

So to say that he was ashamed of his Discord, it's an issue that shouldn't even be taken, just because he thrown prints of his own discord in the middle of the thread.
 
5,227
624
Hm... Upgrademan was still intending to debate Alonik and Alonik was accused of bais, judging by what was said in the thread...

However, UpgradeMan was being disingenuous by using a sock account, framing support when he already had support from 2 staffs...

Tier 3-A/Low 2-C Saint Seiya Ap Revisions (Gold Saints, and Scaling) thread is in weird waters atm.
 
5,227
624
SomebodyData said:
I'm assuming who is who here.

Staff: Everyone seems to find it a tad suspicious that a user with your previous discord nickname and similar writing style to you arrived on a thread to support you

No avi

UpgradeMan: Now there is 1 thing, but I think could have been done it, but I didn't think it would result in that happening. that's what it was then lol

Staff: newly made

UpgradeMan: wait newly made??

Staff: actually idk if it was newly made

meh

UpgradeMan: it definitely wasn't

Staff: point is you seemed to have tried to pull a sneaky

and it seems many people aren't very happy

Someone: Who was it actually

UpgradeMan: hold on irl stuff

Someone: I don't think Someone should've worded uh

Staff: I find it interesting that you very quickly knew the account with your old nickname wasn't a new account and had been around for a while. You replied very quickly when I said it was newly made. Especially seeing as I didn't even provide a link to the account or anything for you to quickly get to. Almost as if you knew when it had been made. Weird that you'd keep track of an account who apparently only commented because he saw it on a Facebook link.

> Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin no less.

Where is the "Lying about his guilt even after being called out to an admin" dialogue? I'm not seeing him lying after being called out.

"Now there is 1 thing, but I think could have been done it, but I didn't think it would result in that happening. that's what it was then lol"

I can't understand what this means.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
@Elixir

I was referring to him keeping up the charade. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. An honest or well meaning member would have just been outright after being called out, but he still tried to hide his guilt, only to slip up.

We could ask Monarch, though its probably for another conversation.

@Dienomite

Like I said, check the timing. He deleted it before the evidence came out. He wouldn't have been embarrassed because he wouldn't know it would be referenced.

My proof is the timing, so you're telling me, its not even strange that he deleted the thread at the same time as he deleted all evidence of bad doing? When he deleted posts of his sock, he changed his name, none of it?

While true we never will know the exact reason, it is reasonable to assume its part of deleting evidence.
 
4,393
455
@SomebodyData

Regardless of why he deleted it, there is no reason to believe he deleted it purely because it was evidence that he was trying to ban Alonik. I would easily argue that he was trying to cover his tracks that link to discord. The evidence presented doesn't support him attempting to ban Alonik but it also doesn't support the opposite. We can only understand his motive in deleting that thread if we could get into his mind but we can't so all we have is a guy with sockpoppets trying to discuss a possible conspiracy against a verse he likes with an staff member.

You staff have the say at the end of the day. I hardly care anymore about this subject and I'm starting to feel sick for some reason. I propose a 6 month ban.
 

Wokistan

Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Sysop
Calculation Group
Human Resources
16,497
6,646
He didn't have a userpage, so that just shows up by default.
 
8,919
3,111
?????

Why is posting that link a bannable offence? It looked like a rule violation report.
 

Abstractions

VS Battles
Content Moderator
1,225
296
Agnaa said:
?????

Why is posting that link a bannable offence? It looked like a rule violation report.
Completely new user's first post is posting something linking to images of things said months ago on discord with a copypasta about Ant, it was trolling.
 
8,919
3,111
The Wright Way said:
It wasn't. Also, that's literally his first post.
What do you mean it wasn't? It was, from reading it.

Abstractions said:
Completely new user's first post is posting something linking to images of things said months ago on discord with a copypasta about Ant, it was trolling.
I mean, it wasn't just the copypasta.

I don't think saying stuff on Discord should be considered a rule violation, but people incriminated in it instantly calling it a troll and asking for it to be deleted is sus.
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
What was in the link itself does seem bannable, regardless of trolling. Need context though, if anyone has any. ...That wouldn't happen to be a discord Upgrade was in, was it?
 
2,845
811
Yes, in a majority of those images about the "fanfic" it was a copypasta that someone posted in another wiki. But, I need to find out who this person is.
 
8,919
3,111
DatOneWeeb said:
Yes, in a majority of those images about the "fanfic" it was a copypasta that someone posted in another wiki. But, I need to find out who this person is.
First getting the message deleted and the user banned, and now trying to track down who the person is?

Jesus guys, chill the fuck out. If it isn't ban-worthy we'll come to that conclusion. No need to engage in all this sketchy behaviour.
 

Abstractions

VS Battles
Content Moderator
1,225
296
The images were linking to comments dated back to 2018 to early 2019, what reason would a completely new user have access to such screenshots or even understand how bad it was? A new user doesn't know these people, and wouldn't know to jump onto an RVT to just post the link without further elaborating as to why they are reporting it.
 
8,919
3,111
Abstractions said:
The images were linking to comments dated back to 2018 to early 2019, what reason would a completely new user have access to such screenshots or even understand how bad it was? A new user doesn't know these people, and wouldn't know to jump onto an RVT to just post the link without further elaborating as to why they are reporting it.
Could be trolling, could be whistleblowing. It's still worth investigating, if it's trolling and none of the stuff is bannable, we'll get to that conclusion in due time.

This isn't the first time someone has leaked discord screenshots of other site users. And with the way discord plays a part in vs debating nowadays, it won't be the last.

Even though I don't think anything posted off-site should be grounds for any punishment on-site, but I'm in the minority with my opinions like this
 

SomebodyData

El SiD
VS Battles
Sysop
Human Resources
13,244
1,870
I'm a tad concerned about how we began trying to find his identity rather than discussing what was in the imgur.

And about the fact that it was the "beginning server toxicity"
 

The_Wright_Way

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
14,350
6,216
It was one of Mckmal's old copy pastas. Really wish I knew how to unremove posts so you could see that.
 
8,919
3,111
The Wright Way said:
It was one of Mckmal's old copy pastas. Really wish I knew how to unremove posts so you could see that.
Like I said, it wasn't JUST the copypasta, the first 7 images from the album weren't the copypasta. But I can confirm that the rest of it was just people posting that pasta.
 
2,845
811
I don't care for his identy here. But in Discord, I need to know. Especially since it's a server in which I am a mod in and want to question him.
 

Abstractions

VS Battles
Content Moderator
1,225
296
Agnaa said:
Could be trolling, could be whistleblowing. It's still worth investigating, if it's trolling and none of the stuff is bannable, we'll get to that conclusion in due time.

This isn't the first time someone has leaked discord screenshots of other site users. And with the way discord plays a part in vs debating nowadays, it won't be the last.
You are misunderstanding and looking at it from the wrong direction.

The posts linked within the imgur drop were from 2018 and early 2019, a new user would not have access to them unless they were deliberately fishing for it, this is a completely new account and their first post was the link without context, comparing that the someone who is a trusted member here isn't proper.

I don't think discord stuff should necessarily be punishable here either, but this isn't the same thing.

For argument's sake, what is exactly stopping the person from adding to their comment saying they think this should be reported? Or anything? Why is it the first instinct to make an account and come post in a RVT with an image dump containing an inappropriate copypasta about someone they don't know? How would they have even stumbled across said discord to find those old comments in the first place if he was a brand new user?
 

The_Wright_Way

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
14,350
6,216
This guy is so obviously a troll that I don't even know why we're debating this.

1. His first post in the entire site is on the RVR.

2. It's literally just a picture of people shit talking VSBW.

3. The picture itself doesn't relate to anyone here, I don't recognize any members in that chat.

4. The pictures are incredibly old.

5. His username come from a controversial politician, which I've noticed trolls really like doing for some reason.

It's all right in that link, which I've restored. Anyone can see that. Now can we move on to more important things?
 
8,919
3,111
Maybe they didn't want to be tracked down and interrogated (like DatOne is trying to do right now) or harassed, like has happened to every other person who has leaked discord server logs to the RVT before?
 
Yep, I will propose why we need a 6 month ban minimun and 9 month maximum for John Cena nation:

1. He has gotten multiple bans for this stuff before, he knows that he shouldn't do this.

2. He has created multiple spite threads after the ban like some Soul King matches and spiting him

3. Insulting a whole people is a no/no.
 
8,919
3,111
@WrightWay

1. Could be a whistleblower.

2. Presumably, those users are site users shit talking other people on site.

3. It does relate to many people here. I recognize multiple of them, many of which immediately dismissed this report as a troll.

4. Okay, if we decide not to punish because they're old that's our decision.

5. I guess.
 

The_Wright_Way

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
14,350
6,216
Agnaa said:
Maybe they didn't want to be tracked down and interrogated (like DatOne is trying to do right now) or harassed, like has happened to every other person who has leaked discord server logs to the RVT before?
Then why not say that? Why rusk getting mistaken for a troll. It's literally just pictures of people shit talking VSBW on a Discord from years ago. There's no "whistleblowing" going on because none of the members in that thread are or ever have been a part of this site as far as I can tell. I get where you're coming from, but you're defending a troll here buddy.
 

Abstractions

VS Battles
Content Moderator
1,225
296
Agnaa said:
Maybe they didn't want to be tracked down and interrogated (like DatOne is trying to do right now) or harassed, like has happened to every other person who has leaked discord server logs to the RVT before?
Then you can provide context or elaborate like everyone else who drops a link to something important, not drop the link on its own and expect people to understand your intentions, that's counter-productive.
 

The_Wright_Way

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
14,350
6,216
Agnaa said:
@WrightWay

1. Could be a whistleblower.

2. Presumably, those users are site users shit talking other people on site.

3. It does relate to many people here. I recognize multiple of them, many of which immediately dismissed this report as a troll.

4. Okay, if we decide not to punish because they're old that's our decision.

5. I guess.
Wait, what? Who do you recognise?
 
8,919
3,111
@WrightWay Then why not say that? Why rusk getting mistaken for a troll.

Because not everyone is a perfectly logical being who knows the exact perfect way to go through a situation.

It's literally just pictures of people shit talking VSBW on a Discord from years ago.

"Years" feels like a misleading way of framing it, the screenshots are all from 2019, some from the latter half.

There's no "whistleblowing" going on because none of the members in that thread are or ever have been a part of this site as far as I can tell.

Wait, what? Who do you recognise?


DatOneWeeb admitted to being a mod in that server. The person clearly identified in the last screenshot (Tod#6039) is SadisticSleuth. I would not be surprised if other people there were wiki members.

I get where you're coming from, but you're defending a troll here buddy.

Even if they were a troll, it's our duty to look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. If Mckmal posted evidence that Ant abused his position to sexually harass people, and we could prove it credible, then I'd want it acted on.

@Abstractions Then you can provide context or elaborate, not drop a link on its own and expect people to understand your intentions, that's counter-productive.

I'm not going to dismiss evidence because someone acted suboptimally.
 

The_Wright_Way

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
14,350
6,216
Alright, then. My apologies. If there are current active members in those screenshots, then we need to act more cautiously. The post will remain up for the time being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top