• Important information regarding upcoming advertisements in this forum.

    Please click here for further information.
  • After Fandom's UCP update, galleries that had advanced and unconventional coding are no longer working properly.

    Please click here if you are willing to help out with fixing this problem.

Rule Violations Reports - 64

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarkDragonMedeus

The Sword and Shield of AKM Sama
VS Battles
Sysop
16,747
7,046
Going to drop my two cents here, I agree with Bambu. I will also note that ShadowWarrior1999 can be fairly level headed and is usually good at hiding some of the drama and keeping them offsite. That's why his block was lenient. And why not everyone in the group was blocked. But the fact remains that the information was leaked, and the person who linked the scans did so with good intentions. People who talk horribly behind our backs in hopes that no one finds out about them which is still unruly behavior. And he still has about one more month.

Corgi on the other hand actually still has far more levels of toxicity. And there's a difference between simply having controversial opinions on politics, religion, sense of humor, ect, and being an extremist in any of those categories. Corgi has said plenty of things that indicate the latter; such as saying "Everyone of this group should die." And it really doesn't matter what his RL ethnicity actually is; in fact, even being racist against your own group is a petty excuse. It really isn't the "Neo-Nazi roleplay" that's concerning, but the borderline bigotry towards a bunch religious groups + people with mental illnesses are what's despicable. Which is what Corgi and GodHand have both been saying.

I'm not going to defend ZaStando27 too much, because even he admits he has said some pretty toxic things. And the first half of his doc basically being a defense against a certain fetish isn't really something relevant. However, there are even more scans and I did see how everyone treated him on his server. Everyone besides Corgi were just being typical asshats (Not enough to extend bans), but Corgi also started bigotting against both Asexuals and Hermaphrodites/Inter-genders. And was uploading a bunch of graphic porn videos on ZaStando's server.

Also, the other stuff Bambu said about Corgi is right. He literally doesn't seem to know the difference between being blunt or flat out harassment; either that or he deliberately refuses to acknowledge the difference. And has harassed many different staff members directly, myself included. Another thing is that, some of you guys actually did tried to paint Khan's "Suicide encouragement" as acceptable behavior. I don't even need to go into detail what is wrong with that. And I have also been informed he's not the only one who tells people that regularly. And I don't care how toxic someone is, absolutely nothing excuses that level of behavior.

And also, given that this isn't a Fandom matter, it's still a VSBW staff matter that we do have a right to handle things that concern us and the civilization of the wiki.
 

Moritzva

VS Battles
Joke Battles
FC/OC Battles
Thread Moderator
Content Moderator
8,116
1,179
For the record, I agree with Bambu, especially regarding Corgi, who I have been far too lenient with on my own server in the past.
 
6,832
557
LordWhis said:
What's with the sudden porn and gore assault ?
There are other wikis seemingly created with the sole purpose of messaging people on this wiki with pictures like that. I won't name them because I want to avoid giving them the attention, but I've had to deal with them again recently.
 
2,759
218
Emissary from Hell is currently writing up a response to Mr. Bambu's claims, If you'd be so kind to wait for his response that would be great.
 
now can we discuss John Cena Nation.

In my opinion, I propose a 9 month ban

1. He has made spite threads as well as plenty of faulty VS Matches

2. Been banned many times for this

3. Insulting a whole country and doing death threats is enough to get a long ban
 

The_Calaca

VS Battles
Retired
14,573
5,756
I'm in the same team. JCN has been a recurrent topic in these threads, but what he did now is way worst than nonsensical pairing.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
Here are messages sent to me in private by TheUpgradeManHaHaxD to explain himself:

"Okay, there so.. perhaps the biggest question on most peoples mind (at least i assume) would be "Why did he do something like that?" and "Why did he have another account?"

I'll explain the account part first

That account is when i first started getting into vsbattle wiki. I was a noob, and i didn't know a whole lot. When i started mass deleting things on that account there was 2 thoughts going through my mind. "Wow. I was an embarrassment back then and complete fodder (In terms of debating ability)" To clarify, I was embarrassed of myself looking back at those memories. Then the other thought was along the lines of like this:

"Okay.. My friends are telling me to just debate his points, and don't bring up "fallcies" at all of any sort of any kind.. So what if i did that on a separate account? instead of my main? I'd need to get rid of connections where it would be reasonably assumed it was me" in other words, i wanted to talk about what i thought was a condescending atitude, and what i felt was like "looking down on me."

The thread i commited this crime on. if it was carefully read. there were times where i said i was busy, or had to walk away, something like that. Yes part of it was becuase i was busy, but in truth. i was trying to stay calm. I was getting so frustrated and flustered that i wanted to lash out, but i knew i shouldn't. So the idea popped into my head "what if vented my frustration using a separate account?"

In summary, i got annoyed with all this talk of "fallacies" and i felt intellectually inferior. Add on top that i felt like my case-points were being purposely corrupted, twisted, or changed (Basically i felt like i was being strawmanned). Which made me feel even more angry. Then i felt like he would often avoid my case/points by calling htem a fallacy for like a distraction.

Which over the course of th thread. I lost my cool. i went on to a separate account that took me a few hours to find because i forgot the password, and the email. and i vented my frustration

Now, i know it looks like i supported myself but i did that to make it seem less like me (obviosuly i failed at that lol), but in truth what was actually going on in my mind is that i wanted to vent my frustration, and anger and show i how i felt.

The point was not to support myself!

if we go back and look at my threads from long ago, and my post then. you can see i matured, and changed a lot throughout my history on the wiki.

the 1st time i supported myself on a thread. that was me being a noob, not understanding how the wiki runs/works at the time, and nothing was accepted on that thread iirc. and if it was it was never added.

if you can notice you can see a long period of inactivity on that account. its becaues i wanted to start a new leaf, go into a new direction using the account 'TheUpgrademanHaHaxD"

I only had those accounts. there was no other ones. And i only posted on my own thread those 2 times only.

If you go back and look at my behaviors on past CRT's most of the time i really valued a staff members opinion. and i always wanted appovral before adding things

May I also draw a comparison with this situation? Why is my situation more unique than the Kingdom hearts one? Where a member added (OP) abilities to them that were previously rejected?

Does any of this make sense.... im really sorry if its not..

Also, id like to talk about this "Conspiracy" and also the screenshots monarch took because he left out information."

"Also..

I understand that i made some enemies. I know i have been labeled with a stigma, and its going to cling hard.. There are people who are never going to trust me again.. people who will see me differently.. and people whose minds are already made up.. those who might be open minded, and those who may not be..

I just want people (Or someone) to hear myside.. what happens after that is up to the individuals.."

"also.. if anything is being misunderstood.. id like to know so i can clarify it..

i am not really good wtih my words.. especially when im..... upset..."

"before i continue i need some time to calm down.. i am sorry.."

He seems harmless to me.
 
4,393
455
I empathize with UGM about his frustration getting the better of him and looking at his sockpuppet comment, it rings well with what he said here but he still broke the rules and should be punished accordingly. He's probably harmless now that this has happened but he's gotta do the time.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
I would prefer if we reduce his ban period. He didn't mean any harm.
 
4,393
455
Damn, even 3 months seems like too much if 1 or 2 for sock rule breaks is the norm. 3 months is better than 6 or 9 though so I would go with that.
 
While it is true that these comments would never have reached the wiki had Shadow not made them to begin with, thus possibly leading one to conclude that the responsibility for the mess that was ultimately caused lies with him, I find that to be an exceedingly unfair and erroneous conclusion. Yes, Ashen wouldn't have been able to leak those screenshots had the comments not been made at all. However, Shadow should not be punished for simply saying things that others may find disagreeable. He had ample reason to believe that what he was saying wasn't going to cause any trouble in the environment he was saying it in. Ashen going out of his way to break the server's rules simply to satisfy some nonsensical personal agenda of his was completely out of Shadow's control.
This is much akin to getting tattled on in school because some classmate overheard you saying something naughty while in a conversation with a friend in an after school environment. And that's me being generous, since you could argue the school does have some authority over its students in that regard while the wiki has none over its users as far as their off-site affairs are concerned.
Shadow is essentially being punished for his speech simply because he was "caught", something quite nonsensical when you consider that his comments were made in a platform unrelated to Fandom and leaked against his will. If the issue is that it caused trouble, then the one who should be punished is Ashen and not Shadow.

I beg to differ, I think they are extremely important. Considering that Ashen's reason for doing it was that he wanted to cause staff to become unhinged due to his own personal grievances with the wiki, is that not him blatantly admitting that he was plotting to destabilize the wiki by manipulating the staff? The screenshots were merely a tool he used to achieve that and he ultimately got the result he desired.
Saying I take jabs at Ashen is a bit of an exaggeration, no? I believe I mostly make harsh comments about his plan. I apologize if it came across as me being gratuitously aggressive but I did not think it would be considered particularly objectionable considering the less than flattering nature of his scheme.
Besides, as far as bias is concerned, I believe that the screenshot more than speaks for itself and me liking or disliking Ashen affects that in no way whatsoever.

If that is indeed the case and the wiki does not intend to police the actions of people on Discord, then it should simply ignore what is said on Discord servers if it isn't being repeated by the users within the wiki itself. Had this been how the situation was handled from the very begining, it would have prevented unnecessary drama from escalating, as Discord is its own separate platform with a different (far less strict) set of guidelines where its users are given the freedom to act and speak their mind accordingly. If the stains are really the issue, then it makes little sense to punish Shadow, considering that he had next to no direct involvement with them ultimately reaching the wiki.
Even if Fandom considers this a matter that should be handled by the wiki, their stance in regards to off-site matters not being something to be handled within Fandom itself, which this wiki is a part of, should still be taken into consideration. Especially when the ones being punished are being punished for actions they took off-site and not those who directly caused the problem to reach the wiki in the first place.

Regardless of whether or not you want to take the more egregious stuff Corgi says literally, if he keeps it on Discord and doesn't say them on-site, then this should not be made an issue here. As for Corgi "harassing" staff, at worst he used some insults that aren't far off from the typical trash talking you'd see in YouTube comment sections. A dumb and unnecessary move yes, but he only confronted staff who were in Versus Central which he was also a member of (and to be fair multiple users in that server take jabs at each other).

The "beef" with ZaStando was brought up because it is in fact relevant, especially when Za Stando's actions are part of what triggered Corgi's ban. That alone is enough of a reason to shed light into his motives and expose his bias, which is a relevant factor. That said, it holds no significance beyond that. It's not meant to be a jab directed at him nor should it be interpreted as such. I am well aware he's already been banned and for good reason.
Others getting banned for a lot less doesn't address the concerns regarding Corgi's situation. Every situation is unique after all, the context of what is happening here is extremely specific to this case.
 

Mr._Bambu

Narcissistic Cannibal
VS Battles
Sysop
Calculation Group
13,774
3,913
What triggered their bans were their actions. While it is not our goal to actively investigate activity off-site, it is our goal to peacekeep on site. Regardless of how it was brought here or who did it, the fact is that it amounts to their actions now being applicable to the site. Hence, the people who reported them? Immaterial and irrelevant, as always. I stand by my actions. If they don't want banned again in the future, I advise them to just strongly endeavor to, put simply, play nice.

Also, not super relevant, but

Saying I take jabs at Ashen is a bit of an exaggeration, no?
is it though, you called him harebrained lol.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I've agree that 3 to 6 months seemed reasonable, and given he seems harmless now, i'm more leaning towards 3 months.
Are the rest of you fine with 3 months instead?
 
I kinda feel like you're only listening to those who agree with you. Based off the original discussion SD seemed heaviily against these reductions in length which seems to be getting shorter by the second.
 
That is incorrect simply by virtue of them having no involvement regarding those screenshots actually reaching the wiki. The things they said on Discord (their only "actions") not only have no relevance within the site on their own but would never be known to the users within it if not for the actions of an unrelated third party.
If you truly want to peacekeep the site, then you would discourage dragging off-site affairs on-site and then making it an issue here. The wiki should not be overreaching on its authority to police its users' actions based on what they do outside of it. Again, peacekeeping in this situation was only necessary because of Ashen's actions, I've provided you with evidence of him admitting to concocting a scheme to disturb the peace within the wiki, said scheme which ultimately led to what we're discussing here and now. Ashen doing something without their knowledge or consent most certainly does not somehow translate to their actions being applicable to the site. In simpler if more crude terms, they may have been the ones to produce the sewage, but they're not the ones who poked a hole into the pipe and let the shit storm rain down upon the wiki and therefore should not be treated as such. No, to simply ignore the context behind this entire situation and act as if it doesn't matter as you seem to be suggesting would be quite nonsensical, especially when the people who reported them are indeed material and relevant, as I've gone through great lengths to explain.
What is "play nice" exactly? Not get things they've said on Discord leaked against their will in a way that is completely out of their control again? Pardon the sarcastic tone, but I don't think that is exactly fair.

"Ashen simply concocted some harebrained scheme"
It is not. Harebrained is an adjective that is describing the scheme, not Ashen. It means "rash or ill-judged", hardly something that would apply as an insult to a person within the context I used it.
 
8,951
3,121
fwiw I've been saying for ages (and to Bambu directly) that I don't want to punish people for actions taken off-site that aren't directly targeting other site members (i.e. harassing the person directly, doxxing them, or conspiring to disrupt the wiki).

Bambu (and quite a few others fwiw) just seems to disagree and think that these actions should be punished. Arguing about the facts of the matter doesn't really matter when it's a difference in opinion over what we should punish people for.
 
4,848
2,088
No disrespect to you guys, but are you gonna punish a guy because he said some mean words behind others' back and was sure you'd never see it? Is this really a matter of preventing bullying and drama, or is this an example of staff being too controlling of what one person says that reaches here because of what somebody else did? And don't try saying "Shadow could've gotten a longer ban". Saying that doesn't really mean anything other than "we could've made this an even bigger deal for no reason too, so be glad we didn't."

Corgi is a different case, but Shadow? The guy who kept to himself and started no issue yet was banned for, and I quote, "Continuous and targeted bullying of other users off site" despite never saying any of the stuff he said directly to the people he was talking about? For petty arguing at best if it was a direct confrontation?

Surely we realize that's not targeted bullying nor proper grounds for a ban, right?
 

Abstractions

VS Battles
Content Moderator
1,234
302
Agnaa said:
fwiw I've been saying for ages (and to Bambu directly) that I don't want to punish people for actions taken off-site that aren't directly targeting other site members (i.e. harassing the person directly, doxxing them, or conspiring to disrupt the wiki).

Bambu (and quite a few others fwiw) just seems to disagree and think that these actions should be punished. Arguing about the facts of the matter doesn't really matter when it's a difference in opinion over what we should punish people for.
Discord actions should be factored in if the person in question has offended here as a means of setting an argument of recurrent negative behavior, but never something to set precedent for a ban on its own.

We aren't the internet police and shouldn't act on such off-site behavior unless it threatens someone's physical safety.
 
6,832
557
I agree with Abstractions. To a reasonable degree, we can't really censor people for their opinions off-site. However, if their actions directly impact the wiki then someone should step in.
 
4,848
2,088
Which is exactly why I'm asking why Shadow was banned when he doesn't even meet the mark for any of this.

No repeatedly negative behavior seen here, no actions that impact this wiki in a harmful way, and the very reason for his ban is false. One person felt like he was being bullied and all of a sudden Shadow's portrayed as somebody who bullies others off-site? Are we gonna get the internet police in here to investigate the scene? But nah, the ban could've been worse so we'll just leave it, right? Because that makes even the smallest bit of sense? No, it doesn't, and that seems self-evident. I stand firmly by the decision that Shadow should be unbanned from VS Battles, and especially if the reasons for his ban just seem like a lousy excuse to get him out of here for a while.
 

Crabwhale

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,953
3,108
I agree that this seens unnecessary. I've myself said some horrible stuff on VS Battles-related servers, probably even slagged off a couple users when angry, but I'd never take the beef anywhere else and neither will anybody else, and they're all perfectly rationable users who contribute normally.

We're not some righteous crusaders burning anyone that we see as commiting misconduct vaguely related to us. We can judge only on what happens on the wiki, severe circumstances like the Discord group fiasco not withstanding.
 

DarkDragonMedeus

The Sword and Shield of AKM Sama
VS Battles
Sysop
16,747
7,046
I was hoping not to get to involved with this conversation again, but I do have some important things to note.

First of all, the fact that Fandom did say that they can only do things regarding actions done on Fandom basically says, they entrust the managing staff of the wikis to deal with manners that are happening offsite. That being said, it doesn't matter what platform it was used on; whether it be Discord, Google docs, other wikis, ect. If it's on the internet and if our names are being spoken, then we have everything to do with your actions. If you guys can claim we have no right to be monitoring offsite activities, then I could very well say between this and this, you guys actually have no right to even speak our names without our permission. Let alone constantly slur or say some bigoted dialogue that has nothing to do with our actual groups.

Regardless of actions ranging from petty schoolyard insults, slurring us (regardless if we actually are or aren't said ethnicity, gender, age, orientation, religion, or medical conditions.), making remarks about R*ping our mothers, or worst of all; telling us to commit a seven letter S word. We actually do have right to ban people who attack us on or offsite. Sure, I don't care if someone did minor stuff like photoshops my avatar on a meme. Or if there were a few moderate cuss words said about me. Perhaps some rare or moderate examples of light/moderate insults aren't ban worthy. But if like 7 or more people are both constantly slurring us behind our backs while at the same time being unreasonable aggressive on content revisions onsite. And making constant extreme insults. And spreading false analogies about us such as claiming we said things that were never said, downplaying the severity of your own actions while overplaying the severity of the oppositions actions. There is a line to draw. And word of advice, regardless of whether you tried keeping it offsite, some offsite insults are typically the first indication that you guys are hiding something far worse. It's called being "Dishonest", if you say things offsite in hopes that none of us are psychic, or no one screenshots it as evidence to report it to us, or someone far greater than any human doesn't exist. You can't always rule out any of those. The smartest and most mature thing to do is to just never insult/slur people in general.

I also noticed you guys compared yourselves to the previous Discord group. You said, "All we did was insult and none of us doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, or plot to destabilize the wiki." No one said you guys doxxed or made socks, but only 2 out of the 11 people would actually be banned if those were the requirements. Fllflourine and Thebluedash. The rest of them were banned for pretty much the same context ShadowWarrior and Corgi were banned. KamiYasha was considered the 3rd most toxic of the previous crew. His highlighted reasons for was that he threatened to beat up DragonMaster and called him "an au****ic N word (with no hard R)"; and said he would "Go on a Crusade against the Muslims if Antvasima banned Matt. And those are the reasons for why he was permanently blocked. Which is honestly almost identical in nearly every aspect to what both ShadowWarrior and GodHand have called me multiple times. If anything, KamiYasha's was tamer. They both used N words with the hard R, mocks towards Autism, Homophobic slurs, threats to slap me. And made some KKK support analogies where he thinks every religion except for one should be wiped out. KamiYasha also made the same excuse such as, "Those were jokes" or "Those were out of context". So if anything, given ShadowWarrior a lenient ban is giving him special treatment compared to KamiYasha. Speaking of which GodHand also literally praised the previous Discord group here.

Also, it appears people are divided on what "Plotting to destabilize the wiki" actually means. I'm pretty sure constantly expressing hostile behavior whether on or offsite, ganging up on knowledgeable or hardworking staff members, and trying to force them to agree/concede solely based on popular demand or out of context scans, and blatant hyperboles such as (Happy world means Universe) instead of following the sites rules or scientific details we lay out. And doing so in magnitude to the point where our "Most prominent staff members" don't even want to do anything anymore counts as "destabilizing the wiki." The wiki needs hardworking and active staff members to make sure each and every detail is spot on, instead of just overly popular fanbases trying to push for every exaggerated upgrade in the book and pushing for downgrades of any opposing verse. We also have every right to close threads if too many people are yelling, cussing, or throwing stones at people. And it's why staff discussion board for controversial verses in which only a few regular users are given permission to comment are often considered good ideas.

AshenCrow doesn't hate the wiki. Quite the contrary, he actually is a good friend with a lot of the staff. And even if he doesn't always agree with everything we say, he's at least reasonable polite. And he was not at all trying to "Destabilize the wiki." He was trying to protect the wiki by keeping us informed so that we can watch out for each and every single one of you. We have every right to watch out for potential threats, and we ban when their's full confirmation. We shouldn't be waiting for the damage to actually been done, and we can't have hardworking staff members being over-stressed or psychologically scarred by the constant bombardments we have to deal with on day to day bases. All he saw was that some of you were potentially plotting to destabilize the wiki, so he tried to keep is informed so we can be on guard before such a thing happened.

Also, the whole. "It's typical YouTube comment stuff" isn't really good defense. Google+ was shut down due to the overwhelming amounts of harassment that even staff members have been guilty of. And they were unable to manage it all due to poor management and security. And YouTube also has poor management and security. That's the only reason why people who do say some ban worthy stuff without getting banned. Unlike Fandom and other platforms where they do monitor everything said and done on their platforms. Even if they can be excessive at times.

Anyway, as Bambu informed me when I noted him. He said he simply doesn't care one way or the other if ShadowWarrior gets unbanned or if others get banned. But Corgi should absolutely stay banned for countless other reasons both exposed, and not yet exposed. Though he did say he's leaning towards that one remaining month should be long enough for him. I'm in agreement with him. Same with Moritza saying Corgi has gotten way too much special treatment despite his Mikoto/Jonathan Lighter/LordAizenSama levels of misbehavior.

I'm going to sleep, but I'd rather not get involved regarding ShadowWarrior's case. Going to remain neutral unless given better reasons.
 
8,951
3,121
You said, "All we did was insult and none of us doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, or plot to destabilize the wiki." No one said you guys doxxed or made socks, but only 2 out of the 11 people would actually be banned if those were the requirements. Fllflourine and Thebluedash. The rest of them were banned for pretty much the same context ShadowWarrior and Corgi were banned.

I never knew this. If only two of them doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, plotted to destabilize the wiki, or directly harassed people, then I'd support the other 9 people being unbanned.

If you guys can claim we have no right to be monitoring offsite activities, then I could very well say between this and this, you guys actually have no right to even speak our names without our permission.

I seriously doubt that. If you can get this pastebi taken down then you'd have a point, but I don't think you can do that. This justification for monitoring offsite activities holds no water.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
I largely agree with Medeus, and we are definitely never going to unban most of the Bleach Discord group. Period. They were actively acting out a concerted conspiracy to destabilise the wiki within Fandom itself, systematically attacking me on 4chan, and similar neverending ongoing behaviour. They had very severely ill intentions towards this community.

The ones among them who really wanted to come back have made sockpuppets anyway, but know that they have to keep their behaviours much stricter in line to not be found out. I would much prefer to keep things that way.

In any case, no matter how much you try to argue with us about this extremely sensitive issue, we are never going to unban them. After I explained the situation to the official Fandom staff, they even offered to ban the Discord group's accounts entirely from this platform, as far as I understood.

I would appreciate if we could immediately and permanently drop this issue please, and return to if we should reduce the block of TheUpgradeMan from 9 to a few months instead. Unlike the others, he doesn't actually mean any harm.
 

Damage3245

VS Battles
Sysop
Calculation Group
13,089
3,057
@Antvasima; I think the earlier consensus was 9 months which is already a compromise. I don't think we should drop it down any further.

We'll end up second guessing ourselves too much.
 

Crabwhale

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,953
3,108
Ant no one said anything about unbanning the Bleach Discord. They were a bunch of malicious, disruptive, actually horrible people that I am fairly certain no one wants back here.

We're discussing how the situation could be compared to them, which in my opinion it cannot. It's not even close in terms of severity.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
@Crabwhale

I think that Agnaa mentioned it. My apologies if I misunderstood.

@Damage

Thank you for being reasonable.
 
Agnaa said:
You said, "All we did was insult and none of us doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, or plot to destabilize the wiki." No one said you guys doxxed or made socks, but only 2 out of the 11 people would actually be banned if those were the requirements. Fllflourine and Thebluedash. The rest of them were banned for pretty much the same context ShadowWarrior and Corgi were banned.I never knew this. If only two of them doxxed, encouraged trolls to make socks, plotted to destabilize the wiki, or directly harassed people, then I'd support the other 9 people being unbanned.
Hey, I can agree with that, I'm literally the only person besides Kepekley who was in that server and has the screenshots/evidence of who did what.

If we're changing standards on what it takes for people to be banned for offline activity then only 3 members of the original Discord group should be banned (Fil, Blue, and Kami) since the rest did not partake in said doxxing, socks, destabilization, nor trolling the actual wiki. Solely insulting users offsite.

Edit: In fact, we already unbanned Aeyu/Dee. Aeyu took direct part in the original Discord and in the doxxing, destabilizing, insulting, and trolling due to good behavior and wishing to actually return and behave. So I'm not seeing the issue of unbanning the less serious offenses of the original Discord group.
 
Antvasima said:
As far as I remember, they all collaborated regarding the destabilisation. It seems like a very bad idea to allow people with hostile agendas to come back.
I have the screenshots, Kep still has the screenshots, I was in that server and Kep was in there with me.

If everyone collaborated in regards to destabilization then why wasn't I banned? Because not everyone in there was destabilizing, some were just talking crap and making jokes about users.

We can literally go to the thread Kep made and the albums of screenshots he took to see that only Fill, Blue, and Kami participated in destabilizing, doxxing, trolling, and harassing.

Also Ant, the user who was making fun of you on 4chan was already banned long before the Discord situation. That was Arigarmy who was not part of the Discord group.

This also still does not explain Aeyu being unbanned when she literally participated in the doxxing, destabilizing, trolling, and insulting. We gave her a new chance despite her being part of the Discord group since she said she would behave, so why can't we extend that to even the lesser banned users of the Discord group whose actions were not even as severe as Aeyu's?
 

AKM sama

Automatic Killing Machine
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,598
5,292
You had nothing to do with it Imade. But talking crap and making jokes about the same thing with people who were actively planning on destabilizing, doxxing and harassing kinda conveyed their intention too, that they were supportive of such behavior by their friends and made no effort to prevent that. We don't want such people and nothing is going to change on that front now.

And I'm gonna be honest, it's because of that incident that people are still speculative of you too. Let's not pretend that those same users aren't here already with alternate accounts.

Anyway, this is basically derailing the thread by bringing up an old can of worms with nothing good coming out of it. So let's drop this one.
 
8,951
3,121
But talking crap and making jokes about the same thing with people who were actively planning on destabilizing, doxxing and harassing kinda conveyed their intention too, that they were supportive of such behavior by their friends and made no effort to prevent that.

Eugh, so if we think someone's planning on doing something we have to actively prevent it or we're just as in the wrong as they are? That logic makes me feel uncomfortable.

Anyway, this is basically derailing the thread by bringing up an old can of worms with nothing good coming out of it. So let's drop this one.

If we're creating a definitive policy on what off-site behaviour we're okay with punishing over, that old can of worms is something that we will have to take into account.
 

Mr._Bambu

Narcissistic Cannibal
VS Battles
Sysop
Calculation Group
13,774
3,913
home again home again, seems like this has taken a new direction.

I'd like to say a few things I'm not sure are readily apparent. I spoke to Agnaa, sure, but I also spoke to others, the general consensus was that off-site behavior was punishable. We can't control what you do offsite, but we can control whether we want that toxicity reaching back here. Decidedly we do not. Among those I spoke to was Prom.

I'd also like to expand on the point that seems to be missed: while Agnaa is right, it does come down to opinion on whether or not off-site issues are readily bannable/punishable, the fact is that this behavior is a disruption of the wiki in that your discord friends took wiki matters over there, berated wiki members (such as Imagine, who I believe is banned nowadays), and then defended it by saying you removed it from the wiki. It still has the same tangible effect here, the same intent and outcome, it is decidedly punishable.

As a closing note: at the time of banning, I went through the screenshots and genuinely tried to discern whether there was legitimate, actual critique in there, however wrong said critique may be. Criticism can be given. I can say, for example (not a true statement) that I believe that Crabwhale is extremely biased towards My Little Pony and should be prevented from matches including the verse. That is different than having the sole contribution of picking fights and expending innumerous amounts of energy to spread toxicity against users off-site.
 
AKM sama said:
You had nothing to do with it Imade.
Well that was a lie (or you just don't know what happened, which I don't blame you since only Kep can correctly recall what happened since he was the only other person in there), I was in that server.

I was friends with some people there, including a few of the people where were banned. I was even in some of those screenshots. I've literally talked to Kep about all this as well and even about things that happened in that server. I used that server to preemptively make CRTs and get advice on what the post as I was new to the Wiki at the time.

But talking crap and making jokes about the same thing with people who were actively planning on destabilizing, doxxing and harassing kinda conveyed their intention too, that they were supportive of such behavior by their friends and made no effort to prevent that. We don't want such people and nothing is going to change on that front now.
Then why was Aeyu unbanned when she was part of the Discord server?

I literally can post Aeyu's actions of doxxing, planning to destabilize, promoting such actions, trolling, and insulting users.

How can you say to keep the Discord group banned and let Aeyu be unbanned? Especially when users like Bluetrekking's actions that got him banned was literally two screenshots of him making fun of users. Some of those banned users did not partake in doxxing nor destabilizing and I am actual proof of that since I was part of that server.

And I'm gonna be honest, it's because of that incident that people are still speculative of you too. Let's not pretend that those same users aren't here already with alternate accounts.
1) The profile picture helps with that, but I'm fine with that.

2) Given how I still talk to some of them, I can show you comments by them of how they've quit any participation of battleboarding or fictional battle discussion. I'm arguing for this out of principal since this is a clear example of double standard on the Wiki.

Anyway, this is basically derailing the thread by bringing up an old can of worms with nothing good coming out of it. So let's drop this one.
Disagree, we're literally discuss an important facet of the previous discussion in regards to off-site actions and punishment of off-site actions.

We can't be unbanning Aeyu and banning other's for lesser or similar actions. It's straight hypocrisy or evidence of staff privilege.
 

AKM sama

Automatic Killing Machine
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,598
5,292
@Agnaa My main point was not about banning people for not preventing it, as you can see Imade is still here. But joking and actively talking crap with a malicious intent about such acts with such people also paints you in the same color as them and makes you look like you actively support it.

If I'm being completely honest, you can't come out of a room filled with ink without a single stain. It's just about figuring out who were trustworthy and who were not based on the present evidences.
 
AKM sama said:
@Agnaa My main point was not about banning people for not preventing it, as you can see Imade is still here. But joking and actively talking crap with a malicious intent about such acts with such people also paints you in the same color as them and makes you look like you actively support it.
If I'm being completely honest, you can't come out of a room filled with ink without a single stain. It's just about figuring out who were trustworthy and who were not based on the present evidences.
Then why was Aeyu unbanned when she was covered in the most ink? Bro, I literally have the evidence of this since I was in the server and took the screenshots.

Why wasn't I banned when I was in that room? Because I didn't participate in the doxxing or destabilizing just like some of the users that were banned solely for talking crap.
 
8,951
3,121
I'd like to say a few things I'm not sure are readily apparent. I spoke to Agnaa, sure, but I also spoke to others, the general consensus was that off-site behavior was punishable.

Correct. I did try to clarify in my post that other people shared your view on this.

We can't control what you do offsite, but we can control whether we want that toxicity reaching back here. Decidedly we do not.

What does toxicity reaching back here mean? Is it just screenshots of toxic behaviour being posted? The thing that really gets me is that the only site rules being enforced off-site are ones directly involving other members - general toxicity or behaviour that we ban here would be ignored. Unless I should be posting screenshots of me saying the n-word on Discord a few hundred times so I can get banned.

If no other toxic behaviour off-site results in a punishment on-site, except for shittalking other members, it really seems like it's not about toxic behaviour, but about people getting upset that people are shittalking them behind their back.

the fact is that this behavior is a disruption of the wiki in that your discord friends took wiki matters over there, berated wiki members (such as Imagine, who I believe is banned nowadays), and then defended it by saying you removed it from the wiki. It still has the same tangible effect here, the same intent and outcome, it is decidedly punishable.

How does it still have effect here? I'm not seeing the logical through-line that your presenting. It's a disruption of the wiki because wiki matters were taken there, people were shittalked, then people defended it???

My main point was not about banning people for not preventing it, as you can see Imade is still here. But joking and actively talking crap with a malicious intent about such acts with such people also paints you in the same color as them and makes you look like you actively support it.

Okay, so we're just not allowed to joke with people who are malicious towards the wiki, got it. Want me to post screenshots of me laughing along with some troll that sent gore to me on another wiki?

I also think the "actively supporting" it part demonstrates no awareness of group dynamics and how they effect people. Peer pressures have people normalize shitty things. But as long as they don't engage in it themselves, I don't think they're necessarily bad people.

EDIT: AKM/Bambu, if conversation about this isn't happening here please find another avenue to talk to me without it, because I think these proposed methods of punishment are unnecessary, disastrous, and untenable :3
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
Look, Aeyu isn't part of a group with hostile intentions towards the wiki, and has apologised a lot and been of great help to the wiki via Discord afterwards. Several trusted staff members also vouched for that she wouldn't be a problem, so we eventually removed her ban after over one year. She hasn't actually been active in the wiki afterwards anyway though.

However, letting several members who did actively help to troll a lot regarding The Everlasting and other issues back into the wiki, would be to take extreme risks for conflict, destabilisation, severely upset staff members, etcetera, at a time of turmoil when we also definitely cannot afford this.

Basically, Aeyu was eventually deemed to not be a threat, whereas we cannot take such a risk with the others.

I would appreciate if you drop this issue immediately. Nothing is going to change from you dragging up old drama again, and we are already busy discussing other issues here.

Nothing is going to change regarding the banned toxic Sonic fans either for that matter.
 
Antvasima said:
Look, Aeyu isn't part of a group with hostile intentions towards the wiki,
She was part of the same group that was banned for hostile intentions towards the wiki.

and has apologised a lot and been of great help to the wiki via Discord afterwards. Several trusted staff members also vouched for that she wouldn't be a problem, so we eventually removed her ban after over one year. She hasn't actually been active in the wiki afterwards anyway though.
This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.

However, letting several members who did actively help to troll a lot regarding The Everlasting and other issues back into the wiki, would be to take extreme risks for conflict, destabilisation, severely upset staff members, etcetera, at a time when we also definitely cannot afford this.
These are the same actions Aeyu took, once again not proving why the Discord group should remain banned. Especially those who did not doxx nor even participate in destabilizing.

At the same time, we literally have users still around who participated in The Everlasting situation like CinCameron (in fact, CinCameron was part of the Discord group).

I would appreciate if you drop this issue immediately. Nothing is going to change from you dragging up and blowing up old drama again, and we are already busy discussing other issues here.
Nothing is going to change refarding the banned toxic Sonic fans either for that matter.

I will not drop this for the same reason as Agnaa just brought up. This is an important discussion in regards to wiki policy of off-site behavior.
 
8,951
3,121
This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.

I'm not this deep in the nitty gritty of Aeyu's situation, but did a staff member really come up to Aeyu and say "If you apologize I'll unban you"? The feeling I got wasn't that it was an offer, but that Aeyu apologized and then that was used to push for an unban.

I'm sure that if the other members showed they were repentant instead of screaming about hypocrisy that they'd be far closer to being unbanned.
 
Agnaa said:
This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.
I'm not this deep in the nitty gritty of Aeyu's situation, but did a staff member really come up to Aeyu and say "If you apologize I'll unban you"? The feeling I got wasn't that it was an offer, but that Aeyu apologized and then that was used to push for an unban.
Aeyu was friends with staff members before being banned and shared a server with them. That's part of how she was destabilizing as her screenshots showed.

In fact, several of the banned discord members tried making up on the Community Wiki message walls that we could literally link here.
 
Agnaa said:
This type of connection wasn't extended to the rest of the Discord group, it wasn't even extended to those with actions of just talking crap.
I'm not this deep in the nitty gritty of Aeyu's situation, but did a staff member really come up to Aeyu and say "If you apologize I'll unban you"? The feeling I got wasn't that it was an offer, but that Aeyu apologized and then that was used to push for an unban.

I'm sure that if the other members showed they were repentant instead of screaming about hypocrisy that they'd be far closer to being unbanned.
because they don't have friends with green names and a bias for having them around.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
You can keep pestering us about this issue, but we are not going to unban the Bleach Discord members under any circumstances no matter what you say. All that you accomplish is to cause drama when the wiki is already in a state of turmoil due to the upcoming forum move. So yes, you should drop the issue.

You may or may not have a point about that Aeyu should have remained banned, especially as she never visits here anyway, but I have been told that she has redeemed herself, is extremely regretful, and not a threat or part of a group with hostile intentions anymore, by trusted staff members.

On the other hand, letting back people who together would very much constitute a threat to the stability here, and, again, likely mostly have sockpuppets anyway, would be downright idiotic, especially with our current situation with the forum and important staff members quitting.

So yes, drop this issue. Nothing is going to change. All you are doing is causing unnecessary drama.
 
2,759
218
I'd like to say a few things I'm not sure are readily apparent. I spoke to Agnaa, sure, but I also spoke to others, the general consensus was that off-site behavior was punishable. We can't control what you do offsite, but we can control whether we want that toxicity reaching back here. Decidedly we do not. Among those I spoke to was Prom.

I agree with off-site behavior being punishable if it spills back to the site (although generally what was said on the wiki should be prioritized even if the drama started elsewhere). However this is not a case of behavior or drama spilling back to the site, this is Ashen giving DDM screenshots of stuff happening on Discord. There is no drama or negative behavior that spilled back to the site, only those screenshots. If DDM had for instance (didn't happen) confronted Shadow and Corgi about those screenshots and they then would have insulted him, that would be drama spilling back to the site. None of that happened and instead they were banned for something which exclusively happened off-site. If you want to control toxicity reaching back here then I suppose talking to Ashen who wanted to destabilize the wiki is a better option.

I'd also like to expand on the point that seems to be missed: while Agnaa is right, it does come down to opinion on whether or not off-site issues are readily bannable/punishable, the fact is that this behavior is a disruption of the wiki in that your discord friends took wiki matters over there, berated wiki members (such as Imagine, who I believe is banned nowadays), and then defended it by saying you removed it from the wiki. It still has the same tangible effect here, the same intent and outcome, it is decidedly punishable.

They took wiki matters over there because they want to talk about wiki matter over there, just as they like talking about Sonic over there. You are basically implying that they should be censored from saying anything about the wiki on Discord or that they are obligated to say certain things in a certain way, which is a direct violation of Freedom of Speech.

As a closing note: at the time of banning, I went through the screenshots and genuinely tried to discern whether there was legitimate, actual critique in there, however wrong said critique may be. Criticism can be given. I can say, for example (not a true statement) that I believe that Crabwhale is extremely biased towards My Little Pony and should be prevented from matches including the verse. That is different than having the sole contribution of picking fights and expending innumerous amounts of energy to spread toxicity against users off-site.

They are not obligated to give constructive criticism on a private Discord server, sure it may be helpful instead of complaining but it doesn't really change anything.
 
1,431
307
Agnaa said:
I'm sure that if the other members showed they were repentant instead of screaming about hypocrisy that they'd be far closer to being unbanned.
Actually Knight did apologize directly a while back. However this is clearly selectively applied so there's no point really.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
Well, this is turning into an ongoing big mess. Thanks a lot for that, as if I wasn't tired and overworked enough already.

Anyway, again, we are not going to unban lots of people who would likely cause ongoing major problems if we let them back in. It is too much of a risk. Drop this. This sort of drama is causing harm to the community.

Upgrade on the other hand seems almost completely harmless to me, and to not have any ill intentions.
 
2,482
279
SD and Monarch definitely didn't seem to think so, and this feels a lot like you're ignoring them to lower the ban duration. Especially when they haven't replied in 2 days since you suggested the idea.
 
Antvasima said:
You can keep pestering us about this issue, but we are not going to unban the Bleach Discord members under any circumstances no matter what you say.
They're not even Bleach people, Fill, Blue, and Kami had nothing to do with Bleach.

All that you accomplish is to cause drama when the wiki is already in a state of turmoil due to the upcoming forum move. So yes, you should drop the issue.
I will not drop an issue that has to do with the current discussion of off-site behavior punishment. The Discord group is the most important aspect that would be affected by such a discussion.

You may or may not have a point about that Aeyu should have remained banned, especially as she never visits here anyway, but I have been told that she has redeemed herself, is extremely regretful, and not a threat or part of a group with hostile intentions anymore, by trusted staff members.
So were some Discord users, but they weren't unbanned.

This still doesn't answer the fact that some users were banned despite not having participated in doxxing or destabilizing.

Are you just going to ignore the fact that CinCameron, Zensum and even myself were part of that server? We're explicit evidence that some users did not doxx or destabilize and at worst just talked crap.
 
804
332
Just make a different thread about it. This is a thread to take action against problems that are currently happening, not a thread to keep continuing a discussion when it's already been agreed to shift it to another.
 
2,482
279
Antvasima said:
Actually, I am waiting for them to read Upgrade's letter and then respond to me.
You already reduced the duration before telling people about it. I'm not sure exactly what is going to change your mind given you seem set on it and have acted already without staff input.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
I have to call the old Discord group something distinctive from the current one, and it was recurrently Bleach-related.

Anyway, look, I can only go by what the most trusted members tell me regarding issues such as this, and I also have experiences regarding how several of the banned members behaved in conjunction with The Everlasting situation.

Aeyu made ongoing efforts to redeem herself, and this was noticed by the staff. If a few of the other Bleach Discord group members made similar efforts, and wouldn't cause problems anymore, but there is no way for me to verify this, then there is no way for me to do anything except roll the dice and make a massive gamble. It is regrettable, but also doesn't have any perfect solutions, and I have to mainly take the safety of the wiki community into account.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
PlozAlcachaz said:
Just make a different thread about it. This is a thread to take action against problems that are currently happening, not a thread to keep continuing a discussion when it's already been agreed to shift it to another.
Agreed.
 
2,482
279
True, but would taking their thoughts into account over other non-staff like me who suggested the 9 months duration be better? I just didn't expect the sudden action considering SD and Monarch having such strong views and so far not posting since 2 days, when you asked for the reduction only 20 hours ago. Feels weird that it's suddenly being rushed along now. I guess I'll wait for them to post personally. That's all.
 
Antvasima said:
I have to call the old Discord group something distinctive from the current one, and it was recurrently Bleach-related.
Most of the banned users had nothing to do with Bleach.

Anyway, look, I can only go by what the most trusted members tell me regarding issues such as this, and I also have experiences regarding how several of the banned members behaved in conjunction with The Everlasting situation.
What trusted members? The only people in that server that are still around and know fully what happened are CinCameron, Qawsedf234, Zensum, Kepekley, and me.

Aeyu made ongoing efforts to redeem herself, and this was noticed by the staff. If a few of the other Bleach Discord group members made similar efforts, and wouldn't cause problems anymore, but there is no way for me to verify this, then there is no way for me to do anything except roll the dice and make a massive gamble. It is regrettable, but also doesn't have any perfect solutions, and I have to mainly take the safety of the wiki community into account.
Aeyu also participated in doxxing, destabilizing, insulting, and trolling.

Yet some of the users like Bluetrekking were banned for solely insulting users in one or two screenshots.
 
8,951
3,121
@Regis The timeframe's far away anyway. If it's eventually decided to increase it to a permaban/9 months, it being at 3 months now isn't much of an issue. Just chill and let people actually discuss the issue instead of having this meta discussion.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
@Agnaa

Upgrade is currently banned for 9 months. I don't want to reduce the duration without further staff input.

@IMade

The point is that other staff members repeatedly told me that Aeyu had redeemed herself in various ways, and that she should be unbanned, whereas they haven't given me such information about any of the other banned Discord group (whatever you want to call it) members. I cannot just take a gamble based on almost nothing.
 

AKM sama

Automatic Killing Machine
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,598
5,292
This is not the right time to stir this up again. Not the right thread either. A separate thread should be made to decide offsite regulations and then it will address Shadow's situation. Let's all drop any more comments about this topic here.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
I agree about dropping the topic here, but do not think that other threads that drag up lots of old drama and want absolute consistency regarding everything, would do any good either,
 
4,848
2,088
Antvasima said:
I agree about dropping the topic here, but do not think that other threads that drag up lots of old drama and want absolute consistency regarding everything, would do any good either,
I doubt talking about the legitimacy of Shadow's ban would bring up old drama, and is likely the most efficient way to discuss the legitmacy of his ban without clogging this up further.

I won't make any more comments here regarding it. My apologies.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
I was talking about a massive thread about both that and the old Bleach group Discord bans that would only serve to destabilise the community at a time when we definitely need to stay coherent and organised in preparation for the upcoming forum move.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
More comments from TheUpgradeManHaHaxD:

  • "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. - Somebodydata
I never tried to get anyone banned. I will admit labeling what i said a "Conspiracy" was poor choice of words. Though the words aren't mine, but a friend who doens't have a vsbattle wiki account. I also want to make it clear that you can't be banned for making a CRT about a characters ratings/stats. This seems like a massive stretch to say i want to get a user banned for that. This would just mean I would need to debate them on the tiering proposed within the CRT.

  • "Again, he didn't try to frame anybody for conspiracy. He was just suspicious, likely due to Alonik trying to extremely downgrade Saint Seiya speeds due to taking statements over calculated feats" - Antvasima
This isn't it.. but you are right i was NOT trying to get anyone banned, or frame anyone. What it was is that a friend contacted me offsite. He pointed out some oddly timed post that he believed where too much to be coincidence. I wanted to talk it over with Matt since he was a related party in the matter. The goal wasn't to get anyone banned!!

My friend said "Hey Man. I noticed some very oddly timed stuff on Vsbattle wiki. I think Matt might be in for some trouble." He then proceeded to bombard me with Screenshots.

  • "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." - SomebodyData
Monarch left out some important context here!!!!! in case anyone is confused. I have 2 discord accounts. 1 for my mobile phone, and 1 for my labtop. I don't remember the reason why i have 2, but i just stuck with it. I said "hold on irl stuff." I then posted 11 minutes later after monarch made his last comment!!!!

  • "The fact is, this is similar to what happened to Mikoto, bannable offenses being reduced because the community liked them" -Somebodydata
it feels more like their is a lot of people against me than there is with me.. but also i want people to know that im not trying to lower my sentence.. i just want people to understand the situation better.. or understand my point of view..

  • "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.' - Somebodydata
I only used those 2 accounts. There isn't any other ones.. And i was blinded by my emotion, and feelings. It was something stupid i admit that..A moment of weakness.. it was a petty move.. i get it..

but to say that i used sockpuppets on every thread i ever made is a bit much... The other account was inactive until the day i made that post..

  • "Basically Monarch was trying to investigate and Upgrade didn't come clean, even after being exposed." - SomebodyData
I did come clean..

  • " but in reality, he is totally conspirator either against his opponent or against his arguments.' - [I don't want to give out the name of who said this]
I feel there is some people on the RV thread whom are attacking the character (me as a person, and my characteristics as a being) to discredit points i made on a thread during a debate.

  • "Wait, why are people defending a guy who was obviously well versed in the rules and created socks to try to boost his threads" - I'm Blue daba dee daba die
This is a massive assumption no offense, and not trying to be rude.. But i didn't know what a sockpuppet was until recently, and reading the fandom definition of a sockpuppet. it feels like people are labeling what i did as a sockpuppet to lengthen the ban, or maybe its just stigma of an alternate account. Fandom also makes it a point of "Sockpuppets aren't to be confused with multiple accounts." I read the wiki, and i don't see anything in the rules about abuse of a secondary account, or a baseline punishment for it. (not trying to justify what i did please don't be confused there..)

My point here is that i didn't know what a sockpuppet was until this incident, and from what the linked definition of a sock puppet is.. it doesn't look like what i did was sockpuppeting but something else entirely.. (Still a bad behavior though)

Also.. i want to compare this situation to the Kingdom Hearts situation again.

There was a member who added abilities that staff members had disagreed on to their profiles, but he was given a chance to redeem himself and not get a ban, correct? I didn't really keep up with that situation.

Comparing that to what i did.... it kind of confusing on who did the most wrong

Hopefully all of this sounds okay.... I had a rough day today, and im sick... in case people think im come off strongly.. I don't mean too.. also.. if anyone has any questions... id like to know so i can help further clear things up, and correct any misunderstandings.. I understand that my English-grammar skills are terrible (Even though it is my primary language)so.. it might be possible that something sounds incorrectly to what im actually trying to convey..
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
Again, he seems very harmless to me. I think that 9 months is a way too harsh punishment.
 

Antvasima

VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
100,346
21,049
I would appreciate some staff input regarding Upgrade, especially from administrators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top