Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Promestein]

Absolutely is deserving of a long ban. Zach's prior conduct isn't exactly relevant, but it's a lot more than a "thousand cuts", and he's been banned before, more than once.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Absolutely is deserving of a long ban. Zach's prior conduct isn't exactly relevant, but it's a lot more than a "thousand cuts", and he's been banned before, more than once.

Define long

 

[Moritzva]

Alright. I have a proposal.

I avoid talking to, or about, Saikou until 2021. If I do, you ban me forever. Deal?

**** that. You had your chance. As I like to say in Among Us, get out the airlock.

 

[Antvasima]

I definitely don't want anybody to ban YuriAkuto. He is incredibly helpful and reliable.

I am neutral about Zachary. Ogbunabali seems to have the most levelheaded evaluation here.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

There dosen't really seem to to be much evidence the event with the dnd pages was the user's fault, 'the record is against them' and them having once made a off hand comment aligning with the views of the altered pages. And I take issue with the use of an appile to morals on this thread. I can't say much about the rest other then one should not seek out evidence for a ban that isn't there it harms the integrity of the process. What else I think about the matter really doesn't matter I don't decide who gets banned and who doesn't

 

[Moritzva]

Yuri is fine. Don't punish the dude, I'm 100% sure he's absolutely clear and meant no ill will.

Ogbunabali explains why a permanent ban is reasonable.

1. He has been banned several times before.
2. He has not changed from these bans, and his behavior does not ever get better.
3. He has continued all of his bad behavior on varying levels and accounts.
4. He has continued and been stalking Saikou for years, even continuing on this wiki.
5. He has lied about these offenses (on this very thread, too!)

So what do we do when a banned rule-breaker breaks rules again, and again, and again? We ban them. Permanently.

 

[Wokistan]

Don't really think the D&D thing is relevant as much as being really creepy is, yeah. That's probably worth some sort of ban considering how long it's been going on for. Lotta people can vouch for it, I'll see about grabbing hard proof.


Wouldn't levy as harsh an accusation as grooming by a long shot though.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Alright

Fine, I stalked Saikou too much.

@Promestein, Ban me until 2021. You’re the least biased out of those that actually do want to ban me.

 

[Antvasima]

Regardless, since several staff members, including Promestein, want Zachary banned, and I am ambivalent, I suppose that me and Ogbunabali are likely outvoted.

 

[Wokistan]

"And I take issue with the use of an appile to morals on this thread. I can't say much about the rest other then one should not seek out evidence for a ban that isn't there it harms the integrity of the process."


Idk how the ban "wouldn't be there" if there's evidence for it, unless you're implying forgery.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

What happened to Yuki is the exact same as with Nedge. A naive/busy staff member being misled by Zach to do an unwarranted edit. He should be warned but not outright demoted or banned.

 

[00potato]

Make it permanent though, he had his chances.

 

[Moritzva]

Alright

Fine, I stalked Saikou too much.

@Promestein, Ban me until 2021. You’re the least biased out of those that actually do want to ban me.

Oh, boy, a 3 month ban? Heaven's no.

My vote still stands for a permanent ban, given his previous track record of several bans, unwillingness to stop, and continuing to break rules after being told otherwise.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Prom did imply it shouldn’t be permanent according to her. But Moritz (among others) want me gone for good, which is the debate now.

 

[Moritzva]

Regardless, since several staff members, including Promestein, want Zachary banned, and I am ambivalent, I suppose that me and Ogbunabali are likely outvoted.

Keep in mind that Ogbunabali did not explicitly express that he disagreed with a ban, and actually affirmed all the reasons he should be banned in some manner.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

What happened to Yuki is the exact same as with Nedge. A naive/busy staff member being misled by Zach to do an unwarranted edit. He should be warned but not outright demoted or banned.

...I already explained why this part wasn’t my fault.

Look, if you’re going to ban me, permanently or otherwise, do it for me stalking Saikou, not for something I didn’t even do

 

[GojiBoyForever]

I think a 10 year ban would be adequate.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Consistent problematic behavior that has been persisting for this long with no seeming attempt at betterment after multiple times being called out is not the kind of thing that I see any point disregarding.

I don't know about permanent ban, but obvious negligence of previous warnings should completely merit some sort of action. Especially when Zach already showed off lying about his pestering of Saikou, which Moritzva right away showed was completely wrong.

Again, some sort of action is an entirely valid response and absolutely deserved if it has reached this level, and this insistence really doesn't sound like it will settle after a warning if this has been pointed out to Zach so many times already.

 

[Sadistic_Sleuth]

Didn't Zach call Ultima a "kitty" when the move happened? That's creepy asf.

 

[Promestein]

You already got a 2-3 month ban for the **** thing last year.

I said long ban because I'm not invested in the exact length. That could mean a year. That could mean permanently. I'll leave that to someone else's discretion.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Still waiting to see the hard evidences for a record for later if the issue comes up again.

 

[Gohanblanco217]

I think a 10 year ban would be adequate.

10 years????? This is Hell

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

You already got a 2-3 month ban for the **** thing last year.

I said long ban because I'm not invested in the exact length. That could mean a year. That could mean permanently. I'll leave that to someone else's discretion.

But Prom, you’re the only member I trust to be unbiased about this... and one of the only ones with high authority on it.

 

[00potato]

What about a 157 year ban? A good midway between a few years and permanent.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I agree with Lancelot here, this has gone on for far too long

 

[Gohanblanco217]

What about a 157 year ban? A good midway between a few years and permanent.

He would already be dead lol

 

[Promestein]

This is me being unbiased.

You're a persistent trouble even without getting into you stalking and harassing Saikou. You have a very poor track record, and you've gotten banned already! And this is the worst of your behavior thus far. You should at least get a year-long ban.

 

[Moritzva]

But Prom, you’re the only member I trust to be unbiased about this... and one of the only ones with high authority on it.

She is unbiased!
That's why she's not 100% sure of a permanent ban, but isn't opposed to it, either.

Anyways, this thread is getting chaotic. How do we sort it out? Because Prom is neutral and in favor of anywhere from 1 year to permanent. I am in favor of a permanent ban. Several other users are, too.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I agree with banning Zach, after seeing how he behaves both on and off-site over the last few months its painfully clear that he is nothing but a bad influence that will only hurt more people the longer he is allowed to stay in this community.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

snip

Zach, I am pretty much saying you totally deserve that ban after continuing this behavior so persistently and not getting any better despite the ludicrous amount of time since this started and the number of times it has gotten you in trouble.

I have no clue why you voted me up, unless you are agreeing that a ban is fitting for you. Not like I mind.

 

[Zoey_of_Scadrial]

I wouldn't say Zach is a Groomer, and he is usually fine outside of a few comments.
Can't say much about him around, but he seems fine in DMs
My suspicions were mostly aroused by others concerns and suspicons. Which did leave me alert, but I don't find him actively malacious.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

I'm not going to weigh in one way or the other about whether or not Zach should be banned, but since it was brought up I'll go ahead and say that no, he did not ask me to message Saikou on his behalf. Zach kept asking me to send him screenshots about Saikou's conversations over on Discord, and I got annoyed by it so I @ed Saikou telling him that Zach kept asking about him.

But I don't really see why that was brought up in the first place because nobody even implied that they thought Zach wanted me to send any messages on his behalf. It doesn't change anything either way.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think its fine to be ban Zach; I take responsibility for my past mistakes. I think Zach has too many mistakes; he never really shaped up or really listened to other about not interacting with Saikou; it has been really creepy and I think it already bypassed our standard for offsite behaviors, also.

 

[Moritzva]

I'm not going to weigh in one way or the other about whether or not Zach should be banned, but since it was brought up I'll go ahead and say that no, he did not ask me to message Saikou on his behalf. Zach kept asking me to send him screenshots about Saikou's conversations over on Discord, and I got annoyed by it so I @ed Saikou telling him that Zach kept asking about him.

But I don't really see why that was brought up in the first place because nobody even implied that they thought Zach wanted me to send any messages on his behalf. It doesn't change anything either way.

Thanks for the clarification about this, and this does prove that Zach exhibits extremely stalker-ish behavior of demanding screenshots and wanting to see what Saikou is doing.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Fine.

Ban me for a year, then. People will inevitably ask you do it for forever. And I might actually get banned forever.

Sigh. See you guys in a year. Or never.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

"And I take issue with the use of an appile to morals on this thread. I can't say much about the rest other then one should not seek out evidence for a ban that isn't there it harms the integrity of the process."


Idk how the ban "wouldn't be there" if there's evidence for it, unless you're implying forgery.

I was referring to looking for evidence that isn't there, in connection to this case I was referring to the dnd thing coming up alot even tho it didn't have much evidence for a connection, I really don't think anything like forgery applies to that, I more worry about people seeing what they want to see and that getting someone banned

 

[Moritzva]

... overall, a solid majority seems to be in favor of a ban, at minimum one year, and up to permanent.

Given how Zach has been banned several times before, is it not most reasonable to round up and settle for a permanent ban?

Absolute worst case scenario, if Zach can prove he has changed as a person far, far down the line (and I mean, at least a year), he can be unbanned.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

How would I prove that if I’m permabanned?

 

[Wokistan]

I think a perm ban with an opportunity to appeal in a year seems fine.

@ZacharyGrossman273 Actually respecting Saik's wishes and not trying to contact him, proxies or not, not sending **** out to random people, having others that can vouch for your improvement, stopping when people tell you to, etc.

 

[Moritzva]

How would I prove that if I’m permabanned?

Find a reliable character witness. If you've changed for good, surely you can find one reasonable person willing to vouch for you.