• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Standards for off-site behavior (Staff only)

If we're certain Person 2 is gonna help out with Person 1's plan for destabilizing the wiki then yeah sure ban that person as well, however Person 2 could also be pretending to be tough but when it actually comes down to it not actually help person 1 out so this should still be thoroughly analyzed.
 
Autism isn't a mental illness. It usually means that your brain is wired differently than normal, so you have problems with filtering information, social communication, and getting very obsessive about things. Or at least that's the main symtoms I have.
 
Sera EX said:
Off-site behavior is completely irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic.
  • Threatening someone off-site, be it a threat of violence, hacking, doxxing, sexual harassment, etc.)
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (and no, piracy doesn't count).
Click to expand...
I agree with this, although if we're implementing this there needs to be a significant burden of evidence for proving any of these.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Snip.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but what's offensive to some people and aren't offensive to others because of how they were "raised" has no precedence. Not everybody is gonna be raised in a matter where those words mean much to them, and a "Strait, White, Christian Male who's been home-schooled most of their life and who's ancestral background has always felt very strongly about their religious viewpoints and words in scripture" doesn't represent everyone. If we use your example and those specific situations are used, then what harm does that even do aside from cause some people discomfort? Also, KamiYasha was plotting to destabilize the wiki, he wasn't banned for saying a slur. That's an egregious false equivalency.

This is where you're off the wall. We're at a time where such insults are commonplace. I'm not saying that it's an excuse, nor am I saying that it makes it right, but the use of "autism" as an insult in this context is childish at best. And if you haven't noticed, "kys" is a very and unfortunately common phrase used amongst many people. And don't start blowing this out of proportion with this "genocidal maniac" business. Even back when I was in high school, I've heard these terms used. Again, that does not make it right. But people saying these things aren't as meaningful as you imply. I'm sorry, but hurt feelings over what somebody said online when they had no horrid motive shouldn't be enough for a ban.

If what comes from this thread isn't enough for an unban, where do I take this to stop the derailing of this thread?
 
The Human Resources group has already discussed the issue you keep bringing up for a long period of time with Mr. Bambu and Medeus. Digging up said issue over and over and over is jusf tiresome and pointless to deal with, and the ban wasn't even permanent.
 
All right where do you suggest writing her conclusions down? Perhaps a new page titled off-site rules (or standards on off-site behavior) or adding it to the site rules?
 
Probably adding to the site rules.
 
I propose the following be added to the site rules:

Off-site behavior is completely irrelevant except in cases of:

  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic.
  • Threatening someone off-site, be it a threat of violence, hacking, doxxing, sexual harassment, etc.
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).
To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
 
@AKM People have gotten banned for simply talking shit without conspiring to get a member banned, and without shittalking someone while other people are conspiring, and you have defended those bans. But if you've had a change of heart and that's how things will be handled from now on, that sounds fine.

@DDM I strongly disagree. People act differently around different groups of people but most people don't have a true self that they show to one group of people; they're the combination of all the ways they want to interact on all platforms. On top of that, toxic places like that tend to breed toxic behaviour. From personal experience, when I was in environments like that many years I hammed things up. I tossed in f-slurs when I wouldn't normally use that word

I don't know the specific details of KamiYasha's ban so I can't really comment there, but if you've got a problem with white people saying the n-word to other white people then ban me. Hell, I've used mental illnesses as insults too. If you don't care that I've done that, then maybe reconsider banning other people for it.
 
@Infinite Sera outlined that here.
 
@GreenShifter, I agree. That's why I was trying to keep it more in line with just a general conscientious and I only meant to use their names as examples of a few sentences. Other other stronger stuff wasn't quite something said by them specifically, but others. I was in a rush and needed to get to work, so I may have unintentionally said some rushed details.

@Agnaa, it's not that the actual ethnicity or beliefs of the individuals that matter, it's the context. Edgy roleplaying amongst yourselves isn't ban worthy unless extreme or some people who wanted nothing to do with it got forced into it. Being brainwashed or manipulation by a certain society or bad experience into saying bad things is still something that shouldn't be ignored, but quite ban worthy unless it went overboard; and more so the one who did the brainwashing should be held accountable. But, if there's evidence/context a person actually meant to be offensive and is completely remorseless about their actions, that's a different story. Bambu did say this offsite, I think just being a blatant racist to the point of dictating your actions seems bad enough.

@Shake, I believe Agnaa made a thread on his wall meant to talk about Discord drama in general; regarding both groups. So if it really needs to be taken anywhere publicly, it would be there instead of here or the RVR thread.

@All, anyway. Sera did elaborate very well, but I also think AKM Sama's points are what really nail it.
 
I wouldn't call it brainwashing/manipulation. It's just that people take on the speaking patterns of those around them.

But, if there's evidence/context a person actually meant to be offensive and is completely remorseless about their actions, that's a different story.

Eugh I don't like these words either. I've said some things to be offensive that I don't have remorse about. With such loose wording I can't agree.

Bambu did say this offsite, I think just being a blatant racist to the point of dictating your actions seems bad enough.

When he was talking to me about that sort of thing, he clarified that he only wanted blatant racists to not be staff. He was clear to me that he didn't want them banned. Now, his views may have changed since then, and if they have, then I'd heavily disagree. Even though it wouldn't affect me, I don't think it's necessary to ban people who are racist off-site, since it doesn't affect us.

I believe Agnaa made a thread on his wall meant to talk about Discord drama in general; regarding both groups. So if it really needs to be taken anywhere publicly, it would be there instead of here or the RVR thread.

To be clear, that thread was made about the old Discord drama, not the most recent group.

anyway. Sera did elaborate very well, but I also think AKM Sama's points are what really nail it.

What you're advocating for seems different from what Sera, and even AKM recently, are advocating for...
 
People can change, that's also another difference. And actually, it's more so controversy is what should be avoided rather than offensive stuff.

That was something he said on a one on one conversation with me. I did say "Suicide encouragements and plots to destabilize the wiki" is the stuff to look into in a Discord group. Then he responded with that italics text.

That was AKM Sama who talked about saying the SW incident could be talked about on message walls rather than RVR thread.

It is different from Sera's, but AKM Sama did say at the beginning that he did think we needed to be stricter regarding offsite behavior. The motive is that we want the wiki to be one of unity that maintains a balance of accurate statistics ratings while trying to be civilized. And not a bunch of divided cults that want nothing but their favorite characters and verses reigning supreme. Not directly accusing people currently here of that, but we do see a lot of that in recent years.
 
Welp, I'm not okay with something that's vaguely stricter. I'm more comfortable with the concrete guidelines for punishment Sera put out.

I am also very very strongly opposed to how seriously you people take "suicide encouragements". You may just not be familiar with it, but a lot of people on the internet throw around "kys" and similar things completely casually with no meaning behind it.

If a specific person is having it said to them directly and they don't want it to be, that's ground for us to take action if the other person doesn't stop. Someone saying in a private discord server "Jesus, X should ******* kill themselves" should not be punished. An encouragement not made for a person's ears isn't a real encouragement.
 
I'm very well aware how often that abbreviation is thrown around all over the YouTube comments and I have partaken in international campaigns against that; which are all over the place in various colleges. And unlike Google/YouTube, Fandom has the active staff that look over comments and globally block people who even remotely say anything related to stuff like that. Google+ was shut down because they didn't have enough people or power to deal with the overwhelming amounts of harassment and cyberbullying. Lots of people have even gotten arrested for making some "kys" comments.

And it's really insensitive and insane to be saying such things casually.
 
I see an insurmountable difference between a group of people directly harassing someone with comments encouraging suicide, and people in a private chat without that person expressing those same attitudes.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm very well aware how often that abbreviation is thrown around all over the YouTube comments and I have partaken in international campaigns against that; which are all over the place in various colleges. And unlike Google/YouTube, Fandom has the active staff that look over comments and globally block people who even remotely say anything related to stuff like that. Google+ was shut down because they didn't have enough people or power to deal with the overwhelming amounts of harassment and cyberbullying. Lots of people have even gotten arrested for making some "kys" comments.

And it's really insensitive and insane to be saying such things casually.
Click to expand...
"In California, the statutory definition of the crime at issue is set out in section 401. This felony statute, in effect since 1873, provides as follows: "Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony."[4] The language of section 401 closely resembles that used in other parts of the Penal Code to define or describe the principal criminal liability of persons who "aid and abet" the commission of a crime, and the courts have frequently used the terms aiding and abetting interchangeably with those employed by section 401 in discussing the elements of the crime defined by that statute.[5]

Although on its face the statute may appear to criminalize simply giving advice or encouragement to a potential suicide, the courts have—again by analogy to the law of aiding and abetting—required something more than mere verbal solicitation of another person to commit a hypothetical act of suicide. Instead, the courts have interpreted the statute as proscribing "the direct aiding and abetting of a specific suicidal act.... Some active and intentional participation in the events leading to the suicide are required in order to establish a violation." (McCollum v. CBS, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 989, 1007, 249 Cal.Rptr. 187, first italics in original, second and third italics added.) Thus, in order to prove a violation of section 401 it is necessary to establish all of the following essential elements: (1) the defendant specifically intended the victim's suicide; (2) the defendant undertook some active and direct participation in bringing about the suicide, such as by furnishing the victim with the means of suicide; and, finally, (3) the victim actually committed a specific, overt act of suicide. (Ibid.; People v. Matlock (1959) 51 Cal.2d 682, 694, 336 P.2d 505; Donaldson v. Lungren, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 1625, 4 Cal. Rptr.2d 59.)"

Source.

Comments such as those are commonplace within social media, you said so yourself. You're blowing this out of proportion, and I also feel like we're derailing the thread. If you wish to continue this (and I really hope you don't), then just go to my message wall or something. Otherwise, my place in this thread is over and I'm not gonna continue to talk to you about this.
 
Well, I think that using a "completely irrelevant" phrasing ties our hands too much in terms of flexibility for other potential situations that might occurr, but am otherwise fine with if we apply Sera's suggestions for new rules regarding what is not allowed:

  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic.
  • Threatening someone off-site, be it a threat of violence, hacking, doxxing, sexual harassment, etc.)
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (and no, piracy doesn't count).
Anyway, I simultaneously want us to be a cohesive, well-mannered, respectful, and collaborative community, and not have us turn into a modern completely oversensitive "safe space"-littered college campus immersed in totalitarian political correctness that systematically destroys the lives of anybody who commits the slightest thought crime outside of fundamentalist dogmas. I am not sure where exactly to draw the line to not go too far in either direction though.
 
Greenshifter said:
I propose the following be added to the site rules:

Off-site behavior is completely irrelevant except in cases of:
Click to expand...
So can this proposal be added to the site rules then?
 
I would change "completely irrelevant to "usually irrelevant", but otherwise it is probably fine.
 
We don't need to be any more strict than what I've already lined out regarding offsite behavior. Jurisdiction is a thing and the actual consequences of how it either affects the site or its members is far more important than the act itself.

Remember we had a member get his gmail hacked by a lunatic? Yeah if that was someone onsite that did that, they'd be banned. That negatively affected another member in a serious way. Yet if that happened to me it wouldn't have been that serious, since I have many GMAILs which I use just for the lulz and a private email (that's not a gmail) for business.

I completely agree with Agnaa on the suicide thing as it also applies to death threats and the like to some extent. Someone saying that crap in "private" is mostly irrelevant so long as it didn't affect anyone in a serious way.

Keep in mind that this isn't about morals. Morally speaking I think it's disgusting to even say that shit about someone else especially over fictional debating. It's just toxic as all hell. Of course, jokes are another matter. I tell my husband to "fall of a bridge and break your neck" all the time when he triggers me and he likewise often comes up with some response that implies "die!" but of course these are jokes we both laugh at, not meant to be taken seriously. It's different when someone is constantly DMing somone about needing to kill themselves and being actively worthless scum not worthy of life in society.

Keep in mind that, being women, Promestein and I have been "threatened" with rape before. Did it negatively affect us? No. It's typical childish/dickish behavior any moron with no life would engange in on the internet. We're also both adults so we can take care of ourselves. Were these minors being threatened however, it wouldn't matter. That's automatically not only bannable but authorities should be notified. (You don't threaten minors.)

So, bottom line, we need only focus primarily on the consequences of these actions since unfortunately most of this stuff occurs on the web frequently due to the anonymous nature of the internet.

The only exception being online criminal activity, that'swhen the consequences don't matter (I hope I don't need to go into detail on why).
 
Well, I still don't want us to be too lenient. If somebody here (for example) sends other members of this wiki death or rape threats via Discord, that are not intended as (tasteless) jokes, but as intimidation or insults, I think that we should remove them.
 
Anyway, I am fine with if we add what I accepted earlier to the Site Rules page.
 
Yeah, I think direct harassment, messages placed in a space where they're immediately viewable by the target, should be against the rules.

I tried to use this wording to cover comments about people that are in the same server, as well as direct messages over any platform. Maybe "in the immediate community of the target" is a better phrasing? I'm not sure.
 
Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:

  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic.
  • Threatening someone off-site, be it a threat of violence, hacking, doxxing, sexual harassment, etc.
  • Harassment of users in their immediate surrounding (ex. Someone constantly messaging you with insulting comments via DMs or PMs)
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).
  • Maliciously impersonating someone.
To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
 
Neither do I, but we shouldn't pretend that toxic banter doesn't exist on the most unregulated place on the planet. If it's in the immediate vicinity of the target and especially if it affects them in a negative way, then that's definitely when we should step in.

That said, that doesn't mean someone being negatively affected by something as trivial as someone else not being exactly "politically correct" qualifies as a bannable offense on the offender's part (unless they were deliberately being a jerk about it), the victim is just being over sensitive.

We can't be too strict or too lenient, so we need to understand the magnitude of the consequences involved and the validity of the consequences in cases where people are just being over-sensitive.
 
I agree with Sera, and think that Greenshifter's list should be fine to apply.
 
Someone constantly messaging you on your message wall with insulting comments, for example. DMs and PMs between them and you count as well.
 
@Ant I have a bit of time now to apply the changes to the site rules. Can you unlock the page and do I write my list under the current last point or above it?

Edit: I'm going offline again, I will be back in a few hours.
 
I can do so, but need a confirmation from a few staff members that it is acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
11K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DaMonkeMan
  • Locked
Editing some rules for the Wiki
Replies
21
Views
2K
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
Back
Top