Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Theglassman12]

If possible I’m fine with reverting everything on the profiles to before astral Trinity’s translations were added. If the verse is too far into the MTL cesspool that we can’t reliably do that then saving the pages in some sandbox and potentially nuking it like what happened with MGK would probably be the best option.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

If possible I’m fine with reverting everything on the profiles to before astral Trinity’s translations were added. If the verse is too far into the MTL cesspool that we can’t reliably do that then saving the pages in some sandbox and potentially nuking it like what happened with MGK would probably be the best option.

Gonna just say this Light Novel has OTL's up to volume 20, so no complete nuking should be necessary.

What I am more unsure about if we should be able to use volumes 21-22 to strengthen arguments from earlier volumes?

 

[Theglassman12]

Just get any translation helper, or just anyone that isn’t Astral Trinity that knows the language well to help translate the last two volumes if they’re important.

 

[Lycoris4812]

I'm pretty sure the only things that used Astrals mtls was the Low 1-C stuff. And we have a crt open that has removed all that stuff from the cosmology blog. Would it be better to do a cosmology revaulation?

 

[Reiner04]

I'm pretty sure the only things that used Astrals mtls was the Low 1-C stuff. And we have a crt open that has removed all that stuff from the cosmology blog. Would it be better to do a cosmology revaulation?

It will be better to get scans translated by TL helpers or someone knowledgeable in japanese and make a proper crt. Simple as that.

@Dark_Soul20189 It will be better to replace those Astral's translations with some reliable translation, make crt and be done with it. Translation correction does not exactly needs a crt. Also off topic.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

@Dark_Soul20189 It will be better to replace those Astral's translations with some reliable translation, make crt and be done with it. Translation correction does not exactly needs a crt. Also off topic.

Can I question how a CRT for removing and replacing all of Astral's translations for the Cosmology is "off-topic"?

 

[Reiner04]

Can I question how a CRT for removing and replacing all of Astral's translations for the Cosmology is "off-topic"?

Dark I have said thousands of times by now that it is what needs to be done. We don't have to exactly repeat the samething over and over again. RVR is not really a place to promote some thread. That crt objective is not to propose L1-C but to replace Astral's translations that I and everyone has said is fine, as long as reliable. After translations are done, one can create CRT for Low 1-C proposal with updated translations. I think I also have said it already. It's derailing the thread. My proposal and suggestions are simply that too.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with Reiner's suggestion; fabrications using MTLs and trying to create fake information to justify it has often been permabanned.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well alright.

1. We should remove all changes in the LN/WN profiles that are based on Astral's threads or resulted by his misleading/dishonest MTLs, same as I mentioned above regarding the Qawsedf situation.
2. Considering the consistent issue of misleading/dishonest MTLs within the verse, we should completely ban 'human-edited MTLs' unless they are verified by our TL members or someone fluent in Japanese.
3. An increase in ban length for Astral Trinity due to misleading/dishonest translations (I'll leave the exact duration to be decided by the other staff members, but I’d suggest an extension of at least 3 months).

@Antvasima @Mr. Bambu @DarkDragonMedeus @Dereck03 @Celestial_Pegasus @Elizhaa @LephyrTheRevanchist
What do you all think?

That will take alot of time and I do not think any of staff member here is free enough to thoroughly investigate each CRT's of Astral and then revert the changes necessary. It will consume alot of time and is not efficient.

@Fixxed @Dark_Soul20189 @CodeCCLL please take further discussions in the verse specific thread.

I do not mind permanent ban either. He did indeed misleaded the translations for his dishonest upgrades and made the verse quality questionable here on site. Verse is still suffering thanks to him.

I view deletion as a last ditch effort. While I did not evaluate the thread, because I found my ability to interpret the reliability of scans to be essentially next to nil, I do recall the thread Dark Soul is talking about aiming to rectify the situation outside of just outright deletion. Broadly speaking, I would find that sort of solution to be better than applying very wide deletions of content. I rather like it when people's work gets to stay up.

That said, it is a legitimate concern in determining what exactly is MTL-spawned and what is not, and so far, much of the discourse on that has amounted to personal memory rather than anything concrete. I'd like to hear from someone knowledgeable whether it's fairly easy to determine that sort of thing or not, since it seems if we were to avoid deletion, we would need to be fairly confident in the status of a great many scans.

As for your actual proposal: the above speaks to my thoughts on the deletion. I would be content with requiring scans to be passed through our translation helpers (although one fears we shall run dry of reliable translation helpers willing to sift through enormous amounts of scans; they may find themselves overwhelmed, and it seems actual Japanese speakers are fairly rare here). I'd prefer to hear the thoughts from a Japanese speaker on whether these mistranslations you bring to light would be reasonably interpreted as a mistake: if you speak Japanese yourself, Reiner, I would happily take your word for it. Otherwise, I would like to hear from someone who does, and only then would I approve of doubling the duration of the ban (or applying some other extension aside from your recommendation).

EDIT: I do see that the thread Dark Soul is referencing has made very little progress. Still, if it could be finished to satisfaction, I'd prefer that to deletion.

 

[Reiner04]

As for your actual proposal: the above speaks to my thoughts on the deletion. I would be content with requiring scans to be passed through our translation helpers (although one fears we shall run dry of reliable translation helpers willing to sift through enormous amounts of scans; they may find themselves overwhelmed, and it seems actual Japanese speakers are fairly rare here). I'd prefer to hear the thoughts from a Japanese speaker on whether these mistranslations you bring to light would be reasonably interpreted as a mistake: if you speak Japanese yourself, Reiner, I would happily take your word for it. Otherwise, I would like to hear from someone who does, and only then would I approve of doubling the duration of the ban (or applying some other extension aside from your recommendation).

I don’t speak Japanese but stuff brought by users like codecell and Fixxed about him translating scans out of context as well manipulating them with dishonesty does not leaves a good impression on me. To add on when I went over Code’s recent cosmology thread, I checked the previous thread where the LN Tier 1 was accepted. I noticed that Qawsedf was asking for a scan that proves the entire timeline was destroyed, rather than just the universe. The scan that was provided was a manipulated MTL. No actual MTL adds 'to' in that translation, only 'in' is used. It was also brought by @MrTayman616 on my wall that DeepL that he uses definitely do not add "to" there. While one can say that he might have added it cause universe was stated to be destroyed, it doesn't change the fact that what Qawsedf was asking for was more than that. Which may have lead him to do that. He also have invalidated Fan translations per one of his crt coz "It has betrayed them many times" just so he could use his own edited MTL for his upgrades. I do not believe that it is mere a mistake.

EDIT: I do see that the thread Dark Soul is referencing has made very little progress. Still, if it could be finished to satisfaction, I'd prefer that to deletion.

Yeah. My suggestion as well is not to delete the verse but revert the Astral related changes from Profiles and add those stuff back via crt that has properly verified translations. Not really proposing deletion here.

 

[CodeCCLL]

That said, it is a legitimate concern in determining what exactly is MTL-spawned and what is not, and so far, much of the discourse on that has amounted to personal memory rather than anything concrete.

We have methods that far surpass human intelligence, the kind that even the devil would never think of.

We will check if the translation used matches one of our reliable translation sources. If it does, it will stay, if not, it will go. I really wonder what you thought we were going to do.

 

[Antvasima]

I view deletion as a last ditch effort. While I did not evaluate the thread, because I found my ability to interpret the reliability of scans to be essentially next to nil, I do recall the thread Dark Soul is talking about aiming to rectify the situation outside of just outright deletion. Broadly speaking, I would find that sort of solution to be better than applying very wide deletions of content. I rather like it when people's work gets to stay up.

That said, it is a legitimate concern in determining what exactly is MTL-spawned and what is not, and so far, much of the discourse on that has amounted to personal memory rather than anything concrete. I'd like to hear from someone knowledgeable whether it's fairly easy to determine that sort of thing or not, since it seems if we were to avoid deletion, we would need to be fairly confident in the status of a great many scans.

As for your actual proposal: the above speaks to my thoughts on the deletion. I would be content with requiring scans to be passed through our translation helpers (although one fears we shall run dry of reliable translation helpers willing to sift through enormous amounts of scans; they may find themselves overwhelmed, and it seems actual Japanese speakers are fairly rare here). I'd prefer to hear the thoughts from a Japanese speaker on whether these mistranslations you bring to light would be reasonably interpreted as a mistake: if you speak Japanese yourself, Reiner, I would happily take your word for it. Otherwise, I would like to hear from someone who does, and only then would I approve of doubling the duration of the ban (or applying some other extension aside from your recommendation).

EDIT: I do see that the thread Dark Soul is referencing has made very little progress. Still, if it could be finished to satisfaction, I'd prefer that to deletion.

I think that Bambu makes good sense here.

 

[Reiner04]

Well alright.

1. We should remove all changes in the LN/WN profiles that are based on Astral's threads or resulted by his misleading/dishonest MTLs, same as I mentioned above regarding the Qawsedf situation.
2. Considering the consistent issue of misleading/dishonest MTLs within the verse, we should completely ban 'human-edited MTLs' unless they are verified by our TL members or someone fluent in Japanese.

So I think there is unanimous agreement regarding the first two rules, and there is already an ongoing project to replace Astral's translations with reliable ones by our TL helpers, which will take a while but is definitely in progress which will affect profiles by how much, are things pertaining to future CRTs, which is on supporters to make sure happens.

1. An increase in ban length for Astral Trinity due to misleading/dishonest translations (I'll leave the exact duration to be decided by the other staff members, but I’d suggest an extension of at least 3 months).

@Mr. Bambu What are your thoughts on this? While one could argue that he added 'to' by altering the MTL cause of confusion, as brought up by our reliable translator on my wall (but its given he forcefully added it), I doubt that’s the case, given the context where Qawsedf was specifically asking for a scan proving the entire timeline was destroyed. It's not something that happened just this once either. He changed 'vast empty nothingness' (as translated by the MTL) to 'vast blank canvas,' which are entirely different things and imply a much highest interpretation of the scan, he didn't even changed it when Code brought this issue up. He also replaced 'brimming/filled with power' with 'embraced with power,' making it seem as if the power contains void, whereas our TL helpers clearly stated that nowhere in the raw does it imply that 'embraced' or 'containing' could be used. So there was no chance of mistake here too. I, personally, do not see these continous attempts to divert translations to meet specific goal as mere issue of mistranslation but I will be fine if other staffs decided to give him second chance.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@Mr. Bambu What are your thoughts on this? While one could argue that he added 'to' by altering the MTL cause of confusion, as brought up by our reliable translator on my wall (but its given he forcefully added it), I doubt that’s the case, given the context where Qawsedf was specifically asking for a scan proving the entire timeline was destroyed. It's not something that happened just this once either. He changed 'vast empty nothingness' (as translated by the MTL) to 'vast blank canvas,' which are entirely different things and imply a much highest interpretation of the scan, he didn't even changed it when Code brought this issue up. He also replaced 'brimming/filled with power' with 'embraced with power,' making it seem as if the power contains void, whereas our TL helpers clearly stated that nowhere in the raw does it imply that 'embraced' or 'containing' could be used. So there was no chance of mistake here too. I, personally, do not see these continous attempts to divert translations to meet specific goal as mere issue of mistranslation but I will be fine if other staffs decided to give him second chance.

I've been led to believe that the individuals making these claims are competent enough with the language to do so. I know Agnaa, the original reporter, to have been competent enough to evaluate something like that, and we went with his initial punishment duration suggestion. Nevertheless, if it is commonly held by others also equipped to determine this that Astral's actions and mistranslations were likely intentional, then I would agree to a ban duration extension; I would not agree with permanent, but I would at least sign off on a three month extension. Traditionally, a rule violation report comes with the offender's ability to defend themselves, to offer some explanation, so it admittedly does make me a bit uneasy in this situation where that is not (and cannot, under current conditions) be the case. In the future, should we make this sort of extension a habit, I think it would be preferable to attempt to contact the banned and make their own position known.

 

[Reiner04]

I’m fine with a 3-month extension. Considering the new restrictions on human-edited MTLs for the verse, a situation like this is unlikely to arise again. But if another case of dishonesty comes up after he returns, I won’t have any trust in him thereafter.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am fine with Bambu's solution then, but think that deliberate campaigns to cause our wiki pages to contain severely misleading statistics and other important information should be given permanent bans, both as a punishment and as a precautionary warning precedent/example for others.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The reason I specifically object to permanent is the haziness as to whether this was, actually, intentional, and that these rules were not nearly as present as they were prior to his case. Now that they exist on the forefront of the wiki, I would agree with deliberate manipulation like this is claimed to be, going forward, handled with extreme action, including permanent bans.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Agreed.

Do we have written official rules for these types of situations though, and if so, what do they say?

 

[Reiner04]

Yes. Agreed.

Do we have written official rules for these types of situations though, and if so, what do they say?

Unless I missed something, I don't think we have an actual written rule for situations like this, where a user deliberately and selfishly presents misleading, altered, or fake scans. I believe we only have a general rule about disruptive behavior, which can be interpreted in various ways and does not seems to be specifically referring to these kinds of situations.

The following section seems to touch the situation but not exactly:

Keep in mind that simply disagreeing with majority votes, rules of the wiki, or general staff consensus is not a rule violation at all; however, our rules make it clear that disagreements should be done respectfully and politely. Contrary to what is commonly said by banned users, staff members are often checked and evaluated by each other. Moreover, staff usually have good senses of judgment regarding which topics that should be reserved for staff discussions and which ill-behaved members that are more consistently disruptive than they are contributive, and as such may be considered to be blocked. These policies help maintain the community's balance and order and avoids chaotic uproars and mass bombardments from getting out of hand.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Then we should write one. A staff forum thread for this purpose would be appreciated.

 

[Reiner04]

Okay. Then we should write one. A staff forum thread for this purpose would be appreciated.

Okay ig, I will create one soon whenever get free enough time.

Now to conclude the report;

@DarkDragonMedeus @Dereck03 @Everything12 considering all if you voted for permaban, would a 3-month ban extension be a reasonable compromise, given that there weren't strict and exact rules in place at the time it happened? We can move to harsher punishment in the future if he does something like this again.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay ig, I will create one soon whenever get free enough time.

Now to conclude the report;

@DarkDragonMedeus @Dereck03 @Everything12 considering all if you voted for permaban, would a 3-month ban extension be a reasonable compromise, given that there weren't strict and exact rules in place at the time it happened? We can move to harsher punishment in the future if he does something like this again.

I guess this is fine.

 

[Dereck03]

Well, I believe that the new suggestion is fine, given the fact that there was no rule as such that would more strictly punish this type of cases, but it should be noted that it would be worthwhile to continue investigating in case we find any other surprises like this one.

 

[Reiner04]

Guess case is concluded then. Now the following needs to be done:

1. Extend Astral's ban by 3 months.
2. Discussion rule regarding ban on the use of human edited MTL for the verse unless approved by our TL members or someone fluent in Japanese.
3. Reverting the changes made by Astral, preferably where he used MTLs or edited MTLs, including deletion of cosmology page temporarily (as it is entirety of Astral's Translation)

Discussion Rule that needs to be added:

Due to the recurring issue of misleading or dishonest machine translations (edited-MTLs) in this verse, especially when used to support major arguments or upgrades, any human-edited MTLs are strictly prohibited unless they are verified by one of the official Translation Helpers (TLs) or a user with proven fluency in Japanese. This is to ensure accuracy, consistency, and prevent misinterpretation or manipulation of source material. Any future CRTs or profile changes that use unverified human-edited MTLs will be considered invalid and subject to reversal.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Discussion Rule that needs to be added:

Needs staff thread for this. Rest good.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

including deletion of cosmology page temporarily (as it is entirety of Astral's Translation)

Didn't we conclude that this can be delayed with CodeCCLL's CRT?

 

[Reiner04]

Needs staff thread for this. Rest good.

This thing is already accepted here if u read above. It's not first time that a discussion rule is being added after being decided to be added in RVR (26D naljians discussion rule was added after discussion in rvr). So I don't think it is needed when conclusion is already accepted.

Didn't we conclude that this can be delayed with CodeCCLL's CRT?

We can't have a wrong explaination page as whole with wrong ratings for uncertain thread which will be concluded god knows when. That's what I said. No more comments honestly.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

So I don't think it is needed when conclusion is already accepted.

?

Okay. Then we should write one. A staff forum thread for this purpose would be appreciated.

 

[Reiner04]

?

It was about rules regardinn Punishment for presenting fake scans and misleading scans rather than ban on Edited MTLs for tensura, that is already accepted by several staffs here due to how frequent this issue is in this verse.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

It was about rules regardinn Punishment for presenting fake scans and misleading scans rather than Edited MTLs.

Welp, i thought It was about whole case.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Can someone give a stern wake-up call or a warning to @Jason_Voorhees1986

Firstly, he frauded votes in his CRT here. I had to dismantle his ridiculous take on the administratior stance which the admin himself cleary states he's in a disagreement and it took the admin himself to make that point as well for him to finally budge.

The points above are the past. However, now he goes to Ultima profile and starts claiming I speak for him despite that not being the case. I think a mod needs to sit and talk to this guy about his lying issues and bringing people up because they didn't agree with his CRT.

 

[StrymULTRA]

admin himself to make that point as well for him to finally budge.

Broken link.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Can someone give a stern wake-up call or a warning to @Jason_Voorhees1986

Firstly, he frauded votes in his CRT here. I had to dismantle his ridiculous take on the administratior stance which the admin himself cleary states he's in a disagreement and it took the admin himself to make that point as well for him to finally budge.

The points above are the past. However, now he goes to Ultima profile and starts claiming I speak for him despite that not being the case. I think a mod needs to sit and talk to this guy about his lying issues and bringing people up because they didn't agree with his CRT.

I swear I had a similar report (Found it)

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Broken link.

It’s in page 5.

 

[StrymULTRA]

It’s in page 5.

Then replace the broken link with that in your post if it's so easy to find kek. The burden's on you given that you're the one making the report, after all.

Not gonna want to start an argument here, just that you'd save some effort to the staff.

 

[Reiner04]

Can someone give a stern wake-up call or a warning to @Jason_Voorhees1986

Firstly, he frauded votes in his CRT here. I had to dismantle his ridiculous take on the administratior stance which the admin himself cleary states he's in a disagreement and it took the admin himself to make that point as well for him to finally budge.

This issue is separate matter and I think it was concluded that he wasn't familiar with our rules and said he will be careful regarding votes from now on.

Now coming to this;

The points above are the past. However, now he goes to Ultima profile and starts claiming I speak for him despite that not being the case. I think a mod needs to sit and talk to this guy about his lying issues and bringing people up because they didn't agree with his CRT.

Reading through the entire thing, he only seems to be seeking clarification on whether Ultima actually discussed and talked to you about the topics being addressed in the CRT, for example, one of your quotes he posted:

No. Based on what I discussed with Ultima. He thinks the Todash space is not outside of everything nor the Macroverse

(I have no doubt that you must have discussed it with Ultima), but I think his doubt about whether the entire conversation or situation actually happened is understandable. Though his wording does come off as somewhat accusatory, I don't think it goes too far, and I’m not sure we can justify handing out a punishment solely for a poor choice of words. Especially since it's not the first time I've seen one of our members use that kind of wording toward people who happen to say things like, "Ultima told me this/that in there/DC/thread." These types of comments are often met with, "Let Ultima speak for himself". So I don't really think it's report worthy. Though, if the other staff agrees, I’m fine with telling him to be more careful with his wording, but I really think it’s too minor to actually put him on the spot for. I have seen people's getting way more heated and accusatory than that, compared to that, it doesn't seems eye catching given the situation.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Reading through the entire thing, he only seems to be seeking clarification on whether Ultima actually discussed and talked to you about the topics being addressed in the CRT, for example, one of your quotes he posted:

He starts with accusing me off “speaking on his behalf” which is already a heavy start. He needs a stern wake-up call from a mod about a random speculatory perspective that is not in any way beneficial.

(I have no doubt that you must have discussed it with Ultima), but I think his doubt about whether the entire conversation or situation actually happened is understandable. Though his wording does come off as somewhat accusatory, I don't think it goes too far, and I’m not sure we can justify handing out a punishment solely for a poor choice of words. Especially since it's not the first time I've seen one of our members use that kind of wording toward people who happen to say things like, "Ultima told me this/that in there/DC/thread." These types of comments are often met with, "Let Ultima speak for himself". So I don't really think it's report worthy. Though, if the other staff agrees, I’m fine with telling him to be more careful with his wording, but I really think it’s too minor to actually put him on the spot for. I have seen people's getting way more heated and accusatory than that, compared to that, it doesn't seems eye catching given the situation.

I've already clarify that Ultima will speak for himself. He's accusing me of talking on his behalf and thinks I'm centering the argument around our talk. I've already disagreed with the thread a long time and I advise Ultima that he checks out the thread. Nothing I said was speaking on his behalf which is the ground he's trying to take. It’s insensitive, annoying, and it doesn't go anywhere as far these random accusation go. Prior to Qaws even coming to make his stance he also accused me of saying I spoke for him as well, he's accusing me of one thing after another.

How about telling him to stop? That's the sense of relief I need without being needlessly targeted for no reason.

 

[Reiner04]

He starts with accusing me off “speaking on his behalf” which is already a heavy start. He needs a stern wake-up call from a mod about a random speculatory perspective that is not in any way beneficial.

Well, I think I can understand there what he is trying to convey, given that he is also annoyed about it, he only seems to seek clarification from Ultima directly rather than being told that "Ultima said this/that". Just think choice of word is poor there.

I've already clarify that Ultima will speak for himself. He's accusing me of talking on his behalf and thinks I'm centering the argument around our talk. I've already disagreed with the thread a long time and I advise Ultima that he checks out the thread. Nothing I said was speaking on his behalf which is the ground he's trying to take. It’s insensitive, annoying, and it doesn't go anywhere as far these random accusation go. Prior to Qaws even coming to make his stance he also accused me of saying I spoke for him as well, he's accusing me of one thing after another.

How about telling him to stop? That's the sense of relief I need without being needlessly targeted for no reason.

I believe that given the situation and context, it's simply a case of poor wording and doesn't seem like an extreme reaction to such comments. If we make this a big deal in RVR, we’ll be setting a precedent to issue wake-up calls to anyone who says things like 'Let Ultima/Qawsedf/Agnaa speak for himself,' towards people's who brings Ultima's opinion on the threads when he himself is not physically present there, which would be a similar situation to this. But I might be misunderstanding the situation, given I have not dealt with minor cases here. So I will ping other staffs for their opinion on it. Tho, my opinion will stay same. I don't see it too out behavior to make such comments on stuffs like this.

@GrathOfLux @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Agnaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @Crabwhale @Damage3245
Your input on this case will be appreciated.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Well, I think I can understand there what he is trying to convey, given that he is also annoyed about it, he only seems to seek clarification from Ultima directly rather than being told that "Ultima said this/that". Just think choice of word is poor there.

No, I didn't word anything close to “Ultima said this” to make it the point of the argument. I've been clear and careful in how I said it and only “based” on the conversation which is private and outside the wiki so obviously I’m only partly using for some points to cement my view. It was never the party in which I used it as reason. Why are you putting me in some sort of minority, here? The problem is the accusation in which what he said was untrue because he's clearly frustrated with me disagreeing this is obvious when he wouldn't agree to put Qaws for disagreement which I pointed out until Qaws himself appeared. It wouldn't take that long if he read what Qaws said and comprehended it correctly, which is a problem he clearly has.

One of the statements with “Todash Space” isn't the argument that in which the OP said isn't true, but its meant to be purely that I discuss it with Ultima and agree with his view so I count myself as the disagreeing party on that reason. Where on earth is the “speaking for Ultima” coming from? Are you sure it's not the bad blood we had? There's no way you somehow empathize with his random nonsensical view of what I said.

I believe that given the situation and context, it's simply a case of poor wording and doesn't seem like an extreme reaction to such comments. If we make this a big deal in RVR, we’ll be setting a precedent to issue wake-up calls to anyone who says things like 'Let Ultima/Qawsedf/Agnaa speak for himself,' to people's who will bring Ultima's opinion on the threads when he himsekf is not physically present there, which would be a similar situation to this. But I might be misunderstanding the situation, given I have not dealt with minor cases here. So I will ping other staffs for their opinion on it. Tho, my opinion will stay same. I don't see it too out behavior to make such comments on stuffs like this.

I suggest a wake-up call. Something in the lines of: “Please, don't start this speculatory accusation without grounded reasoning to fully support this view.”

If need be I can get some of that in like this: “Goofy, you gotta just put your reasoning separate from name-dropping Ultima since it never gets the right implications.”

I prefer the other administrator to overview this. All I'm asking is a wake-up call to let him know about saying stuff that can agitate others(Which says a lot since I'm usually reasonable and patient, but this issue irks me and rubs me off the wrong way regardless of it being not the most offensive of all offensives).

@GrathOfLux @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Agnaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @Crabwhale @Damage3245
Your input on this case will be appreciated.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not sure what is really going on here, but I do think individuals may speak up to clarify. Though I do agree that Jason's allegations are quite unnecessary. Nothing ban worthy, but a request for him to settle down with those accusations is reasonable.