Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[KingTempest]

Sorry for being late*

 

[FinePoint]

Sorry for being late*

That makes more sense. No problem.

Anyway, I don't think a decision to ban was actually reached per-se, they self-requested a permaban while it was still in discussion.

 

[SomebodyData]

I'm sorry. Please do not ban him for more than a month.

I just reread everything. He didn't even do anything ban worthy. Is that seriously what we consider ban worthy???

That makes more sense. No problem.

Anyway, I don't think a decision to ban was actually reached per-se, they self-requested a permaban while it was still in discussion.

Yeah, at most a topic-ban was on the table and even that was just a suggestion.

But he wanted a perma-ban and it was their own decision. After that began discussion of a ban. If he changes his mind he can reach out to any staff.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah, at most a topic-ban was on the table and even that was just a suggestion.

But he wanted a perma-ban and it was their own decision. After that began discussion of a ban. If he changes his mind he can reach out to any staff.

I did suggest an actual, outright ban. I don't think it is the topic that is the problem. I think GodlyCharmander has not really taken any warnings to heart, and in his case, where he was allowed back under such stringent conditions, I fail to see a way to get it through to him than actual repercussions. Even if every offense tends to be a petty insult-slinging fest, he needs to avoid these.

It doesn't matter now, but I was indeed in favor of a ban (though, I would have gone with Ant's suggestion of a month, happily).

 

[Antvasima]

I'm sorry. Please do not ban him for more than a month.

I just reread everything. He didn't even do anything ban worthy. Is that seriously what we consider ban worthy???

I would also prefer if we unban him. This does not sit right with me.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I would also prefer if we unban him. This does not sit right with me.

He requested it when he threw a fit for being considered for any punishment at all. If you'd like to contact him and see if he feels differently now that he's maybe calmed down, we can do that, though I still feel at least a one month ban for the sheer number of incidents stacking up is more than justified, given his circumstances.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is somebody who knows Charmander willing to talk with him please?

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is somebody who knows Charmander willing to talk with him please?

@KingTempest

 

[KingTempest]

Aight

 

[Lilybitdun]

@Shattas has 5 active CRTS with 3 of them being in the same verse

1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/little-thorn-michael-myers-update.192724/
2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/thorn-michael-myerss-subsonic-speed-is-being-removed.192671/
3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/michael-myers-thorn-timeline-upgrades.187543/
4. https://vsbattles.com/threads/freddy-krueger-dw-lifting-strength-upgrade.189888/
5. https://vsbattles.com/threads/remove-maniac-cop-3-explosion-from-durability.187170/

The max is active CRTs is 4 with only 2 being allowed of being from the same verse

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules#Content_Revision:~:text=A%20member%20may%20have%20up%20to%20four%20active%20content%20revision%20threads%20at%20once%2C%20no%20more%20than%20two%20of%20which%20can%20be%20about%20the%20same%20verse.

 

[Random-Helper323]

@Shattas has 5 active CRTS with 3 of them being in the same verse

1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/little-thorn-michael-myers-update.192724/
2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/thorn-michael-myerss-subsonic-speed-is-being-removed.192671/
3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/michael-myers-thorn-timeline-upgrades.187543/
4. https://vsbattles.com/threads/freddy-krueger-dw-lifting-strength-upgrade.189888/
5. https://vsbattles.com/threads/remove-maniac-cop-3-explosion-from-durability.187170/

The max is active CRTs is 4 with only 2 being allowed of being from the same verse

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules#Content_Revision:~:text=A%20member%20may%20have%20up%20to%20four%20active%20content%20revision%20threads%20at%20once%2C%20no%20more%20than%20two%20of%20which%20can%20be%20about%20the%20same%20verse.

I reached out to them through that latest thread, told them it should be temporarily closed.

 

[Crabwhale]

Y'all can't actually be serious, right? Yes yes, unfashionably late, as usual, pardon my manners, but on to why I'm actually here.

You have an individual in Charmander who has been permanently banned before, an individual who I made very evident the problems of with his first ban and subsequent behavior afterwards. Now that he is displaying no trace of improving on his behavior, you're going to do what exactly? Temporary bans and topic bans are what I saw being thrown around.

Reinstate the goddamn perma already.

Part of the natural contract users on probation sign is proving that they can function within the confines of the wiki system as a productive user, or at least a non-disruptive one, and if they do this, full confidence can eventually be re-earned. Charmander has repeatedly proven that his behavior has not improved, and thus has violated the terms of this contract more than once. And you are still intending to show him leniency.

This is my one and last message on this matter. I'm not okay with us bending over backwards for users that have shown they hold our rules in dislike and even outright contempt. Get him out.

 

[Antvasima]

His behaviour has improved as far as I am aware. His offenses seem to have been very minor.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

His behaviour has improved as far as I am aware. His offenses seem to have been very minor.

I would largely agree, but his reaction here on the RVRT was beyond childish. Crab described him as holding our rules in contempt and I think that's a fair way of putting it. Any consideration of action resulted in his throwing a tantrum.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, from his perspective he feels unfairly targeted by other members in order to shut up his objections to their preferred statistics, which results in him subjectively walking on eggshells.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Well, from his perspective he feels unfairly targeted by other members in order to shut up his objections to their preferred statistics, which results in him subjectively walking on eggshells.

From my perspective, we allowed him to return to the community under the condition that he would behave maturely. He then happily was rude to everyone and crashed out the second anything more than a warning was even considered. He broke the contract. I have made a considerable effort to see that this was not a case of "walking on eggshells". I have extended the benefit of the doubt and I have aimed to be fair. He was being an ass.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Maybe I haven't paid sufficient attention then. Nevertheless, a 1 month warning ban should be sufficient.

 

[KingTempest]

Respectfully if he asked to be perma banned then he gets perma banned

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but he has the right to reduce it to 1 month if he wishes.

 

[KLOL506]

-snip-

I am in agreement with this sentiment. We have a major problem with being too lenient on repeat rule-breakers who mock and insult us at every whim. This has to stop.

Charmander should not be allowed back in nor should he be allowed to reduce his ban period whenever he likes. Actions have consequences, and he needs to learn the meaning of that for once.

 

[Antvasima]

Again, his offences have been minor as far as I am aware.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Again, his offences have been minor as far as I am aware.

The problem is that he was on the promise that he'd behave well, especially when some staff during his last re-appeal did say that the next ban should be permanent no matter what:

That being said, the main compromise was if it's been over a year since their last sock was created, exposed, and banned, then a final chance trial could be considered. I obviously do not want to repeat the same mistakes we did with Twisted Little Raven or Sean Pazdera, but we could still give GodlyCharmander a chance. But let this be very stern, we need to make the final chance One final chance. If they get banned again, that one and final ban must remain permanent with no chance to appeal. That is the most reasonable compromise I can guarantee.

As i have said in this post, if he come back, i recommend to put him under strict observation, if he actually improving, we can loosen our restrains over him over time, but if he do not change and one rule violation, i propose instant ban

Just to clarify my stance in this Charmander case, i'm neutral. If his ban is kept, so be it; if his ban is going to be lifted, then keep him under watch and punish him harsher in case he wrecking thing up. Though I also hope that in case he returns, people don't ragebait him as well

Well, from his perspective he feels unfairly targeted by other members in order to shut up his objections to their preferred statistics

This is one is also just an exaggerated viewpoint. There are multiple people who are very openly against our current Undertale/Deltarune statistics, who also happened to make multiple CRTs on the matter, with some even passing, but none of them behave as Charmander does towards the supporters, nor act with this kind of attrition towards them when expressing disagreements. It's only Charmander the one who makes discussions hard to continue literally every time there is a disagreement with someone else by how obnoxious he is towards people commiting the crime of not sharing his viewpoint.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Maybe I have misread the situation then.