Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

Would a topic ban only for versus threads concerning Tokyo Revengers be a reasonable compromise solution?

Vzearr said:

Hey Bambu,

I get what you’re saying that my involvement with TR is bad, but it's like the issue is something inherent to me engaging with the verse. But I don’t think that’s actually what’s being shown in discussions involving Tokyo Revengers. What happened in this situation wasn’t me being unable to engage with the verse, it was me presenting scans poorly. That’s a general mistake. It’s not something that proves I can’t handle the topic itself.

Also, the idea that my activity with TR “inevitably leads to conflict” feels really one-sided. This is a debate-heavy site, beef doesn’t come from one person alone. There are multiple people involved in every thread, multiple interps, multiple disagreements. It’s not accurate to isolate me as the sole source of these "beefs". Especially when I believe you can accept that some users definitely start controversy in TR threads. It's not only me.

There are plenty of times where I’m not the one escalating things. So separating me out like I’m uniquely responsible for the existence of conflict in TR threads just isn’t fair in my opinion.

You're a staff member, and I disagree with you here, but I must leave this up to staff as I do not have a place to keep debating.

Also, I won’t lie, yeah I care a lot about this verse. But I don’t think that should be treated as the root of the problem. If anything, that’s why I’m even trying to argue it properly in the first place. The people who care are the ones who actually put in the effort.

Click to expand...

It is you often enough to become an entrenched pattern. I cannot speak to your perception of that observation as fair or not. It is frequently you escalating things, frequently you at the center of the issue. It is true that TR is a hot issue at present, but your handling of that has been very poor. If TR were not a hot issue, perhaps you would not be in these situations where you make these poor decisions, but it is, and you have. So it is.

Antvasima said:

Would a topic ban only for versus threads concerning Tokyo Revengers be a reasonable compromise solution?

Click to expand...

Versus threads aren't the chief issue at work here, I don't see why that would be of much help. My ideal would be universal, though if you wanted to awkwardly allow some types of threads, I would actually imagine the less rigid versus threads as being more allowable than CRTs, where a degree of decorum is necessary for all parties in order to progress.

I don't think I'm allowed to reply anymore, but I believe I've listed out why I believe a topic ban is unnecessary. Even if I’ve been involved in escalations before, this situation was just a presentation mistake, not proof I can’t engage with Tokyo Revengers, and treating it as a pattern serious enough for a topic ban (in my opinion) unfairly isolates me in what are genuinely 2-multi-sided conflicts.

As I said, I don't believe I need to reply anymore, I will leave this up to the mods to decide.

I agree about that we should try to not single out Vzearr for a two-sided conflict.

Maybe we could issue a warning regarding that Vzearr needs to be extra careful in TR discussion threads in the future, or we will be forced to apply a topic ban regarding the verse, with the exception that Vzearr would still be allowed to help gather evidence for TR content revisions.

Antvasima said:

Maybe we could issue a warning regarding that Vzearr needs to be extra careful in TR discussion threads in the future, or we will be forced to apply a topic ban regarding the verse, with the exception that Vzearr would still be allowed to help gather evidence for TR content revisions.

Click to expand...

He already had that warning. He just appealed the verse ban with the explicit caveat that it needed to see good behavior, lest it be banned again.

Mr. Bambu said:

Versus threads aren't the chief issue at work here, I don't see why that would be of much help. My ideal would be universal, though if you wanted to awkwardly allow some types of threads, I would actually imagine the less rigid versus threads as being more allowable than CRTs, where a degree of decorum is necessary for all parties in order to progress.

Click to expand...

I mean, isn’t the issue brought to RVR from the VS thread itself rather than the Tokyo Revengers CRT? TTokyo Revengers CRY actually seems to be on track, better than many CRTs I come across, some topics just get bit heated but TR CRT, in my view, was relatively ubder control. And even for the VS match thread, I think Vzearr was just saying that the discussion isn’t over yet and there are still a lot of points left to go through. Obviously, no one can stop anyone from voting, he was just pointing out that there’s still more to discuss. Or atleast thats what i understand from my reading.

Reiner04 said:

I mean, isn’t the issue brought to RVR from the VS thread itself rather than the Tokyo Revengers CRT? TTokyo Revengers CRY actually seems to be on track, better than many CRTs I come across, some topics just get bit heated but TR CRT, in my view, was relatively ubder control. And even for the VS match thread, I think Vzearr was just saying that the discussion isn’t over yet and there are still a lot of points left to go through. Obviously, no one can stop anyone from voting, he was just pointing out that there’s still more to discuss. Or atleast thats what i understand from my reading.

Click to expand...

Both a CRT and a versus thread have been reported as part of this discussion. The manipulation of scans accusation came from the versus thread, whereas the general behavior of the recent TR CRT was reported here sometime later. I don't mind versus threads as much, because it isn't as much of an important area of work. I mind more how one acts in a CRT.

Mr. Bambu said:

Both a CRT and a versus thread have been reported as part of this discussion. The manipulation of scans accusation came from the versus thread, whereas the general behavior of the recent TR CRT was reported here sometime later. I don't mind versus threads as much, because it isn't as much of an important area of work. I mind more how one acts in a CRT.

Click to expand...

Can you show where my behaviour is sufficient for a topic ban or a warning here? I don't doubt you. I'm just saying, users were openly making fun of me, and were talking badly about CGM friends of mine.

Mr. Bambu said:

Both a CRT and a versus thread have been reported as part of this discussion. The manipulation of scans accusation came from the versus thread, whereas the general behavior of the recent TR CRT was reported here sometime later. I don't mind versus threads as much, because it isn't as much of an important area of work. I mind more how one acts in a CRT.

Click to expand...

I was aware that the CRT part was brought here, but when I read those exchanges, it didn’t really feel like Tokyo Revengers, or Vzearr’s attachment to it, was the reason things got heated. It seemed more like an issue of respect. Honestly, the way both sides handled that part left a pretty bad impression on me, rather than making me want to point fingers at just one person.
Vzearr eventually dropped the case when he saw it wasn’t going anywhere. He did express his dissatisfaction with how the CGMs were addressed, and while I don’t really approve of the way he went about it, I wouldn’t say that Tokyo Revengers or his attachment to it should be held responsible for that. Nor would I consider him solely at fault for being offended.

Reiner04 said:

I was aware that the CRT part was brought here, but when I read those exchanges, it didn’t really feel like Tokyo Revengers, or Vzearr’s attachment to it, was the reason things got heated. It seemed more like an issue of respect. Honestly, the way both sides handled that part left a pretty bad impression on me, rather than making me want to point fingers at just one person.
Vzearr eventually dropped the case when he saw it wasn’t going anywhere. He did express his dissatisfaction with how the CGMs were addressed, and while I don’t really approve of the way he went about it, I wouldn’t say that Tokyo Revengers or his attachment to it should be held responsible for that. Nor would I consider him solely at fault for being offended.

Click to expand...

In the linked post, he accused the mods of FRA training and berated Dale (who, admittedly, shouldn't have been so rude in his treatment towards other CGMs, but that's another story, and one I cannot litigate in the RVRT).

He continued to double down on that here, after M3X agreed that the calcs were egregiously wrong. His way of doing that was to claim M3X was "outclassed" and that his time as a CGM was "over".

After Dale pointed out that he applied the thread prematurely, he accused Dale of derailing here. Normally wouldn't register, but given his earlier spat was also with Dale over disagreements, an accusation against a mod for doing their due diligence rings poorly.

The trend, then, is that Vzearr has been accusing staff of being motivated when they appear to just be doing their jobs. That sort of scuffling, combined with the poor behavior in versus threads, so immediately following the permission being granted to interact with the verse again, really gives me doubts about this little endeavor. As I said, I would believe a full topic ban to be appropriate. However, if it were to be limited, I would extend it to CRTs rather than versus threads, simply because the former is a much more serious matter than the latter. If Vzearr cannot control himself in a CRT, it is disruptive to the work of the staff. If Vzearr cannot control himself in a versus thread, it is still negative, yes-- but it isn't ******* up any official work.

So my stance is that a topic ban would be valid. I would, however, toss in the caveat that the current topic should be continued, and Vzearr should be allowed to continue his posting in it, since it is already ongoing. I would also allow the topic ban to be appealable, though I do not think it should be appealable in the immediate future. If it were up to me, those would be the conditions I would set.

Mr. Bambu said:

In the linked post, he accused the mods of FRA training and berated Dale (who, admittedly, shouldn't have been so rude in his treatment towards other CGMs, but that's another story, and one I cannot litigate in the RVRT).

He continued to double down on that here, after M3X agreed that the calcs were egregiously wrong. His way of doing that was to claim M3X was "outclassed" and that his time as a CGM was "over".

After Dale pointed out that he applied the thread prematurely, he accused Dale of derailing here. Normally wouldn't register, but given his earlier spat was also with Dale over disagreements, an accusation against a mod for doing their due diligence rings poorly.

The trend, then, is that Vzearr has been accusing staff of being motivated when they appear to just be doing their jobs. That sort of scuffling, combined with the poor behavior in versus threads, so immediately following the permission being granted to interact with the verse again, really gives me doubts about this little endeavor. As I said, I would believe a full topic ban to be appropriate. However, if it were to be limited, I would extend it to CRTs rather than versus threads, simply because the former is a much more serious matter than the latter. If Vzearr cannot control himself in a CRT, it is disruptive to the work of the staff. If Vzearr cannot control himself in a versus thread, it is still negative, yes-- but it isn't ******* up any official work.

So my stance is that a topic ban would be valid. I would, however, toss in the caveat that the current topic should be continued, and Vzearr should be allowed to continue his posting in it, since it is already ongoing. I would also allow the topic ban to be appealable, though I do not think it should be appealable in the immediate future. If it were up to me, those would be the conditions I would set.

Click to expand...

Okay, apologies, but Bambu, I was in agreement that I had bad behaviour and deserved at most a warning, but this.... You're framing it in the worst possible light for me... I think your summary of what happened is misrepresenting both my intent and my actual behaviour in the thread.

First, regarding the "FRA train" point: you’re presenting it as if I were seriously accusing moderators of bias. That’s not what happened inherently. I literally explicitly framed that line as an example of what disrespectful rhetoric looks like, immediately after saying I didn’t mean it. It was used to mirror Dale’s tone, not to assert an actual claim about staff conduct. Removing that context changes the meaning entirely. I did not accuse mods of bias and haven't even done that in DMs with TR supporters and friends for a solid 3 years.

Second, the claim that I "berated" Dale is overstated. Telling someone they’re being disrespectful and asking them to stop is not berating; it’s a direct response to him saying CGMs "should be ashamed", which is itself a far stronger statement. If anything, I was pushing back against escalation, not causing it. Bambu.

Third, on M3X, yeah, I responded badly to what he said. But that came after he outright dismissed my calcs as “really bad” without substantiation. My response was to challenge that and ask for justification. That is normal CRT behaviour for anyone and everyone. You cannot treat disagreement or sharp phrasing as inherently disruptive while ignoring the lack of argumentation on the other side.

So I don’t think it’s accurate to characterise this as me being unable to engage with CRTs or disrupting staff work. At most, this was a semi-heated exchange where I could have phrased some things better, but that’s a far cry from justifying a topic ban.

I'm sorry to comment again, just wanted to give my opinion.

Vzearr, I am beginning to believe you are not sorry for commenting or debating your case. You are allowed to post with new information, but I would ask that if you want to continue to post, you stop pretending as though you will not. It is not a rule violation, it is just annoying.

Nothing I said is inaccurate. All of it implies a lack of restraint on CRTs.

First, regarding the "FRA train" point: you’re presenting it as if I were seriously accusing moderators of bias. That’s not what happened inherently. I literally explicitly framed that line as an example of what disrespectful rhetoric looks like, immediately after saying I didn’t mean it. It was used to mirror Dale’s tone, not to assert an actual claim about staff conduct. Removing that context changes the meaning entirely. I did not accuse mods of bias and haven't even done that in DMs with TR supporters and friends for a solid 3 years.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you say something, and then backpedal to say "that's what I would say if I wanted to be an asshole!", Vzearr. It is not a getaway free pass to say something silly and then say "see how YOU like it!?"

Second, the claim that I "berated" Dale is overstated. Telling someone they’re being disrespectful and asking them to stop is not berating; it’s a direct response to him saying CGMs "should be ashamed", which is itself a far stronger statement. If anything, I was pushing back against escalation, not causing it. Bambu.

Click to expand...

You did more than tell him he was being disrespectful. You mirrored all perceived disrespect. Which is a rule violation.

Third, on M3X, yeah, I responded badly to what he said. But that came after he outright dismissed my calcs as “really bad” without substantiation. My response was to challenge that and ask for justification. That is normal CRT behaviour for anyone and everyone. You cannot treat disagreement or sharp phrasing as inherently disruptive while ignoring the lack of argumentation on the other side.

Click to expand...

You keep rephrasing these things as if I can't read the post. This isn't normal behavior, to suggest that the CGMs discussing calcs are stupid morons and your friends are way better. That's not normal! We don't have reports of this passing by our desk every day. It's combative behavior with the staff who are scrutinizing your work on a verse you have been combative about in the past. It all sucks. The fact that even ******* now you're framing this as "treating disagreement or sharp phrasing as inherently disruptive" is proof in the pudding, man! You're trying to sanitize it by framing it politely and all the while accusing me of some underhanded behavior just for pointing it out and using that data to form my opinion. I'm not "treating" it in any way: it is what it is.

It's low behavior, and I stand by my suggestion of a topic ban.

Mr. Bambu said:

don't care if you say something, and then backpedal to say "that's what I would say if I wanted to be an asshole!", Vzearr. It is not a getaway free pass to say something silly and then say "see how YOU like it!?"

Click to expand...

I get that, and I’m not trying to use it as a getaway free pass. My point isn’t "I said something bad but it’s fine because I explained it after." I agree the wording itself was poor, regardless. What I’m saying is that there’s still a fundamental difference between using a line to mirror tone and genuinely making that claim seriously. I’m not denying it was a bad way to respond; I’m saying it shouldn’t be treated as if I was actually accusing staff of bias, because that wasn’t what I was doing. And saying I was is framing me in a worse light.

Mr. Bambu said:

You did more than tell him he was being disrespectful. You mirrored all perceived disrespect. Which is a rule violation.

Click to expand...

My issue isn’t with acknowledging that, it’s with how it’s being escalated. That was a reactive response in a heated exchange on my end, but it was not me going out of my way to break rules or derail things. It's an exchange that happens daily, hell, hourly on the wiki, I do not see as to why it would be a rule violation worthy of a topic ban, bambu.

Mr. Bambu said:

You keep rephrasing these things as if I can't read the post. This isn't normal behavior, to suggest that the CGMs discussing calcs are stupid morons and your friends are way better. That's not normal! We don't have reports of this passing by our desk every day. It's combative behavior with the staff who are scrutinizing your work on a verse you have been combative about in the past. It all sucks. The fact that even ******* now you're framing this as "treating disagreement or sharp phrasing as inherently disruptive" is proof in the pudding, man! You're trying to sanitize it by framing it politely and all the while accusing me of some underhanded behavior just for pointing it out and using that data to form my opinion. I'm not "treating" it in any way: it is what it is.

Click to expand...

I think we’re both getting a bit frustrated here, you're saying the f word, and I guess I'm beginning to believe I disagree with you fully, so I’ll keep this brief and not drag it out further.

I’m not trying to rephrase things like you can’t read them, I’m trying to explain how I saw it and where I think your interpretation is going further than what I actually did.
I won’t argue that my wording there was bad, when inherently it was. I shouldn’t have said it like that. I can take that. Where I disagree is with how it’s being framed as something beyond that. It was a annoyed, poorly worded response in a heated discussion, not me seriously trying to undermine CGMs or push some narrative about them being incompetent. I’m also not accusing you of acting in bad faith. I’m saying I think you’re interpreting my actions in the harshest possible way, and I’m trying to clarify that distinction.

You're making this, seem, as if it's objective, I think we should take a breather, before going further down the path.

I will need more time to evaluate this, and to that end I can't really be sure whether it has all been covered. But I don't get the impression most of the recent discussion is adding substantive context. I would advise relegating responses from here to things that strictly add to the discussion, so that it is not difficult in needless ways for myself or other staff to evaluate the matter.

Mr. Bambu said:

In the linked post, he accused the mods of FRA training and berated Dale (who, admittedly, shouldn't have been so rude in his treatment towards other CGMs, but that's another story, and one I cannot litigate in the RVRT).

He continued to double down on that here, after M3X agreed that the calcs were egregiously wrong. His way of doing that was to claim M3X was "outclassed" and that his time as a CGM was "over".

After Dale pointed out that he applied the thread prematurely, he accused Dale of derailing here. Normally wouldn't register, but given his earlier spat was also with Dale over disagreements, an accusation against a mod for doing their due diligence rings poorly

Click to expand...

I don’t think we should look at these exchanges in isolation, as they seem more like a chain reaction. Vzearr was admittedly upset, and I can understand why. Even I felt that the disagreement could have been expressed in a better way, when i read it. That said, it’s understandable for wording to go a bit off sometimes and i don't blame anyone for it. What I do want to point out is that vzearr's comments after it weren't because of TR or his attachment towards it, but fundamentally something different. While his reply to M3X wasn’t appropriate, I also think there should be some consideration that the disagreement itself could have been phrased more carefully. While they just expressed that dale wasn't wrong, the way it was expressed came across as lacking consideration of it being bit rude and, in my view, added to Vzearr’s frustration. I am not trying to say, with all this, that it gives vzearr free pass to act however he want but that there is reason, understandable reason, because of which it turned out this way and TR wasn't one of them, or atleast major part of it, imo. Overall, I think the situation spiraled out of control due to the combined actions of everyone involved, rather than being the fault of any one person alone. That’s why I believe it should be evaluated based on the entire exchange, rather than judging each post separately. From that perspective, it seems more like an issue of tone and mutual respect than something specifically about the TR CRT itself. That said, he still should be warned tk behave regardless the circumstances be in future, but TR CRT ban seems unrelated.

As for the VS thread, I do agree that his tone wasn’t appropriate. It didn’t necessarily cross into outright toxicity, but it did come across as rude, at least in my reading.

Not that anyone has ever believed a post saying "I'm not mad/angry/frustrated/what have you", but I promise, I'm not. I am tired of the circling back and forth. I really do just want to play my game, which is toiling in the background as I type this.

You're making this, seem, as if it's objective, I think we should take a breather, before going further down the path.

Click to expand...

Some of it is objective. It is objectively true that you did more than point out how someone was, in your opinion, being disrespectful, for example. You objectively did go further and attempt to mirror that, not just at them but the staff in general. You did objectively belittle those CGMs when they voiced (perhaps crudely!) discontent with your calcs. These are things that objectively did happen.

As for my overall interpretation, no, it is not objective. It is based on the evidence provided, including that of the past. It is not objective that one should conclude you to be deserving of a topic ban from Tokyo Revengers, possibly permitting you to work on versus threads and possibly permitting you to appeal down the line. These are my interpretations of the actions weighed against the rules, which is by no means a hard science.

Reiner04 said:

I don’t think we should look at these exchanges in isolation, as they seem more like a chain reaction. Vzearr was admittedly upset, and I can understand why. Even I felt that the disagreement could have been expressed in a better way, when i read it. That said, it’s understandable for wording to go a bit off sometimes and i don't blame anyone for it. What I do want to point out is that vzearr's comments after it weren't because of TR or his attachment towards it, but fundamentally something different. While his reply to M3X wasn’t appropriate, I also think there should be some consideration that the disagreement itself could have been phrased more carefully. While they just expressed that dale wasn't wrong, the way it was expressed came across as lacking consideration of it being bit rude and, in my view, added to Vzearr’s frustration. I am not trying to say, with all this, that it gives vzearr free pass to act however he want but that there is reason, understandable reason, because of which it turned out this way and TR wasn't one of them, or atleast major part of it, imo. Overall, I think the situation spiraled out of control due to the combined actions of everyone involved, rather than being the fault of any one person alone. That’s why I believe it should be evaluated based on the entire exchange, rather than judging each post separately. From that perspective, it seems more like an issue of tone and mutual respect than something specifically about the TR CRT itself. That said, he still should be warned tk behave regardless the circumstances be in future, but TR CRT ban seems unrelated.

As for the VS thread, I do agree that his tone wasn’t appropriate. It didn’t necessarily cross into outright toxicity, but it did come across as rude, at least in my reading.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking at it like that. I feel I am not being heard, at times.

I pointed out that I felt Dale's first post was in error. I do find it at least mildly rude. But I find Vzearr's escalation worse, and I believe he would not act so poorly if it were not TR. Ironically, now comes my chance to point out that Vzearr is very capable of being disagreed with outside of this verse. He has lashed out, yes, but these are two incidents in rapid succession. His various staff CRTs in the past months have had disagreements without these episodes.

I can't litigate Dale's rudeness on the RVRT, and I don't find it to be particularly troublesome to begin with. He should act better than most-- as a staff member-- but it really wasn't that bad.

Vzearr said:

My issue isn’t with acknowledging that, it’s with how it’s being escalated. That was a reactive response in a heated exchange on my end, but it was not me going out of my way to break rules or derail things. It's an exchange that happens daily, hell, hourly on the wiki, I do not see as to why it would be a rule violation worthy of a topic ban, bambu.

Click to expand...

This is not your first offense.

Years ago, you were banned due to stonewalling and aggressive behaviour over TR.

You soon came back with multiple sockpuppets that engaged in similar behaviour.

You then brought in a sockpuppet, with the intention of deceitfully gaining a staff position so that you could engage with TR under less scrutiny.

After you confessed to that, and were let back in on appeal, you violated the restrictions on TR discussions, repeatedly asked for TR's restrictions to be lifted, many times weeks apart, and despite having gotten into trouble on the RVR in recent days.

Your bad behaviour continued in other domains, leading to you being banned for months.

After that, you came back, successfully lobbied for TR's restrictions being removed, and within days, you are back in the RVR due to your posts in those threads. Making it quite plausible that, if we do nothing here, you will be back in less than a week.

THAT, the entirety of it, with this being yet another straw on the camel's back, is what would be worthy of a topic ban. Your bad behaviour and rash decisions have historically, consistently popped up in connection with TR.

---

For the CRT posts in question here, I think that Vzearr's posts in response were noticeable escalations. Dale and M3X's comments were about people's actions ("the CGMs who approved these should be ashamed", "CGMs should indeed put more effort in their evaluations", "they ****** up", "the calcs are really bad"), while Vzearr's responses included a low-grade personal insult couched in "I didn't mean it" ("Talking shams about CGMs, some of which are more knowledgeable than you", "I didn't mean it") and a roundabout low-grade personal insult ("your time of CGMs is over, they get outclassed by many other new CGM's") which he later seemed to defend as serious.

His behaviour there still doesn't move the needle for me. My actionable stance remains as it was earlier.

---

Chucking this here since I don't think it merits an entire new post

Vzearr said:

But I think what I’m struggling with is how that’s being applied to this situation. What happened here wasn’t me trying to bypass rules, deceive anyone, or push things in the same way I did in the past. It was me handling a disagreement poorly, tone-wise and presentation-wise. That’s something I can and should be held accountable for, but I don’t think it’s the same type of behaviour that led to those earlier issues; that's a presupposition.

Click to expand...

I guess it lacks that similarity with other TR stuff, but I think it rhymes with the behaviour that led to your most recent ban.

Sigh. Agnaa does make a good argument above, and I am admittedly not well-informed regarding exactly what happened, due to not having had the time to evaluate the discussion thread where the offenses took place.

I’m not going to sit here and deny my past or try to argue around it. A lot of what Agnaa brought up is true, and I’ve made bad decisions regarding TR before. And I'm actually not proud of that. But I think what I’m struggling with is how that’s being applied to this situation. What happened here wasn’t me trying to bypass rules, deceive anyone, or push things in the same way I did in the past. It was me handling a disagreement poorly, tone-wise and presentation-wise. That’s something I can and should be held accountable for, but I don’t think it’s the same type of behaviour that led to those earlier issues; that's a presupposition. I get that from your perspective, it looks like a continuation of a pattern. I do understand that. But from my side, this doesn’t feel like the same thing repeating; it feels like a mistake in how I handled a heated exchange, not me going down the same path as before, that's a presuppositional error. If the issue here is tone, escalation, and how I handled responses, then I’ll take a warning for that and adjust. That’s fair.

I would rather avoid breaking down individual comments to the semantic level, but I will briefly note that:

Sigh... I could say the same about you, quite frankly, your time of CGMs is over, they get outclassed by many other new CGM's, see how this is annoying and disrespectful to you? Stop it, some of these new CGMs are my friends and I know they're far more knowledgable than you put it.

Click to expand...

Does not read to me, in the light of the other comments, as "Your time as a CGM is over". It reads to me as "If I told you things like 'Your time as a CGM is over', you'd find it annoying and disrespectful". There is a marked difference here - the former is a rather strange, denigrating comment. The latter, I would argue, is a derailment of the topic of the thread, but not an insult being directed to the users in question. Considering that it was Vzearr who, even before the matter reached the RVRT, was trying to get the thread back on its topic, leads me to think this derailment was a mistake but one he did attempt to correct for.

To speak more generally on the point: as I mentioned in a previous reply here, I think the derailment on that thread was due to multiple precipitating factors. It would likely not have occurred if most other users were in Vzearr's place, so he is one of those factors. But, for instance, I don't think Dalesean's original comment that Vzearr responded to was appropriate either in line with our rules on respectful discussion, and it is unlikely things would have ended up the way they did if this did not happen, even knowing Vzearr was there. When the consideration here is whether this was severe enough to constitute a punishment, I'm not really content putting the onus of that onto Vzearr as if this was all his doing.

Looking away from the derailment matter and towards whether Vzearr's conduct was disrespectful, there are a couple of comments I feel he should not have made. Making meme references in response to criticism and the whole thing about comparing creating calculators to creating formulas leaves a bad taste in my mouth. These comments seem to be more about expression of bad feelings and getting back at people than they are about discussion and moving the thread in a productive direction. I can't bring myself to take a perfectionistic account of conduct on the wiki, knowing that debate topics are precisely the kind of place where you'd expect issues like this to arise. Still, I would agree that Vzearr should have handled the situation better.

There is a historical context to consider here, which numerous people have alluded to. Vzearr was originally a user on the wiki who was banned for disruptive behaviour, particularly in Tokyo Revengers threads, who proceeded to make numerous sockpuppet accounts to bypass their ban. They eventually made an account here for an extended period that resulted in them becoming a staff member, some time after which they confessed openly about their dishonesty. Vzearr was eventually let back onto the wiki under rather heavy scrutiny from the staff team, I believe in some part due to sympathies to their situation and in some other part due to Vzearr's good conduct in their limited tenure as a staff member. As of the past few days, Tokyo Revengers - the verse they had caused issues with previously - was allowed back onto the wiki, and these recent reports are in the context of a TR thread that Vzearr was a part of. Naturally, this context makes things seem worse, because it appears to be a mirror of behaviour that he was already banned for in the past. For what it's worth, I would also acknowledge the inverse consideration here, which is that a vote found Vzearr to be appropriate for a staff position at one point, which speaks to some measure of change in personality.

Ultimately, my opinion on the matter is this: that Vzearr made derailing and inappropriate comments on the thread. For the former, he was not the only factor and he sought to course-correct before any specific guidance was given on the matter. On the latter, I feel he created issues but ultimately small ones that I don't think would have been wrought out this much without the historical context behind it.

I recognise this is a hard case to sell, considering TR threads were only just allowed onto the wiki and appear to be retreading old ground. But my stance on the matter is that this isn't the kind of serious offense that warrants this long of a discussion, and that I would rather it was settled with Vzearr being instructed on his errors for future reference. I wouldn't like to see more than that.

Now, while I've addressed the concerns with CRT conduct, I haven't addressed the issue with the misleading scans. I haven't yet reviewed all the discussion on that point, so I'll leave that for a different comment.

I think that Grath has made the best sense thus far in her last post above. Thank you very much for helping out.

To be fair, my comments were kinda rude as well, not rude to the point of getting reported by it, but rude enough to make them react the way they reacted.

But I’ll say though that it’s only a matter of time until Vzearr gets reported again and again as long as they’re allowed into participating in Tokyo Revengers threads, and ultimately getting banned again.

So like, take the topic ban or accept the verse being banned from the Wiki and you can still be around to do what you enjoy without having to deal with the verse that constantly gets you in trouble.

This is just a note that I have permanently banned @Para_Pala_Zula in both our forum and wiki for being a sockpuppet of @Jason_Voorhees1986 and @Yeah_boy382.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Para_Pala_Zula

https://vsbattles.com/members/para_pala_zula.61194/

https://vsbattles.com/threads/wiki-vandalism-reports.163273/post-7453566

https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-dark-tower-tier-0-upgrade.189649/post-7640742

Help with undoing all of their longterm very likely extremely unreliable systematic wanking of The Dark Tower verse and otherwise would be greatly appreciated.

Following Agnaa laying out all the evidence in one place so cleanly, it does really reinforce to me that TR itself may actually be the problem for them.

In that light, I think a topic ban would make sense- though I agree with Ant that they should still be able to help other people organize.

While I get this is an April's Fools thread, one of the scans contains a slur.

StrymULTRA said:

Dragon Ball: The Gokuversal Upgrade

For the longest time, Dragon Ball has been massively downplayed on this wiki, and honestly, it’s gotten completely out of hand. With this thread, I’m trying to finally set the record straight and fix this egregious mistake once and for all. The very real image above clearly shows that Goku...

vsbattles.com

While I get this is an April's Fools thread, one of the scans contains a slur.

Click to expand...

Couldn't you just tell @LegendariumOfLies that he accidentally included a slur in his joke or do you think it was on purpose? Feels like if you just told him, he would've removed it ASAP

DragonZeroNova said:

Couldn't you just tell @LegendariumOfLies that he accidentally included a slur in his joke or do you think it was on purpose? Feels like if you just told him, he would've removed it ASAP

Click to expand...

I do not think that he did that with racist intentions, but it's still something that staff should be aware of imo.

Reiner removed the scan with the slur.

StrymULTRA said:

I do not think that he did that with racist intentions, but it's still something that staff should be aware of imo.

Click to expand...

It seems like Reiner already edited it out, so it's probably fine now (I don't think their post or the meme was intended to be offensive at all).

As i am interested in opposing the TR verse in Versus Threads, i ask:
Will another action be taken against the verse or will just @Vzearr be affected by it?
Would hate for the first option to be true

Nonynho said:

As i am interested in opposing the TR verse in Versus Threads, i ask:
Will another action be taken against the verse or will just @Vzearr be affected by it?
Would hate for the first option to be true

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem like we have plans to re-ban the verse yet.
Some immediate controversy was probably to be expected, and it would be lazy of us to not at least try to work through it.

Agree: @FinePoint, @Mr. Bambu
Disagree with a topic ban, agree with a warning: @Antvasima, @GrathOfLux, @Reiner04, @Random-Helper323 (here)
Fine with anything from mild warning to permanent topic ban: @Agnaa (here)

I think I could argue more, but it's just that I do not want to waste staff time at the moment.

I do want to say one thing, I've been working on this verse for 4 years, and I know, after a conversation with @Reiner04, that such things will not happen again (after all, I agreed on some things with him that scare me). Anyways, I ask @FinePoint and @Mr. Bambu to reconsider.

Crabwhale said:

I will preface my assessment of this situation by stating that I am not as involved in the wiki as I used to be. I do not have the knowledge of it I used to have, I do not have the familiarity with its going-ons and userbase as was the case even a year back, barring personal friends of mine whom I speak to about unrelated topics most of the time.

That being said there is one name that I have consistently, by happenstance or just pattern recognition, have observed coming across my door. Vzearr's original ban is a murky, half-remembered affair for me. There was a lot of confusion about who said what about who when that entire thing was breaking out.

However, I have made one thing consistent and clear in all my rulings. Continued cases of problematic behavior are not something I particularly wish to tolerate. When you continuously divert attention and staff towards your shenanigans despite knowing that you are on thin ice, I am not inclined to be particularly charitable. And furthermore, let me state it thus: nobody should care what your mental state is.

If you are inside an unwell headspace, number 1: this wiki is an argumentative, sometimes outright hostile place that is not conductive to helping you. Number 2: plenty of people here, maybe even the majority, are in one way or another dealing with mental issues. This hobby is not exactly known for attracting the most stable base of people that engage in it, so if your conduct is bad then you have no excuse whatsoever.

I don't know what precisely the punishment should be for this particular infraction. I definitely think something more than a warning, I do not believe it should cross over into anything too severe, even if I believe the initial unbanning was a mistake. However, what I urge my fellow staff to do is to prevent this from degenerating into an eternal pity party that gives a particular user an infinite get-out-jail-free card for whenever they don't wanna behave.

Click to expand...

Crab is of the opinion action should be taken beyond a warning. I feel he should have been included in there. I suppose, if the leniency party is not going to reconsider, more staff will be necessary to determine an outcome.

Choosing from some I've at least seen speak on the situation so far:

@KingTempest @Dereck03 @Theglassman12

Someone summarize the reason as to why he’s even back on the wiki in the first place

KingTempest said:

Someone summarize the reason as to why he’s even back on the wiki in the first place

Click to expand...

Read this. It's basically his appeal against the ban, which was ultimately lifted. I was originally one of those who took a lenient stance and decided to support lifting the ban, but I'm not sure that was the best decision given everything that's happened so far. Will try to comment on the actual situation later.

Dereck03 said:

Read. It's basically his appeal against the ban, which was ultimately lifted. I was originally one of those who took a lenient stance and decided to support lifting the ban, but I'm not sure that was the best decision given everything that's happened so far.

Click to expand...

Eek, can you edit just the appeal, this goes into my mental health, please.

I shouldn't have posted that in public.

Vzearr said:

Eek, can you edit just the appeal, this goes into my mental health, please.

I shouldn't have posted that in public.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I did it—I didn't realize there was so much more to it than just the appeal. Although, honestly, all of us who were involved have already read it. Next time, it's better to discuss all that in private. Well, I don't know where the appeal is, and I don't have time to look for it since I'm a little busy right now. I'll leave it to you.

Decision Appeal,


To the staff. I'd like to first come out and say I apologise, for what I've done, and for anything I've messed up. Although my time as Vzearr lasted for a year, it ended off with a bang, REDACTED during my time as Vzearr and Vapourrrrr and eventually it all ended with REDACTED, leading to many events that I wished had never happened, REDACTED, and feelings that have been destroyed beyond repair.

I'd like to bring up a few things, before we get started.

1. In no way am I trying to use mental illness as an excuse. I know what I did was wrong, although, at the time, I didn't.
2. In no way am I trying to disregard the opinions of what happened last time my ban was appealed. I think I understand them, although I don't know why, I think I have a feeling as to why.

I was an idiot during the time of my Vapourrrrr and Vzearr accounts, and the many more. I was violent, manipulative, depressed, euphoric, REDACTED and many more things all at once. Which led me to do many things I now regret, one of those things was sockpuppeting on the wiki. Now I'm just going to get into it.

I'd like to be unbanned from the wiki. I have changed, now, although some people believe not much can change in 4 months. I say.

Removed for privacy.

I've become a completely different person, and if you don't believe me, I'd like to show it. Now how I could show it? By what I believe is a good solution. Having limited access to the wiki. Not full blown access but limited access in whatever way staff see fit. Just to prove myself.

I believe coming back to the wiki, although some may say it doesn't, would help improve myself as a person, I'd like to increase my physics skills and the motivation, as I see it is the wiki. From the notifications I get of old calculations coming onto my phone to the physics I see in my brothers Atar books. I believe it would not only improve cognitive function in a safe dose, but also overall wellbeing.

That's enough of me. Thanks for reading. If you so wish as to not unban me, or not let me appeal it. I wish you all the best :3.

I have removed some thing for privacy that I really regret posting.

Staff know me as someone who doesn't advocate for bans often, whether it's from the wiki or from a topic.
I try to find an alternative so that we can find middle ground for issues regarding users and our rules.
This is not one of those situations whatsoever.

This is a chaotic ass user who has pulled off some of the most bullshit actions I have ever witnessed in my career of VSBW. I've seen users get permanently banned from this wiki for less. Friends even.
Literally this is the user who made us BAN THE SERIES from the wiki and we're giving them the freedom to come and make it so that they do it again.
Like not even on the "they might do it again" energy, they've already started the bullshit.
I lie to you not.
They broke the CRT limit for the verse in like... 4 days. They've shown immature versus thread conduct already. THE LAST 3 PAGES OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN BECAUSE OF HIM.

Put me for a topic ban. Temporary, permanent, I don't care. Whoever even lifted the veil from their ban should even be put on the spot as to why it was done.

I'm not a fan of being lenient regarding our rules and regulations because we want to play devil's advocate for people with mental issues on a website full of thousands of people with mental issues, especially when we have people who have done less than him being banned for far longer.

Like what are we even doing? Why is he in a conversation for rejoining the community because he can type paragraphs of appeals????

KingTempest said:

Staff know me as someone who doesn't advocate for bans often, whether it's from the wiki or from a topic.
I try to find an alternative so that we can find middle ground for issues regarding users and our rules.
This is not one of those situations whatsoever.

This is a chaotic ass user who has pulled off some of the most bullshit actions I have ever witnessed in my career of VSBW. I've seen users get permanently banned from this wiki for less. Friends even.
Literally this is the user who made us BAN THE SERIES from the wiki and we're giving them the freedom to come and make it so that they do it again.
Like not even on the "they might do it again" energy, they've already started the bullshit.
I lie to you not.
They broke the CRT limit for the verse in like... 4 days. They've shown immature versus thread conduct already. THE LAST 3 PAGES OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN BECAUSE OF HIM.

Put me for a topic ban. Temporary, permanent, I don't care. Whoever even lifted the veil from their ban should even be put on the spot as to why it was done.

I'm not a fan of being lenient regarding our rules and regulations because we want to play devil's advocate for people with mental issues on a website full of thousands of people with mental issues, especially when we have people who have done less than him being banned for far longer.

Like what are we even doing? Why is he in a conversation for rejoining the community because he can type paragraphs of appeals????

Click to expand...

I’m not going to argue about my past, because yeah, I’ve made bad decisions before. But what you’re doing here is taking that, my history and treating it like it automatically defines this situation, my situation, and that’s the problem. Nothing that happened here is on the level of what you’re describing. There was no deception, no ban evasion, no manipulation of members, none of the stuff that actually led to those previous actions. This was am argument that I handled poorly in terms of tone and presentation. And that’s basically it. Acting like this is the same as past incidents is just not accurate. Also, saying “the last 3 pages are because of him” ignores how discussions actually work. Multiple people were involved, multiple people escalated things, and even staff have acknowledged that it wasn’t one-sided. Pinning the entire situation on me alone is just not a fair representation of what happened, when the last three pages are not me alone, but a hill of staff members' opinions.

Oh, and regarding the 3 CRT limit, the previous thread had already reached grace at that point, so I assumed it would be fine. I was also unsure whether creating a thread in the calc group would count toward that 3 CRT limit. I admit that this was a mistake. However, presenting it as something irreversible, or as being the same as, or even comparable to, my past actions, feels unfair and exaggerated. In my view, it’s a minor issue that doesn’t really warrant being brought into RVR. That said, if I did break the limit or handle things poorly, then I’m fine with being warned for it. I just don’t believe it rises to the level of a heavy warning. That’s generally how the rules are meant to function. A topic ban shouldn’t be the first response unless someone has consistently shown they cannot engage with a topic without causing serious issues. I don’t think this situation demonstrates that. At most, it shows that I made a mistake in interpreting the rules and thought it was acceptable to open a thread since the others had reached grace. From my perspective, this feels like jumping to an extreme outcome.