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

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

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

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

Rule Violation Reports - 51

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secondly, this isn't just "bias", as you claim to be. It's a legitimate issue that has been repeatedly brought up because it continues to be an issue. Anyone can see how Regis is a troublemaker just by picking out a thread at random that he's contributed to, and the fact that he was part of the core infamous Discord group does not help his case at all.
 
@Prom His present offense is ignoring Ant's final warning about shaping up his attitude and instead continuing his behavior
 
Was it an official warning though? I tend to consider those the ones posted in your wall.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
@Prom His present offense is ignoring Ant's final warning about shaping up his attitude and instead continuing his behavior
Click to expand...

If i may it just really seems like you want Regis banned due to personal reasons given your past with him / her. It looks like to me you should have zero say in this regard due an obvious bias. And i dont mean that in a rude way or anything just a neutral observation. Frankly i don't care about what they do with Regis but you really shouldn't suggest anything given your prior history with the user.
 
Promestein said:
No need in dragging the issues of the past out again and again. What matters is the present and the relevant party's actions in the present.
Click to expand...
This, a billion times. We're slowly dragging ourselves down the wrong road, when we dig up all the crap people did in the past, even when it's unrelated. That's what people on places like ResetEra do.
 
@ Prom

I'm simply saying it lends further suspicion. Never intended for it to be taken as a main argument.
 
Crabwhale said:
@ Xulrev
This is the thread where users are reported for staff to judge on whether they have omitted punishable offenses or not. A natural part of that is arguing over it.
Click to expand...
This has deteoriated into several Staff members all bringing up a group from the past to try and shoehorn punitive action onto a person in the present and letting it cloud their judgment, was moreso my point. That's absolutely something that should be shifted onto another thread and hashed out amongst Staff themselves, imho.

This thread should be solely to discuss the reported action. The reported action is not banworthy in the eyes of several Staff in-context, and the only argument thus far for taking action relies upon said clouded judgment from the past, which again brings me to my rationale that it deserves its own conversation separate from this thread due to getting to a point of derailing.

Hopefully that assists in clearing up what was intended by my statement! And apologies if that comes off as rude, it is surely not meant to be.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
but Regis has always come off as antagonistic ever since that huge spiral of chaos from the discord-banning situation. If he's associated with them, and has very negative feelings towards the staff and how things on the site work here, then why is even still here?

While a more detailed and elaborate justification is needed, I too see a year long block as justifiable
Click to expand...
This is also absurdly horrific precedent to even see someone arguing for. This is actual witch-hunt logic and to see anyone agreeing with it is concerning.

'This person feels like they're negative so why are we allowing them to be here' is an enormous red flag for anyone who believes in fair treatment for users and desires open-minded debate and progress for a site such as this, wherein disagreement is necessary for forward progress.
 
I don't think this is even the first time Regis was reported without an actual rule break as justification.

People, I understand if a user seems too troublesome to keep around but ultimately, deciding what the best course of action is in these situations is supposed to be an objective process and just repeatedly claiming someone deserves punishment without showing clear rule violations doesn't, and shouldn't help reach a conclusion.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Ignoring warnings from staf in and of itself is a rule violation, let alone ignoring a beurocrat
Click to expand...
If this occurred, it ought to be simple to produce the explicit warning and delineate how he ignored that warning surely? From the conversation thus far however, the reported instance really isn't report-worthy behavior even.

That's the crux of this entire debate. If you have proof, providing it would be of great benefit to your argument.
 
Xulrev said:
and delineate how he ignored that warning surely? From the conversation thus far however, the reported instance really isn't report-worthy behavior even.
Click to expand...
This is moreso what I was focused upon, sorry for being misleading Weekly.

The reason it's the important part is that I don't see how 'disagreeing' is breaking a rule, and calling things 'wank' provably isn't rule-breaking either.
 
"Regis, you really need to mellow out your temperament. It's not just about last night's thread, but about the undeniable fact that your stubbornness and tendency to get heated has been going on for a long time now. While other users with similar issues have improved in this area, your conduct is basically still the same, and that's a problem. I understand it can be frustrating to feel like you're being ignored, and that others are being too set in their ways, but you must remember that others have the same perception of you. I know about your history with Weekly, but those problems can't be left behind if you can't learn to move on and just stop harping on absolutely everything. You really need to make an effort here. You may have avoided it this time, but I am 99% sure that if you get into any more trouble, you will be getting banned. I'd expect a duration much longer than the ones thrown around in that thread. If you want some more specific advice feel free to ask me about it on discord, but after this you aren't just going to be getting away with a warning anymore. Do I make myself clear?"

He ignored essentially all of this
 
Almost all of that is subjective as a warning, however. 'mellow out your temperament' to what level, in comparison to what? What level of disagreement based in researched evidence is 'mellow' enough? Simple disagreement on any fundamental level could be argued to breach this 'Final Warning' reasonably enough, dependant upon the Staff member's personal interpretation.

Objective rules infractions need to be how someone disruptive is dealt with, not language that is up to interpretation.
 
Stop. Chatting. There!

Do you understand that you clog up this thread? Please, talk this out in your message walls or somewhere in private. 60+ posts there are already taken by the Regis topic. This is my first and only warning.

Seriously, I'd appreciate if this issue would be discussed privately in the Human Resources group to investigate it by professionals. The public discussion will go nowhere.
 
I'm absurdly confused right now; I brought up the point of this needing another thread and was informed that this actually is the place to discuss all of this since Staff are responding, so what is the actual official ruling at the end of the day on this?
 
Skalt711 is correct. This discussion is clogging up the thread. The Human Resources group should preferably make a decision in private instead.
 
I agree with Wokistan.

Handling this kind of thing is also not my area.
 
I think it's best that I elaborate further. Anyways, he's a new user and one of the first things he does is just ridicule a character in a discussion thread about it. Kinda fishy. It's best to keep your eyes on him for the time being. Or just give him a block right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
31 32 33
Replies
1K
Views
95K
Woomica
Woomica
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
757
Deleted member 40688
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top