Quote from Camila

They never ended the conversation in "good terms" or in a "friendly matter" is just that no one wanted to intervene even after Jutsu's posts got reported TWICE by the one getting the harass.

what are you talking about

Quote from stickdude74

No.
You know what lets call off this argument I think I swore to much and in the end we are arguing about two teams who have not fought in a while

So I apologize your lashing off on you I just thought you were being a Dick so I Argued back but I am good.

You?

Quote from Jutsu]Haha, water under the bridge kiddo.

You don't need to be so butt-flustered.[/quote]

[QUOTE=stickdude74

*Shakes hand* its all good

beside I think our argument entertained Everybody else anyway :D

at which point the chat thread promptly went to a different topic.

how is that not a resolution to this whole thing? why do we need to go to jutsu after his "victim" apologized for his behavior and made amends, and tell him that he was wrong and should never do this again?

I'm honestly asking how you take yourself seriously in this situation, because I know for a fact he's not going to and I agree with him.


edit: I'm not really commenting on the bigger picture here because I don't see a reason to make it an issue of ongoing harassment. At least with caelo, she was clearly upset long after the whole thing went down. This is a stupid argument that resolved itself rather quickly after stickdude reported it in the heat of the moment. I'm not treating these issues the same because they clearly aren't.

I'm also not trying to say this is just jutsu being jutsu and he should get a pass for it, idk where that came from

Quote from Exilement

I'm not really commenting on the bigger picture here because I don't see a reason to make it an issue of ongoing harassment. At least with caelo, she was clearly upset long after the whole thing went down. This is a stupid argument that resolved itself rather quickly after stickdude reported it in the heat of the moment. I'm not treating these issues the same because they clearly aren't.

Obviously they aren't, my whole point is the linking factor: Jutsu's role in each. The issue is that a user here was caused undue stress because of a behavior we acknowledge exists yet do nothing about. My argument hinges on these key points:

- That a user felt victimized enough to report Jutsu for flaming
- That we have verified an altercation took place
- That Jutsu was in some form harassing Stickdude
- That Jutsu instigated it by trolling Stickdude

If we can agree on those key points then I believe that this qualifies as being considered under the issue of "Jutsu's ongoing harassment" as this falls within those parameters. The specifics of this incident are only relevant to establish that yes this is a problem that relates to Jutsu's harassment. It doesn't matter if this situation is dissimilar to previous incidents so long as we establish that the common denominator is Jutsu's harassment.

Now that we can look at the "Jutsu's Harassment" issue and see a number of previous incidents that fall under this label, I believe it's time to decide what we're going to do about it. The issue is one that needs to be sorted out, otherwise we will keep seeing this pop up and I guarantee that. That is why I wonder how many times it will take before you acknowledge that Jutsu does indeed have a problem with harassing other users. For Camila and I it seems we've already hit that point. That could be that we've had more interaction with him as staff than as friends, but that doesn't really matter. I want to know why it is that you don't seem to see it as an issue because you only seem to be interesting in the fact that they made up instead of the fact that it happened at all.

This whole thing feels so simple to me and it's boggling my mind why you aren't on the same page as I am. It's like Student A has a problem with punching other students. Some students don't mind if the punches are soft, but occasionally Student A punches harder and it understandably annoys those students. You know this student does this and have witnessed it more than once, so you ask him not to punch people like that. He doesn't listen and continues punching other students. One student gets so frustrated by it he mentions it to you before making up with Student A. The problem is, you asked Student A not to do that and Student A is still doing it. You figure that since Student A made up that it must not really still be a problem, but then it happens again. And again. Why would you ignore that trend? Unless you were okay with students getting punched at random, I don't see how any reasonable person wouldn't see it this way.

Quote from Exilement

I'm also not trying to say this is just jutsu being jutsu and he should get a pass for it, idk where that came from

You literally said that. "I'm wondering why it still matters beyond the fact that this is another example of jutsu being jutsu." That statement comes across that way because you already expressed that you disagree with us wanting to do something about his behavior.

Quote from Devour

Can someone explain why Jutsu gets put under a microscope every time this happens (read: does the exact same thing that Nish and Cook do, with Cook being more vulgar and hostile and Nish being much more emotionally manipulative, hurtful and consistent) and yet the other two are ignored? It kind of does seem like there's a bias towards Jutsu, or else the other worse offenders would be brought up sometimes too. The fact this is being brought up after it was settled peacefully and while jutsu's under a week ban makes me think this too.

Also you guys can do whatever.

I am literally always pointing out problems with the 3 of them but I am criticized every time I do. I always get the same response that they are otherwise contributing members, or that they haven't done anything bad in a while, or that their overall behavior doesn't matter as long as individual incidents are resolved. They all have problems with their behavior in similar ways and I think what I'm talking about applies to all of them. He's being put under a microscope right now because this is the only issue available between the three of them, it just happens that Jutsu was involved in this and the last one. There's no cherry picking here, I think at least those 3 members need to ditch the shitty dick side of them in order to really affect positivity in this forum. Otherwise anything they contribute is offset by the fact that they tend to upset others.

EDIT: Also I was just following after Raptor posted. Like I said earlier I'm not just coming on here to pick on Jutsu, I had no idea what this thread was before opening it other than it had a few replies. I don't care that it's been resolved I care that it happened and I intended to use it to bring up discussion about his ongoing behavior issues.

Quote from Jeff

You literally said that. "I'm wondering why it still matters beyond the fact that this is another example of jutsu being jutsu." That statement comes across that way because you already expressed that you disagree with us wanting to do something about his behavior.

Misunderstanding, then. We seem to agree this specific issue doesn't require further punishment but that's what I was trying to focus on in the post where I said that. The specific issue, and my reasons for thinking it's not a problem that necessitates our involvement. Even if I tend to selectively focus on the issue at hand it does still need resolving and I didn't feel like we were there yet, so that's why I was talking about it separately from the "jutsu being jutsu" issue now being discussed.


My biggest issue is labeling his behavior as a problem when in this case there's no examples of harm being caused. We don't have a user who still feels harassed, we don't have pages worth of disruptive arguing, we just have one user acting in a way that's similar to behavior they tend to exhibit but without causing any real tangible problems in doing so. Yet we're still labeling it as problem behavior. You did bring up those four points but I see them and can't help but end it with "....but in the end they made up and it hasn't been an issue since", so I can't see why we should get involved. I'm the kind of mod who believes the best possible solution to an issue is one that doesn't involve us and that's exactly what we have here.

Maybe we can save this discussion for the next time jutsu harasses someone similarly to the way he harassed caelo and camila. Until then I can't think of a way to bring it up in a way that's going to actually lead to anything positive.

Quote from Jeff

I am literally always pointing out problems with the 3 of it but I am criticized every time I do. I always get the same response that they are otherwise contributing members, or that they haven't done anything bad in a while, or that their overall behavior doesn't matter as long as individual incidents are resolved. They all have problems with their behavior in similar ways and I think what I'm talking about applies to all of them. He's being put under a microscope right now because this is the only issue available between the three of them, it just happens that Jutsu was involved in this and the last one. There's no cherry picking here, I think at least those 3 members need to ditch the shitty dick side of them in order to really affect positivity in this forum. Otherwise anything they contribute is offset by the fact that they tend to upset others.

Alrighty. Maybe next time Nish harasses some kid about his religion and names him a paedophile for 5 pages and continues even when he literally begs Nish to stop, we can have a discussion about that instead of it being forgotten within a few hours. This small playground fight in comparison looks already dealt with

Kind of a bad point since if you feel like it necessitates dealing with you should have brought it up, no one is at fault for not noticing it or dealing with this situation when it's brought to our attention but you're definitely at fault for ignoring something you believe deserves our attention. If you don't believe that then I don't know what relevance it has to any of this.

But then again I don't know what you're even referring to and maybe you did try to bring it up, idk. Just weighing in.

Quote from Exilement

Kind of a bad point since if you feel like it necessitates dealing with you should have brought it up, no one is at fault for not noticing it or dealing with this situation when it's brought to our attention but you're definitely at fault for ignoring something you believe deserves our attention. If you don't believe that then I don't know what relevance it has to any of this.

But then again I don't know what you're even referring to and maybe you did try to bring it up, idk. Just weighing in.

It did get dealt with, but not enough was done I think. There was just a friendly-worded infraction when there should have been a discussion on how consistent that kind of thing happening with Nish is. And if Jutsu had done it, I bet that there would have been.

I'm not as much talking about this issue here. It's just that there seems to be a bias towards Jutsu while a lot of mods are fine with what Nish does a lot of the time. Good to know that Jeff isn't missing Nish's shenanigans though.

gotcha

Quote from Exilement

Misunderstanding, then. We seem to agree this specific issue doesn't require further punishment but that's what I was trying to focus on in the post where I said that. The specific issue, and my reasons for thinking it's not a problem that necessitates our involvement. Even if I tend to selectively focus on the issue at hand it does still need resolving and I didn't feel like we were there yet, so that's why I was talking about it separately from the "jutsu being jutsu" issue now being discussed.

That makes sense. I am definitely not pushing for any punishment specifically in regards to this issue, I also don't think it on it's own is bad enough but when viewed in line with Jutsu's other incidents doesn't exactly make me want to keep shrugging the issue off since I feel like this is just gonna keep happening.

Quote from Exilement

My biggest issue is labeling his behavior as a problem when in this case there's no examples of harm being caused. We don't have a user who still feels harassed, we don't have pages worth of disruptive arguing, we just have one user acting in a way that's similar to behavior they tend to exhibit but without causing any real tangible problems in doing so. Yet we're still labeling it as problem behavior. You did bring up those four points but I see them and can't help but end it with "....but in the end they made up and it hasn't been an issue since", so I can't see why we should get involved. I'm the kind of mod who believes the best possible solution to an issue is one that doesn't involve us and that's exactly what we have here.

This is why I wrote the student analogy, because I believe that even though the reporter isn't upset about it now, he very clearly was. Again I don't think it matters that they made up or whatever, the fact that at some point a user was visibly upset as a direct result of Jutsu's tendency to troll people is enough of a reason to take it into consideration. The central point here is that the root cause of the overall issue - Jutsu's behavior - is continually at play. There WAS a conflict and this aspect which we know exists was at fault. So, sure, it hasn't been an issue since but why should we ignore it if we can prevent it from happening again? It's almost predictable at this point.

At least we're having the conversation about it, which is what I want. I don't even want us to TAKE ACTION right now, I just want us to acknowledge that this is a problem and come up with a long term strategy for it. If that means banning him now, then so be it. If that means taking note of this incident as relevant and continuing to monitor him then that's fine too.

Quote from Exilement

Maybe we can save this discussion for the next time jutsu harasses someone similarly to the way he harassed caelo and camila. Until then I can't think of a way to bring it up in a way that's going to actually lead to anything positive.

I am okay with this, but please don't forget that this happened. Just because there's no documented infraction doesn't mean that this incident shouldn't be taken into consideration in the future.

Quote from Devour

Alrighty. Maybe next time Nish harasses some kid about his religion and names him a paedophile for 5 pages and continues even when he literally begs Nish to stop, we can have a discussion about that instead of it being forgotten within a few hours. This small playground fight in comparison looks already dealt with

I look forward to the thread you make when it happens next. I honestly missed that incident and no one brought it up. I'd also appreciate you reading the other posts I've made in order to understand why this "small playground fight" being "already dealt with" is irrelevant to what we're discussing...

Quote from Jeff

I look forward to the thread you make when it happens next. I honestly missed that incident and no one brought it up. I'd also appreciate you reading the other posts I've made in order to understand why this "small playground fight" being "already dealt with" is irrelevant to what we're discussing...

Same for me, I completly missed that I:


And is not that we have him on a microscope, is just that he has been involved in the last discussions about harassment lately. Plus I'd like to remind everyone of this

Extracted directly from the blacklist thread:




The red ones are the reasons of why he was listed there in the first place. The blue one has been happening recently. The last infraction he got for spam was a normal one....

Also, talking about the issue, should we add Captain Cook and Nish to the list? I don't know if they have been banned in the past, but I know that they have been infracted over and over for harassment/flaming/trolling and have that sort of reputation.

Do they have to meet all the conditions or just some? Because a lot of members have been banned and "have a reputation."

For what I'm concerned they gotta have at least 2 of the conditionsto be in a sort of blacklist.

wouldn't having them need to have more than half be more appropriate?
Because if people only need two, then we'll need to add a whole lot of people to the blacklist

Quote from Drone

wouldn't having them need to have more than half be more appropriate?
Because if people only need two, then we'll need to add a whole lot of people to the blacklist

Like who? it's actually hard to get 2 of those options at the same time.