User blog:Blalafoon/Regarding the Affairs Before and After Rule Twenty

After multiple users have asked me about this little conundrum concerning Roxaswastaken, Rule #20, etc. I've pretty much had enough, and am just going to settle it here in front of everybody so I don't have to type the same thing over and over again, and hopefully reach a general consensus.

Before I begin, while writing this I have disregarded anything and everything to do with the personalities of the individuals mentioned. This includes any right or wrongdoing to anybody, and I advise you to do the same while reading. Below, only facts are stated (unless otherwise indicated), however, said facts are only ones that I currently know to be true, if I am mis-informed or if I've missed something of relevance, let me know.

On a day on, or previous to December 3rd, an argument had taken place between Lady Alyra and Roxaswastaken on a site seperate from Dragon Ball Z Role Playing Wiki (and any Wikia domain in general) concerning matters on DBZRP. After Alyra had asked a question to Roxas, he started to become more and more infuriated and eventually broke out into a giant text wall of harassment, shortly after, Roxas blocked Alyra's incoming messages on that site. Supposedly, there was a unscheduled meeting on DBZRP chat and his fate in receiving a block for his actions was chosen.

The following day, Roxas reached out to me concerning these matters. Myself, believing this to have been unfair, had a discussion with Alyra about it. We were unable to reach a compromise. Shortly after, "the site rules were adjourned" to include:
 * Rule 20: Do not harass other wiki-members off-site.
 * The warning stating that "Any chat moderator may temporarily warn, kick, or ban you for 2 hours for common misbehavior that doesn't technically break the rules.", was changed to "Any chat moderator may temporarily warn, kick, or ban you for a reasonable length of time for common misbehavior that doesn't technically break the rules."
 * On top of that change, the following was added in addition: "Similarly, any administrator can do the same thing, including blocks."

Yesterday, on December 8th, I once again had a brief discussion about this topic with Alyra and was still unable to reach any form of compromise. Thusly, here I am writing this blog; trying to get an answer from the community to settle this issue.

Upon inspection, and asking people around the wiki, as of this writing, I have reached the following conclusion(s): I want to make it 100% obvious that I am in no way supporting Roxas' actions that day. What he did/said was completely inappropriate and uncalled for, that, however, does not mean I won't defend him for what I believe is an unreasonable block.
 * Nowhere in the Site Rules at the time of the offense was it stated you could be banned and/or blocked for crimes that break DBZRP rules on other websites.
 * Roxas was not given any form of official warning that he could be banned/blocked on DBZRP for such actions, and it was not stated in the Site Rules at the time of the offense that an administrator could block a user under such pretenses.
 * The changing of the Site Rules after an action was performed should not, in any way, be applied to a previous situation where the new rules rules were not present.
 * This 'meeting' on chat unlikely had every active member of DBZRP present, and, considering it likely took place shortly after the argument with Alyra and Roxas, there might have been a hint of bias in the mix.

In my opinion, this block was beyond unreasonable, and should be undone. If you have beef with Roxas after this, every person has the willpower to ignore anything he says, and you can block incoming Private Messages from him on the DBZRP chat interface, and anywhere else on the internet.

Now, concerning the rule changes. I personally have no problem with Rule #20, as long as the criteria required to recieve punishment from this rule is greater than a joke-intended insult, or a standalone single insult. Also, before recieving any form of punishment (official warning, ban, block, etc.), the offender should be warned beforehand that what he says could fall under this rule. It should also be cystal clear that an argument is not harassment.

The text change from "2 hours" to "reasonable length of time" isn't that big of a deal. Chat is moreso a convenience than a nescessity and I find no fault in this change.

Last but not least, the addition that any administrator can block any user for any amount of time as long at it is "within reason", is beyond faulty. With this clause in effect, we might as well not have any Site Rules to begin with if any administrator can block you for any reason as long as him/herself and another admin think that it is 'reasonable'. I am in full favor of this being erased from the rules completely as it is beyond unfair.

Welp, that's pretty much the end of this. I encourage all readers of this blog to link it in the wiki chat and get the word around, I want the entire communities opinion on this matter. Please, leave a comment saying your opinions on the matter. At the very least, just say if you support, or are against, Roxas ban, rule #20, the text change regarding chat bans, and the addition of new ways administrators can conduct blocks, and please provide a small reasoning of why.

Thank you for your time.

 Blalafoon   Talk •  Contribs  21:24, December 9, 2014 (UTC)