On Bittersweet being revealed as Crying Vegeta

[Dark Pulse]

As a lot of you know, there have been rampant rumors about Bittersweet being Crying Vegeta. Some of you have even pushed us into looking into it, but we looked again and again, and we found no proof to back it up, so until we found something that we considered good enough proof, we made a decision months ago (when "Bittersweet" also got banned on Mike's fourm) that we would not do anything to Bittersweet here - though, it obviously stinks that we were actually technically correct to do it in the first place all those months ago.

A few days ago, someone came forward with proof that gave very good, but not 100%, evidence that Bittersweet was indeed Crying Vegeta, and a second member pointed out things that gave further suspicion as to the identity. Based upon this, I requested (and obtained) permission from the other admins to look into Bittersweet's PM box. What we found there was plenty of proof that undeniably made Bittersweet out to be Crying Vegeta.

We also found out that one of the moderators had known about it, talked to him, passed along our communications and kept it purposely hidden from us.

Therefore, we all gathered, sifted through the proof, and have investigated what we believe to be everyone involved with this. We are handing out the punishments accordingly, using the handy list that Bittersweet provided us in their final moment of glory.

• Mcjon01: Directly aided and abetted CV in keeping Bittersweet "clean," right down to letting CV do a few posts when he visited him to keep us from figuring out IPs. It doesn't matter that CV didn't tell him it initially, the fact is that he did eventually know, and he did not come forward. He claimed that he did not know he should come forward, but this should be really common sense, and since it wasn't a rule before, it sure is one now, since it seems like if we don't make it a rule, people won't follow it.
  
  Punishment: One Month Ban.
  
  
• Kyte: We investigated, but found no plausible evidence that he had anything to do with helping CV hide.
  
  Punishment: None.
  
  
• ZidanReign: We investigated, but found no plausible evidence that he had anything to do with helping CV hide.
  
  Punishment: None.
  
  
• RR121: We found that he was aware of CV's true identity, but did nothing to actively help him hide it.
  
  Punishment: Public Warning.
  
  
• Velsper: We found that he was aware of CV's true identity, but did nothing to actively help him hide it.
  
  Punishment: Public Warning.
  
  
• LeopardBear: Well, it should be obvious. Knew, aided, and abetted, right down to passing along what was being said in the admin forum. That it'd go this high up the chain seriously disappointed all of us.
  
  Punishment: One Month Ban, revocation of Moderator status.
  
  
• Kotonoha: We investigated, but found no plausible evidence that she had anything to do with helping CV hide. (If anything, she figured this out on her own.)
  
  Punishment: None.
  
  
• Spinach: We found that he was aware of CV's true identity, but did nothing to actively help him hide it.
  
  Punishment: Public Warning.
  
  
• I3uster: We found that he was aware of CV's true identity, but did nothing to actively help him hide it.
  
  Punishment: Public Warning.
  
  
• Randy_Hamblast: Utterly moot, as he's been banned for months.
  
  Punishment: Digging up the corpse, hanging, drawing, quartering, followed by shaking the head, limbs, and torso on all sorts of pointy spears and stuff.
  
  
• Frantic Author: We found that he was aware of CV's true identity, but did nothing to actively help him hide it.
  
  Punishment: Public Warning.

In the end, we're thoroughly disappointed with all of these turns of events. On one hand, the popular rumor was indeed correct, and it would've been okay if that was all it was, but to know that one of our own, someone whom we trusted, actively helped him seriously let down all of us.

And, just to make sure this is clear, If you know about a sockpuppet account, and do not come forward with proof and the information, you will be held as a guilty party when that sockpuppet is discovered. The argument of "It wasn't me, so I didn't know better!" really doesn't apply here. Use some basic, common sense.

Don't think we'll always be so lenient on punishments if you only "know" a sockpuppet.

[In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries]

twist Frantic is actually Dark_Pulse

[ZidanReign]

I never knew about BS being CV. I can formally say that with truthfulness.

And besides, CV never talks to me anyway and hasn't for like a year, so I don't understand why I had a part in this.

[Frantic Author]

twist Frantic is actually Dark_Pulse

You've known

You've always known

[In-N-Out Double-Double & Animal Fries]

Darples a shit

therefore Frantic a shit

[Kyte]

Leo you were like the only decent active mod and you had to go pull this stupid bullshit.

[Milbunk]

Huh I never really talked to either CV or Bitter but it does make me worry a bit about just how deep he got into all this.

[BlackField]

This is hilarious. This forum and its drama, it always makes me lol. Its like the admins either overreact or underreact causing everyone else to band up and fight "the power" and then all these people who claim to be fighting the power turn out to all have their hand in the cookie jar, justifying the admins previous behaviour. You couldn't make this shit up if you tried. The interwebs its srs bsns.

[Riven]

This is pretty shocking. I had heard a rumor of this sockpuppeting, but I always assumed it was one of those jokes people make all the time. Then this comes out, and there's a suspects and punishments list that goes a level up in the chain of command. It's like some bad conspiracy movie that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

[LoyaltL]

Well, I live for these moments. Drama is awesome.

Revocation of the Moderator status?
Oooh. That must hurt.

Mcjon got 1 month Ban?
Dammit. Sarcastic levels and people getting more sigs will drop.

[Strife ❤️]

Hahaha

[DreamsRequiem]

Leo you were like the only decent active mod and you had to go pull this stupid bullshit.

Fucking this. Dammit.

[Daiki]

And, just to make sure this is clear, If you know about a sockpuppet account, and do not come forward with the information, you will be held as a guilty party when that sockpuppet is discovered. The argument of "It wasn't me, so I didn't know better!" really doesn't apply here. Use some basic, common sense.

Don't think we'll always be so lenient on punishments if you only "know" a sockpuppet.

And now people will point fingers at everyone claiming they are sockpuppets, so that the mod team can check their private messages. Nice.

Honestly you're all making a fuss about someone creating another account. While I understand that rules need to be enforced, you should all take the time to review your own behavior. By checking private messages, you're violating one's privacy. (It doesn't matter if said person is banned or not) They are things which should be kept for those concerned. And you're not helping either in asking people to report others. It can and will be abused.

What you're doing there Darples, is only taking the community hostages. It may help you moderate but it's not fair.

As a member of the community I don't feel concerned about such petty things like ban evasion. I don't give a crap about it, just like I should not have to. I come here to chill and discuss, not to get headaches about who is who or this one did this. It's not my job as a regular user to be part of the police. I have no interest in the drama going on so leave me out of it.

[Knick]

Huh, I was wondering why Leo, McJon, and BS where banned.

But damn Leo, why ya have to get your mod status revoked.

[Kyte]

And now people will point fingers at everyone claiming they are sockpuppets, so that the mod team can check their private messages. Nice.

Honestly you're all making a fuss about someone creating another account. While I understand that rules need to be enforced, you should all take the time to review your own behavior. By checking private messages, you're violating one's privacy. (It doesn't matter if said person is banned or not) They are things which should be kept for those concerned. And you're not helping either in asking people to report others. It can and will be abused.

What you're doing there Darples, is only taking the community hostages. It may help you moderate but it's not fair.

As a member of the community I don't feel concerned about such petty things like ban evasion. I don't give a crap about it, just like I should not have to. I come here to chill and discuss, not to get headaches about who is who or this one did this. It's not my job as a regular user to be part of the police. I have no interest in the drama going on so leave me out of it.

Chillax, your cybering is secure. It took more than just pointing fingers.

Plus most of the sockpuppets are really fucking transparent. Like, 90% of the time it's Mike or food and everyone knows.

[Daiki]

It's not so much the private part. I've nothing to hide but it's still something that shouldn't be done.

What annoys me is how people should report people thing.

[Kyte]

Well, they should. It's, you know, proper behavior. Look at your avatar. Now look a bit lower. Right next to the "Blog this post" button. A little triangle. Hover over it. What does it say?

Report this post.

[Cruor]

I told you spin-chan that there was no way you would get banned ^_^

But I am actually surprised some bans were made.


I would like to inquire why the bans are one month long rather than the traditional one week? As the rules say Private warning > Public > Day ban > etc. and I don't remember there being a one month (as tbh I haven't checked the rules since the last time I argued about them lololololol). While sure I'm okay I just want to know if you can finally settle on rules without changing them (though I suppose this is the 'ideal' way of doing punishment- one based on the situation rather than be set in stone. But I personally like the set in stone system as it less depends on what someone is feeling at the time) :P

Also I'd like to know what constitutes as helping banned users sockpuppet? For instance I joked in irc and mentioned Tor only for food to respond saying that Tor is what he uses. Now if Mike or someone sees that does that mean I'm 'helping' him? I AM SORRY I AM NITPICKING.

[Seika]

And now people will point fingers at everyone claiming they are sockpuppets, so that the mod team can check their private messages. Nice.

To what end? I mean, BL certainly isn't the most mature of communities, but there's also relatively little personal animosity flying around (and where it exists, it's generally a known factor the mods will have on their radar). And you think there also won't be punishments for reporting someone frivolously? It's an offence to abuse the report button on posts already, I don't see why that would apply less to the process of PMing a mod and saying 'I think some random idiot is a sockpuppet' for no reason.

Honestly you're all making a fuss about someone creating another account.

The stance is that members in good standing don't get to create extra accounts; if they want to say something, they can either associate it with themselves or not at all. 'Creating another account' is already something regarded very badly by the administration, let alone when it's explicitly for the purpose of ban evasion by someone whose behaviour before getting banned the first time around was deeply antisocial.

While I understand that rules need to be enforced, you should all take the time to review your own behavior. By checking private messages, you're violating one's privacy. (It doesn't matter if said person is banned or not) They are things which should be kept for those concerned. And you're not helping either in asking people to report others. It can and will be abused.

Apart from still doubting this doomsday scenario of everyone trying to tear down the forum (again, why?), it's clear that there was consultation among the mod/admin team as to whether this was an appropriate action - not just done carelessly. And it certainly does matter whether they're banned or not. PMs are a function of forum membership; if you're not supposed to be a member in the first place, you don't have the right to the system's use at all, nevermind an expectation of privacy.

[Bloble]

So, uh... dibs on Leo's spot! /jk