Confirmation

[Christen57]

I'm doing both, because 2 channels of exposure is better than 1. And a judge accused me of spamming the reports (which was factually wrong, of course). So im simply exposing the truth in the best way possible.

No, 2 channels is not better here. It's clogging up the forum and the report queue. One report is enough. Judges will respond to it. I can confirm this. Whenever I've reported people myself who broke rules I never needed to do it more than once and certainly never needed to create a public thread calling them out like what you've been doing.

[CardGirlChick]

One report was insufficient, because after i filed the original report, dogmakardinal continues different levels of harassment on multiple occasions with various methods.

So that is how you're wrong.

[Christen57]

One report was insufficient, because after i filed the original report, dogmakardinal continues different levels of harassment on multiple occasions with various methods.

So that is how you're wrong.

It can take time for judges to answer reports. There's no such thing as reports being "insufficient". Genexwrecker or Runzy, or one of them I think, said in a different thread that judges get, like, hundreds of reports a week or so. Filing multiple reports for the same issue does not make them get to your report faster.

[Genexwrecker]

i said the multiple reports were "spam and/or an extension" of one issue. not that they were pointless but more of you need to try and keep all the info for one big incident to 1 report.

[CardGirlChick]

I didnt file multiple reports to get mine handled faster, i filed multiple reports to ensure all relevant information was passed along to the judges. Simple as that.

If i filed a report at 8pm, and at 9pm he does something reportable. That is out of my control.

[Genexwrecker]

3 reports for the spam on the forums that has been dealt with is excessive. only 1 report would be needed and we would be monitoring it. also you should be properly reporting the posts with the post report feature not file abuse reports.

[Christen57]

I didnt file multiple reports to get mine handled faster, i filed multiple reports to ensure all relevant information was passed along to the judges. Simple as that.

If i filed a report at 8pm, and at 9pm he does something reportable. That is out of my control.

If you're reporting 1 user, you file 1 report, even if that 1 user committed multiple infractions in a row. When that 1 user commits multiple infractions in a row, you include all those infractions in your 1 report. If multiple users are committing the same infraction, you file 1 report and include all those users' names and evidence against them in your 1 report.

Now, I may be wrong about this since it's been a while since I last reported a user (and if I am, Genexwrecker can correct me), but when reporting multiple users at once, or reporting a single user for multiple infractions, you file the least amount of reports possible to make judges' jobs easier. You shouldn't have to file a report against someone for, for example, harassment, and then file another report saying "hey sorry I forgot to mention this in my previous report but this user also cheated in ranked so I'm filing this extra report to include that detail as well".

You should have all your facts and evidence together when filing a single report. You don't file a report against a rule-breaker, file a second report to include additional details, file an additional report to include evidence against said rule-breaker, and so on. You include all that in a single report so judges don't have to read several different reports just to investigate and resolve 1 big issue.

[CardGirlChick]

3 reports for the spam on the forums that has been dealt with is excessive. only 1 report would be needed and we would be monitoring it. also you should be properly reporting the posts with the post report feature not file abuse reports.

3 Reports:

One for the forum account spam messaging me
One for the forum posts by him posing as me; which also referred to the actual post he wrote which included spam and "offensive" language.
One report tying the forum actions to his DB actions.

3 separate matters details 3 different incidents at 3 different times. So yeah, that requires 3 reports.

All the facts were "up to date" in that moment, and you can't assume i can predict the actions of some troll in advance before filing.

[Genexwrecker]

3 reports for the spam on the forums that has been dealt with is excessive. only 1 report would be needed and we would be monitoring it. also you should be properly reporting the posts with the post report feature not file abuse reports.

3 Reports:

One for the forum account spam messaging me
One for the forum posts by him posing as me; which also referred to the actual post he wrote which included spam and "offensive" language.
One report tying the forum actions to his DB actions.

3 separate matters details 3 different incidents at 3 different times. So yeah, that requires 3 reports.

All the facts were "up to date" in that moment, and you can't assume i can predict the actions of some troll in advance before filing.

yea that is completely unecessary and is just spam at that point its 1 incident that did not need 3 reports

[CardGirlChick]

I didnt file multiple reports to get mine handled faster, i filed multiple reports to ensure all relevant information was passed along to the judges. Simple as that.

If i filed a report at 8pm, and at 9pm he does something reportable. That is out of my control.

If you're reporting 1 user, you file 1 report, even if that 1 user committed multiple infractions in a row. When that 1 user commits multiple infractions in a row, you include all those infractions in your 1 report. If multiple users are committing the same infraction, you file 1 report and include all those users' names and evidence against them in your 1 report.

Now, I may be wrong about this since it's been a while since I last reported a user (and if I am, Genexwrecker can correct me), but when reporting multiple users at once, or reporting a single user for multiple infractions, you file the least amount of reports possible to make judges' jobs easier. You shouldn't have to file a report against someone for, for example, harassment, and then file another report saying "hey sorry I forgot to mention this in my previous report but this user also cheated in ranked so I'm filing this extra report to include that detail as well".

You should have all your facts and evidence together when filing a single report. You don't file a report against a rule-breaker, file a second report to include additional details, file an additional report to include evidence against said rule-breaker, and so on. You include all that in a single report so judges don't have to read several different reports just to investigate and resolve 1 big issue.

You assume i can predict the future, and know with 100% certainty that the troll will not continue to break rules after i file. So you're wrong.

[CardGirlChick]

3 reports for the spam on the forums that has been dealt with is excessive. only 1 report would be needed and we would be monitoring it. also you should be properly reporting the posts with the post report feature not file abuse reports.

3 Reports:

One for the forum account spam messaging me
One for the forum posts by him posing as me; which also referred to the actual post he wrote which included spam and "offensive" language.
One report tying the forum actions to his DB actions.

3 separate matters details 3 different incidents at 3 different times. So yeah, that requires 3 reports.

All the facts were "up to date" in that moment, and you can't assume i can predict the actions of some troll in advance before filing.

yea that is completely unecessary and is just spam at that point its 1 incident that did not need 3 reports

I'll explain it again, he did a number of rule violations on 3/12, so i reported him on 3/12.

He then did more spam and what not TODAY, so TODAY so i reported him (3/14).


So yeah, multiple reports are required because otherwise his 3/14 actions are going unchecked by a judge, do you get it? Intentionally ignoring my point does nothing to disprove it.

[greg503]

I'm doing both, because 2 channels of exposure is better than 1. And a judge accused me of spamming the reports (which was factually wrong, of course). So im simply exposing the truth in the best way possible.

I have been messaging you.

And the reports arent "For the same thing" if they refer to different actions that i report specifically (Which is 100% what i've been doing).

You've done enough now

[CardGirlChick]

I'm doing both, because 2 channels of exposure is better than 1. And a judge accused me of spamming the reports (which was factually wrong, of course). So im simply exposing the truth in the best way possible.

I have been messaging you.

And the reports arent "For the same thing" if they refer to different actions that i report specifically (Which is 100% what i've been doing).

You've done enough now

Considering all the pushback i'm getting from the same few people, clearly the message hasnt sunk in. So no, we're not done, i'd be happy to allow the judges to dive into the matter but i continue to be told nonsensical things so naturally i have to clear things up in response.

[Christen57]

3 Reports:

One for the forum account spam messaging me
One for the forum posts by him posing as me; which also referred to the actual post he wrote which included spam and "offensive" language.
One report tying the forum actions to his DB actions.

3 separate matters details 3 different incidents at 3 different times. So yeah, that requires 3 reports.

All the facts were "up to date" in that moment, and you can't assume i can predict the actions of some troll in advance before filing.

yea that is completely unecessary and is just spam at that point its 1 incident that did not need 3 reports

I'll explain it again, he did a number of rule violations on 3/12, so i reported him on 3/12.

He then did more spam and what not TODAY, so TODAY so i reported him (3/14).


So yeah, multiple reports are required because otherwise his 3/14 actions are going unchecked by a judge, do you get it? Intentionally ignoring my point does nothing to disprove it.

Genexwrecker responded to your 3/12 report saying that a head judge was reviewing the whole thing. You didn't need to file a second report (3/14) as the head judge was still investigating the alleged rule-breaker's account and posts and whatnot, so those 3/14 actions weren't going to go unchecked like you claim. That's what Genexwrecker's trying to say, and even then, you certainly didn't need to file a third report about the 2 previous reports you already filed against this same user.

[Genexwrecker]

if you continue to make public posts like this that are inappropriate it can result in your forum perms being restricted. the head is dealing with the issues you said and you have been advised to stop posting as many reports as you are. end of discussion.

we will lock this later please dont make another one

[CardGirlChick]

yea that is completely unecessary and is just spam at that point its 1 incident that did not need 3 reports

I'll explain it again, he did a number of rule violations on 3/12, so i reported him on 3/12.

He then did more spam and what not TODAY, so TODAY so i reported him (3/14).


So yeah, multiple reports are required because otherwise his 3/14 actions are going unchecked by a judge, do you get it? Intentionally ignoring my point does nothing to disprove it.

Genexwrecker responded to your 3/12 report saying that a head judge was reviewing the whole thing. You didn't need to file a second report (3/14) as the head judge was still investigating the alleged rule-breaker's account and posts and whatnot, so those 3/14 actions weren't going to go unchecked like you claim. That's what Genexwrecker's trying to say, and even then, you certainly didn't need to file a third report about the 2 previous reports you already filed against this same user.

We have 0 reason to assume that an investigation of 3/12 automatically extended into new actions on a different account done on a different day.

My usage of 3/12 and 3/14 to illustrate my point was to demonstrate how a judge does not automatically retroactively acquire insight/awareness of an entire situation just by a single report. If you had access to all 3 reports, you would know exactly what im referring to and you wouldnt be continuing to petty fog the issue, but if you really want to rattle on with this point, im happy to disprove you over and over.

[Christen57]

I'll explain it again, he did a number of rule violations on 3/12, so i reported him on 3/12.

He then did more spam and what not TODAY, so TODAY so i reported him (3/14).


So yeah, multiple reports are required because otherwise his 3/14 actions are going unchecked by a judge, do you get it? Intentionally ignoring my point does nothing to disprove it.

Genexwrecker responded to your 3/12 report saying that a head judge was reviewing the whole thing. You didn't need to file a second report (3/14) as the head judge was still investigating the alleged rule-breaker's account and posts and whatnot, so those 3/14 actions weren't going to go unchecked like you claim. That's what Genexwrecker's trying to say, and even then, you certainly didn't need to file a third report about the 2 previous reports you already filed against this same user.

We have 0 reason to assume that an investigation of 3/12 automatically extended into new actions on a different account done on a different day.

Genexwrecker just said not even 5 minutes ago that the head is dealing with the issues you said so it's safe to assume that all 3 of your reports are now being investigated. No further reports against this user or threads about this user are needed at this time.

[CardGirlChick]

Genexwrecker responded to your 3/12 report saying that a head judge was reviewing the whole thing. You didn't need to file a second report (3/14) as the head judge was still investigating the alleged rule-breaker's account and posts and whatnot, so those 3/14 actions weren't going to go unchecked like you claim. That's what Genexwrecker's trying to say, and even then, you certainly didn't need to file a third report about the 2 previous reports you already filed against this same user.

We have 0 reason to assume that an investigation of 3/12 automatically extended into new actions on a different account done on a different day.

Genexwrecker just said not even 5 minutes ago that the head is dealing with the issues you said so it's safe to assume that all 3 of your reports are now being investigated.

Exactly, which proves my complete efforts (including this afternoon) were useful, warranted, and completely valid. Thank you for proving me right.

And sidenote: investigation or not, until im rightfully unfrozen and Dogmatikardinal is punished appropriately, this matter isnt over.

[Christen57]

I'll explain it again, he did a number of rule violations on 3/12, so i reported him on 3/12.

He then did more spam and what not TODAY, so TODAY so i reported him (3/14).


So yeah, multiple reports are required because otherwise his 3/14 actions are going unchecked by a judge, do you get it? Intentionally ignoring my point does nothing to disprove it.

Genexwrecker responded to your 3/12 report saying that a head judge was reviewing the whole thing. You didn't need to file a second report (3/14) as the head judge was still investigating the alleged rule-breaker's account and posts and whatnot, so those 3/14 actions weren't going to go unchecked like you claim. That's what Genexwrecker's trying to say, and even then, you certainly didn't need to file a third report about the 2 previous reports you already filed against this same user.

We have 0 reason to assume that an investigation of 3/12 automatically extended into new actions on a different account done on a different day.

Judges can tell if users are using alt accounts. The 3/12 report has not yet been finished investigated. After you filed this 3/12 report, Genexwrecker confirmed to you that, after this specific report is investigated, the user's entire account and posts will be investigated to determine if he broke any further rules, so there was no need for you to file additional reports. The additional reports you filed against this user were neither useful nor warranted.

[CardGirlChick]

Genexwrecker responded to your 3/12 report saying that a head judge was reviewing the whole thing. You didn't need to file a second report (3/14) as the head judge was still investigating the alleged rule-breaker's account and posts and whatnot, so those 3/14 actions weren't going to go unchecked like you claim. That's what Genexwrecker's trying to say, and even then, you certainly didn't need to file a third report about the 2 previous reports you already filed against this same user.

We have 0 reason to assume that an investigation of 3/12 automatically extended into new actions on a different account done on a different day.

Judges can tell if users are using alt accounts. The 3/12 report has not yet been finished investigated. Genexwrecker confirmed to you that after this specific report is investigated, the user's entire account and posts will be investigated to determine if he broke any further rules. The additional reports you filed against this user were neither useful nor warranted.

Unless you're claiming to know with 100% certainty how a judge handles a report (and we both know you do not), your post/point is completely invalid.