- 4,796
- 2,650
Regardless of which one it is, they are still circumventing their matchup ban, so I’m pretty sure that’s grounds for a ban.
-
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 (New forum)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 177,318
- 90,194
- Thread starter
- #19,842
I suppose that is a valid point. So for how long should we ban all of the accounts in question?
- 177,318
- 90,194
- Thread starter
- #19,843
I gave a wiki message wall warning to this member to follow your instructions btw.
- 4,796
- 2,650
I don’t know what the standard ban length is for sock puppeting, but I’d imagine it would be a year minimum, since that’s how long their matchup ban is.
- 34,634
- 41,955
Sock puppeting in general is usually permaban worthy offense unless their are excuses for it such as to get around a forgotten password which in that case it's not really sock puppeting but just general "Alt account" and thus not ban worthy. Using socks to get around ban is definitely permaban for the alt while the original account may have a ban extended to a prolong period possibly including permanent ban. And abusing multiple accounts to agree with oneself on content revisions especially is permaban worthy offense. But even in minimal cases where their is clear malicious intent of abusing multiple accounts, anything less than 6 months to a year is too generous.
DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 18,639
- 16,183
- 7,915
- 15,096
@DivineAura44 while your opinion is valid, this thread is not an open forum for uninvolved third parties to offer their opinion on punishments. I have deleted your comment, please don't do that again.
- 177,318
- 90,194
- Thread starter
- #19,852
Well, me and AKM have tended to be generous to members with multiple accounts, as long as no harm was done and no ban was evaded, by simply contacting them in private, asking them to choose which account they want to continue with, and then ban the others, but in this case a type of ban was in fact evaded, so I would personally be fine with if we apply a 6 months block to the main account, and permanent blocks to the others.
- 177,318
- 90,194
- Thread starter
- #19,853
By my experience he is harmless but is not feeling well at all mentally right now.
I hope that he will be reasonable.
- 177,318
- 90,194
- Thread starter
- #19,854
We did so earlier though, and he apparently had nothing to say for himself.
- 8,824
- 9,408
That shouldn't excuse him by vandalizing a page.
- 7,915
- 15,096
Ant gave him a warning and just mentioned his experience with the user and expressed some compassion. No one is making excuses, he will receive something firmer if he continues the vandalism, but it's not inappropriate to take into consideration someone's history or personal state.
- 177,318
- 90,194
- Thread starter
- #19,858
I will block them now.
- 16,081
- 6,107
Reporting @WeeklyBattles.
Even after an attempt of dissuasion from me, and a moderator, that being @Planck69, weekly continues to try and manipulate my thread into it not actually being a CRT (despite the fact that it’s under the CRT portion, and I didn’t at all ask for it to be moved to the Q&A).
Even after an attempt of dissuasion from me, and a moderator, that being @Planck69, weekly continues to try and manipulate my thread into it not actually being a CRT (despite the fact that it’s under the CRT portion, and I didn’t at all ask for it to be moved to the Q&A).
- 16,081
- 6,107
I’m also not going to respond past this point unless asked, since all the evidence is there, and dude just continues to willfully twist what I say.
- 64,025
- 16,076
Pardon? You asked for clarification and clarification was given, as well as additional means of scaling Singularity to Low 1-C which you willfully ignored and instead opted to just push your own OP without addressing any counterarguments and instead falling back on staff that immediately agreed with your claims without bothering to hear the other side of the argument. I dont see how i did anything wrong here
- 7,915
- 15,096
Having read through the thread, he even acknowledged that it was a downgrade in his second response:
Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.
I don't know how we usually deal with such things, but given Weekly's history of being dogmatic in discussions like this and being immature/refusing to acknowledge his own wrongdoing, I think that some level of action should be taken.
Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.
I don't know how we usually deal with such things, but given Weekly's history of being dogmatic in discussions like this and being immature/refusing to acknowledge his own wrongdoing, I think that some level of action should be taken.
No. Milly very clearly wasn't asking for clarification, the post was very clearly an argument for a downgrade and you acknowledged that early on. The word "clarifications" in the title was not a request for information, it was a statement of intent. I do not believe you actually interpreted it as a question, because it obviously wasn't and you didn't treat it as one until you'd already argued back and forth many times.
- 64,025
- 16,076
The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is factually incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.
- 7,915
- 15,096
We are already completely off-topic. This RVR report has absolutely nothing to do with the details of the argument. Do not change the subject.
- 16,081
- 6,107
This is actually extremely prevalent, as on several occasions, he asserts I don’t know anything about the verse or it’s cosmology. Mind you, I have argued in favor of this verse on multiple occasions (on and off site), was the person who came up with the logic of Singularity being Low 1-C to begin with, and wrote several of the justifications for Bayonetta 3 character’s AP.
It is abundantly clear that one’s “knowledge of the series”, to Weekly, is entirely dependent on if you like the verse and agree with him uncontested, which is bad faith arguing personified.
- 64,025
- 16,076
What? This is the entire reason for this subject existing.
- 12,484
- 16,850
The whole situation is just bizarre to me, having just finished reading the thread.
Even if it started as a QnA (and reading the OP and some of the earliest comments, I did not get that impression at all), so? I've seen QnA and clarification threads turned into revisions. Trying to forcefully dismiss the purpose of the thread would quite honestly just be a waste of time.
- 9,115
- 9,966
The first iteration of the OP makes the following proposed revision:
"The way I’m viewing it, his erasure seems to be the only thing that exceeds his AP, and the only thing that’s actually shown to be effective on that level. Which, the way is put, would make him 2-A, and Low 1-C with erasure."
Qualifying for a CRT.
"The way I’m viewing it, his erasure seems to be the only thing that exceeds his AP, and the only thing that’s actually shown to be effective on that level. Which, the way is put, would make him 2-A, and Low 1-C with erasure."
Qualifying for a CRT.
- 20,156
- 22,009
I'm saying your viewpoint isn't objectively correct and I disagree with it, not that you're lying.
And the issue here isn't you disagreeing or your arguments. Those are whatever. It's you repeatedly trying to misconstrue the premise of the thread despite its maker telling you otherwise to get it handwoven away like a QnA.
- 7,915
- 15,096
This is about your conduct in the thread, not who was right or wrong in the argument. Namely, your insistence that it was a request for information rather than a CRT despite it clearly being a downgrade CRT, and continuing to argue that point even after Milly clarified very concretely that this wasn't the case.
- 64,025
- 16,076
Okay, fine, its a downgrade CRT. Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.
- 12,484
- 16,850
That's up to staff evaluation.
- 7,915
- 15,096
That has absolutely no relevance to this RVR report.
- 20,156
- 22,009
Weekly can you stop arguing a CRT on the RVR? Setting aside the fact that all the staff that visited agreeing with the thread's premise clearly shows the counterargument isn't ironclad, you're not being reported cause some staff cabal is targeting your "poor bullied Low 1-C rating~", it's that you're twisting and trying to get a CRT dismissed off of nothing but title wording.
- 64,025
- 16,076
Can i stop being reported for minor infractions just because people dont like me?
- 12,484
- 16,850
Or they don't agree with your conclusions.
Now, enough derailment on this. Let staff come to a conclusion on the report.
- 7,915
- 15,096
Accusing people of being "unwilling to acknowledge the facts" simply because they didn't arrive at the same conclusion that you did is textbook stonewalling.
Infractions are a reason unto themselves for a report. Fashioning this as a personal vendetta rather than a consequence of your decision to drag out a very pointless argument that it wasn't a downgrade thread does not reflect well.
- 20,156
- 22,009
It's pretty debatable that lying about a member's intent and twisting it to keep a CRT from being passed is minor.
And Weekly, I can pretty confidently say that no one here gives that much of a damn about you that they try to get you every time you show up to a thread.
You've messed up and got reported. That's it.
