• 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)

I banned him for 6 months as I was uncertain if he was just completely clueless or not.
 
Reporting @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for invalidating an administrator's vote in a staff thread

We don't decide whether their vote is valid or not only because they got debunked. Their stance should still be noted in the vote tally regardless.
 
Last edited:
Reporting @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for invalidating an administrator's vote in a staff thread

We don't decide whether their vote is valid or not only because they got debunked. Their stance should still be noted in the vote tally regardless.
"Because they got debunked". Okay so we're just lying now, cool. Elizhaa disagreed because he said there was evidence of QS. I asked him for that evidence. I have yet to receive a response, so until that happens, I don't feel comfortable counting the vote.

He actually agreed with the premise of the thread itself (that being that the infinite size statement alone wasn't enough), hence why I'm waiting to count his vote.

To be clear, this goes both ways, where a "just trust me bro" statement wouldn't be counted as an agreement, either.
 
Elizhaa disagreed because
I am not reading the rest of post since it seems to be waste of time of back and forth but you acknowledged that he disagreed with your thread.

Simply add it to vote tally or my report will still be open since this is vote manipulation (invalidating staff member's vote). You added Qawasd's vote despite he acknowledged that he wants to wait for opposition. Same standard applies on disagreement part.

Sounds for me a double standard. If it is agreement, you note them down, and if it is disagreement, you don't unless it satisfies you.

Sorry, I am not here to entertain you. He made his stance very clear of being in favour of low 1-C twice (even thrice)

He said it 4 times, he is in support of low 1-C, and all what you did is contesting against his points thinking that you can invalidate his stance.
 
Last edited:
I am not reading the rest of post since it seems to be waste of time but you acknowledged that he disagreed with your thread.

Simply add it to vote tally or my report will still be open since this is vote manipulation (invalidating staff member's vote). You added Qawasd's vote despite he acknowledged that he wants to wait for opposition. Same standard applies on disagreement part.

Sounds for me a double standard. If it is agreement, you note them down, and if it is disagreement, you don't unless it satisfies you.

Sorry, I am not here to entertain you.
If you didn't read my post, then be quiet.
 
Would it be better to simply close the thread? For one, I really just don't agree with the downgrade after all the taking points that've been brought forth by staff and knowledgeable members, and it seems to have gotten pretty hostile looking over the history of the replies.
No, it very much should stay open. A bit of hostility shouldn’t change that (and it’s the staff members who should decide whether or not the thread is fine)
 
They are not accusations when he clarified himself 4 times and you insisted to not count it. For me, it seems a vote manipulation based in gaining an advantageous biased vote tally to pass a thread.

You could have done the same as Qawasd's vote "(disagree for now)" but you didn't. So for me it sounds a biased double standard vote manipulation.
 
Come to think of it, I haven't really seen anyone in the "disagree" section of the OP.

"Okay. That seems to make sense to me." Is that not agreeing or-
 
That has nothing to do with DMC or anything I said, and btw, both of the calculations in that thread are on the same level regardless. You can't simply count people who aren't knowledgeable in a verse or haven't ruled in favor of your changes as agreements.
It's... literally Ant commenting on the DMC thread? And saying that my reasoning for the downgrade made sense?? what else do you want man
 
Based on the thread linked above, I agree more with Dread. Elizhaa iirc has on multiple occasions agreed with DMC remaining Tier 1. Also, agreeing with some points and or a premise =/= agreeing with the outcome. While it could be more of a misunderstanding rather than a "Vote manipulation" I also do agree with Dread to not include Elizhaa's vote.
 
This user made statistical changes.
 
They've done it again.
 
Never mind, there has been a CRT that underwent approval.


Well, can't take the blame since they haven't linked the thread in those edits.
 
Reporting @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for invalidating an administrator's vote in a staff thread

We don't decide whether their vote is valid or not only because they got debunked. Their stance should still be noted in the vote tally regardless.
Regarding this: Elizhaa has the role they do because they are trusted within this community to lend judgement on threads. It is not the right of any given individual to discount that because they do not feel comfortable with the level of statement Elizhaa gave in giving this judgement. That is not to say that every staff member is right inherently, but it is not up to you, Fuji, to decide that Elizhaa's vote is to be discounted.

I agree that Elizhaa should elaborate more if prompted- after all, there must be substantiation to this trust we give to our staff. Faith, in this instance, requires evidence, and if staff members can't at least prop up their stances a little, then that raises concern. But Fuji would still seem to be in the wrong here.
 
They have deleted Warning Messages off their walls and Dereck restored them only a moment ago.
loxIPA2.png

A clear troll to me.
 
Reporting this user for vandalizing Rimuru's (Nanatsu no Taizai) page
He keeps doing it. Now he vandalized this profile:
 
Are any of you willing to help out here please?
It is bias/selective counting of votes. It should also be noted that the OP/Anyone can't make a claim that they debunked a point without the thread itself being finished, since the point of a CRT is to approve or disappeov of an argument.

Punish wise idk what Fuji's history is. So barring a consistent issue with the user a warning should be sufficient imo.
 
He keeps doing it. Now he vandalized this profile:
Well they were warned, so perma-ban it is.
 
Back
Top