Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks. They promised they'd never do it again.I do not thInk that what was said in the latest translated conversation warrants any bans.
And apparently Elizhaa has also agreed with void manip although it doesn't seem so as all Elizhaa did was affirm what he said about about abilities under contention and gave the go ahead to apply the abilities that were clearly accepted which yes can be taken as an agreement but only to what wasn't under contention. Also one admin quite literally cannot overturn 3 opposing votes.Agree: DarkGrath, DarkDragonMedeus (agreed to void manip)
Disagree w/ Void Manip: Deagonx, Maverick_0_X, Dereck03
- For verse-specific threads, if the only opposing party does not reply for over 2 weeks without any notice or known/suspected extenuating circumstances, then the moderators should try to get the thread to completion without them, assuming that they'd probably not reply. However, their points should not be discarded, and this should not be treated as that user conceding. Their arguments and votes should be kept in mind while the thread goes on and anybody else is free to argue in their stead.
Just to add, elizhaa never voted, the only thing he did was to say that the changes could be applied but the problem comes in the amount of votes.Reporting @Dr._whiteee for dishonesty and trying to use unaccepted abilities as if they were actually accepted despite the blatant contentions
Here he says he would follow up with contended abilities in another CRT as the main ability in question (Void Manipulation) was quite literally heavily in contention with what it seems to be a 3-3 (possibly 3 (disagreements) - 2 (agreements) staff split.
And apparently Elizhaa has also agreed with void manip although it doesn't seem so as all Elizhaa did was affirm what he said about about abilities under contention and gave the go ahead to apply the abilities that were clearly accepted which yes can be taken as an agreement but only to what wasn't under contention. Also one admin quite literally cannot overturn 3 opposing votes.
Here in this thread he also tries to pass off the ability as accepted and invalidate the votes that were in his CRT by saying they went 2 weeks without opposition
(also Maitreya was arguing in their stead and his opinions were not opposed enough to invalidate those who disagreed with void manip even if staff votes could be invalidated)
However here it clearly says to not discard the opposing sides opinion if they have not replied in 2 weeks and obviously this also to staff vote.
I think this is just blatantly underhanded tactics using unaccepted and contested abilities in vs matches and trying to gaslight people into believing as if they were accepted.
Also this is true.I recall he got reported for similar behaviour as well.
And as one of those who was against the abilities, I want to say that this does not apply, because my points and staff points against abilities were given but even though white sometimes did not count them as valid, he proceeded to make the same counter-argument forcing us to clarify our points again and then doing the same, each one gave their points against and that is why there was no need even to mention "the other party did not respond to my counterarguments" since from the beginning our disagreement was clear and concise.However here it clearly says to not discard the opposing sides opinion if they have not replied in 2 weeks and obviously this also to staff vote.
I'd like to add on that Maitreya (who was leading most of the opposition's reponses) had made a response to one of White's main arguments, 2 staff members (DarkGrath and DarkDragonMedeus) had agreed to that same argument in approval of Void Manipulation's addition but that was after Maitrey's counter response to it (which went unaddressed by any of the revision's supporters). Maitreya had also asked White to remove Void Manipulation and several other controversial abilities so that the less controversial changes could be applied, White did remove those abilities yet Void Manipulation was kept in the op despite it being one of the most contentious topics of that revision.And as one of those who was against the abilities, I want to say that this does not apply, because my points and staff points against abilities were given but even though white sometimes did not count them as valid, he proceeded to make the same counter-argument forcing us to clarify our points again and then doing the same, each one gave their points against and that is why there was no need even to mention "the other party did not respond to my counterarguments" since from the beginning our disagreement was clear and concise.
I obviously disagree with this.Reporting @Dr._whiteee for dishonesty and trying to use unaccepted abilities as if they were actually accepted despite the blatant contentions
No I did not which is evident by my actual postHere he says he would follow up with contended abilities in another CRT as the main ability in question (Void Manipulation) was quite literally heavily in contention with what it seems to be a 3-3 (possibly 3 (disagreements) - 2 (agreements) staff split.
An objective reading of this clearly sees me invoking two week grace period given the time between the last response to arguments posited in the thread. I go on to ask if the thread can be passed in its current state (as contectually I removed the other controversial elements I was willing to part with in order to expedite the thread as noted here) with any further contentions being handled in a further CRT.I believe it's been two weeks without any responses from the opposing side I believe that is grace, can we pass this and have any further contentions made in a separate CRT given the current vote?
This is blatantly framing this situation with bias. As noted in my posts to you, void manip was not even relevant to why Gojo wins in that thread (which is CM type 2 as stated by several people which you ignored). I also never tried to invalidate votes as I am not even the OP. Me saying I think someone is wrong and giving my threads is not trying to manipulate votes, especially when I flat out told you that void manip wasn't a factor really being discussed.Here in this thread he also tries to pass off the ability as accepted and invalidate the votes that were in his CRT by saying they went 2 weeks without opposition
I have asked admins and have been told that the opposition has two weeks to respond before grace is considered. I clearly highlighted that sentiment in my post as well that Eilzha said yes to. So unless I am completely misunderstanding her, I don't really see how you are saying I am violating any rules.(also Maitreya was arguing in their stead and his opinions were not opposed enough to invalidate those who disagreed with void manip even if staff votes could be invalidated)
However here it clearly says to not discard the opposing sides opinion if they have not replied in 2 weeks and obviously this also to staff vote.
Not really as CM type 2 was already accepted, and I didn't hide anything and linked all of my evidence for everyone to see. Not sure how that'd be "underhanded"I think this is just blatantly underhanded tactics using unaccepted and contested abilities in vs matches and trying to gaslight people into believing as if they were accepted.
Another highly bias attempt to defame me here given I announced I would not be letting up on Void manip several times, and explicitly that I'd be removing those other abilities. I never once said or indicated I would be removing void manip, nor did I mention that when asking if the thread could be closed as is due to grace. [1] [2] [3] [4]I'd like to add on that Maitreya (who was leading most of the opposition's reponses) had made a response to one of White's arguments, 2 staff members (DarkGrath and DarkDragonMedeus) had agreed to that same argument in approval of Void Manipulation's addition but that was after Maitrey's counter response to it (which went unaddressed by any of the revision's supporters). Maitreya had also asked White to remove Void Manipulation and several other controversial abilities, White did remove those abilities yet Void Manipulation was kept in the op despite it being one of the most contentious topics of that revision.
Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting something then yes the void manip stuff was essentially brought up such as hereI obviously disagree with this.
No I did not which is evident by my actual post
An objective reading of this clearly sees me invoking two week grace period given the time between the last response to arguments posited in the thread. I go on to ask if the thread can be passed in its current state (as contectually I removed the other controversial elements I was willing to part with in order to expedite the thread as noted here) with any further contentions being handled in a further CRT.
I am obviously not what I was referring to when I asked for further contentions to be handled in another CRT, I am saying in light of evoking grace, that the thread at that time be passed and any user with further contentions make it.
This also ignores the already accepted Ontology thread for the verse.
This is blatantly framing this situation with bias. As noted in my posts to you, void manip was not even relevant to why Gojo wins in that thread (which is CM type 2 as stated by several people which you ignored). I also never tried to invalidate votes as I am not even the OP. ME saying I think someone is wrong and giving my threads is not trying to manipulate votes, especially when I flat out told you that void manip wasn't a factor really being discussed.
I did say the ability was accepted though.
I have asked admins and have been told that the opposition has two weeks to respond before grace is considered. I clearly highlighted that sentiment in my post as well that Eilzha said yes to. So unless I am completely misunderstanding her, I don't really see how you are saying I am violating any rules.
Not really as CM type 2 was already accepted, and I didn't hide anything and linked all of my evidence for everyone to see. Not sure how that'd be "underhanded"
Furthermore this is also dishonest as Maitreya directly responded to me asking the thread openly if void manip could be added due to staff agreement.
He made that statement under the assumption that more staff had approved of it to the point that it could actually passed.I believe so? Since there have been multiple staff given their approval for the rest of the proposed abilities.
Edit: but don’t quote me on that, I’m not staff.
Dereck under the very post below that says that they approve of Maitreya's counter response (the one that had not been addressed by any supporters) to the main argument in favor of Void Manipulation that DarkGrath and DarkDragonMedeus had agreed to. If the counter response that staff members agreed to had not been argued against by any supporters, I don't see why the staff voting against Void Manipulation should've had to reaffirm their vote again even after doing so multiple times previously in the thread.Grath then made this post to affirm that staff who disagreed had been given ample time. 2 weeks went by after this post trying to have discourse
The void I brought up in the thread was in relation to the ontology of his CM type 2 slash, which was accepted in the ontology thread.Unless I'm grossly misinterpreting something then yes the void manip stuff was essentially brought up such as here
and here
which I assume is this here in your ontology blog. Except the problem is you're trying to basically say Sukuna has void manipulations for reasons that were under contest and not accepted in the thread and even your interpretation of Sunyata was under heavily scrutiny in that ability thread due to being way too generous with buddhism scaling or relations.
I'm not gonna go back and forth but I would like to leave my hopefully last word here.
Locked + gave instructions to userUser Vandalized Anos Profile, also requesting a lock on his page since it's normally supposed to be locked.
I did not accuse maverick of power abuse. I accused you, immortal dread, . Please correct that.even went as far as to accuse Maverick of "power abuse"
I did not accuse maverick of power abuse. I accused you, immortal dread, . Please correct that.
In this thread that Maverick posted, proposing a discussion rule, you immediately responded before either myself or Dread had responded and said:I did not accuse maverick of power abuse. I accused you, immortal dread, . Please correct that.
So I don't feel that what I said was incorrect or a mischaracterization of your actions. Further, you said:This is unwarranted and unacceptable abuse of power.
Which, at that point, includes myself, Dread, and Lonkitt, who agreed with the suggestion of a discussion rule.Lets make a rule to stop a user from making threads because i dont like his arguments is a gross abuse of power. The investigation should be on the mods pushing this.
I would like to add one thing, he created in the question session a disguised CRT according to @Qawsedf234I am advocating that @Iamunanimousinthat be given a topic ban to stop pursuing Tier 1 upgrades for Sailor Moon, given 5 attempts in the last year.
Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade - Rejected by Mav & Planck
Sailor Moon Tier 1 Upgrade (Reformatted) - Rejected by Glass, Lonkitt, Planck, myself
Sailor Moon: Tier 1 Corridor of Spacetime Door - Rejected by Ultima, myself
Why not? Sailor Moon Tier One: The Last Time - Rejected by Qawsedf, Lonkitt, Planck, myself, and indirectly by DT.
Sailor Moon! Tier One! The Ultimate Panacea! - Ongoing, but the only staff vote thus far is my disagreement.
As well as this failed upgrade thread:
Sailor Mercury: Dimensional Manipulation - Rejected by Lonkitt, Glass, Elizhaa
I think this is a bit of a problem and is starting to waste a lot of staff time, because in each one of these attempts this user absolutely refuses to concede to any staff objections despite never getting a single moderator to agree with Tier 1 upgrades, despite fairly thorough and patient explanations from Qawsedf, DontTalk, Ultima, et cetera. He simply digs in even more, and even went as far as to accuse Maverick of "power abuse" for creating a thread to propose a potential Discussion Rule on the subject.
As a result I think they should be asked to stop pursuing high tier upgrades for Sailor Moon given that their philosophy on the matter is so clearly at odds with staff consensus despite several attempts.
@Maverick_Zero_X @Qawsedf234 @Lonkitt @Planck69 @Theglassman12
Ultima made a comment, and i replied back to him and was waiting for his comment. I informed him about the greater context of the Sailor Moon cosmology and wanted to hear his opinion with the new information.Sailor Moon: Tier 1 Corridor of Spacetime Door - Rejected by Ultima, myself
I fully support the proposed topic ban, and if it is approved, @Maverick_Zero_X should voluntarily close her own thread. In my view, whether it's a discussion rule or a topic ban, the essence is the same. However, a decisive action should be taken, as continually debating the same point or premise has become wearisome.
It had been a month and a half since Ultima provided his disagreement. Threads do not need to remain open indefinitely with two staff disagrees and no agrees just because you really-really-really want Ultima to continue discussing it with you.Ultima made a comment, and i replied back to him and was waiting for his comment. I informed him about the greater context of the Sailor Moon cosmology and wanted to hear his opinion with the new information.
That thread was closed without warning from Deagon.
Indeed, which is why I am not advocating for a forum ban. However, if your personal scaling philosophy is so drastically at odds with the wiki staff to such an extent that you get five Tier 1 upgrade attempts rejected in a row, it paints the picture that these threads are simply a waste of everyone's time.This accusation makes it sound like disagreeing with opinions of the mod is a sin. I have right to disagree and voice my opinion.
CRT threads are not like calculations where the math is right or it's wrong.
Evaluating threads is part of the gig. Given your propensity for pursuing unreliable Tier 1 upgrades, I wouldn't be doing a very good job if I didn't make sure I objected to it. Doing this relentlessly and saying "if staff are getting tired of it then that's their problem and they should just not comment on the threads!" is not an adequate defense here.This is their reasoning. "it's become wearisome". No facts. No rule violations. No rule breaking. Just subjective feelings. These mods don't have to engage with Sailor Moon threads. They don't engage in any of the other threads.
So that this is rule will be based on your personal feelings and nothing objective?Indeed, which is why I am not advocating for a forum ban. However, if your personal scaling philosophy is so drastically at odds with the wiki staff to such an extent that you get five Tier 1 upgrade attempts rejected in a row, it paints the picture that these threads are simply a waste of everyone's time.
This isn't the gotcha you seem to believe it is. It's not uncommon to issue topic bans for users that repeatedly attempt unsound upgrades. You are entitled to your opinions, but for a CRT to pass you must convince staff members that you are correct. You are not entitled to unlimited attempts at doing so.So that this is rule will be based on your personal feelings and nothing objective?
This is correct, yes.This isn't the gotcha you seem to believe it is. It's not uncommon to issue topic bans for users that repeatedly attempt unsound upgrades. You are entitled to your opinions, but for a CRT to pass you must convince staff members that you are correct. You are not entitled to unlimited attempts at doing so.
Where is your evidence that upgrades are unsound? A thread being rejected does not equal the arguments being unsound. The arguments can be logical but simply don't fit in the standards.This isn't the gotcha you seem to believe it is. It's not uncommon to issue topic bans for users that repeatedly attempt unsound upgrades. You are entitled to your opinions, but for a CRT to pass you must convince staff members that you are correct. You are not entitled to unlimited attempts at doing so.
I didn't ask you to re-hash my arguments. I asked you give a reason why they were unsound.If your point boils down to "but you can't objectively PROVE my CRT was bad!" then I don't find it terribly persuasive. I am not an arbiter of objective truth, nobody is. However, the metric we use to determine whether CRTs pass is staff agreement. If you have such an incredible opposition to that concept then you should leave the forum, because I don't foresee that system being replaced with a supposedly "objective" one any time soon.
As such, that is the metric of judgment that I am using: staff agreement. I am not going to rehash the arguments against your CRTs here in the RVR, as that would be redundant to the fact that they were rejected in the first place and those debunks are in each thread for all to view. However, it is objectively true that all staff members that have participated in your 5 Tier 1 upgrade threads have disagreed, not a single one has agreed.
Are you right? Are you wrong? Can't say, because I am not the arbiter of objective truth. I can simply say that you've repeatedly attempted and failed to pass an upgrade and should be asked to stop to save staff time, so that we can focus on CRTs that are actually viable.
I wholeheartedly disagree. However, your objection is noted. For now this should not be cluttered further so that other staff can evaluate the situation.Didn't think they fit the standards isn't a reason.
This is an an extremely unfair accusation.I'm starting to sense that you are deliberately attempting to misinterpret him.
I accused two staff members and provided reasoning and evidence for it.Talking about accusations while you accused 3 staff members is ironic, stop commenting here, and let others handle your case.
In my view I don't think a thread ban is needed the moment. The user is 100% working backwards because they want SM to be Low 1-C, but the arguments and evidence used for each of the threads are different in my view, rather than using the same stuff with some adjustments multiple times.We need your continuous help in these threads.
Thank you very much for your evaluation.In my view I don't think a thread ban is needed the moment. The user is 100% working backwards because they want SM to be Low 1-C, but the arguments and evidence used for each of the threads are different in my view, rather than using the same stuff with some adjustments multiple times.
Based on experience the issue is more them not getting what does and doesn't count for higher dimensional spaces rather than anything else.
Though I'm not against one being issued, since the OP has shown that they can get a bit aggressive at times, but for the most part I think I can understand where its coming from.
I guess it's a question of "How many CRTs will this play out in?" IMO if the current thread fails he should be asked not to make any more. I've seen you explain the error of his ways in exhaustive detail only to be met with continued ardent resistance in multiple threads. The same goes for Ultima and DT, who also objected to his reasoning.Based on experience the issue is more them not getting what does and doesn't count for higher dimensional spaces rather than anything else.
It's not really a discussion rule given that the argumentation is different each time. I believe that taking 3-4 different paths to attempt the same upgrade is evidential of bias (they want L1-C, and will continually attempt different ways to achieve it) but we cannot simply ban any attempts at a Tier 1 upgrade for the verse, only for specific justifications.Sorry to intrude, but I must ask if it's been decided that action could be taken against Iamunanimousinthat rather than creating a discussion rule? I ask because technically speaking, the discussion rule staff thread has already received 3 votes (Maverick, Deagon, Lonkitt) and can therefore techincally pass after grace unless more staff go there and disagree with it.