• 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)

Being completely honest and as someone who thought Fujiwara should have been banned for her last report, I have to say this report is perhaps the most unreasonable and silly report against Fujiwara I've seen.

Reading over the thread, I see no evidence that suggests "condescending" and "aggressive" behavior from Fujiwara. The entire thread she has simply been explaining her points while asking KLOL to provide more substantiation and evidence for his claims. KLOL, apparently not being able to do so, seems to not take kindly to these requests.

Literally, he calls out Fuji for being "condescending" in this post just because she is asking for evidence.

The "aggressive" part apparently comes from Fuji saying it isn't her burden of proof. She used some capitalized letters and a curse word? I guess that's supposed to be the offense?

Seriously, big nothing burger. Can't help but think KLOL is reporting Fuji out of some form of spite or bad faith, if I'm real. No offense to anyone, but this comes off as "I am actually incapable of arguing my points, so I will resort to calling out your (apparently "bad") behavior and reporting you."
 
I've looked through the recent posts on the thread regarding the debate between Fujiwara and KLOL.

I don't agree with the assessments above that there's no aggressive or condescending behaviour here. There evidently have been some comments thus far from Fujiwara that take a patronising and/or heated tone - but considering the context of the debate environment in which this has occurred, the relative severity of these comments, and Fujiwara's above statements, I'm not inclined to take this as a good reason for action against Fujiwara here. These kinds of things happen in these kinds of debate environments, and addressing these stresses comes down to addressing the environment more than the people in it. I'd much rather opt to just keep a close eye on the thread to ensure that the topic is adhered to and that any further issues are nipped in the bud.
 
DarkGrath said:
I've looked through the recent posts on the thread regarding the debate between Fujiwara and KLOL.

I don't agree with the assessments above that there's no aggressive or condescending behaviour here. There evidently have been some comments thus far from Fujiwara that take a patronising and/or heated tone - but considering the context of the debate environment in which this has occurred, the relative severity of these comments, and Fujiwara's above statements, I'm not inclined to take this as a good reason for action against Fujiwara here. These kinds of things happen in these kinds of debate environments, and addressing these stresses comes down to addressing the environment more than the people in it. I'd much rather opt to just keep a close eye on the thread to ensure that the topic is adhered to and that any further issues are nipped in the bud.
Click to expand...
I'm curious which comments in particular you think were aggressive or condescending, because from my perspective all I did was ask KLOL for scans. If someone does not understand or respond to a simple question I ask them, I will sometimes try to simplify it, which I guess could be seen as condescending? But aside from that, and the capitalization of two words for the sake of emphasis, I really do not understand what could be interpreted as "aggressive" in that thread.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
I'm curious which comments in particular you think were aggressive or condescending, because from my perspective all I did was ask KLOL for scans. If someone does not understand or respond to a simple question I ask them, I will sometimes try to simplify it, which I guess could be seen as condescending? But aside from that, and the capitalization of two words for the sake of emphasis, I really do not understand what could be interpreted as "aggressive" in that thread.
Click to expand...

Also, while I did already address Planck's points, I do think it's funny how you say he "addressed" certain points when his only argument was that they argued about something in a previous thread. You are aware that that's not an argument, right?
Click to expand...

This was one comment I had issue with. It's perfectly fine to state simply referencing someone else's apparent argument is not an argument in itself, but that's not all this comment is. It is using rhetoric to imply "this person is too ignorant to know what an argument is" as a leverage point against them. That, I find condescending - but more importantly, I find it harmful to the debating environment to frame arguments in this way.

In an ideal debate, comments like this wouldn't exist. Comments should be about the argument at hand, not the person making it. But then, ideal debates often don't happen, and we don't drag an RVRT report out for every time they don't. In this case, the general hostile atmosphere of the thread is clearly a product of the recent circumstances surrounding GoW threads that I suspect is casting a curtain of red over most of our visions. And even with this in mind, I alluded above to the fact that I don't consider your replies thus far to have been severe, even if I would rather they were rephrased. I don't expect you, or anyone on the thread, to be a ray of sunshine about all of this.

That's why I'd much rather this topic was settled with just keeping an eye on the thread to avoid serious issues. I don't think any less of you for comments that, at most, come off as frustrated reactions to someone you think is being unreasonable.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
I'm curious which comments in particular you think were aggressive or condescending, because from my perspective all I did was ask KLOL for scans. If someone does not understand or respond to a simple question I ask them, I will sometimes try to simplify it, which I guess could be seen as condescending? But aside from that, and the capitalization of two words for the sake of emphasis, I really do not understand what could be interpreted as "aggressive" in that thread.
Click to expand...
Tbh the only possible "agressive" thing I see is this:
No, it is NOT my burden of proof. Do not **** with me on this, KLOL. You are the one making a claim ("the souls of the dead tried to absorb Kratos' magic in Chains of Olympus"). YOU are the one that needs to prove that claim. I do not need to prove a negative.
Click to expand...

Fujiwara was litterally asking for proof multiple times asw
 
I agree Fujiwura hasn't really said anything ban or even warning worthy on any individual post. Though, I do at least emphasize with KLOL that the bombardment of threads for the same verse; a controversial verse with a dedicated fanbase no less, does get quite obnoxious. So at worst atm could really just be a request to slow down. And asking for scans isn't a violation per say, but maybe he doesn't have it on hand and/or waiting for Glassman or Planck to give it out and explain context to go with it. If someone is too tired to debate the full parts and/or is unprepared to have their stuff ready or on mobile when their scans or ability to post URLs is limited to having to wait till they get home and use their home computer among other things, then they should not be rushed.

So this seems more like a case where just waiting on Glassman or Planck to be hear to post their counterarguments to the OP is a reasonable request.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I agree Fujiwura hasn't really said anything ban or even warning worthy on any individual post. Though, I do at least emphasize with KLOL that the bombardment of threads for the same verse; a controversial verse with a dedicated fanbase no less, does get quite obnoxious. So at worst atm could really just be a request to slow down. And asking for scans isn't a violation per say, but maybe he doesn't have it on hand and/or waiting for Glassman or Planck to give it out and explain context to go with it. If someone is too tired to debate the full parts and/or is unprepared to have their stuff ready or on mobile when their scans or ability to post URLs is limited to having to wait till they get home and use their home computer among other things, then they should not be rushed.

So this seems more like a case where just waiting on Glassman or Planck to be hear to post their counterarguments to the OP is a reasonable request.
Click to expand...
First of all, I do not necessarily want to flood the verse with CRTs, and my original 9000-word long post was me trying to fit as much as possible in a single thread so I wouldn't have to do 30+ threads in a row. I only switched to doing smaller CRTs after a discussion with Deagonx over Discord.

Second, I told KLOL multiple times throughout the thread that it was fine if he did not have the scans at the moment, and that I could wait as long as needed for him to gather evidence. He did not seem to respond well to that, treating those posts as being condescending, so I just want it to be known that I tried to give him an opportunity to back down for a moment and he refused.

Thank you for the evaluation, however, and I hope frivolous reports like this stop coming in. They only make me look worse in the long run, even when it's agreed that I'm not in the wrong.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
First of all, I do not necessarily want to flood the verse with CRTs, and my original 9000-word long post was me trying to fit as much as possible in a single thread so I wouldn't have to do 30+ threads in a row. I only switched to doing smaller CRTs after a discussion with Deagonx over Discord.

Second, I told KLOL multiple times throughout the thread that it was fine if he did not have the scans at the moment, and that I could wait as long as needed for him to gather evidence. He did not seem to respond well to that, treating those posts as being condescending, so I just want it to be known that I tried to give him an opportunity to back down for a moment and he refused.

Thank you for the evaluation, however, and I hope frivolous reports like this stop coming in. They only make me look worse in the long run, even when it's agreed that I'm not in the wrong.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he just wants you to stop making so many recent downgrades quickly, like I've seen downgrade threads for this same verse pop out in such a recent timeframe left and right. And that he may have felt rather frustrated and burnt out from all the stress
 
Propellus said:
Or maybe he just wants you to stop making so many recent downgrades quickly, like I've seen downgrade threads for this same verse pop out in such a recent timeframe left and right. And that he may have felt rather frustrated and burnt out from all the stress
Click to expand...
That's not really a reasonable thing to ask of someone. It's not like Fuji is proposing unreasonable changes.
 
Sorry for sending this here but this has some what a correlation, to this topic, (No actual reporting done here)

Fujiwara decided to divide his longer thread, into smaller threads to focus more on each individual point. So Fujiwara requested to close the thread (with the debate still ongoing) This was so both parties could focus and gather better arguemnts. But @Planck69 closed it here, due to being a "already rejected thread"

SO I request it to be reopened, Without people either trying to report @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara or just requesting to close it.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Sorry for sending this here but this has some what a correlation, to this topic, (No actual reporting done here)

Fujiwara decided to divide his longer thread, into smaller threads to focus more on each individual point. So Fujiwara requested to close the thread (with the debate still ongoing) This was so both parties could focus and gather better arguemnts. But @Planck69 closed it here, due to being a "already rejected thread"

SO I request it to be reopened, Without people either trying to report @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara or just requesting to close it.
Click to expand...
Sorry to comment on this matter after the thread's been re-opened, but I just woke up and I have to say...

No...? If these proposals got rejected, and another thread is made with no new arguments, that violates our rules and should be closed. There's no reason to make an exception here.

Not to mention, normal users need permission from an Admin or Bureaucrat to make a Staff Discussion thread - and I don't see anywhere that Fuji got this permission.
 
That part's well and good, but I still don't find the reasons for this thread being reopened to be good reasons to begin with. This is a self-evidently repeated thread with no new arguments. That's just the risk that comes with making a mega thread with tons of arguments all at once, and I see no reason to make an exception here.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
That part's well and good, but I still don't find the reasons for this thread being reopened to be good reasons to begin with. This is a self-evidently repeated thread with no new arguments. That's just the risk that comes with making a mega thread with tons of arguments all at once, and I see no reason to make an exception here.
Click to expand...
Excuse me if I sound rude here, but if the main oposision, being @Planck69 (The same person most of the voting staff agreed with) Agreed, with the OP. Dosen't that mean that @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara succeded in making "new arguments" so that the ""main"" oposision agreed with the proposed debunk?

Sorry, for the @s (I know i can't ping but still) Also sorry for calling you (Planck69) the main oposision, but you were in this case leading the defence of the proposed abilities being deleted.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Excuse me if I sound rude here, but if the main oposision, being @Planck69 (The same person most of the voting staff agreed with) Agrees, with the OP. Dosen't that mean that @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara succeded in making "new arguments" that the ""main"" oposision agreed to the debunk?

Sorry, for the @s (I know i can't ping but still) Also sorry for calling you (Planck69) the main oposision, but you were in this case leading the defence of the proposed abilities being deleted.
Click to expand...
No, that doesn't mean that at all. Opinions can change without new arguments. That doesn't change this being blatantly in violation of our rules on CRTs
 
CloverDragon03 said:
No...? If these proposals got rejected, and another thread is made with no new arguments, that violates our rules and should be closed. There's no reason to make an exception here.
Click to expand...
Ahem....

Fujiwara decided to divide his longer thread, into smaller threads to focus more on each individual point. So Fujiwara requested to close the thread (with the debate still ongoing) This was so both parties could focus and gather better arguemnts. But @Planck69 closed it here, due to being a "already rejected thread"
Click to expand...
And

I have reopened this due to the concern expressed here. I believe it is appropriate to allow this matter to continue being discussed considering the conditions under which the previous thread was closed, as long as the discussion remains civil and to-the-point. (From Dark Grath in this CRT)
Click to expand...
 
That's enough cluttering up the RVR thread, all the arguments should be done on the content revision. We already concluded the topic of the report and basically resolved the main thing that was worth discussing here. It's just the thread now is the main part.
 
The second CRT was made such that the universally agreed upon content of the prior one could be applied without confusion from incoming staff. This is not "taking another attempt at immediately previously rejected things" and I think it's absurdly bad faith to paint it as such.

Regarding the actual reports: I would agree with Grath that there were certain indicators of tone that would suggest the hostility is not totally one-sided. However, Fujiwara is far from doing anything even remotely akin to a rule violation with this, merely bolding or italicizing certain words to stress them ("...Please tell me there's more evidence of the poison being acidic than "it has bubbles in it". Please."). It would be an immense failure on our part to consider this to be an actual rule violation, and painting it as such seems more like throwing all the paltry offenses of Fujiwara at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Meanwhile, KLOL's behavior involves reducing what appear to be basically valid arguments to "pestering" when evidence goes against his own position. Traditionally, I would not judge a rule violation here, either, although I think the insinuations held by KLOL and certain others are substantially worse than any mild agitation shown on Fujiwara's part.
 
Catzlaflame said:
The actual offense seems to be relatively minor but @William_Joee if you wish to participate in this wiki you are expected to speak in English. That way, the mods can do their jobs without worrying about a language barrier. Thank you.

Regarding the behavior, i think we should just tell them not to be unnecessarily hostile, or maybe a verbal warning.
Click to expand...
Iam Sorry
 
Megaraptor149 said:
Report @William_Joee in this Thread.

Because he on purpose said something rude in his native slang language to another debater in his thread which meant "You're St*pid".



However, outside of the VSB wiki, he also had problems with several debaters in his own country's community platform such as Facebook.
Click to expand...

i didn't mean it like that bro :( and i don't have a problem with people on facebook but isn't it been peace for a long time? you just intimidate me ;(
 
Propellus said:
I can't really translate what exactly he said on any site to verify, but if that's the case, it's just rather tame if anything
Click to expand...
i didn't mean it like that bro :( and i don't have a problem with people on facebook but isn't it been peace for a long time
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Calling someone stupid on its own doesn't usually warrant a warning, just an instruction to not be hostile towards other people
Click to expand...
Propellus said:
I can't really translate what exactly he said on any site to verify, but if that's the case, it's just rather tame if anything
Click to expand...
he's just trying to make me look really bad here ;( in fact they made a lot of memes of me on Facebook, I was humiliated there just because I was trying to joke
 
Propellus said:
.....You're pulling my leg here. As this is not RVR worthy at all
Click to expand...
Based on his subsequent comment:
None of them can undo someone who died 12 years ago.
Click to expand...
It may be that their mother passed away, and that it’s a sensitive topic for them. In light of that, I don’t think the “pulling my leg” part was really necessary. Just saying.

But yea @AppleLord that is a relatively tame comment that seems like a joke. We generally don’t take action against that, but if the jokes bother you, I think you should just ask them to not joke around like that with you. Regardless, it would not be a violation of our rules.
 
Catzlaflame said:
Based on his subsequent comment:

It may be that their mother passed away, and that it’s a sensitive topic for them. In light of that, I don’t think the “pulling my leg” part was really necessary. Just saying.

But yea @AppleLord that is a relatively tame comment that seems like a joke. We generally don’t take action against that, but if the jokes bother you, I think you should just ask them to not joke around like that with you. Regardless, it would not be a violation of our rules.
Click to expand...
Thank you for letting me know that we can insult our mothers and the wiki approves of it.

I was thought better than this. Where I come from you get shot in the streets for this sort of comment.
 
AppleLord said:
Thank you for letting me know that we can insult our mothers and the wiki approves of it.
Click to expand...
Replying with “your mom” is an extremely common joke people use all over the internet. The rules of this wiki emphasize intent more than anything else. That person was not literally insulting your mother, it’s quite literally the first thing that comes to mind when you think of trollish jokes.

Hell, there’s an entire Wikipedia page about it.
AppleLord said:
Where I come from you get shot in the streets for this sort of comment.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you would like me to say to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Agnaa
Fanart Rule Revamp
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
FinePoint
  • Locked
Clarifying Death Threat Rules
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kachon123
One Piece: Planet Size Discussion Rule
Replies
14
Views
2K
RaikiKurohane99
RaikiKurohane99
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
I will be mostly absent for a while
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Random-Helper323
Random-Helper323
Back
Top