• 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)

Digital_Franz said:
You brought up the subject of the old CRT and you say you don't understand how it is relevant?
Click to expand...
Specifically the rude comments in the CRT, not who's right or wrong in the argument.
Digital_Franz said:
Hmm. Maybe it's only the case for Phoenks and me? Well, that doesn't matter to me
Click to expand...
I've been nice to You, Vietthai, and Phoenks as well, even after the disagreements and rude comments.
Digital_Franz said:
Because you interpret. Let's ask the staff to interpret the same comment.
Click to expand...
Sure, that was the plan for my initial post.
Digital_Franz said:
Just to show your behavior. It all comes down to logic for you which logically leads to criticism of things you take badly.
Click to expand...
I mean, what does you believing that Naruto is MFTL+ and disagreeing with my claims in the other thread have to do with any of this, and aren't arguments supposed to hinge on logic?
Digital_Franz said:
And do you think I take the debate as a joke? You should have just answered me that that's not what you meant instead of adding a bunch of useless things.
Click to expand...
No, that's why I responded with a serious answer, and I did.
Digital_Franz said:
This all appears just like that. You're just making yourself out to be the victim when you're not. As BlackeJan said here, you reported him without mentioning Curry's rude attitude and making him out to be the bad guy.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't exactly call myself a victim per se, I just feel disrespected, and I don't think you'd exactly have the right to decide who is a victim and who isn't. And as for the Curry thing, she didn't really say anything wrong in the newest thread, definitely not in regards to what the two of you are implying, it's just a common phrase with no negative connotation toward anyone.
 
Regarding BlackeJan: My immediate impression is that both sides were being rude. Masque dismisses opinions he doesn't care about, and Curry spams people with "end of discussion" towards people she disagrees with, despite having no authority whatsoever to actually silence dissent. Given the tameness of the accused comments, I do find it difficult to actually regard anything as a rule violation rather than a simple escalation when faced with aggression.

The old thread may be a smidgeon worse than the new one (acknowledging that it is practically a month old), but really isn't much different. Even in your own evidence, you accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?

Regarding Digital_Franz: I will admit that Franz was more aggressive than Blacke, although when questioning whether their behavior deserves more than the usual "stop doing that" response we usually give, I would hardly say it is that much worse. The environment itself was made aggressive. I am hesitant to apply a warning in this instance.

I'm against a warning in the instance of Blacke, I don't think he behaved any worse than is the median for that thread. Franz is more debateable, but for now I lean in favor of leniency. Neither have a history of poor behavior, after all, and minor spats like this are simply bound to happen in a hobby such as this.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Regarding BlackeJan: My immediate impression is that both sides were being rude. Masque dismisses opinions he doesn't care about, and Curry spams people with "end of discussion" towards people she disagrees with, despite having no authority whatsoever to actually silence dissent. Given the tameness of the accused comments, I do find it difficult to actually regard anything as a rule violation rather than a simple escalation when faced with aggression.
Click to expand...
Ig, I only really dismiss things if the conversation goes back and forth without progression as there's really no point in arguing then. And I think Curry's use of the phrase was pretty reasonable given the situation but overall, it's fine.
Mr. Bambu said:
The old thread may be a smidgeon worse than the new one (acknowledging that it is practically a month old), but really isn't much different. Even in your own evidence, you accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?
Click to expand...
In that particular instance, the person who I was conversing with was applying the context of one situation to another. (Ex: Blank was described in this way in this instance, but not in another instance, so my point was invalid. Disregarding the fact that the context of these two instance were different so logically, their descriptions would be different.) I believed this argument to be fallacious, therefore I asked them to use common sense because of the nature of fallacies being a lapse in logic during argumentation. I don't believe that what I said was exactly wrong/rude, but I can definitely understand that it could be interpreted in that way and I could've worded my response better, and for that I apologize.
Mr. Bambu said:
Regarding Digital_Franz: I will admit that Franz was more aggressive than Blacke, although when questioning whether their behavior deserves more than the usual "stop doing that" response we usually give, I would hardly say it is that much worse. The environment itself was made aggressive. I am hesitant to apply a warning in this instance.
Click to expand...
That's fine, I didn't want anyone to get an official warning or anything like that. Just for someone with more power than me to ease the hostility of the discussion. (And in regards to these two users being placed on my ignore list, would that be possible? Sorry if I'm asking for too much, I just don't want to deal with any rude comments.)
Mr. Bambu said:
I'm against a warning in the instance of Blacke, I don't think he behaved any worse than is the median for that thread. Franz is more debateable, but for now I lean in favor of leniency. Neither have a history of poor behavior, after all, and minor spats like this are simply bound to happen in a hobby such as this.
Click to expand...
Sure, and thanks for the response, I appreciate it.
 
I don’t really think I NEED to defend myself, but I’d just like it be known I wasn’t touting some sort of authority or something, I was just using the phrase because from my perspective Black was arguing against literal proven math, as in the definition of what it means to double something.

I could have used another phrase but I feel like saying “end of discussion” to someone arguing that doubling could mean something else isn’t that bad.

Most of the time people think I’m staff on VSBW I correct them, and I understand I have no authority so I don’t see why I’d try to flaunt a badge that doesn’t apply here.
 
Yeah, I know. My position isn't that you necessarily acted outrageously either, just that in these circumstances it is at least mitigable that Blacke acted a smidge out of line himself, I don't think "End of discussion" is conducive to discussion (shocking, I know). Mixed with the perception of others that you're a Content Moderator, despite only being one on FC/OC, I think that fed into the chemical reaction at work here.

Stuff like this is just the cost of doing business.

As for this:

That's fine, I didn't want anyone to get an official warning or anything like that. Just for someone with more power than me to ease the hostility of the discussion. (And in regards to these two users being placed on my ignore list, would that be possible? Sorry if I'm asking for too much, I just don't want to deal with any rude comments.)
Click to expand...
It should be fine, though a bureaucrat would have to handle it. @Antvasima would you mind?
 
Mr. Bambu said:
you accuse him of not using common sense, and then want us to consider it a rule violation for him to retort that you common sense?
Click to expand...
Iirc, it was cause he was acting rude himself and proceed to say something along the line of me not having commons sense so I retaliated back. I also did say that all I want was a warning, he only reported me cause I did the same to him and as I said many times beforehand, he hides his rudeness with innocence
CurrySenpai said:
I wasn’t touting some sort of authority or something, I was just using the phrase because from my perspective Black was arguing against literal proven math, as in the definition of what it means to double something.
Click to expand...
i know basic math, the whole “double exponentially” is also cause it’s stronger then a sacred gear that doubles power as well so i see it as far beyond that of 2x. I keep forgetting u aren’t a staff, it took me awhile to know that anyone with a “content mod” isn’t part of the staff. My mistake

I do wanna point out that someone going “end of discussion” is like trying to silence them with no room for argument, like if a cop or a teacher was to do it since they do be having authority over you
 
vsbattles.com

Unpopular Opinions and (Friendly) Rant thread

The ones from sociopath video or something new Delaware criminal And sleep depravation
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

@Twisted_Little_Raven admits to endangering pets and when made aware of said dangers, displays a blatant lack of remorse and an implied intention to continue placing said pet in danger. An unnamed thread mod said this is probably worthy of a report, and frankly I think any implication of intentionally placing an animal dependent on you in harm’s way without remorse is just indicative of scum behavior. I’m aware this probably falls out of the jurisdiction of vsbw, but at the same time I believe this is a stellar indicator of extremely toxic and negative behavior. That which Raven’s been prone to in the past and has received bans for in the past. I’m also aware that I come off very heated in my response to her in that threat, but as a dog owner my entire life, I’m wholly disgusted at the notion someone could act with such blatant disregard for their pet’s wellbeing, ig it aggravates me for a lack of better words.
 
Over a year ago now, I proposed unbanning Raven as a matter of correcting previous staff communication breakdowns, as well as after having preliminary talks with her and Promestein to determine her behavior. Throughout the course of the following year, Raven has shown a gradual unraveling of her self-control in pretty much every interaction I've seen her in, and quite frankly, I don't think it should be tolerated anymore.

I promised you all I would see to it that, if my belief in her at the time was misplaced, I would correct my mistake. I believe that time has come. I am advocating a permanent ban with no chance of appeal.
 
As detestable as these actions are, I do not believe we have any rule covering this- not directly, at least. That is not to say that no action can be taken, but rather that any action sets a precedent and must be approached carefully.

For now, I will ask people to not make any more inflammatory posts on the matter- I do not find Arc's post an unreasonable one, but it doesn't serve any calm proceedings. So... just let us decide, yeah?

Crabwhale said:
Over a year ago now, I proposed unbanning Raven as a matter of correcting previous staff communication breakdowns, as well as after having preliminary talks with her and Promestein to determine her behavior. Throughout the course of the following year, Raven has shown a gradual unraveling of her self-control in pretty much every interaction I've seen her in, and quite frankly, I don't think it should be tolerated anymore.

I promised you all I would see to it that, if my belief in her at the time was misplaced, I would correct my mistake. I believe that time has come. I am advocating a permanent ban with no chance of appeal.
Click to expand...
Removing the option to appeal would be unprecedented, even in the most outrageous of cases. Now, we obviously reject many appeals, but to silence one outright doesn't seem necessary.

That aside, I agree. Raven has not shown any ability to reign in her behavior. Her ability to do so has degraded entirely, ranging from being basically reasonable after her ban to constantly stirring the pot day in, day out. In our rules or not, this is now the norm. I would agree with a permanent ban.
 
I think Raven's posts there indicate that she doesn't think that those actions put the animal in danger. I think that's a very important part of this report that was left out. Ultimately, it was a disagreement over whether feeding dogs chicken bones presents a notable risk to them. Not "loves harming dogs" vs "hates harming dogs".

At that point, I think it's something that we shouldn't wade into.

All that should be done there is stopping the discussion, since it clearly got too heated.

EDIT: For other behaviour, evidence should be provided of that. Post the continued ban-worthy behaviour so discussion can happen on it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that is just ******* disgusting. I know jokes of poor taste aren't always something we ban right away, but animal cruelty and especially dog abuse is going too far. And that on top of her history; she legit was among people who causes too much trouble on slander threads and openly admits that she has no intention of stopping her malicious acts on multiple occasions tells me that she's already caused too much trouble as it is. She's consistently even worse behaved than Fujiwura from what I see, and her actions before her permanent ban were downright extreme.

I am in favor of reenacting her permanent ban. Causing uproars deliberately despite being told numerous times to stop cannot be tolerated any further.
 
Last edited:
As long as y'all are fine with permabanning people for advocating for climate change denial, antivax, faith healing (and other alternative medicine), all things which have similar scientific consensus that they're harmful, then whatever.

(If it's not just the "advocacy" you take issue with, but with her actually endangering another being through that, a similar argument would still apply, just a bit more constrained)
 
https://vsbattles.com/threads/ban-kai-bleach-general-discussion.107575/post-6684650


“Then clowns like Theglassman12 gunna get annoyed because I'm bringing up bias. Dead. I don't like a community that treats your arguments like trash and don't have the backbone to debate it and just sit back from afar and laugh at my takes and give someone else kudos.”

She did call Glassman a clown along with specific other staff members while using “bias” which admittedly fair enough, but by the same token, no one is immune to bias to begin with.


It probably best to do a review on what else we got here for TwistedLittleRaven outside of the conversation between Arc and Raven here.
 
Yeah, that's what I meant about being careful. I think that her agency in this particular matter is most relevant- Raven can't do shit about climate change really, and so I don't care if she denies it. She is directly responsible for the well being of any animal she owns, and spreading that it's alright to endanger them like that is more likely to have actual impact.

Faith healing and such I would have similar reservations towards, although with that being steeped in spiritualism, we evoke deeper issues. Luckily, I don't think the matter has ever been discussed in the decade plus of this site's existence. So it may be that we won't need to address non-eqiivalent scenarios until we reach them.
 
About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour? 🙏

Also, technically the entire pig meat industry engages in unfathomably enormous amounts of animal cruelty, and most people are so used to it that they ignore it, despite that pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs.

Regardless, if she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour? 🙏

If she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue though. 🙏
Click to expand...
From her posts, she seems to believe that chicken bones aren't dangerous for dogs (or for herself) if eaten slowly, based on personal experience. She was dismissive of evidence to the contrary. Based off of this belief, she feeds one of her dogs that "1% of the time" if there's nothing else to feed them.

Obligatory disclaimer that I disagree with this, and that I do not feed them to dogs I'm around.
 
Agnaa said:
From her posts, she seems to believe that chicken bones aren't dangerous for dogs (or for herself) if eaten slowly, based on personal experience. She was dismissive of evidence to the contrary.

Obligatory disclaimer that I disagree with this, and that I do not feed them to dogs I'm around.
Click to expand...
Well, if she is willing to adjust her behaviour, I do not think that in itself seems sufficient to punish her in that case. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
About Raven, I am personally a vegetarian who really loves animals, especially dogs, but is she intentionally harming them, or is she just being clueless and in need of instructions to adjust her behaviour? 🙏

Also, technically the entire pig meat industry engages in unfathomably enormous amounts of animal cruelty, and most people are so used to it that they ignore it, despite that pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs.

Regardless, if she is genuinely continuously deliberately attempting to cause controversy after having her ban lifted with the requirement that she should not do so, that is a separate and ban-worthy issue. 🙏
Click to expand...
I don't think this is the right approach, really. That one great evil exists (the meat industry) does not mean we should allow the small evils (animal abuse). Raven's post is dismissive of the real harm she is causing to an animal she is responsible for. The simple fact that we cannot stop the slaughter of livestock does not mean we should stand by the harming of a dog. I can't say that I understand the perspective suggesting otherwise.
 
That was more an aside mention for the purpose of general awareness given my vegetarianism. What is relevant seems to be if Raven is engaging in deliberate animal cruelty or is just clueless, and if she is deliberately and continuously causing controversy. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
That was more an aside mention for the purpose of general awareness given my vegetarianism. What is relevant seems to be if Raven is engaging in deliberate animal cruelty or is just clueless, and if she is deliberately and continuously causing controversy. 🙏
Click to expand...
Raven was dismissive of evidence that she was harming an animal, essentially just trying to get the people bringing evidence to stop talking about it. I take this as sufficient that she was simply ignorant, but is now stubbornly endangering an animal's life.

Whether she is causing controversy deliberately is another matter. I think she does cause controversy, and I am willing to believe it is not for the intent of doing so. However, she does intentionally return to controversy to resurrect it, which may be considered an equal offense.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Raven was dismissive of evidence that she was harming an animal, essentially just trying to get the people bringing evidence to stop talking about it. I take this as sufficient that she was simply ignorant, but is now stubbornly endangering an animal's life.
Click to expand...
Okay. That is very different then. I generally try to make a distinction between being clueless and being malicious, but this seems to cross into the second territory if she refuses to change her behaviour. 🙏
Mr. Bambu said:
Whether she is causing controversy deliberately is another matter. I think she does cause controversy, and I am willing to believe it is not for the intent of doing so. However, she does intentionally return to controversy to resurrect it, which may be considered an equal offense.
Click to expand...
Okay. Thank you for the information. 🙏

@Twisted_Little_Raven

Do you have anything to say for yourself?
 
To be clear, I wouldn't even describe Raven's animal abuse as malice, so much as an unwillingness to change. Given this immediate response, future statements on the matter become unfortunately suspect.
 
I think that this provides relevant information regarding this subject for Raven. 🙏

 
Wow seriously? I'm reported for this nonsense? I said I take the meat off the bone 99% of the time. And that 1% being there genuinely being nothing to eat. And I even trust that 1% even now and then because the dog eats them properly. This is treated like I'm willingly trying to kill a dog. If it did. I would; break them before giving them to the dog, give it to the dog regularly. Both of which I don't do. That means, even if my dog has shown competency with eating them, I still don't do it hardly at all. Blowing this up like some intentional dog killer is insane. This has nothing to do with me trying to cause controversy lol. Anyway I'll stop doing it if people care that much. If it's too late and y'all wanna pull ban hammer instead, my reaction is; nvm I'll chill
 
Last edited:
If anything isn't it a good thing I said it? Otherwise, would have been continued unbeknownst to anyone. I recognize the danger which is why I said 99% of the time I don't except rare desperate situations. At most u can say I don't recognize the danger enough to allow even that 1%. There's also a difference between what I say, and what actually happens. Because I was annoyed he tried to tell me something I know, I went to downplay the situation by saying "he's exaggerating." Real actions would say, I hardly ever do that. So don't paint me as a malicious dog killer. Thanks.
 
I just want to clear something up: Feeding chicken bones isn’t inherently animal abuse. In fact, they are regularly given raw to medium/large dogs in raw diets. It’s cooked bones that can’t be fed to dogs, since they can splinter, and potentially cause punctures in their guts.

Now, I don’t know if Raven is being reported/banned for other reasons, and I’m definitely NOT saying you SHOULD feed your dogs raw chicken bones (ask your vet) but I feel it’s important to emphasize that it’s not inherently animal abuse. I feel this information is relevant to the report anyways.
 
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
StarShooter80
Establishing Gap Needed for LS Stomps
Replies
13
Views
626
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Agnaa
  • Locked
Controversial Powers on New Pages - Editing Rules Tweak
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top