- 7,780
- 11,569
That report goes here.Hajun111 makes questionable, to say the least, changes to pages (which are reverted now though) and created a blank page. I think he just needs some guidance tbh.
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.
That report goes here.Hajun111 makes questionable, to say the least, changes to pages (which are reverted now though) and created a blank page. I think he just needs some guidance tbh.
I've added it to the tracker.Ok, I've applied the ban.
Oh yeah btw, how can you see how many warns a user has?I've added it to the tracker.
We have a dedicated threadOh yeah btw, how can you see how many warns a user has?
I disagree personally. Worse he did was called someone an idiot and a clown.I personally think that 1 week is a too low ban length for LifeRider given his repeated disrespectful toxicity. I think that 1 month seems more appropriate.
They also called people "rats", and did not seem remorseful or willing to change in the slightest in this report.I disagree personally. Worse he did was called someone an idiot and a clown.
if you think its a "insult" i think your siding with rats and not worth to talk to
pedophiles as weII, muItipIe times, if I might add, they refer to the whoIe site as being fiIIed with pedophiIes, I dont think that is just an insuIt to a singIe user or thread anymore.They also called people "rats", and did not seem remorseful or willing to change in the slightest in this report.
A 1 week ban doesn't achieve this? When we have given warning for comparatively worse behavior than name calling.That is not remotely acceptable behaviour though. We generally try to heavily discourage that kind of hostility here.![]()
The second part is why I advocated for a ban at all. And it's also not entirely true, he did accept the ban.They also called people "rats", and did not seem remorseful or willing to change in the slightest in this report.
Off site. Didn't once brought that up on site (unless on PM, which I can't see). People can say whatever they want in their own privacy, and the fact you keep bringing this up makes me think there's more at play here.pedophiles as weII, muItipIe times, if I might add, they refer to the whoIe site as being fiIIed with pedophiIes, I dont think that is just an insuIt to a singIe user or thread anymore.
not reaIIy, that pedophiIe one was an SS someone sent me on discord. If something made you think that I have an aIterior motive here because of how I used the SS, I apologize, but I do not have much experience with user reports except maybe once or twice before, so I might have been deemed as acting hurriedly or something due to my inexperience with this stuffand the fact you keep bringing this up makes me think there's more at play here.
If they tried using that to harass someone on site, then we would take it more seriously. But as is, it's just salty comments from someone that disagree with how we handle things. It's completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.not reaIIy, that pedophiIe one was an SS someone sent me on discord. If something made you think that I have an aIterior motive here because of how I used the SS, I apologize, but I do not have much experience with user reports except maybe once or twice before, so I might have been deemed as acting hurriedly or something due to my inexperience with this stuff![]()
Taking a closer look: These scans don't seem to be made in response to the thread at all. They were made several months ago. (1 of them close to a year ago)pedophiles as weII, muItipIe times, if I might add, they refer to the whoIe site as being fiIIed with pedophiIes, I dont think that is just an insuIt to a singIe user or thread anymore.
when you are being disagreed with in a CRT, head to Reddit to call your opposition pedophiles
Just a question here... is there really any consideration of how long ago such behaviour occured when it comes to punishing them?If the calling of tensura fans pedophiles occurred five months ago, I still don't think that changes much. He disagreed with them and so spouted off that they were legitimate, disgusting criminals- I don't really care that it happened awhile back.
I would not ask for a "duration where actions are automatically forgiven after said duration has passed", but I was wondering more about whether there is a "duration after which discussion of lifting of punishment for actions is possible (NOT guaranteed unless the perpetrator has shown evidence that they are unlikely to repeat such actions)"... but from the sound of it, as you say, there is no set duration for either case. (I would disagree that five months is an insignificant amount of time, but given the severity of Rider's actions, I would agree that 2+ months is necessary at best.)There's no formal statute of limitations, no. When considering a violation, we may say that their activities were long enough in the past that we can look past them, functionally achieving the same result, but even then, five months is no time at all.
So, short answer: time is relevant, but there is no hard rule on the subject, no set point before which your actions are inherently forgiven.
I do think we might need to specify more clearly which actions are permanently punishable and thus usually leading to the permanent ban of the perpetrators as well as what sorts of punishments are expected in general for quite a few of the prohibited actions....Additionally, are there rule breaches that are permanently punishable (presumably with an equally permanent punishment such as a lifelong/permanent ban) regardless of how long ago they have occured (akin to atrocity crimes in real life)? If so, should they be stated/clarified in the rules pages?
While I find the suggestion useful, could you move this instead to Bambu's wall and/or PMs so as to not spam the thread?I would not ask for a "duration where actions are automatically forgiven after said duration has passed", but I was wondering more about whether there is a "duration after which discussion of lifting of punishment for actions is possible (NOT guaranteed unless the perpetrator has shown evidence that they are unlikely to repeat such actions)"... but from the sound of it, as you say, there is no set duration for either case. (I would disagree that five months is an insignificant amount of time, but given the severity of Rider's actions, I would agree that 2+ months is necessary at best.)
Also, there's still the second part of my question (sorry, but I still do want to double check about this):
I do think we might need to specify more clearly which actions are permanently punishable and thus usually leading to the permanent ban of the perpetrators as well as what sorts of punishments are expected in general for quite a few of the prohibited actions....
![]()
Site Rules
The VS Battles Wiki is a community with a large number of active users, most of whom are dedicated to discussing and indexing statistics of characters from a variety of fictional franchises. However, maintaining proper conduct and behavior among the large and active user base of this community...vsbattles.fandom.com
![]()
Editing Rules
The VS Battles Wiki presently consists of 38,036 pages, most of them listing the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. However, there is a tremendous amount of work involved in maintaining the accuracy of statistics and upholding a high quality for the profiles. In...vsbattles.fandom.com
![]()
Discussion Rules
VS Battles Wiki is a site where the members attempt to index the statistics of characters across different fictional franchises. These efforts lead to much discussion about certain feats, statements and calculations regarding their validity, reliability, etc. However, certain topics keep popping...vsbattles.fandom.com
![]()
Versus Thread Rules
The VS Battles Wiki is mainly a site that attempts to index the statistics of characters across many different fictional franchises. However, as the site name implies, we also allow our members to pit fictional characters against each other in hypothetical matchups for entertainment purposes...vsbattles.fandom.com
Alright, thanks for the notice and suggestion.While I find the suggestion useful, could you move this instead to Bambu's wall and/or PMs so as to not spam the thread?
Just
There
While
Avoiding cluttering/derailing the thread too much while also notifying staff at the same time regarding what me and Mr Bambu have discussed along with Lephyr's suggestion and Bambu's advice using short replies:
Zeona’s behavior was kinda toxic, I agree on that,but it was probably in defense of me, as me and a few others were talking about his behavior in our type-moon group.I think @Zeona201 bears reporting too tbh, this is their very first post on the thread and it was immediately to stir up drama - and has only continued since then.
Tjdwo was being very toxic, I agree, I just also don't think it helps when you literally join the wiki and the first thing you do is this
Edit: As it turns out, even their very first post on the wiki as a whole was like this
This doesn't even seem warning worthy imo, they haven't broken any rules. That also wasn't their first post, this was.I think @Zeona201 bears reporting too tbh, this is their very first post on the thread and it was immediately to stir up drama - and has only continued since then.
Tjdwo was being very toxic, I agree, I just also don't think it helps when you literally join the wiki and the first thing you do is this
Edit: As it turns out, even their very first post on the wiki as a whole was like this
That's a blunder on my end, because I didn't see there was still the "Show Older Items" option. I don't think he made the account just to do this, no, but a deeper look shows that this is actually his very first message in the Nasuverse General Discussion Thread - and that doesn't bode well at all.Zeona’s behavior was kinda toxic, I agree on that,but it was probably in defense of me, as me and a few others were talking about his behavior in our type-moon group.
not saying that excuses anything, just bringing context. and they’ve had an account since 2023, so it’s unlikely they made an account JUST to attack Tdjwo, if you get the idea.
Instances of making fun of other people's scaling, for oneThis doesn't even seem warning worthy imo, they haven't broken any rules. That also wasn't their first post, this was.
It's rudeness, definitely, but it isn't of a severe enough nature for me to consider it even warning worthy.
In what way is it false accusations? Every element of their report appears to be accurate, but their understanding of that seems to be off-kilter; Ovens agreeing to the OP in general is correctly listed as an agreement to all of the contents of the OP. Phoenks is indeed not a staff member, but it is easily misunderstood (FC/OC members replying has often led to that sort of misconception). The prior report seems by all accounts entirely innocent.This is a spite report, ActuallySpaceMan straight up agreed to it and then Ovens said he was accepting the "OP" which literally is agreeing with whatever is on the text at the CRT. Phoenks is not an staff member so him disagreeing literally doesn't matter, nor was I actually rude to him we literally were just chatting yesterday I dont have anything against him.
Anyways this is an unneeded spiteful report, if its reportable to make false accusations then I would like to report @Setsuna_tenma back
While I do agree I was toxic, I think both Wankbreaker and Zeona were both as toxic. Using words like mf which we know the full meaning of, and other little insults also constitutes for a warning. These guys are newcomers and they've already caused enough problem in the Nasuverse thread. They are the sole reasons the thread is in utter chaos because before they even made an account there, it was completely peaceful for a while.I've posted on the thread but I will state it here:
I have given a formal warning to @Tdjwo for his behavior. Continued behavior of the like can be discussed for topic, thread, or full bans. I've also told Wank and Zeona to not engage in that sort of behavior, even to rebuff the opposer; I agree Zeona's behavior is a bit toxic in its own right, and I do not intend to babysit the situation. Further infractions to this end on their behalf should be met with a warning as well.
This seems reasonable, but I have not investigated the issue. What do you think, Bambu?While I do agree I was toxic, I think both Wankbreaker and Zeona were both as toxic. Using words like mf which we know the full meaning of, and other little insults also constitutes for a warning. These guys are newcomers and they've already caused enough problem in the Nasuverse thread. They are the sole reasons the thread is in utter chaos because before they even made an account there, it was completely peaceful for a while.
I think if I get a warning, they all should get a warning too. Don't see why I'm the only one given warning when they were just as toxic.
can’t speak of Zeona’s behavior, but all I’ve been doing is criticizing the arguments. not insulting the person behind them,really.This seems reasonable, but I have not investigated the issue. What do you think, Bambu?![]()