• 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)

Wankbreaker said:
Reporting @TheSilverKing14 for behavior in the nasu discussion thread, particularly this:
vsbattles.com

Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

Curious completely ignoring Tiering and Scaling stuff (even though Tiering can dedicate how strong ones hax is) Breaker, what are your thoughts on Nasuverse's Hax? Both defensively (resistance) and offensively. Do you think they're defense/offensive hax gods or as haxless as some DBZ characters...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

also seems to type like hyperzero ( a banned user) , though I’m unsure if they’re the same person or just affiliated
Click to expand...
I don't know Hyperzero, but this user does sound rude and condescending. I best give him a warning at least.
 
Wankbreaker said:
also seems to type like hyperzero ( a banned user) , though I’m unsure if they’re the same person or just affiliated
Click to expand...
While this is better suited for a private report, @TheSilverKing14 was active way before hyperzero became an active user. Hyperzero became active at the request of @Grand_Saver_Ritsuka before being banned. Timeline and motive don't match up, especially considering that @TheSilverKing14 would post memes during your debates with hyperzero.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Reporting @Hellformer for changing the context of what was accepted. in this CRT.

Here, it was decided that Low godly regeneration, was gonna at most get a "Possibly".

With Elizhaa, and DDM agreeing to that rating, but somehow a solid rating was what was implemented?
Click to expand...
@Firestorm808 @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus the staff that accepted the revision

@Hellformer the user being reported

-

For what is worth, I believe Firestorm later implied he supported a solid rating with this comment. But as it's not explicitly stated, I can see where the report stands.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
@Firestorm808 @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus the staff that accepted the revision

@Hellformer the user being reported

-

For what is worth, I believe Firestorm later implied he supported a solid rating with this comment. But as it's not explicitly stated, I can see where the report stands.
Click to expand...
Regarding that comment, it would still not be enough, since It would be after the other 2 agreed to his previous stand. SO even in the best case scenario he agreed to it, which would be a stretch by itself, it still wouldn't change it would only be 1 staff.

(If you want, I can edit this So I have it in one post and delete this one?)
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Regarding that comment, it would still not be enough, since It would be after the other 2 agreed to his previous stand. SO even in the best case scenario he agreed to it, which would be a stretch by itself, it still wouldn't change it would only be 1 staff.

(If you want, I can edit this So I have it in one post and delete this one?)
Click to expand...
Firestorm had clarified in that thread itself that either GG reformed himself or AX reformed GG. And I replied with which one makes sense and he did not raise any contentions against it. And btw Elizha him/her self agreed with the thread after this specific conversation. So I don't see any point in reporting me.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for helping out. 🙏
 
There seems to have been a rule-breaking when applying an unaccepted Ninjago revision while claiming that it was approved.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

vsbattles.com

Ninjago Attack Potency update

DISCLAMER: Althought this CRT seems very big, its actually very simple (plz don't get discouraged😭🙏) Ok so many characters in the Ninjago (all have them) have been really ditched in terms of Attack Potency, Strength and Durability (the WHOLE VERSE IS DEPENDENT ON ONE MORRO FEAT) and there are...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

Help would be appreciated. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
There seems to have been a rule-breaking when applying an unaccepted Ninjago revision while claiming that it was approved.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Help would be appreciated. 🙏
Click to expand...
Since Im the OP starter, I think I can respond to this:

1. Finepoint never re-open the thread bc of his own arguments, but for Agnaa to add more to it
2. Agnaa never disagreed at all on the 4-C part, she just had no comment on the issue
3. Craw never disagreed on the thread, his opinion on 4-C was just "less iffy"
4. Qawsef was the only one who genually stated to have a disagreement with the thread
5. Dark was referring to the Mergequake feat when stating he was unsure about the disagreement, and ended up accepting it due to UES
6. Idk what's unclear about Finepoint's reply, as he approved Tier 4 scaling
It seems to me that a universal energy system is not only supported by evidence by seems intended by the creators, so I will accept that, and therefore the 4-C feat. I have no serious objections to the tier 2 proposals either, including for the dragons.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
There seems to have been a rule-breaking when applying an unaccepted Ninjago revision while claiming that it was approved.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Help would be appreciated. 🙏
Click to expand...
This is what I found after going through the thread. Evaluating staff that commented were @Crabwhale @Qawsedf234 @DarkDragonMedeus @FinePoint @Dereck03 @Agnaa
  • Crabwhale gave a neutral vote for the 4-C scaling, until a proper UES could be argued. He later didn't fully vote after discussion continued.
  • DDM accepted 4-C scaling via UES
  • Qawsedf rejected the 4-C scaling
  • Dereck also left a neutral comment
  • FinePoint supported 4-C scaling

At that point, seems thread got closed but reopened to hash out other arguments.

  • After discussion restarted and arguments were being given, Agnaa asked the staff that commented to give their thoughts again
  • Qawsedf once more rejected 4-C scaling
  • DDM agreed with rejections (seemingly also to the 2-C feats?; notably, Agnaa and Crab also rejected 2-C, with only FinePoint having accepted it before the thread got reopened)
  • FinePoint did not comment again

So indeed, both 4-C and 2-C scaling got rejected after getting reopened.

If I got something wrong, staff members are naturally welcomed to correct me.
 
@GarrixianXD

Since you have evaluated this issue previously, it might be of interest for you to help out here as well. 🙏
 
Lloydblitzed said:
DDM didn't disagree, as he seemingly agreed to the 2-C scale via UES and rejected a downgrade thread on the same issue
Click to expand...
Did you meant to link something else?

Regardless, I will wait for DDM to comment and clarify, but he stated he agreed with the counterarguments (which were in favor of rejecting 4-C) and later expressed he was unsure of 2-C.

Edit: Correction, he flat-out rejected 2-C and then was unsure of 4-C. Either way, both upgrades were rejected, since only FinePoint was agreeing.
 
My view of that thread, as I espoused when I was asked about it, found that Seiji (not evaluating staff) and Fine had reservations about the rating. As Lephyr pointed out, Qawsed disagreed with 4-C, Fine initially agreed with 4-C but seemed to hesitate later, and DDM supported it earlier but made ambiguous statements later.

Looking back, that was enough of a mix that we should've tried to really nail down proper answers from people, and get more input. But I also don't think the 4-C stuff was taking something clearly rejected, and adding it in spite of that, such that it would be a rule violation. The thread was just kind of a clusterfuck.

As I mentioned, I think the best way forward would be to make a new thread bringing up the important counterarguments, to reformat discussion outside of that clusterfuck.
Lloydblitzed said:
I also find it suspicious that the message was made by a guy with 0 edits and no posts
Click to expand...
I don't. Seems like a lurker, not some sock that's out to get you.
 
Agnaa said:
I don't. Seems like a lurker, not some sock that's out to get you.
Click to expand...
I think for me the comment is glitched? It links to an entirely unrelated post
Agnaa said:
Looking back, that was enough of a mix that we should've tried to really nail down proper answers from people, and get more input. But I also don't think it was taking something clearly rejected, and adding it in spite of that, such that it would be a rule violation.

As I mentioned, I think the best way forward would be to make a new thread bringing up the important counterarguments, to reformat discussion outside of that clusterfuck.
Click to expand...
I'd be fine with this.
 
Agnaa said:
My view of that thread, as I espoused when I was asked about it, found that Seiji (not evaluating staff) and Fine had reservations about the rating. As Lephyr pointed out, Qawsed disagreed with 4-C, Fine initially agreed with 4-C but seemed to hesitate later, and DDM supported it earlier but made ambiguous statements later.

Looking back, that was enough of a mix that we should've tried to really nail down proper answers from people, and get more input. But I also don't think the 4-C stuff was taking something clearly rejected, and adding it in spite of that, such that it would be a rule violation. The thread was just kind of a clusterfuck.

As I mentioned, I think the best way forward would be to make a new thread bringing up the important counterarguments, to reformat discussion outside of that clusterfuck.

I don't. Seems like a lurker, not some sock that's out to get you.
Click to expand...
I can make a CRT later, since there's more supporting evidences
 
It's been a while since I looked through the thread; so I do not remember every detail I agreed with. But I do remember some back and forth and often times people changing a stance, myself perhaps included.

But based on what I gathered, the main thing I agreed with was the idea that it meets criteria for a UES. But I was unsure on the context of the star creation feat or if it was considered casual. And likewise, I agree that the "Merging universes" was indeed a 2-C feat, but what I do not remember was whether or not to officially deem the feat casual let alone something that low end feats could downscale from and by extension scale to physical stats.
 
Also, it seems like the unapproved changes need to be reverted. Are you and any other involved Ninjago supporter members willing to help with properly cleaning up your mess, @Lloydblitzed ? 🙏
 
Well, if the revisions were rejected, they are not allowed to remain unless your new CRT has been decisively accepted by our staff members with evaluation rights, especially if the revisions within it were rejected recently previously. 🙏
 
Reporting @Tdjwo for intentionally trying to discredit me. I wouldn’t have seen this as reportable, if he had accompanied any relevant evidence to back this up, but he has not,leading me to believe this is more intentional.

vsbattles.com

Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

Btw guys doesn't Zelretch have plot manipulation I remember seeing it in a thread that was accepted why is it not on his profile Is it because everyone is too busy on the root thread to modify old profiles😔?
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
Sdjlakjh said:
Chill out, I did not hurt anyone. Js random fictional characters
Click to expand...
It's not just random fictional characters, it's inherently based on real-world racism by drawing a throughline from the colour "black" to monkeys.

I'd suggest a ban of at least a few months.
 
Agnaa said:
It's not just random fictional characters, it's inherently based on real-world racism by drawing a throughline from the colour "black" to monkeys.

I'd suggest a ban of at least a few months.
Click to expand...
Oh well gonna go into my slumber again, never intended to actively target anyone
 
To defend the dude a bit, Saiyans are referred to as "Monkeys" from characters who hate them. I do agreed that the association with the black color is completely uncalled for.

Regardless I'd like to point out that in the thread there's beed a massive chaos, with both sides insulting each other and other disturbing behavior.
 
StrymULTRA said:
To defend the dude a bit, Saiyans are referred to as "Monkeys" from characters who hate them. I do agreed that the association with the black color is completely uncalled for.

Regardless I'd like to point out that in the thread there's beed a massive chaos, with both sides insulting each other and other disturbing behavior.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was trying to pull the common Dragon Ball meme where Frieza calls the saiyans monkies (and many think he's racist cus of it). Anyway, didn't think the joke would become this serious
 
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