• 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)

Dark_Soul20189 said:
Ben 10 scalers has done similair things in the past, We do know it's one of them, just not who's of the Ben 10 scalers it is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I vaguely recall this being an issue with Ben 10 in the past. If that isn't the OP then I'd only really be open to a stern warning to not use that sort of material again.
 
Concept type 3 for names in this CRT seems to have been applied w/o proper staff consensus.

Ant: "This seems reasonable but it depends on what Firestorm thinks.

Firestorm: "At best, changing the name of a single door to make it lock might be type 3, but that's iffy in my opinion. Feel free to talk to the other staff on the matter." (Clearly didn't agree).

SpaceMan: Not enough evidence for Conceptual Manipulation Type 1. Maybe Type 3 with the name thing.

So overall only one staff agreed half heartedly that's @ActuallySpaceMan42 which should not be enough for something so controversial. Ant agreed with it initially but said it depends on firestorm and firestorm never agreed and also that when Ant agreed the proposal was Type 1 concept not type 3. It was changed later on and Ant was not asked to give his opinion again.
 
Antvasima's comment could well have been interpreted as a proper evaluation, while also saying Firestorm (as the other evaluating staff) would be necessary to actually approve the CRT. I don't think that's what Ant meant, but I could see that being assumed. For now, we ping @Antvasima to ask, and wait.
 
Reporting @ChoursDropoff for this spite CRT which involves pure stonewalling, lies on the profiles, and just pure ignorance regarding the series. But going by order (you can check everything by yourselves from seeing my comments on the thread elaborating better why):
  • They showcased to not have read the profiles at all while doing the CRT (like claiming that Frisk being Immeasurable is inconsistent because of Sans being faster, when Frisk's speed varies as even said in their profile and Sans does not scale to their peak, among other claims that contradict the current state of the profiles entirely).
  • Literally says that some things that are literally on the profiles aren't there (when they were on said profiles since years).
  • Uses low quality fan-made quotes from a Book to make some points, but later on showcased to not know the Book in itself.
  • Generally stonewalls by saying that every feat is a game mechanic while disregarding everyone's explanation (which is indeed stonewalling).
I can give the specific posts if some of you guys ask, but I do not think this is a sincere CRT, OP did not even play the game given certain absurd points that do not make sense for anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of the verse.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Reporting @ChoursDropoff for this spite CRT which involves pure stonewalling, lies on the profiles, and just pure ignorance regarding the series. But going by order (you can check everything by yourselves from seeing my comments on the thread elaborating better why):
  • They showcased to not have read the profiles at all while doing the CRT (like claiming that Frisk being Immeasurable is inconsistent because of Sans being faster, when Frisk's speed varies as even said in their profile and Sans does not scale to their peak, among other claims that contradict the current state of the profiles entirely).
  • Literally says that some things that are literally on the profiles aren't there (when they were on said profiles since years).
  • Uses low quality fan-made quotes from a Book to make some points, but later on showcased to not know the Book in itself.
  • Generally stonewalls by saying that every feat is a game mechanic while disregarding everyone's explanation (which is indeed stonewalling).
I can give the specific posts if some of you guys ask, but I do not think this is a sincere CRT, OP did not even play the game given certain absurd points that do not make sense for anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of the verse.
Click to expand...
Spite thread? I have had this planned months in advance and literally all my scans date back as far as 4 or 5 months ago.
 
ChoursDropoff said:
I have had this planned months in advance and literally all my scans date back as far as 4 or 5 months ago.
Click to expand...
The amount of time you "planned" doesnt means it's not a spite CRT, you didn't even read the profiles buddy, like, Frisk have different keys for a reason, if you ever read the profile for a single second you would be able to see it
 
This still does not make it a spite thread, given that some of your claims (like Undertale's only meta thing is the awareness of the Player character when it has much, much more elements than just that, or Flowey one-shotting Asgore when that happens only after that the playable character defeats the latter) absolutely are nonsensical for anyone who knows the story.
 
StrymULTRA said:
This still does not make it a spite thread, given that some of your claims (like Undertale's only meta thing is the awareness of the Player character when it has much, much more elements than just that, or Flowey one-shotting Asgore when that happens only after that the playable character defeats the latter) absolutely are nonsensical for anyone who knows the story.
Click to expand...
Would you at least explain what you think I spited you for? Like seriously I dunno who you think you are.

My thread brought to attention the lack of evidence for the verses rating evidence that hasn’t been provided at all. All you’ve done was act snarky in the comments of the crt.
 
We aren't debating here.

I am not being snarky, just pointing out your nonsense and how your stuff contradicts the profiles, and in the thread we are literally explaining it to you multiple times, you just handwave it over and over with just "it's not enough, gameplay mechanics!". I ain't believing for a second this is not spite.
 
StrymULTRA said:
Reporting @ChoursDropoff for this spite CRT which involves pure stonewalling, lies on the profiles, and just pure ignorance regarding the series. But going by order (you can check everything by yourselves from seeing my comments on the thread elaborating better why):
  • They showcased to not have read the profiles at all while doing the CRT (like claiming that Frisk being Immeasurable is inconsistent because of Sans being faster, when Frisk's speed varies as even said in their profile and Sans does not scale to their peak, among other claims that contradict the current state of the profiles entirely).
  • Literally says that some things that are literally on the profiles aren't there (when they were on said profiles since years).
  • Uses low quality fan-made quotes from a Book to make some points, but later on showcased to not know the Book in itself.
  • Generally stonewalls by saying that every feat is a game mechanic while disregarding everyone's explanation (which is indeed stonewalling).
I can give the specific posts if some of you guys ask, but I do not think this is a sincere CRT, OP did not even play the game given certain absurd points that do not make sense for anyone who has even the most basic knowledge of the verse.
Click to expand...
Only glanced over the thread since I'm about to go to work, but I don't think this is a rule violation. It seems like they sincerely believe it, but just have some bad standards/arguments.

Like, it looks like there were only two invocations of gameplay mechanic (saying that Frisk dodging an attack is a gameplay mechanic, since gameplay-wise they can just as easily fail to dodge it; and saying that Frisk not being able to die in P2 of Asriel's fight is a gameplay mechanic that indicates Asriel can't meaningfully damage them).

Not reading the profiles well isn't a rule violation, not knowing sources well isn't a rule violation, etc.

Just get the thread closed if it's rejected and not well founded. As far as I can tell, no staff have evaluated it yet. And I wouldn't quite consider this "rejection" of mine enough, since I haven't actually thought over every single claim in the OP.
 
Antvasima said:
I only accepted the parts that had been accepted by all of our staff members that had evaluated the thread in question. 🙏
Click to expand...
There seems to be issue with this previously accepted crt too of him, it mentions @Firestorm808 in agreement with "Canonicity" part of the crt which he never evaluated. He evaluated each proposal of the OP point wise and said he will evaluate rest later on (which he seems to have forgotten), after few days firestorm comes and asks "if anything is left", he was answered with "nothing is left but just more staff input" he was added in agreement with Canonicity part w/o his evaluation. Then @DarkDragonMedeus and @Planck69 evaluated the thread and said everything seems fine aside from what crossed out. But the point is Canonicity of several media which thread was proposing has been rejected previously due some reasons. Only knowledgeable members knows why like @Firestorm808 so adding him in agreement w/o his opinion on it seems manipulation of staff votes. Other staffs evaluating who aren't aware of ben 10 much may have their opinion leaned towards what Firestorm decided on Canonicity given his knowledge of it (who was added in agreement w/o his consent).
 
Reiner04 said:
There seems to be issue with this previously accepted crt too of him, it mentions @Firestorm808 in agreement with "Canonicity" part of the crt which he never evaluated. He evaluated each proposal of the OP point wise and said he will evaluate rest later on (which he seems to have forgotten), after few days firestorm comes and asks "if anything is left", he was answered with "nothing is left but just more staff input" he was added in agreement with Canonicity part w/o his evaluation. Then @DarkDragonMedeus and @Planck69 evaluated the thread and said everything seems fine aside from what crossed out. But the point is Canonicity of several media which thread was proposing has been rejected previously due some reasons. Only knowledgeable members knows why like @Firestorm808 so adding him in agreement w/o his opinion on it seems manipulation of staff votes. Other staffs evaluating who aren't aware of ben 10 much may have their opinion leaned towards what Firestorm decided on Canonicity given his knowledge of it (who was added in agreement w/o his consent).
Click to expand...
I think this is all just a giant misunderstanding. Rex is quite weak in English and it has caused some confusions in the past too. Maybe he just did not understand what Firestorm was trying to convey or forgot to ask Firestorm to evaluate the canonicity part.

That's just my interpretation of the event. I was not there (I don't remember being there), so I can't say much.
 
Success0906 said:
I think this is all just a giant misunderstanding. Rex is quite weak in English and it has caused some confusions in the past too. Maybe he just did not understand what Firestorm was trying to convey or forgot to ask Firestorm to evaluate the canonicity part.

That's just my interpretation of the event. I was not there (I don't remember being there), so I can't say much.
Click to expand...
Well if that's the case then just reverting Canonicity part back to how it was should be fine or reopening of that thread ig? Tho he needs to be attentive over his crts next time.
 
Let us know if what you're saying is true or not.
Reiner04 said:
But the point is Canonicity of several media which thread was proposing has been rejected previously due some reasons.
Click to expand...
Do you have this CRT?
Reiner04 said:
Only knowledgeable members knows why like @Firestorm808 so adding him in agreement w/o his opinion on it seems manipulation of staff votes. Other staffs evaluating who aren't aware of ben 10 much may have their opinion leaned towards what Firestorm decided on Canonicity given his knowledge of it (who was added in agreement w/o his consent).
Click to expand...
I add him because I didn't focus when I added votes. Anyway, there no rule in VSBW, makes not adding things they approve of Other Staff, so... You just make report without liquid other staffs so this should not be accepted as a response because there is no rule that says there should be no additions things that are accepted from [non-knowledge] staffs
 
Also there some problems in Mana Page.
Antvasima said:
Also, just a note that I also just agreed with Firestorm808, as he is very knowledgeable regarding Ben 10. 🙏
Click to expand...
Can y'all tell Firestorm about never shifting Dimensional Manipulation to "Limited", Intangible Interaction to Purification, he never make CRT to add this
vsbattles.fandom.com

Mana (Ben 10)

Mana (alternatively spelled as Manna) is the hidden mystic life energy that permeates everything in nature, with the known exception of Ectonurites, being the energy used to perform magic. All the Mana in the universe flows from Legerdomain. There are many sapient species who can use Mana...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Dimensional Manipulation accepted here by ASM and LordGriffin, and Firestorm agree with Limited

Intangible Interaction get accepted, here

Also he removed many things, like 4-D Potency, although it was accepted?
vsbattles.com

Ben 10: Update, Fixing and Additions part 8

Agree: @ActuallySpaceMan42, @DarkDragonMedeus (Same as SpaceMan's opinion) Disagree: ActuallySpaceMan42 (here [He rejected a lot of things, so I can't write them 😭])
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.fandom.com

Mana (Ben 10)

Mana (alternatively spelled as Manna) is the hidden mystic life energy that permeates everything in nature, with the known exception of Ectonurites, being the energy used to perform magic. All the Mana in the universe flows from Legerdomain. There are many sapient species who can use Mana...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
vsbattles.fandom.com

Mana (Ben 10)

Mana (alternatively spelled as Manna) is the hidden mystic life energy that permeates everything in nature, with the known exception of Ectonurites, being the energy used to perform magic. All the Mana in the universe flows from Legerdomain. There are many sapient species who can use Mana...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Even why he add Life Manipulation again? It add in Life-energy Manipulation
On top of all this, he closes the page so that no one deleted the additions that he adds, so someone has to act with him
 
Last edited:
Ultimate-Rex1 said:
I add him because I didn't focus when I added votes. Anyway, there no rule in VSBW, makes not adding things they approve of Other Staff, so... You just make report without liquid other staffs so this should not be accepted as a response because there is no rule that says there should be no additions things that are accepted from [non-knowledge] staffs
Click to expand...
Report is about adding firestorm in the agreements when he clearly did not evaluate The canonicity part and said he will evaluate rest later. It's important matter because other staffs who do not have indepth knowledge on the verse may have their opinion based of firestorm opinion on Canonicity matter (since that requires someone knowledgeable on the verse). Report was about vote manipulation.

And also that when Firestorm asked later "If there is anything left" you replied with "nothing is left but just more staff inputs". It's serious issue. No other staff but only firestorm knows about why Canonicity thing been rejected b4. And smth that been rejected so many times in the past, I don't think "just 2" votes should be enough while the knowledgeable staff member who could and was going to evaluate was manipulated to not do so (even if said manipulation was just a mistake or unintended ignorance).
 
Last edited:
Reiner04 said:
Report is about adding firestorm in the agreements when he clearly did not evaluate The canonicity part and said he will evaluate rest later. It's important matter because other staffs who do not have indepth knowledge on the verse may have their opinion based of firestorm opinion on Canonicity matter (since that requires someone knowledgeable on the verse). Report was about vote manipulation.
Click to expand...
I've responded to this XD:
Ultimate-Rex1 said:
I add him because I didn't focus when I added votes. Anyway, there no rule in VSBW, makes not adding things they approve of Other Staff, so... You just make report without liquid other staffs so this should not be accepted as a response because there is no rule that says there should be no additions things that are accepted from [non-knowledge] staffs
Click to expand...
I hope to accept my apology for what happened about this
 
CodeCCLL said:
Someone could probably make a larger report covering past crt's as well but I'm reporting this anyway.
vsbattles.com

Ben 10: Update, Fixing and Additions part 10 ("10" you mean Ben "10" 🤔🗿/Very interesting CRT)

vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
I haven't seen questions this leading in a long time and I don't even want to look at the rest.
Click to expand...
While I agree that leading twitter replies without support from the original source material shouldn't be used, I don't see why it needs to be a RVR report. People could just voice the rejection on the thread and move on.
 
Last edited:
Reiner04 said:
Concept type 3 for names in this CRT seems to have been applied w/o proper staff consensus.

Ant: "This seems reasonable but it depends on what Firestorm thinks.

Firestorm: "At best, changing the name of a single door to make it lock might be type 3, but that's iffy in my opinion. Feel free to talk to the other staff on the matter." (Clearly didn't agree).

SpaceMan: Not enough evidence for Conceptual Manipulation Type 1. Maybe Type 3 with the name thing.

So overall only one staff agreed half heartedly that's @ActuallySpaceMan42 which should not be enough for something so controversial. Ant agreed with it initially but said it depends on firestorm and firestorm never agreed and also that when Ant agreed the proposal was Type 1 concept not type 3. It was changed later on and Ant was not asked to give his opinion again.
Click to expand...
Yes, to my understanding, Concept Manipulation had not received a firm agreement among the staff input.
 
Reiner04 said:
There seems to be issue with this previously accepted crt too of him, it mentions @Firestorm808 in agreement with "Canonicity" part of the crt which he never evaluated. He evaluated each proposal of the OP point wise and said he will evaluate rest later on (which he seems to have forgotten), after few days firestorm comes and asks "if anything is left", he was answered with "nothing is left but just more staff input" he was added in agreement with Canonicity part w/o his evaluation. Then @DarkDragonMedeus and @Planck69 evaluated the thread and said everything seems fine aside from what crossed out. But the point is Canonicity of several media which thread was proposing has been rejected previously due some reasons. Only knowledgeable members knows why like @Firestorm808 so adding him in agreement w/o his opinion on it seems manipulation of staff votes. Other staffs evaluating who aren't aware of ben 10 much may have their opinion leaned towards what Firestorm decided on Canonicity given his knowledge of it (who was added in agreement w/o his consent).
Click to expand...
Yes, I had not officially casted a vote regarding the canonicity stuff. At the time, I deferred to other staff. I had later looked over the canonicity stuff in the information page. I made adjustments to promote proper scrutiny for any future scaling. He probably interpreted this action as a "vote."
 
Firestorm808 said:
While I agree that leading twitter replies without support from the original source material shouldn't be used, I don't see why it needs to be a RVR report. People could just voice the rejection on the thread and move on.
Click to expand...
Another Ben10 thread, another high level ability, and again a leading question as evidence.

Even though the OP's are different, both OP's were in each other's threads. So when I saw the same thing happening again, I doubted how effective a blue name warning “you shouldn't use leading questions as evidence” would be on them.

That's why we are here.
 
CodeCCLL said:
Another Ben10 thread, another high level ability, and again a leading question as evidence.

Even though the OP's are different, both OP's were in each other's threads. So when I saw the same thing happening again, I doubted how effective a blue name warning “you shouldn't use leading questions as evidence” would be on them.

That's why we are here.
Click to expand...
To clarify, you request for staff to give them a formal warning regarding this poor twitter evidence. Is that correct?
 
Reporting @Lloydblitzed for intentionally misconstructing votes.

In this thread, you can see me reconfirming my stands that I have disagreed with IM 2. He proceeded to take it as a concession as I "agree with him" and put me in the agreement section... Making it look like I agree with everything but Info type 2, and completely leaving the disagreement section blank. (Just look at the vote tally)
Agree: @KaramcaS @DarkDragonMedeus (4-C stuff and thinks Data Erasure only is good) @TheOrangeGuy09 @AigerTheKing @YmTheSuper (Disagree on Info 2) @Dark_Soul20189 (Disagree on Info 2)
Disagree:
Neutral
Click to expand...
To make things worse, IM 2 was the only thing I commented on. (proof here, here, here, and here)

You can find out more about it on my message wall, where I edited the grammar on my last comment (You can check that I am pretty sure)
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Reporting @Lloydblitzed for intentionally misconstructing votes.

In this thread, you can see me reconfirming my stands that I have disagreed with IM 2. He proceeded to take it as a concession as I "agree with him" and put me in the agreement section... Making it look like I agree with everything but Info type 2, and completely leaving the disagreement section blank. (Just look at the vote tally)

To make things worse, IM 2 was the only thing I commented on. (proof here, here, here, and here)

You can find out more about it on my message wall, where I edited the grammar on my last comment (You can check that I am pretty sure)
Click to expand...
Nice getting mad at when I litterally fixed that mistake after you pointed it out. You also never answered my refutations or just completly ignore them, and acted cool about it in your Message tabs...
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Reporting @Lloydblitzed for intentionally misconstructing votes.

In this thread, you can see me reconfirming my stands that I have disagreed with IM 2. He proceeded to take it as a concession as I "agree with him" and put me in the agreement section... Making it look like I agree with everything but Info type 2, and completely leaving the disagreement section blank. (Just look at the vote tally)

To make things worse, IM 2 was the only thing I commented on. (proof here, here, here, and here)

You can find out more about it on my message wall, where I edited the grammar on my last comment (You can check that I am pretty sure)
Click to expand...
you are overreacting a bit don't ya think?
 
Lloydblitzed said:
You also never answered my refutations or just completly ignore them.
Click to expand...
Did you assumed that he agreed to your rest of your crt except IM2 just because he didn't pointed it out? If so, then that mistake is from your side.
Lort15 said:
you are overreacting a bit don't ya think?
Click to expand...
If this was intentional than its a report worthy.
Also, plz refrain from commenting here if there's nothing you can add to the report. 🙂
 
TWILIGHT-OP said:
Did you assumed that he agreed to your rest of your crt except IM2 just because he didn't pointed it out? If so, then that mistake is from your side.
Click to expand...
I just missread initially as he agreed with Data
TWILIGHT-OP said:
If this was intentional than its a report worthy.
Also, plz refrain from commenting here if there's nothing you can add to the report. 🙂
Click to expand...
I don't intentionally fake votes, its just Dark Souls overreacting
 
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