• 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)

Johner2133451 said:
There's no single time where the term mismatch is used for the wiki. Even Mr Bambu mentioned in the thread that anyone who closes the match for being "unfun" (like you), is against Wiki policy
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to be, as Mr. Bambu stated. Plus, mismatch was defined in this comment here in All-Purpose. You haven't addressed this yet somehow.. went along with the staff discussion?
I'm assuming you were still following All-purpose but chose to ignore it.
 
Something I would like to add for this report is his extreme quickness at spreading misinformation, while this is likely not malicious intentionally, the amount of time he has done it is far too much, for example, here.
Btw it's confirmed by staff that making a match where two characters one shot each other doesn't count as invalid as it's against wiki policy to close it. So you can go ahead make random goofy "mismatches"
Click to expand...

Now, where did he get this from?

His inability to understand simple explanations, even from staff.
 
Arkansalter2 said:
It doesn't need to be, as Mr. Bambu stated. Plus, mismatch was defined in this comment here in All-Purpose. You haven't addressed this yet somehow.. went along with the staff discussion?
I'm assuming you were still following All-purpose but chose to ignore it.
Click to expand...
This is your definition of "mismatch"
Arkansalter2 said:
A mismatch is just a bad thread. A thread can be a bad matchup for a lot of reasons. It's a very general term.
If they both can one shot each other somehow, it's just a bad, redundant, and un-fun to argue thread.
If A has better hax than B, but B has higher AP than A, it's a mismatch.

You can pretty much tell whether or not a match is a mismatch.
Click to expand...
Being unfun to argue
 
Something else that's worthy of reporting regarding him is his refusal to admit he is wrong, and has seemingly decided who wins before the threads. I am sure you will find the same pattern in ANY of the verse threads you see him in.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Something I would like to add for this report is his extreme quickness at spreading misinformation, while this is likely not malicious intentionally, the amount of time he has done it is far too much, for example, here.


Now, where did he get this from?

His inability to understand simple explanations, even from staff.
Click to expand...
I'm literally saying to Robo that making a matchup where both characters one shot each other is allowed. I quote mismatch because it's the most term used around here despite against Wiki policy
 
Johner2133451 said:
I'm literally saying to Robo that making a matchup where both characters one shot each other is allowed. I quote mismatch because it's the most term used around here despite against Wiki policy
Click to expand...
you are doing nothing of the sort you are just misnterpting what others are saying to further your point. you are just being deceitful and chosing to willing ignore what everyone is saying.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Something else that's worthy of reporting regarding him is his refusal to admit he is wrong, and has seemingly decided who wins before the threads. I am sure you will find the same pattern in ANY of the verse threads you see him in.
Click to expand...
What do you mean I'm wrong? I am literally saying what the staff said. Everytime there is an argument like "resist EE allows you to resist deconstruction", I always ask them where is the source (like a staff or wiki)? And they just say "use common sense"
 
Johner2133451 said:
Being unfun to argue
Click to expand...
Now hold on now.. did I not say:
You can pretty much tell whether or not a match is a mismatch.
Click to expand...
You're trying to cherry-pick the argument by addressing only a certain point in said argument yet ignoring other parts of the argument. Don't do that.

Also, again, mismatch was kindly defined for you here.
 
Arkansalter2 said:
Now hold on now.. did I not say:

You're trying to cherry-pick the argument by addressing only a certain point in said argument yet ignoring other parts of the argument. Don't do that.

Also, again, mismatch was kindly defined for you here.
Click to expand...
We are focusing on your definition of mismatch. Your report is based on your definition, not others
 
Johner2133451 said:
We are focusing on your definition of mismatch. Your report is based on your definition, not others
Click to expand...
Theres something called supporting statements from others. There's something called "adding on to the report." But since it's by my definition, let me add on to my report.
Arkansalter2 said:
I can't believe I have to do this.
Reporting @Johner2133451 for the level of ignorance I've possibly never seen before in my life.
It started with this thread. Now, we've already established that this is a stomp/mismatch.
So we take it to all purpose. Starting from here, another user asked for the match to be closed. After a brief derailment from Johner, we've gotten back on track. Johner is refusing to accept that the versus thread is a mismatch, despite the other people in the versus thread accepting that this match is a mismatch.
Now, with the level of ignorance and coping I have ever seen in my years of living, the guy then goes on to create a staff dicussion post about mismatches or stomps (which can be read more on in said thread) in which didn't help his case at all.

Now.. I'm no expert, but I'm relatively sure that Johner has been targetted for his ignorance before but this is just a whole nother level.

That's about it. What are we thinking?
Click to expand...
Adding on to the report.
Mismatches were defined by a retired staff here, yet he still went on with the staff discussion. This is just pure ignorance at it's finest. Now I'm assuming he was still following All-Purpose but likely just chose to ignore it in order to justify a stomp from a mismatch.
 
Arkansalter2 said:
Theres something called supporting statements from others. There's something called "adding on to the report." But since it's by my definition, let me add on to my report.

Adding on to the report.
Mismatches were defined by a retired staff here, yet he still went on with the staff discussion. This is just pure ignorance at it's finest. Now I'm assuming he was still following All-Purpose but likely just chose to ignore it in order to justify a stomp from a mismatch.
Click to expand...
The staff discussion was meant for the mismatch terms which is popularised by you and Chariot to be "One shot each other and unfun", not starting conditions
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
That's just straight up false.
Click to expand...
Also for the term mismatch, it's popular term used when characters one shot each other (like via higher AP or hax) and the reason for many matches be closed. It shouldn't be used at all as the reasonings are poor like "the match is unfun if they just one shot each other" which purely relies on subjectivity (also that it was never mentioned at all in any vswiki website)

This is the definition I targeted
 
My impression is that Johner was wronged for not having an understanding of our rules and policies- he was demonstrably treated very poorly by a site culture that promotes toxicity and lashing out against the uninformed, in an incredibly niche and increasingly incomprehensible system of beliefs.

Johner is not wrong for feeling negatively regarding that.

That said. This creation of a staff thread does appear legitimately underhanded, in that Johner has lied or at least greatly misrepresented the match that inspired it, and it has been made ostensibly to suggest legitimate and actual punishments for the mere mention of phrases he doesn't like to hear. I would find it plausible that it was created, to use a term we often employ, out of spite. I don't think we should allow that sort of thing, although according to Johner he did receive appropriate staff permission to make the thread- to confirm that I ping @Theglassman12, who apparently discussed this with Johner and approved it.

Currently, I'm of the mind that this may be considered a legitimate rule violation, although given that he gained permission to make the thread, I do find this tenuous. So, I'll wait a bit to hear from others. Until then, unless new information is being offered, I would ask that bickering be kept to a minimum. I'll also address a few points above:

Adding on to the report.
Mismatches were defined by a retired staff here, yet he still went on with the staff discussion. This is just pure ignorance at it's finest. Now I'm assuming he was still following All-Purpose but likely just chose to ignore it in order to justify a stomp from a mismatch.
Click to expand...
Witchy is retired staff, but he was a Chat Moderator (I know because I recommended him for the role in 2018 or so, before chat died). While he is right, his being retired staff does not add more authority to the statement.

Something else that's worthy of reporting regarding him is his refusal to admit he is wrong, and has seemingly decided who wins before the threads. I am sure you will find the same pattern in ANY of the verse threads you see him in.
Click to expand...
Stonewalling is a legitimate offense, yes, if done in significant volumes. I would agree that there is an element of that here.

Now. Non-staff, do be quiet so other responding staff can read through this in a timely manner.
 
Something that I would like to add is proof of his repeated stonewalling. (I was allowed to post this)

Thread 1 (Rimuru vs Ywach)
He starts the thread like this, and proceeds to prove he doesn't even look over the profile before commenting.
Not to mention this... (Glutony is an extension of his slime key)

Where he repeatedly stated this.
Where I had to repeat my argument (that was already well discussed in the thread, proving he didn't even read it)
Which he completely ignores.
And after an even longer discussion, he came back and said it again (Fate manipulation incaps)

So to summarise this, Ywach lacked an actual wincon, but he repeatedly argued that "fate manipulation wins"

Personally, I requested this to be closed due to being a mismatch.


Thread 2 (Rimuru vs Yukari)

So, he starts the thread off by linking a post from the other mismatch thread...
So yeah, the entire thread me telling him repeatedly that the soul is not intractable without info type 2...

And the moment I say anything else, he pulls this card, and strawman the hell out of me.

And best part, "It's not outdated due to not having the 'Outdated border"

The worst part is everyone else but the OP and @Johner2133451 wanted this to be closed due to being either a stomp or a mismatch, and that was what caused his actions today...


Third thread (Raiden vs Mihawk)

Yeah, I don't think indeed to say anything regarding this.


Something else I would like to add is his spamming on my message wall.



So my goal with this is to prove that you can explain the same thing over and over again to him, and he will not understand or listen.

Note - Also, these were the first 3 threads I looked with him in it, and if you want even more proof, just look in this thread...
 
Last edited:
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Something that I would like to add is proof of his repeated stonewalling. (I was allowed to post this)

Thread 1 (Rimuru vs Ywach)
He starts the thread like this, and proceeds to prove he doesn't even look over the profile before commenting.
Not to mention this... (Glutony is an extension of his slime key)
Click to expand...
I dont see problem here since Gluttony is not specified to have "all previous abilities"


Dark_Soul20189 said:
Where he repeatedly stated this.
Where I had to repeat my argument (that was already well discussed in the thread, proving he didn't even read it)
Which he completely ignores.
And after an even longer discussion, he came back and said it again (Fate manipulation incaps)

So to summarise this, Ywach lacked an actual wincon, but he repeatedly argued that "fate manipulation wins"
Click to expand...
You said I said it allows Yhwach to interact with info2 which I never did. The fate manip would simply incap rimuru by making him do nothing via fate manip which others like @Robo432343 agrees
Dark_Soul20189 said:
So, he starts the thread off by linking a post from the other mismatch thread...
So yeah, the entire thread me telling him repeatedly that the soul is not intractable without info type 2...

And the moment I say anything else, he pulls this card, and strawman the hell out of me.

And best part, "It's not outdated due to not having the 'Outdated border"
Click to expand...
But it was referring to a staff statement, why is linking a post is reportable in the place? I never once said Rimuru can get his soul interacted. What do you mean by strawman? So?
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Third thread (Raiden vs Mihawk)

Yeah, I don't think indeed to say anything regarding this.


Something else I would like to add is his spamming on my message wall.



So my goal with this is to prove that you can explain the same thing over and over again to him, and he will not understand or listen.

Note - Also, these were the first 3 threads I looked with him in it, and if you want even more proof, just look in this thread...
Click to expand...
This thread was an old thread where I never get to learn on the things Lephr sent me (never tried to remake the match). I don't know what do you mean by spamming when I tried to ask you for knowledge since I want to learn how things work here. I didn't think you would be not nice
 
Mr. Bambu said:
(For the record, Johner, you are allowed to defend yourself, so long as it does not devolve into bickering).
Click to expand...
I just wish this doesn't happened. Ever since I came here, people keep making fun of me like being toxic or calling me "ignorant/spoonfed"

And now when I try to ask questions, I get reported?
 
All the terminology and standards and the nature of a lot of these incidents are very complicated, and from that perspective I sympathize with Johner in that people here generally are quick to dog-pile and berate people for being uninformed, and regardless of who's mostly in the right it always turns into a complete hoopla of 'us versus them' which I personally find distasteful.

Even now I'm getting Discord DMs ranting about how "annoying" they are. Everyone takes things far too personally, in my opinion.

That said, it can't be ignored that they do seem to be regularly relying on many debate tactics we explicitly don't allow here, including stonewalling, logical fallacies, and misrepresentation- and they have made a lot of poor match ups. They clearly need guidance, at the very least.

Therefore, I think a warning against those kinds of things is not unwarranted, but I definitely wouldn't support anything more severe for this, unless they already have one.
 
FinePoint said:
All the terminology and standards and the nature of a lot of these incidents are very complicated, and from that perspective I sympathize with Johner in that people here generally are quick to dog-pile and berate people for being uninformed, and regardless of who's mostly in the right it always turns into a complete hoopla of 'us versus them' which I personally find distasteful.

Even now I'm getting Discord DMs ranting about how "annoying" they are. Everyone takes things far too personally, in my opinion.

That said, it can't be ignored that they do seem to be regularly relying on many debate tactics we explicitly don't allow here, including stonewalling, logical fallacies, and misrepresentation- and they have made a lot of poor match ups. They clearly need guidance, at the very least.

Therefore, I think a warning against those kinds of things is not unwarranted, but I definitely wouldn't support anything more severe for this, unless they already have one.
Click to expand...
Nothing on the tracker, at least.
 
FinePoint said:
Then I think a stern warning/instruction to carefully read profiles, or even seek input from supporters, before making match ups is probably appropriate, in addition to urging them to read through our Fallacy page.
Click to expand...
Well I tried asking @Dark_Soul20189 on his wall like how info2 work and etc but I get reported by him because of "spamming"? I also have ask @Agnaa for wiki questions but he says there's a limit per month so I don't know who to go to now.
 
This will be my last message here.

Johner2133451 said:
You said I'm spamming your wall but the things I did was just asking stuff. Look if you dont want me to ask you things, fine
Click to expand...
The spamming is not the reason you are being reported, nor those the report coming from me originally, so don't claim such things.

So yeah, that is entirely misleading, and on my message wall, I repeatedly asked you to stop spamming me, but you didn't listen.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
This will be my last message here.


The spamming is not the reason you are being reported, nor those the report coming from me originally, so don't claim such things.

So yeah, that is entirely misleading, and on my message wall, I repeatedly asked you to stop spamming me, but you didn't listen.
Click to expand...
If spamming not the reason I got reported, why mentioned it here
 
Johner2133451 said:
So is this not included in my report?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming it's included because he asked you twice to stop contacting him regarding that issue, but you kept going anyway, and this is a report about your general behavior.

I was doing my best to be on your side, but your continued misleading finger-pointing here is making me second-guess my judgement.

I would no longer be opposed to a short ban in addition to my previous suggestion (though I'm still not pushing for it).
 
Last edited:
FinePoint said:
I'm assuming because he asked you twice to stop contacting him regarding that issue, but you kept going anyway.

I was doing my best to be on your side, but your continued finger-pointing here is making me second-guess my judgement.

I would no longer be opposed to a short ban in addition to my previous suggestion.
Click to expand...
But I stopped asking him since then, I dont know if it's that serious since I only wanted to know how the wiki works since I follow staff advice

Sorry if I leave now, I want to go to sleep so I dont be tired for school. Sorry that I got you involved here and wasted your time
 
Last edited:
FinePoint said:
All the terminology and standards and the nature of a lot of these incidents are very complicated, and from that perspective I sympathize with Johner in that people here generally are quick to dog-pile and berate people for being uninformed, and regardless of who's mostly in the right it always turns into a complete hoopla of 'us versus them' which I personally find distasteful.

Even now I'm getting Discord DMs ranting about how "annoying" they are. Everyone takes things far too personally, in my opinion.

That said, it can't be ignored that they do seem to be regularly relying on many debate tactics we explicitly don't allow here, including stonewalling, logical fallacies, and misrepresentation- and they have made a lot of poor match ups. They clearly need guidance, at the very least.

Therefore, I think a warning against those kinds of things is not unwarranted, but I definitely wouldn't support anything more severe for this, unless they already have one.
Click to expand...
They've done this sort of things before.
 
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