It wasn’t unprovoked, you made a direct insult on their intelligence when you claimed they lack certain abilities to do something. Which can indeed be seen as rude or dismissive (at least that’s how i saw it). Now, I’m not defending what Vzearr did but don’t dismiss this as spurious.
I suppose, but I have managed to go past most of it quite well through spiritual exercises.
I'm also very numb to it in general, and I admit that may make me uniquely biased towards a results-oriented perspective (merely stopping the behavior) as opposed to a more esoteric sense of justice ('punishing' the behavior).
A Fandom staff member answered that they seem to be the same person. Is it fine if we permanently ban both of them or should we be more lenient?
Btw: We need to deal with this as well.Thank you for your feedback.
What do the rest of you think?
I say perma ban the alt account and extend the ban on the original, possibly to infinite. I supported the IP check so we could have a more complete case and picture. Now we have that completed picture, and it shows that this person made an alt account to get around a ban.Btw: We need to deal with this as well.
It seems to me both Bambu and Vzearr are agitating this fight. As has been pointed out, Bambu's comment was rude and insulting as well, even if Vzearr escalated from there. It does seem as if everyone needs to calm down a bit.Yes. I agree with Finepoint, but really hope that @Vzearr will make a continuous effort to stop shooting himself in the feet.
No, I didn't. I made a factual statement that literally applies to everyone on this forum. My part in the discussion, up to that point, was pointing out how we lack the resources and the expertise as a wiki to reliably handle things with absolute, 100% accuracy. Vzearr called this "incredulity", because someone else phrased it in a way that might be called that, and so I said that he lacked the ability to make the call here. And that's true. That's true of literally everyone. I did not say "Vzearr, I think you are stupid". I did not insult him. You are putting words into my mouth, words that I don't think are supported by the sum of what I said. He is incapable in the same way that he lacks the abilities necessary to refine plutonium into a nuclear bomb or to build a Dyson sphere around the sun. These are not insults.
No, don't try and lie here man, you claimed that the results aren't close to what reality entails, and that's what I called incredulity, because, It simply is. You claim that because my results are too high too seem plausible then they must be wrong, and by definition, that's incredulity.
That’s exactly what happened here, you didn’t demonstrate that my math was wrong or that my premises were invalid. You dismissed the conclusion because you found it unrealistic. Logic and math don’t care if something feels improbable, only whether of if it’s consistent and supported by evidence.
How I perceived it, that was extremely condescending and rude, as it entailed that I don't understand anything well enough for my argument to be valid.
You said that I “lacked the ability to make the call here” and that statement was directed specifically at ME in response to my argument, not a general reflection about everyone. It was your rebuttal attempt aimed at discrediting my position by implying that I wasn’t competent enough to judge it. That makes it personal, regardless of your 'later' attempts to generalize it. Saying “that’s true of literally everyone” after the fact doesn’t change the initial intent. If you truly meant it in a universal sense, you would have said something like “none of us have the means to make that determination” at the time. But you didn’t, you singled me out, and only later tried to frame it as a neutral observation. That’s not clarification, that’s after the hand justification to try and save your ass. Your nuclear bomb analogy only gives reinforcement as to your condescending tone. Comparing somebody's reasoning ability to their potential inability to to build a Dyson sphere around the sun isn’t a “neutral” stance .” It’s a mocked exaggeration meant to violate another person’s intellect. This kind of analogy doesn’t strengthen an argument bambu, it ridicules me instead of addressing my point. Intent doesn’t override what actually impacted me either. Finally, your own logic contradicts itself lol. You argued that no one can truly make these calls, yet you treat your interpretation as the factual one and position yourself as the authority to declare others “incapable.” You can’t hold both positions at once. Either we all lack the ability to make the call, including YOU, or you’ve created a convenient exception for yourself.
Anyway, Vzearr has apologised here.
To seek a resolution to this...
I think that is a reasonable outcome.
It seems like we've been lumping everything like this under "Disruptive Behavior" on the tracker.A mild or possibly regular warning added to the tracker ("Was rather rude" or somesuch as clarification text perhaps?) seems fine to me.
Okay. I suppose that seems fine then.
That should be here.
I blocked them.
Btw: We need to deal with this as well.
Okay. I will handle it then.
I'm really close to my sleeping hours here. Even if he is indeed spiteful (which is mostly your guesswork), or he wants to continue Deagonx or Wankbreaker's work, if he could bring our good evidence and arguments, then they would still be evaluated nonetheless. Let's not bring every single person to RVR thread simply because they are against certain ratings of the verse.
Wankbreaker was banned because he is a sockpuppet and using fake translation, not because he has opinion that against the verse's rating
This is not the thread to ask about such things. If you're not sure where to ask, https://vsbattles.com/threads/all-purpose-request-thread-new-forum.107534/ is a good start.
Asked twice but didnt get an answer, so mb. I will as on the place you suggested. thx
1. I didn't remove anything or change the AP rating, only added more things to the justification to expand it. I have no excuses for removing Class K other than it being self-evident that pushing and flipping over a warship and the Titanic should be Class M, as is written on our LS page.
1. No excuses for this one, other than it being self-evident with scans justifying it.
1. The justification for Type 1 was shaky, as the character needs to be at least over a dozen meters tall and a "small" building doesn't guarantee it. The 13-foot height came from a statement made by his creator, which is both a more reliable estimate and fits better with his portrayal in the small building scan, hence Type 0. His range was decreased proportionate to his height.
I'll just go ahead and admit that I do dislike that match, but I have valid reasons to remove it that I didn't bother pointing out in my edit justification.
Which members should we ping here?
As someone who participated in all 3 matches, it’s REALLY strange how I used the same exact arguments to show why the original match wasn’t a stomp yet it still gets labeled as a stomp and said arguments are labeled as THEORETICAL ABILITIES. Yet somehow it’s perfectly fine in the rematch with a dumb prior knowledge.Which members should we ping here?
Arsuzz (random TG supp who made a whole essay about removal), NikHelton (the main Kaneki supp), and Therefir (the content mod who caught on to this) for right now.Which members should we ping here?
