• 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)

AlexSamDen said:
I would like for those to be supported with links and quotes. Otherwise this is not a legitimate explanation by standards of the site

I am trying to act as a third party to lessen the tension between the 2 of you for this not to develop to open hostility

1) You have just contradicted yourself, but I'll dismiss it as a typo

2) Your conclusion of his motives, while is a possible reason in a vacuum, isn't necessarily true
There can be a multitude of reasons why a person doesn't want to issue a mutual block, such as:
a) General unwillingness to block people, so as to not accidentally miss a useful argument from them
b) Insufficient motives for blocking in their perspective

etc


That said, you should not focus on this part of the matter, as it remains entirely speculative. You should present direct reasoning for your request, supported by quotes and links and let others be the judges of the situation
Click to expand...
I understand your desire to act as a third party to resolve the dispute between us, but I have said what I needed to say, and for the second time, please do not interfere between us.

I have made my decision and I will not go back on it. Regarding what you said about evidence, this is something the staff themselves already know, and I do not need to search for links or go back in time; it is enough to know that this matter was already discussed here and the staff are aware of it, so there is no need to go back to the distant past to repeat everything. Reiner still remembers how he himself apologized and admitted his mistake here in front of all the staff. I also told you that the reason that pushed me today to report him and insist on a mutual block between us is what he said today to Antvasima. He interfered in something that has nothing to do with him, spoke disrespectfully, belittled me in front of him, and lied to him. This was an attempt to make me look like a stupid and foolish person. Aside from that, this matter does not concern him at all, and that is the reason I reported him. This is the main reason exactly, and as I told you, if this seems normal to you, it is not normal to me. It hurt me and I am very upset because of it. This is an insult and a lack of respect, and such behavior can increase the number of people who hate me, because a person who speaks badly about you to others and tries to present you in a bad image does not only harm you, but also tries to make you look insignificant and make others mock you as well.

Would you accept someone insulting you in front of others? You, who are now trying to defend your friend, would you accept that someone follows you and speaks badly about you to others in front of you, interferes in your affairs between you and others, and tells them “he is like this and that” right in front of you? Would you accept these situations? Tell me, would you accept them?
 
Azertyhuuh said:
If he is being disrespectful and resentful toward me and so on, then it won’t be necessary to obtain his approval for this matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, it very much is. The purpose of these blocks is a mutual agreement between two members that they don't want to deal with each other, not one person deciding for both.

@Dark_Soul20189 what do you think about this blocking from each other's posts suggestion?
 
Random-Helper323 said:
I figured that was the case. I asked you so you could give input. I was not suggesting or endorsing the action.
Click to expand...
Alright, but in the case where he’s annoying me, holding a grudge against me, and interfering in my affairs, and more than once he’s reported me for trivial reasons that no staff member agreed on here, the reason I’m requesting a mutual block now is that he’s trying to tarnish my reputation and present me as foolish and a bad person to others.

I mean, would you accept someone following you from place to place, speaking badly about you with disrespect, and interfering in matters that have nothing to do with him to make you look foolish and ridiculous in front of others? This is worse than directly insulting you. By doing this, he is making everyone view you negatively, and this is worse than being directly insulted, because of this type of person, everyone mocks and laughs at me. I’ve already discussed this matter here, and everyone here knows everything, all the staff, Reiner, and Sweet Dao from day one—everyone knew. These things happen because of people like this, who speak about you with hate and resentment to others. You can recognize them wherever they go, and from the words they say, you’ll hear them say, “Don’t listen to him, he’s like this, he’s like that, and his words are useless,” meaning they undermine everything.

I requested a mutual block, and the mutual block should be applied between us for these reasons, even without his approval, because now he refuses because he wants to continue his actions until one day I make a mistake. If my patience runs out with him, I might say something bad to him, because patience has its limits, and then I’ll be the one who ends up in trouble. This is why I’m asking for a mutual block to end all the problems here.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
Alright, but in the case where he’s annoying me, holding a grudge against me, and interfering in my affairs, and more than once he’s reported me for trivial reasons that no staff member agreed on here, the reason I’m requesting a mutual block now is that he’s trying to tarnish my reputation and present me as foolish and a bad person to others.

I mean, would you accept someone following you from place to place, speaking badly about you with disrespect, and interfering in matters that have nothing to do with him to make you look foolish and ridiculous in front of others? This is worse than directly insulting you. By doing this, he is making everyone view you negatively, and this is worse than being directly insulted, because of this type of person, everyone mocks and laughs at me.
Click to expand...
You're describing defamation. With free speech being a thing, there's a fine line between protected speech like criticism, commentary, etc., and defamation. If someone was to commit the act of defamation, there are a few things to take note of. We'll skip the part about actual damages and get to the specifics. Firstly, for someone to be defaming someone else, they need to be saying things that are untrue, and which they know to be untrue or at least have no good reason to believe them to be true. This doesn't include opinions expressed either.
Azertyhuuh said:
I’ve already discussed this matter here, and everyone here knows everything, all the staff, Reiner, and Sweet Dao from day one—everyone knew. These things happen because of people like this, who speak about you with hate and resentment to others. You can recognize them wherever they go, and from the words they say, you’ll hear them say, “Don’t listen to him, he’s like this, he’s like that, and his words are useless,” meaning they undermine everything.
Click to expand...
I do think such behaviour is toxic, if it's being used. Admittedly when a group gets frustrated with someone they might start to ignore them for that reason.
Azertyhuuh said:
I requested a mutual block, and the mutual block should be applied between us for these reasons, even without his approval, because now he refuses because he wants to continue his actions until one day I make a mistake. If my patience runs out with him, I might say something bad to him, because patience has its limits, and then I’ll be the one who ends up in trouble. This is why I’m asking for a mutual block to end all the problems here.
Click to expand...
That isn't how mutual blocks work here. If the two of you do keep coming to this problem staff may begin to encourage that mutual block, but it doesn't seem to be getting encouraged right now.
 
Last edited:
Dark_Soul20189 said:
First of shouldn't this be in the news section? (since I know a large majority of the users never visit this thread regularly)

Second of all, sandboxes won't be affected, right?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing it's an update to new security measures because of the recent incident of MeouHades alt.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
First of shouldn't this be in the news section? (since I know a large majority of the users never visit this thread regularly)
Click to expand...
I don't have the energy to create another double-highlighted discussion thread just to more thoroughly inform our community about what will likely just be a few hours of downtime sometime this week.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Second of all, sandboxes won't be affected, right?
Click to expand...
No. I do not think so. It is just a system upgrade. Then again, sometimes special settings have to be reinserted afterwards, but it seems unlikely.
Thermor said:
I'm guessing it's an update to new security measures because of the recent incident of MeouHades alt.
Click to expand...
No. It is just a regular update to a newer version of the XenForo system. 🙏
 
After the last interaction with Azerty here, I tried my best to let him be without taking stuff here, but with his actions, it became forced....

Reporting @Azertyhuuh for his general attitude towards others, scalers, and how he handles threads/QnA

Let's start with the toxicity and his general attitude towards others, I will bring 2 new, clear examples this.


Strym's Death manipulation thread for Instant Death
I agree, this is clear

I now feel from here the hatred and anger of the haters over these approvals to the point that I found people on Discord crying because of this approval. Believe it or not, I mean, imagine crying because of a character...

Anyway, this is just a small promotion because the next one is more beautiful. You will cry more and more
Click to expand...

Maou Gakuin General discussions
It's really funny, although I love Enos Voldegodo after Yugiri, but Yugiri is much stronger than Enos, and the reason is that he is the end and there is no entity that can go beyond the end except the level 0 characters. Any entity that can have an end does not go beyond the end, and for this reason only level 0 characters really go beyond the end. Other than that, regardless of the level of Enos or any other character in the rest of the expansion of the series, she is his victim. Also, do not ever try to refute this argument because I called it the irrefutable argument because no matter what you are. I said, you will contradict me.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that this is not the first time he brings up Yogiri into their thread, only to say how he solos their verse... Just scroll up to see it...


Now we have gotten past two clear examples of his toxicity, let's get back to the topic of how he handles threads. Let's start with counting staff votes.
(relevant thread)
I will link staff comments, but quote Azertys

He only added @Vietthai96 vote after being warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist twice in the same thread. (I also told him, and tried to explain that Viet did give a reason)

Here are his responses.

Case 1
Not at all the staff member must provide reasons for their objection; otherwise, I will not place them on the list of opponents because they did not provide their reasons, and this can be considered as if they do not like working and objected without a reason, and also do not discuss this matter with me any further.

I have now edited the thread and added new information to it, and his reply was also a result of what the members said here, and I have responded to him as well, and from that moment until today he has not come to refute the argument, which means I cannot place him on the list of opponents unless he at least replies once to the response I gave, and I have now edited the thread, and even if he comes back this time, he must read it and respond to that same thread as it currently is.
Click to expand...

Case 2
Up to this moment, no moderator or staff member has evaluated the topic yet, and this topic will never be closed until I want it to be, and I see the time is appropriate for that. It will only close after six or more staff opponents, because some moderators know nothing and have no experience with this work. Also, there are moderators here who are friends with those who dislike this work, so they might come and declare opposition without reason or say they agree with this or that. Therefore, at least six or more opponents and three approvals from staff are required, and I will apply the edits regardless of the opponents afterward.
Click to expand...

After that, he got the 2nd "warning", and actually added it... But it should be sending red flags how hard that was, and how he reacted... I mean, if he acts like this toward staff, do we believe he would have changed it at all without a staff?


Then we come to this, it is definitely nitpicking, but needs to be addressed, when is it obvious enough that a user that dosdn't understand the scaling system, is just spamming high-tier threads?

He posted his next CRT would be High 1A+ Yogiri, even though the cosmology caps at 2B, while his 1A thread is being rejected...

He also tried to get SweetDao's already accepted thread to sneak in Low 1C
The revisions will be as follows:

The Abyss: Low 1-C
The Heavenly Foundations: 2-B
The Infinite Sea: Low 1-C
Click to expand...

But it gets worse than that, in this CRT he tried to use "quotes", from a conversation with Agnaa as arguments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you deny or disagree with what Agnaa said? You do know he is a senior staff member here, right? He said that if the work does not state that it is small or not cosmic in size, or if there is nothing that contradicts it, then it is not subjected to heavy scrutiny and is accepted as cosmic level automatically, and it does not need to be stated that it is infinite or universal. If there is nothing that contradicts this, then such evidence is not necessary and it is accepted automatically as cosmic in size as you can see in front of you, and this is Agnaa’s statement, so there is no need for further objections regarding its size while the staff member explained the matter ↓

Screenshot-2026-02-25-23-22-51-48-40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg

SweetDao said:
Not universal in size + even if "somehow" they were, they are spatially connected and even causally connected, so yeah, that goes against our standards as you can see here.
Click to expand...
The Heavenly Foundations are not spatially connected, because each Heavenly Foundation is surrounded by a celestial dome that isolates it from the other Heavenly Foundations. Each Heavenly Foundation has a dome, or what is called a covering, surrounding it, and since every Heavenly Foundation has this, it makes them not spatially connected for this reason. Also, traveling between these Foundations requires opening special gates in order to move between them, which supports my point that movement between the Heavenly Foundations does not occur in a normal three-dimensional way, but instead requires gates and huge amounts of magic as well, and this alone is also sufficient to consider them separate universes according to the standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!!Copy-pasted his comment!!

Yeah....

He tried to frame this as SweetDao disagreeing with Agnaa instead of him...

But yeah, it's clear that Azerty didn't provide any scans, contexts, or any relevant information on the subject for Agnaa to judge, so that is useless to begin with...


And I could search a bit longer and find more stuff, but this, together with his past reports and warnings, should be more than enough.
 
Last edited:
Dark_Soul20189 said:
After the last interaction with Azerty here, I tried my best to let him be without taking stuff here, but with his actions, it became forced....

Reporting @Azertyhuuh for his general attitude towards others, scalers, and how he handles threads/QnA

Let's start with the toxicity and his general attitude towards others, I will bring 2 new, clear examples this.
Click to expand...
That's why I requested a mutual ban between us

Well, in any case, all of your words remain your personal opinion and are completely untrue, and I believe that this report is the third report you have made about me, knowing that the first report was rejected, the second was rejected, and I apologized for it, and now you are submitting the third report, and let us not forget your attempts to spread discord, and you have shown hatred and hostility towards me that no one can deny, to the point that I requested a mutual ban.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Strym's Death manipulation thread for Instant Death
Click to expand...
Regarding this comment itself, I do not see anything worth mentioning, as I am speaking from my personal opinion and my own feelings, and I did not mention anyone or refer to anyone with these words, and on top of that, I was referring to people on Discord in my words in particular, and what happens outside the forum has nothing to do here.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Maou Gakuin General discussions
Click to expand...
Well, this is also just a personal opinion, as I see Yugiri as stronger than Enos, and I said this and explained my point of view and the reason, and there is no offense. Also, I am not the person who started talking about Yugiri, but rather I responded to the person who said that he is 4C and that he is stronger, and on top of that, we were having fun and joking there, and there was no problem.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
It should be noted that this is not the first time he brings up Yogiri into their thread, only to say how he solos their verse... Just scroll up to see it...


Now we have gotten past two clear examples of his toxicity, let's get back to the topic of how he handles threads. Let's start with counting staff votes.
(relevant thread)
I will link staff comments, but quote Azertys

He only added @Vietthai96 vote after being warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist twice in the same thread. (I also told him, and tried to explain that Viet did give a reason)

Here are his responses.

Case 1


Case 2


After that, he got the 2nd "warning", and actually added it... But it should be sending red flags how hard that was, and how he reacted... I mean, if he acts like this toward staff, do we believe he would have changed it at all without a staff?
Click to expand...
Regarding this matter, I did not know that I should put the employee who submitted an objection without reason on the list of opponents, and that is why I refused at first, but when one of the officials came to me and said to me that you must put him and explained the matter to me, I put him on the list of opponents, and then I presented this second statement that he put in Case 2, and the same official came back and said that you must put him even though I had put him in the first place, but when he saw this second statement, he thought that I had not put it, and I responded to him at that time and told him, “I put it.” Originally on the list of opponents, this means that I never rejected the official’s words, but as soon as he told me his first words, I put them down and understood the matter.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Then we come to this, it is definitely nitpicking, but needs to be addressed, when is it obvious enough that a user that dosdn't understand the scaling system, is just spamming high-tier threads?

He posted his next CRT would be High 1A+ Yogiri, even though the cosmology caps at 2B, while his 1A thread is being rejected...
Click to expand...
Regarding this matter, I posted this morning in the Questions and Answers section and said, “Can Yugiri be at the H1A+ level?” I gave the reason and said that I am thinking about publishing this topic next time. I did this in order to see before that the employees’ opinion on this argument first, and not that I went to publish it randomly. Also, each argument has its own level. So how can you say that the 1A argument has not been agreed upon? So how do you want H1A +? Do you think that both topics are the same argument? If you want now, I will publish an argument and be promoted to the second level, for example, and put arguments related to that, and if you want, I will put other arguments for a higher level, and so on. It is not a condition, if you reject an argument from a lower level that you published about a certain thing, to reject the argument from a higher level. The argument that he put up to 1A is completely different from the argument that I proposed. The argument that I put up to 1A first relates to the great sage, and the second argument has nothing to do with it, so please stop accusing me of this every time. Reports.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
He also tried to get SweetDao's already accepted thread to sneak in Low 1C
Click to expand...
Firstly, I am the person who opened this topic from the beginning, and because of me, the level of cosmology rose and they were promoted, but I gave the order to Sweet Dao in order to publish the post of applying the amendments only, and in this topic I came to provide an opinion only on it in order to apply the amendments to it, and not as you mentioned it, and we discussed the matter together and there are no problems at all, but rather this is a discussion and anyone can see it. This topic was the subject of a general amendment to cosmology after I won the previous topic, and that is why I proposed the amendments only from the abyss and About the heavenly foundations and the classification of personalities.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
But it gets worse than that, in this CRT he tried to use "quotes", from a conversation with Agnaa as arguments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you deny or disagree with what Agnaa said? You do know he is a senior staff member here, right? He said that if the work does not state that it is small or not cosmic in size, or if there is nothing that contradicts it, then it is not subjected to heavy scrutiny and is accepted as cosmic level automatically, and it does not need to be stated that it is infinite or universal. If there is nothing that contradicts this, then such evidence is not necessary and it is accepted automatically as cosmic in size as you can see in front of you, and this is Agnaa’s statement, so there is no need for further objections regarding its size while the staff member explained the matter ↓

Screenshot-2026-02-25-23-22-51-48-40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg


The Heavenly Foundations are not spatially connected, because each Heavenly Foundation is surrounded by a celestial dome that isolates it from the other Heavenly Foundations. Each Heavenly Foundation has a dome, or what is called a covering, surrounding it, and since every Heavenly Foundation has this, it makes them not spatially connected for this reason. Also, traveling between these Foundations requires opening special gates in order to move between them, which supports my point that movement between the Heavenly Foundations does not occur in a normal three-dimensional way, but instead requires gates and huge amounts of magic as well, and this alone is also sufficient to consider them separate universes according to the standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!!Copy-pasted his comment!!

Yeah....

He tried to frame this as SweetDao disagreeing with Agnaa instead of him...

But yeah, it's clear that Azerty didn't provide any scans, contexts, or any relevant information on the subject for Agnaa to judge, so that is useless to begin with...
Click to expand...
Agnaa's words that I blocked were just questions related to how to deal with dimensions and their size, and it was not related to me interjecting it with Sweet Daw, but rather it was just a question to him about how to deal with the size of dimensions. He said in his response to the question that the issue of the size of dimensions is automatically treated as a cosmic size if the text in the novel does not contradict that, that is, if it is not mentioned in the work that a dimension is small or limited or appears to be small, then we do not subject it to much scrutiny and he is able to agree that it is. With the size of a universe, if there is nothing that contradicts that in the work, and I cited these words for the sake of those who ask for proof of the size of the dimension, I told them this. If there is nothing that contradicts that in the novel, then they will be subjected to a lot of scrutiny and they will be considered a size of the universe, and this has nothing to do with the abyss and the prism, and it has nothing to do with the fact that I inserted Agnna. Rather, originally it was just a question about the tire and how to deal with the size of the dimensions, and it has nothing to do with any work.
Dark_Soul20189 said:
And I could search a bit longer and find more stuff, but this, together with his past reports and warngings should be more than enough.
Click to expand...
I said what I have here and I am asking the employees for the second time in exchanging the ban between us, and I ask the employees this time to implement this order because the matter is truly unbearable anymore.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
After the last interaction with Azerty here, I tried my best to let him be without taking stuff here, but with his actions, it became forced....

Reporting @Azertyhuuh for his general attitude towards others, scalers, and how he handles threads/QnA

Let's start with the toxicity and his general attitude towards others, I will bring 2 new, clear examples this.


Strym's Death manipulation thread for Instant Death
Click to expand...
While this behavior is clearly rude, it appears to be directed at individuals outside of VSBW. Handling toxic behavior toward external groups/ppls is a bit of a gray area, not sure what to do in this case. But regardless of all that, Overall, I'd say an informal warning for this should be suffice. But if other staff want to take strict measures then i won't really disagree.

Dark_Soul20189 said:
Maou Gakuin General discussions

It should be noted that this is not the first time he brings up Yogiri into their thread, only to say how he solos their verse... Just scroll up to see it...
Click to expand...
This is not really a rule violation.

Dark_Soul20189 said:
Now we have gotten past two clear examples of his toxicity, let's get back to the topic of how he handles threads. Let's start with counting staff votes.
(relevant thread)
I will link staff comments, but quote Azertys

He only added @Vietthai96 vote after being warned by @LephyrTheRevanchist twice in the same thread. (I also told him, and tried to explain that Viet did give a reason)

Here are his responses.

Case 1


Case 2
Click to expand...
This seems to be the case of disbelief than toxicity and Lephyr seems to have already handled it in just 2 posts of his. Not sure if anything more needs to be done here.

Dark_Soul20189 said:
After that, he got the 2nd "warning", and actually added it... But it should be sending red flags how hard that was, and how he reacted... I mean, if he acts like this toward staff, do we believe he would have changed it at all without a staff?


Then we come to this, it is definitely nitpicking, but needs to be addressed, when is it obvious enough that a user that dosdn't understand the scaling system, is just spamming high-tier threads?

He posted his next CRT would be High 1A+ Yogiri, even though the cosmology caps at 2B, while his 1A thread is being rejected...

He also tried to get SweetDao's already accepted thread to sneak in Low 1C


But it gets worse than that, in this CRT he tried to use "quotes", from a conversation with Agnaa as arguments.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you deny or disagree with what Agnaa said? You do know he is a senior staff member here, right? He said that if the work does not state that it is small or not cosmic in size, or if there is nothing that contradicts it, then it is not subjected to heavy scrutiny and is accepted as cosmic level automatically, and it does not need to be stated that it is infinite or universal. If there is nothing that contradicts this, then such evidence is not necessary and it is accepted automatically as cosmic in size as you can see in front of you, and this is Agnaa’s statement, so there is no need for further objections regarding its size while the staff member explained the matter ↓

Screenshot-2026-02-25-23-22-51-48-40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg


The Heavenly Foundations are not spatially connected, because each Heavenly Foundation is surrounded by a celestial dome that isolates it from the other Heavenly Foundations. Each Heavenly Foundation has a dome, or what is called a covering, surrounding it, and since every Heavenly Foundation has this, it makes them not spatially connected for this reason. Also, traveling between these Foundations requires opening special gates in order to move between them, which supports my point that movement between the Heavenly Foundations does not occur in a normal three-dimensional way, but instead requires gates and huge amounts of magic as well, and this alone is also sufficient to consider them separate universes according to the standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!!Copy-pasted his comment!!

Yeah....

He tried to frame this as SweetDao disagreeing with Agnaa instead of him...

But yeah, it's clear that Azerty didn't provide any scans, contexts, or any relevant information on the subject for Agnaa to judge, so that is useless to begin with...


And I could search a bit longer and find more stuff, but this, together with his past reports and warnings, should be more than enough.
Click to expand...
Thats what many members do here actually, citing 'Ultima said this,' 'Agnaa said that,' or 'DT disagrees based on this quote', Interpreting their opinions isn't really a rule violation, as long as they are being faithful.
 
Reiner04 said:
While this behavior is clearly rude, it appears to be directed at individuals outside of VSBW. Handling toxic behavior toward external groups/ppls is a bit of a gray area, not sure what to do in this case. But regardless of all that, Overall, I'd say an informal warning for this should be suffice. But if other staff want to take strict measures then i won't really disagree.


This is not really a rule violation.


This seems to be the case of disbelief than toxicity and Lephyr seems to have already handled it in just 2 posts of his. Not sure if anything more needs to be done here.


Thats what many members do here actually, citing 'Ultima said this,' 'Agnaa said that,' or 'DT disagrees based on this quote', Interpreting their opinions isn't really a rule violation, as long as they are being faithful.
Click to expand...
I think this third report shows, at least partially, the extent of his resentment, hatred, and hostility toward me. Based on this, I repeat that it is necessary to implement a mutual block between us. I believe the matter is clear now: while he hates me, doesn’t want my presence, and knows all of this, he still refused a mutual block the last time I requested it, because he wants to keep creating problems with me. That’s why I’m asking for the block, to settle the situation and determine what truly fits.

I don’t know what more you’re waiting for before this measure is carried out.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
I think that this third report shows the extent of his hatred, hatred, and hostility toward me in part. Based on this, I repeat, it is necessary to implement a mutual ban between us. I think that the matter is clear now, while he hates me and does not request my presence and knows about me and all of that. However, he refused to exchange employees the next time I requested an exchange between us because he wanted to solve his problems with me and he did this. I request an exchange to find out what is really appropriate.

I don't know what more to wait for this procedure to take place
Click to expand...
While what he reported was not a rule violation, it is clear that you are combative, caustic, and provocative of others on multiple occasions. So do tone that down while you are here.
 
I am personally fine with preventing them from seeing each other's posts. 🙏
 
Azertyhuuh said:
I think that this third report shows the extent of his hatred, hatred, and hostility toward me in part. Based on this, I repeat, it is necessary to implement a mutual ban between us. I think that the matter is clear now, while he hates me and does not request my presence and knows about me and all of that. However, he refused to exchange employees the next time I requested an exchange between us because he wanted to solve his problems with me and he did this. I request an exchange to find out what is really appropriate.

I don't know what more to wait for this procedure to take place
Click to expand...
The first part of your report, where you characterized people disagreeing with certain fictional elements as 'crying', is unnecessarily rude. Even if those individuals are not members of Vsbw, other members can easily take offense with your behaviour or tone. Claiming you were specifically referring to 'haters' doesn't excuse the behavior, as your statement can easily be interpreted as a jab at anyone who disagrees with you or opponents of the verse. Be much more careful with your tone next time, maintain respect, even if towards people outside of this site.
 
Reiner04 said:
The first part of your report, where you characterized people disagreeing with certain fictional elements as 'crying', is unnecessarily rude. Even if those individuals are not members of Vsbw, other members can easily take offense with your behaviour or tone. Claiming you were specifically referring to 'haters' doesn't excuse the behavior, as your statement can easily be interpreted as a jab at anyone who disagrees with you or opponents of the verse. Be much more careful with your tone next time, maintain respect, even if towards people outside of this site.
Click to expand...
Alright, I understand that. I didn’t know that talking about people outside the forum like this here is considered a violation, but outside this forum I have the right to speak and do as I wish.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
Alright, I understand that. I didn’t know that talking about people outside the forum like this here is considered a violation, but outside this forum I have the right to speak and do as I wish.
Click to expand...
The Rules:
  • Be Kind
  • Be Respectful
  • Be Appropriate
  • Be Reasonable
  • Stay on Topic
These rules are pretty much applies as long as long as you are participating on this site. It is irrelevant whether the person you are talking is a member here or someone off-site, being respectful is necessary. Toxicity is not excused simply because the target person isn't here.

For the Off-site rules, read here.
 
Reiner04 said:
The Rules:
  • Be Kind
  • Be Respectful
  • Be Appropriate
  • Be Reasonable
  • Stay on Topic
These rules are pretty much applies as long as long as you are participating on this site. It is irrelevant whether the person you are talking is a member here or someone off-site, being respectful is necessary. Toxicity is not excused simply because the target person isn't here.

For the Off-site rules, read here.
Click to expand...
Alright.

As @Antvasima said, he agrees to a mutual block between us, and personally I can no longer tolerate this situation, so please focus on the mutual block issue for now. Even if I made a mistake in one comment, his hostility and hatred have truly gone beyond all limits.
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Still no, I think I have explained myself before, and could do it again if requested why, but I still see no reason to block.
Click to expand...
It is no longer a matter of whether you accept or not right now. This hostility, hatred, attempts to incite people, and the constant reports you file against me have gone beyond all limits, so a block between us will be implemented, and this will be decided by the staff.
 
Planck69 said:
This is at worse, frown worthy behaviour rather than any direct rule violation. At most, I'd make it clear to them to be less caustic when interacting with others here.
Click to expand...
Being toxic is a rule violation.
"You will cry more and more" is antagonistic, comparing someone's complaints at all to crying is passive-aggressive.

Being unreasonable is a rule violation.
"Also, do not ever try to refute this argument because I called it the irrefutable argument" is far from reasonable, it shuts down debate entirely.

I'm not sure how you can conclude they are "combative, caustic, and provocative of others on multiple occasions" but also haven't violated the rules.
Antvasima said:
I personally prefer to not implement such restrictions without consent from both parties. 🙏
Click to expand...
And I don't think you should.

So far, we've pretty consistently come to the conclusion that Dark_Soul's reports have been based in reasonable concern of rule violations.

I would find "we can't get along because I keep breaking the rules and they keep reporting it" an unreasonable basis for forcing a mutual block.
 
FinePoint said:
Being toxic is a rule violation.
"You will cry more and more" is antagonistic, comparing someone's complaints at all to crying is passive-aggressive.

Being unreasonable is a rule violation.
"Also, do not ever try to refute this argument because I called it the irrefutable argument" is far from reasonable, it shuts down debate entirely.

I'm not sure how you can conclude they are "combative, caustic, and provocative of others on multiple occasions" but also haven't violated the rules.

And I don't think you should.
Click to expand...
I discussed this matter with Reiner, and this comment will not be repeated because I was talking about a person outside this forum and I didn’t know that this was prohibited. Are you accusing me of something I didn’t know about?

FinePoint said:
So far, we've pretty consistently come to the conclusion that Dark_Soul's reports have been based in reasonable concern of rule violations.

I would find "we can't get along because I keep breaking the rules and they keep reporting it" an unreasonable basis for forcing a mutual block.
Click to expand...
Please, enough of this talk this is only your personal opinion. The first time you reported me it was rejected, the second time it was rejected as well, and this time it was rejected too. This person is reporting me out of spite and hostility only, over things that do not even violate the rules in the first place. As for the one comment related to crying, that is the only mistake I made, and I didn’t know it violated the rules. Reiner posted the rules in his comment and I reviewed them. I also did not request a mutual block only because of this matter, but also because of the incitement against me. He interferes in my affairs and with the people I talk to and tells them bad things about me, which makes members form a negative impression of me. Would you accept that I interfere between you and someone you are talking to and tell them that this person’s words are useless and that they shouldn’t listen to him, and do this with everyone you talk to? Would you accept this behavior toward yourself? Would you accept me talking about you this way to others while you are speaking to them in front of your own eyes? And on top of that, he lies about things that never even happened
 
Azertyhuuh said:
The first time you reported me it was rejected, the second time it was rejected as well, and this time it was rejected too.
Click to expand...
I hate interfering in conversations, however this is far from the first time you bring it up, so I feel like at this point I should make a note

The previous and this reports weren't "rejected". This word has a rather distinct meaning that does not fit here
The reports weren't rejected, they were just dismissed based on the premise of your inexperience and language barrier, they were still very much taken note of

The topics of those were judged to be very real, just slightly insufficient in quantity to provide a punishment


Also
Azertyhuuh said:
Are you accusing me of something I didn’t know about?
Click to expand...
You are very much obliged to read the rules of the forum before participating in any sort of activity
 
Azertyhuuh said:
I discussed this matter with Reiner, and this comment will not be repeated because I was talking about a person outside this forum and I didn’t know that this was prohibited. Are you accusing me of something I didn’t know about?
Click to expand...
Please drop this attitude. We are here to evaluate a case that has been brought to our attention, not to trade accusations or drag this out unnecessarily. I am not the sole deciding body either, but the collective decision of the staffs, and we are all simply sharing our opinions on the matter. No one is being 'targeted' here.

And yes, you are obligated to know and follow the site rules. While some of us may sympathize with the fact that you were unaware of them, that does not grant immunity. Breaking a rule means consequences by default. While there is room for leniency depending on the situation or the severity of the case, that remains subjective.
 
Antvasima said:
So what should we do here? Give a warning? 🙏
Click to expand...
The only thing that stands out to me most is the first part of the report, where he described people off-site as 'crying' over the result of a thread. This seems rude and unnecessary, but it’s also true that it isn't so far over the line that it requires strict punishment. Comments like 'stop crying lil bro' or 'this thread is gonna have dozens crying' usually only need a reminder to tone it down rather than anything more. Also, in this case, since he is referring to a group outside the forum, I don’t think anyone here would be personally offended. I would choose to be lenient since he mentioned he wasn't aware that the rules regarding respect are universal as long as on the site (doesn't excuse his behaviour but still). His other comments are likely just a result of poor wording since he uses MTL to communicate. I think simply telling him to tone it down overall should suffice for now. Imo.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
It could have been a misunderstanding, but he did basically make up his own rules concerning staff votes.
Click to expand...
Okay. But if the worst thing he did (as you put it; I'd say his continuously aggressive behavior is worse, but hey) is something that quickly got resolved without any further issue, do we need to take action in your opinion?
 
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