• 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)

I do think it's worth noting the improvement. It used to be a lot worse, and it's been a long time since their last punishment.

We typically increase the punishment for recurring behavior because it's a sign that they're not going to improve otherwise, but I get the opposite impression here. It seems like he's been really trying and this is a small slip-up in the grand scheme of things.
 
I want to add that I don't think the site and its user's should have to be patient and supportive of anyone's progress towards not acting out. People shouldn't have to put up with something like that when the fix to this behavior is as simple as just not acting that way, it is not a multi-year journey everyone must sit through.

Maybe at first this leniency makes sense, but this behavior has been an issue for two years now. This train of thought has been used to defend Chariot before, but given that Chariot has given stern and or final warnings in both 2024 and 2025 for this sort of behavior, it calls into question at what point is a warning just placating instead of punishment.

There keeps being final or formal warnings and nothing comes of it when the issues persists merely because it's been enough time, but as we see this behavior has persisted even after the latest ban in May of last year, followed up by another warning in September.

How much time passes before Chariot is allowed to act up again and get off with a warning?

Is there anything to keep this cycle from continuing given we've heard 'is this happens again it's time for a ban' before and nothing came of it?

Obviously the decision is up to the mods but at I don't think the site and its users are obligated to put up with continued misbehavior because of some vague sentiment 'they are improving' when they clearly aren't or 'I'm not mad at him, I actually like him' where Chariot is let off with a warning instead of a proper ban.

It all feels like a continual cycle where the same people jump to his defense, talk down the punishment from a ban to warning, then when Chariot's behavior subsists, the same routine occurs. And I am not the first one to notice this trend where the warning system is being abused and staff members with bias towards Chariot come to his defense.

I understand this is ultimately up to the mods, so I will no comment further.
 
Last edited:
XXBenShapiroXx said:
I want to add that I don't think the site and its user's should have to be patient and supportive of anyone's progress towards not acting out. People shouldn't have to put up with something like that when the fix to this behavior is as simple as just not acting that way, it is not a multi-year journey everyone must sit through.

Maybe at first this leniency makes sense, but this behavior has been an issue for two years now. This train of thought has been used to defend Chariot before, but given that Chariot has given stern and or final warnings in both 2024 and 2025 for this sort of behavior, it calls into question at what point is a warning just placating instead of punishment.

There keeps being final or formal warnings and nothing comes of it when the issues persists merely because it's been enough time, but as we see this behavior has persisted even after the latest ban in May of last year, followed up by another warning in September.

How much time passes before Chariot is allowed to act up again and get off with a warning?

Is there anything to keep this cycle from continuing given we've heard 'is this happens again it's time for a ban' before and nothing came of it?

Obviously the decision is up to the mods but at I don't think the site and its users are obligated to put up with continued misbehavior because of some vague sentiment 'they are improving' when they clearly aren't or 'I'm not mad at him, I actually like him' where Chariot is let off with a warning instead of a proper ban.

It all feels like a continual cycle where the same people jump to his defense, talk down the punishment from a ban to warning, then when Chariot's behavior subsists, the same routine occurs. And I am not the first one to notice this trend where the warning system is being abused and staff members with bias towards Chariot come to his defense.

I understand this is ultimately up to the mods, so I will no comment further.
Click to expand...
I do find it interesting how you frame anyone defending him as inherently biased, as if the only valid position here is the harshest one. You’re essentially arguing that leniency itself is the problem, which, sure, I get it, but that’s a pretty convenient framing when you’re the one pushing for a harsher outcome. I know you did not quote my comment directly, but I know you’re replying to what I said.

I also want to address the ‘how much time passes before Chariot is allowed to act up again’ point, because that’s not what I said at all. I said give him a warning, and if it happens again, ban him. That’s not me talking down a punishment, that’s me applying the same standard that exists for everyone else on the site. The fact that previous warnings didn’t stick is a valid concern, but that’s an argument for making this warning count, not for skipping straight to a ban when the last report was nearly a year ago.

And yes, I am his friend, I said that upfront. But notice how I also told him to chill before he even posted, and I’m still here saying he needs to sort this out. That’s not bias, that’s just being honest about where I stand while still acknowledging the issue. You can disagree with my conclusion without assuming my reasoning is compromised just because I know the guy.

The ‘continual cycle’ framing is also a bit much. You’re describing a pattern like it’s some coordinated thing, but the simpler explanation is that people who know him show up, give their honest read of the situation, and the mods make a call. That’s just how these threads work. If the mods keep choosing warnings over bans, that’s on them to justify, not on everyone who gave input in good faith.

I’m not asking the site to endlessly tolerate bad behavior. I’m asking for proportionality. There’s a difference, and collapsing that distinction to make the defense look like enabling doesn’t really help the conversation.

Also, this isn’t even the first time in this very thread you’ve come back to add more points trying to push the punishment further. At this point it’s just getting annoying, you already said your piece multiple times and literally ended your last comment with ‘I will no comment further’, so maybe actually do that. The mods will decide, that goes for you and honestly for me too, so let’s just leave it at that.
 
If anyone will end up warning Chariot or not, 100% on the mods and if y'all say this is better than before, cool.

I just think unnecessary sparks flied and i really want this user in my ignored list, please.
 
I personally don't think that what Chariot has been reported for here seems sufficiently bad for a ban, but a warning might be appropriate due to his quoted comments to Lacku.

It is appreciated if Chariot is calling out genuinely blatantly dishonest behaviour in our community, but there are more matter of fact and non-hostile ways of doing so than swearing and similar, so he needs to make further efforts to shape up in this regard. 🙏
 
Nonynho said:
If anyone will end up warning Chariot or not, 100% on the mods and if y'all say this is better than before, cool.

I just think unnecessary sparks flied and i really want this user in my ignored list, please.
Click to expand...
I can place him on your ignore list if you wish.

Edit: I handled it. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
I personally don't think that what Chariot has been reported for here seems sufficiently bad for a ban, but a warning might be appropriate due to his quoted comments to Lacku.
Click to expand...
Well it's 2:4 for a ban, so we're not issuing one against Chariot barring more mod input.

Having said that, since we are given a warning, this is the second time within a year of a ban we're issuing one to the same user. I think the warning in the tracker should last a year and if Chariot repeats this behavior within the year it should/will result in the previously mentioned 3-6 month ban or longer considering how many times he's been given these warnings.
 
Well, it depends on how bad his transgressions have been. 6 months seems like too much. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Well, it depends on how bad his transgressions have been. 6 months seems like too much. 🙏
Click to expand...
It's not about being bad individually, it's about repeating negative behavior despite being punished for it before and being warned about it before. So it's a lengthening over a previous ban timing. Though the exacts can always been argued about.
 
XXBenShapiroXx said:
Obviously the decision is up to the mods but at I don't think the site and its users are obligated to put up with continued misbehavior because of some vague sentiment 'they are improving' when they clearly aren't or 'I'm not mad at him, I actually like him' where Chariot is let off with a warning instead of a proper ban.
Click to expand...
What you quoted was not at all the reason I voted to let him off with a warning. I was just addressing a perceived sentiment that I was personally upset by his behavior, when I was not. It's not in my nature to be personally upset by any sort of internet drama, really. I just know what our policies are and feel a duty to enforce them.

The reason I changed my mind was because he showed some basic remorse, a willingness to try to improve, and convinced me that it might not be as serious or malicious as was initially posited.

Anyway, I don't disagree that repeating infractions should generally lead to increasing punishment, even if those infractions are minor. I've argued that same point on positions before, but you're missing a lot of nuance on how that's handled. Typically that's applied when the infractions are around the same level and frequent.

Chariot has and continues to contribute a lot of time and effort, which at a baseline is something we want to encourage. However, other people contribute too, and if Chariot pushes those people away by being mean then that hurts our baseline. To be unbiased and practical, we need to be fair, and being fair means considering the entire context and what course of action we think is likely to lead to the best outcome.

I won't speak on what's 'right' because that's subjective, but from a practical standpoint it does not make sense to me to ban someone for a minor infraction for six months despite continuous improvement and contributions for many months beforehand, simply because it's technically a repeat offense. To me that would only serve the purpose of driving him away forever, and building ourselves a reputation of being draconian and robotic.

As a site dedicated to arguing about things, some hurt feelings now and then are expected, that is human. We do our best to mitigate it and encourage good behavior, but if we're excessive in enforcing that we risk driving away tons of people who, like anyone, sometimes make mistakes, even multiple mistakes.

It's a delicate balancing act, and to crush all nuance into nothing more than a rap sheet of increasing punishment would be self-destructive.
 
I agree with FinePoint's latest post here. 🙏
 
Heyo, I think this happend once already but, azerety AGAIN, wants to dismiss staff evaluations (idk if votes, which I don't think so), because he stated staff dosnt know what they are talking about, and that they aren't knowlagable about the topic. and to my understanding, he can't do that lmao. So yeah I think its worth taking a look


vsbattles.com

Comprehensive Review of the Instant Death

Also, please unlock the Yogiri page so I can apply the revisions to it for now. It seems that Oblivion Of The Endless may have forgotten to apply the part about removing the “Law” classification and restoring “The End.” In case you forgot UMR clearly stated he is neutral there and you should...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
Maniaunavailable said:
Heyo, I think this happend once already but, azerety AGAIN, wants to dismiss staff evaluations (idk if votes, which I don't think so), because he stated staff dosnt know what they are talking about, and that they aren't knowlagable about the topic. and to my understanding, he can't do that lmao. So yeah I think its worth taking a look


vsbattles.com

Comprehensive Review of the Instant Death

Also, please unlock the Yogiri page so I can apply the revisions to it for now. It seems that Oblivion Of The Endless may have forgotten to apply the part about removing the “Law” classification and restoring “The End.” In case you forgot UMR clearly stated he is neutral there and you should...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
Click to expand...
When did I ever reject the staff’s votes? Before starting the thread, I clearly stated that I needed participation from staff members who are experienced with Instant Death so the evaluation would be accurate and sufficiently reliable, given that this work is complex and its rating keeps changing every month or two due to random voting and participation from members who haven’t followed all the main novels.

I also did not prevent any other staff members from voting. If a staff member who hasn’t followed the work wants to vote, I did not stop them, because I never made this a mandatory condition. I only requested the more experienced staff for the sake of reaching a correct evaluation. Otherwise, anyone is free to vote if they want, but that may not be beneficial for the topic.

It would be better for less-informed staff to observe the opinions of those with deeper knowledge of Instant Death and then form their own views based on that. In that case, it would be more constructive. In any case, I neither prevented nor forced anyone.
 
ترجم

It has now become very frustrating, and I want to immediately file a report about these continuous reports against me, which are intended to get me banned and are driven by malice and similar motives. From today, I am saying that I am tired of responding every time here because of these repeated reports over things that have nothing to do with rule violations. Honestly, I can no longer تحمل it—just imagine being targeted by a group and constantly being reported like this, even over things that do not violate the rules or are trivial. In any case, from today onward, I will not care about anyone who reports me, and let whatever happens happen. I am tired of replying to you here and trying to defend myself; all my time has been wasted here. And if I do not respond, it will be considered as if I am wrong, or the staff here will carry out incorrect actions. Honestly, it is extremely ridiculous to be a member of this community and to be in such a ridiculous situation like the one I am in now.

Imagine that a group of people reports you every day, the same individuals repeating themselves, with false reports and baseless reports. On top of that, you remember that this is not a social media platform where you can simply block them and be done with it. They make you feel sick, and on top of that, you cannot do anything against them. And when you ask the staff to implement a mutual block, they ask for their permission. Of course, they will report you, hate you, and do whatever they want to you, but they will not accept a mutual block until they achieve their goal, which is to get you banned and ruin everything, even if they do not like you. Still, they will not accept a mutual block. The same individuals keep reporting me every second, all the time—meaning my entire life right now is just staying here and constantly defending myself.
 
Reading his comment carefully shows he wasn't being disrespectul or anything.
Azertyhuuh said:
Before starting this topic, I explicitly said I need staff and members who have experience with this work because, as you know, it’s been extremely complex and controversial for many years. If someone isn’t fully knowledgeable, their comments will only confuse things and spoil the topic.
Click to expand...
He just want users who actually knows about the medium in question to give their opinions. Also, why would someone who doesn't know anything about that specific medium comment about it? He is right, if you don't know anything about that verse you're only making things harder. And why are you even doing that? It's obvious that this guy is being targeted here.

It's better to find out why he had this reaction first than punish him for being targeted like that. This is, of course, assuming that those users in fact do not read anything from that verse.
 
Random Helper is correct, staff members do NOT need verse familiarity to be evaluating threads if the evidence presented to them can speak for itself and if they can evaluate if it follows qualifications for certain stat upgrades and/or powers and abilities.
 
It does help a lot to know the verse, but I've personally had to examine threads for verses I don't know. The hardest part was getting people to explain things in ways I'd understand. Still, with a little effort from both sides it can be done. If the evidence is there I don't need to know the entire story to decipher it.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
It does help a lot to know the verse, but I've personally had to examine threads for verses I don't know. The hardest part was getting people to explain things in ways I'd understand. Still, with a little effort from both sides it can be done. If the evidence is there I don't need to know the entire story to decipher it.
Click to expand...
Sure but what if OP wants to limit even relevant comments(This is against someone who knows Tier 1 more than others in CRT) which includes translations even(See deleted comment) when supporters arguments relies on raws

To be clear, I agree with you this being nowhere near to ban nor warning and irrelevant comments should be deleted cuz they make CRT harder, but limiting everyone, including staff cuz one wants "Exactly knowledgeable members" to point he disagrees with Tier 1 Staff and Translator seems a bit stretch
 
Hecky2222 said:
Sure but what if OP wants to limit even relevant comments(This is against someone who knows Tier 1 more than others in CRT) which includes translations even(See deleted comment) when supporters arguments relies on raws

To be clear, I agree with you this being nowhere near to ban nor warning and irrelevant comments should be deleted cuz they make CRT harder, but limiting everyone, including staff cuz one wants "Exactly knowledgeable members" to point he disagrees with Tier 1 Staff and Translator seems a bit stretch
Click to expand...
Did I prevent any staff member from commenting? I think I only said that it would be better for more experienced staff members to contribute to this topic. I did not say that I would reject any staff member’s vote or opinion. And did I actually do that? I did not prevent anyone from voting, nor did I reject anyone’s input.

I only said that it would be preferable for more experienced staff to participate in the instant death topic, since it requires extensive expertise and someone with full knowledge of three complete novels. Moreover, I did not reject any staff member’s input or dismiss any votes at all. All the staff members who commented were included, and I listened to them. I never told anyone that they lack experience, or that they should not vote or comment. So I honestly do not understand the reason for this report in the first place.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
Did I prevent any staff member from commenting? I think I only said that it would be better for more experienced staff members to contribute to this topic. I did not say that I would reject any staff member’s vote or opinion. And did I actually do that? I did not prevent anyone from voting, nor did I reject anyone’s input.
Click to expand...
Not "prevent", since that is beyond anyone's capability, but you do regularly tell people who disagree with you to "not comment", or "Their comments are irrelevant", and when staff disagree with you, "they ignore you". (This has been brought up here before, so I don't think it neccesary to bring examples, but worth bringing up.)
 
Dark_Soul20189 said:
Not "prevent", since that is beyond anyone's capability, but you do regularly tell people who disagree with you to "not comment", or "Their comments are irrelevant", and when staff disagree with you, "they ignore you". (This has been brought up here before, so I don't think it neccesary to bring examples, but worth bringing up.)
Click to expand...
Did I prevent anyone from commenting or tell them not to comment? You know that I am currently the only supporter of Instant Death, and I am now alone against more than 15 opponents, and despite that, more than half of the thread has already been accepted, and I am still continuing day and night without stopping to respond and refute the arguments of more than 15 opponents, and everything I said did not involve preventing anyone or telling anyone not to comment, rather I said that if there is someone here who does not know Instant Death and has not read all the novels and has no experience with it, then it is better for them not to comment and just follow the thread, and this was of course not a prohibition or anything like that, but rather advice from me, because opposing without having knowledge of this work only makes the thread longer, and I did not tell anyone not to comment, rather I only gave advice and did not force anyone, and I did not tell anyone not to comment, and if you are now saying that I told the opponents not to comment then bring the proof, bring the evidence that says I told someone not to comment or not to speak, as I only gave advice in order to prevent the thread from becoming chaotic, and also everyone knows that I am alone, and debating even those who oppose without knowledge of this work is impossible because you are alone against more than 15 opponents, which makes it impossible and only ruins the process for the staff, so I said that if someone is not familiar with Instant Death and all the other related novels, then it is better for them not to comment and to leave the matter to the staff or those who understand the work well, because Instant Death is complex and requires someone who is familiar with the entire narrative, and we are discussing multiple points and very long matters that require broad knowledge of three novels, and despite all that, I did not tell anyone not to comment, so this claim is not correct.
 
I've got no horse in this RVR topic that has ongoing for several weeks, that I'm sure has been noticed by many users and staff alike but I can say regardless of @Azertyhuuh attitude and/or motives, the same group of people repeatedly clowning, reporting and undermining the same individual user who clearly has some communication issues due to English not being their native language (English isn't my mother tongue either) would very much be considered a form of cyberbulling on other websites.

VSBW is ment to be welcoming and safe community regardless of language, culture, sexual orientation, etc yet this issue continues to fester to the point I suspect @Azertyhuuh feels ostracise just for commenting anything while others wait with obvious baited breath to get him banned (this isn't on).

Ofc I'm not gonna deny @Azertyhuuh hasn't been difficult to deal with and has pretty unpopular takes on where certain verses should be scaled to but that's why non judgemental communication is key and for every staff member that tries to reach out to Azer there's a bunch of other users that at best mock him and at worst want to silence him, it really does send mixed messages, especially to someone who struggles with English.

I won't comment any further on the RVR (unless I see an actual RVR elsewhere), feel free to delete my comment if it's considered derailmemt or doesn't contribute to the current report, that said this is something I've myself have noticed for long while now and I suspect some feel the same too (even if they don't agree with or even like Azer).
 
The_Axiom_of_Virgo said:
I've got no horse in this RVR topic that has ongoing for several weeks, that I'm sure has been noticed by many users and staff alike but I can say regardless of @Azertyhuuh attitude and/or motives, the same group of people repeatedly clowning, reporting and undermining the same individual user who clearly has some communication issues due to English not being their native language (English isn't my mother tongue either) would very much be considered a form of cyberbulling on other websites.

VSBW is ment to be welcoming and safe community regardless of language, culture, sexual orientation, etc yet this issue continues to fester to the point I suspect @Azertyhuuh feels ostracise just for commenting anything while others wait with obvious baited breath to get him banned (this isn't on).

Ofc I'm not gonna deny @Azertyhuuh hasn't been difficult to deal with and has pretty unpopular takes on where certain verses should be scaled to but that's why non judgemental communication is key and for every staff member that tries to reach out to Azer there's a bunch of other users that at best mock him and at worst want to silence him, it really does send mixed messages, especially to someone who struggles with English.

I won't comment any further on the RVR (unless I see an actual RVR elsewhere), feel free to delete my comment if it's considered derailmemt or doesn't contribute to the current report, that said this is something I've myself have noticed for long while now and I suspect some feel the same too (even if they don't agree with or even like Azer).
Click to expand...
As someone who is on good terms with Azerty, i have also been noticing the same group of people keep trying to report Azerty over and over again even in cases where he did nothing wrong. Like they know he's clearly having trouble expressing himself due to language barriers but the same people are constantly trying to find every little thing he is doing that might come off as rude. @Maniaunavailable says things like, "Weekly Azerty report!" clearly making fun of him, showing that he just wants to report for fun and not actually trying to help out. @Dark_Soul20189 also keeps trying to find every little thing that Azerty does and tries to make a huge report out of it. Same damn people constantly targeting and monitoring everything he does
 
Last edited:
Robo432343 said:
As someone who is on good terms with Azerty, i have also been noticing the same group of people keep trying to report Azerty over and over again even in cases where he did nothing wrong. Like they know he's clearly having trouble expressing himself due to language barriers but the same people are constantly trying to find every little thing he is doing that might come off as rude. @Maniaunavailable says things like, "Weekly Azerty report!" clearly making fun of him, showing that he just wants to report for fun and not actually trying to help out. @Dark_Soul20189 also keeps trying to find every little thing that Azerty does and tries to make a huge report out of it.
Click to expand...
Honestly one should get warning for trying to report without even solid argument(Looks like just trying to get rid off)

Obviously it is not to @Dark_Soul20189 since he always presents reason
 
While its not really my buisness. Does it ever get tiring to report the same person for such minuscule things every week? I get a notif from here and like every time i see 2 specific names from this thread its just them reporting azerty for something that at worst is frown worthy behaviour. This time it genuienly seems he didnt do anything at least IMO and hes still getting reported for it. Its honestly sad because hes asked for a mutual block between an individual here multiple times seeing as they are targetting him and yet because the opposing side (the person targetting him) declined they are just free to target and report him every week.
 
I wouldn't really say that it's not my buisness considering his message was addressed to me but I feel like this isn't report worthy. In an ideal world every verse has it's knowledgeable members and admins that are responsible for evaluating the verse and although the whole idea of “knowledgeable” might be up to interpretation I see no reason to report Azerty for the quoted comment, I get the frustration given his behaviour and attitude but it isn't report worthy at all which is why after I realised that he was merely venting his frustrations I moved on.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
That attitude is pretty bad, I won't lie. Literally telling everyone, staff or not, not to comment in any capacity unless they've read everything regarding the franchise.
Click to expand...
I Agree with Random here, though i think he merely meant it as advice. I have pointed it out before that user in question uses MTL to communicate and the wording comes off as bit rude sometimes unintentionally as a result. So while his post is unnecessary, but given that he has to reply alone, i think i understand the reasoning behind his comment. So i don't think amy action would be necessary here.
 
Reiner04 said:
I Agree with Random here, though i think he merely meant it as advice. I have pointed it out before that user in question uses MTL to communicate and the wording comes off as bit rude sometimes unintentionally as a result. So while his post is unnecessary, but given that he has to reply alone, i think i understand the reasoning behind his comment. So i don't think amy action would be necessary here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, much as I think the attitude isn't great, this doesn't strike me as particularly egregious, at least not by itself.
 
M3X_2.0 said:
It's better to find out why he had this reaction first than punish him for being targeted like that. This is, of course, assuming that those users in fact do not read anything from that verse.
Click to expand...
It’s just that he was saying things to staff that weren’t really too nice imo. And as this happend before, just wanted him to get proper advise on what he and he cannot do.

And also oblivion and the admin read the verse so it’s still uncalled for
 
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