• 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)

Antvasima said:
Hello everybody.

GodlyCharmander has waited roughly yet another year and wonders if he can please get unbanned now.

I personally think that he has been punished more than enough and can have his ban removed now. 🙏

Click to expand...
Their ban is listed as being at their own request, and their older ban links to an RVR page that doesn't seem to mention them. I figure it wouldn't need an appeal if that was all, so what were they banned for? The name does sound familiar as someone who got in trouble.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
Their ban is listed as being at their own request, and their older ban links to an RVR page that doesn't seem to mention them. I figure it wouldn't need an appeal if that was all, so what were they banned for? The name does sound familiar as someone who got in trouble.
Click to expand...
While I don't know the original ban reason, he has been banned for using a sock-puppet account.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
Their ban is listed as being at their own request, and their older ban links to an RVR page that doesn't seem to mention them. I figure it wouldn't need an appeal if that was all, so what were they banned for? The name does sound familiar as someone who got in trouble.
Click to expand...
  • He was initially banned for posting a very long and insulting rant directed at AKM.
  • After that, he created a sock account named Tiokill. He consistently showed a bad temper and appeared in RVR multiple times. Once the account was discovered to be a sock, it caused a lot of disruption in RVR and led to significant drama involving several staffs, before he was banned again.
  • He then created another sock account (I don’t recall the name Edit: @The_Yellow_Topaz ), which lasted for several months, great length, without being discovered. His behavior remained the same, with a consistently bad temper, and once he was eventually found out, he was banned again.

I can provide examples of his past posts and actions if needed, though it may take me a few hours to gather everything @StrymULTRA was involved in his last sock discovery if my memory serves me right.
 
Last edited:
Their actions across time have been really, really shitty. I want to note that first.

That said, I am fine with their appeal being approved. I think their punishment has been carried fairly and I think a chance to come back and not **** it up is due enough.
 
Maybe I'm just a bit jaded from being freshly burned for my attempt at middle ground leniency with Vzearr, but at the moment someone throwing toxic garbage at a staff member and lying that they're better while making sock puppets isn't something I feel super inclined to forgive. Staff don't have to deal with that treatment, and I regret not supporting harsher treatment of Vzearr when he treated Bambu the way he did. Bambu shouldn't have had to deal with that garbage, I'm deeply sorry to him for not supporting him as strongly as I should have, and neither should AKM.

I currently lean towards keeping this person banned, although I admit I'm feeling far more defensive of the staff than lenient at the moment. Given how long ago it was, I am at least open to hearing arguments on this.
 
Last edited:
Reiner04 said:
  • He was initially banned for posting a very long and insulting rant directed at AKM.
  • After that, he created a sock account named Tiokill. He consistently showed a bad temper and appeared in RVR multiple times. Once the account was discovered to be a sock, it caused a lot of disruption in RVR and led to significant drama involving several staffs, before he was banned again.
  • He then created another sock account (I don’t recall the name Edit: @The_Yellow_Topaz ), which lasted for several months, great length, without being discovered. His behavior remained the same, with a consistently bad temper, and once he was eventually found out, he was banned again.

I can provide examples of his past posts and actions if needed, though it may take me a few hours to gather everything @StrymULTRA was involved in his last sock discovery if my memory serves me right.
Click to expand...
Arceus0x said:
Can anyone just ping Strym? He's been the one keeping track of everything so far regarding the issue.
Click to expand...
Did long ago.
 
Reiner04 said:
I can provide examples of his past posts and actions if needed, though it may take me a few hours to gather everything @StrymULTRA was involved in his last sock discovery if my memory serves me right.
Click to expand...
Yeah... however he definitely is with spiteful ill intent. I already did talk with @DarkDragonMedeus, and the guy's claims to have changed are just bullshit.

His last appeal was in April 30, 2025, however after that he did do some things that don't quite tell that he's changed. If anyone knows Charmander, it's pretty notable that he is pretty "passionate" regarding Undertale and Deltarune, verses where in both his main account and all of his socks (@TioKill, @Sans015 and @The_Yellow_Topaz) he was really, really adamant in argiung against them being high-tiered, and had multiple headbutts with me in all of these accounts ever since 2022.

So I decided to look around, and I discovered that he's the administrator of a portuguese powerscaling wiki, where he made some blogs that pretty much scream "wow I really really hate this guy for his Undertale takes":
Now, I know that these all sounds like a large poisoning the well, but the following screenshots kinda do tell me that this stuff is deliberate and wanting to pretty much target me across threads just to get rid of my "Undertale wank" in last September:
QmlaXrd.png


KX1EpyA.png


7v6qG8y.png


This also doesn't help given that he's pretty much admitted to stalk me on the verse and even tried to use staff as proxies for his downgrades (here and here).

So what is exactly good with taking him back? Just so we get flames and heated discussions that were the thing that led him to be banned even back then? You all are just getting manipulated from this guy, he's definitely deliberate and malicious, especially towards me.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
Maybe I'm just a bit jaded from being freshly burned for my attempt at middle ground leniency with Vzearr, but at the moment someone throwing toxic garbage at a staff member and lying that they're better while making sock puppets isn't something I feel super inclined to forgive. Staff don't have to deal with that treatment, and I regret not calling for harsher treatment of Vzearr when he treated Bambu the way he did. Bambu shouldn't have had to deal with that garbage, I'm deeply sorry to him for not supporting him as strongly and completely as I should have, and neither should AKM.

I currently lean towards keeping this person banned, although I admit I'm feeling far more defensive of the staff than lenient at the moment. Given how long ago it was, I am at least open to hearing arguments on this.
Click to expand...
While we do not agree, your reasoning is duly appreciated. I mean that sincerely, though text may be inadequate to properly show that.

That said, I do believe in growth. GodlyCharmander crashed out and was banned years ago. His last incident with a sockpuppet was over a year ago-- which sucked, but I'm still inclined to offer a final chance here.

StrymULTRA said:
Yeah... however he definitely is with spiteful ill intent. I already did talk with @DarkDragonMedeus, and the guy's claims to have changed are just bullshit.

His last appeal was in April 30, 2025, however after that he did do some things that don't quite tell that he's changed. If anyone knows Charmander, it's pretty notable that he is pretty "passionate" regarding Undertale and Deltarune, verses where in both his main account and all of his socks (@TioKill, @Sans015 and @The_Yellow_Topaz) he was really, really adamant in argiung against them being high-tiered, and had multiple headbutts with me in all of these accounts ever since 2022.

So I decided to look around, and I discovered that he's the administrator of a portuguese powerscaling wiki, where he made some blogs that pretty much scream "wow I really really hate this guy for his Undertale takes":
Now, I know that these all sounds like a large poisoning the well, but the following screenshots kinda do tell me that this stuff is deliberate and wanting to pretty much target me across threads just to get rid of my "Undertale wank" in last September:
QmlaXrd.png


KX1EpyA.png


7v6qG8y.png


This also doesn't help given that he's pretty much admitted to stalk me on the verse and even tried to use staff as proxies for his downgrades (here and here).

So what is exactly good with taking him back? Just so we get flames and heated discussions that were the thing that led him to be banned even back then? You all are just getting manipulated from this guy, he's definitely deliberate and malicious, especially towards me.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Strym, the same question would have applied to you. You've been on the burner for flames and heated discussions as well. It falls to us to weigh whether and when to forgive someone for their errors.

That said, I will admit I find this casts doubt on his expressed change, though even these screenshots seem to be old (the only dated one is from six months ago, you seem to imply they're all from about then). Still, it isn't against the rules to want to change a verse you believe is incorrect, even to want to do so passionately.

It's more tentative, but I'd still be in favor of a last chance.
 
Last edited:
Those posts do say he won't make another sock puppet, and I don't know if we should assume his asking Agnaa to join Discord with him is some kind of conspiracy.

He's also completely allowed to disagree with someone on a verse and to dislike revisions made to it.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu said:
While we do not agree, your reasoning is duly appreciated. I mean that sincerely, though text may be inadequate to properly show that.

That said, I do believe in growth. GodlyCharmander crashed out and was banned years ago. His last incident with a sockpuppet was over a year ago-- which sucked, but I'm still inclined to offer a final chance here.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do see and appreciate the difference that is made by timing and severity. The last offense was a year ago, the rant was years ago, and even the post against them contains a promise not to make more socks which seems at a glance to have been kept. I also agree that Strym's post seems to mostly revolve around their disagreements on Undertale, and to be honest that post makes me more inclined to support a second chance rather than less.

I do admit to a harsher mood at the moment as I am currently annoyed at myself for not standing up for you as much as I should have. Given the context, I guess I'll have to be neutral on this one at the moment.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
With all due respect, Strym, the same question would have applied to you. You've been on the burner for flames and heated discussions as well. It falls to us to weigh whether and when to forgive someone for their errors.
Click to expand...
I literally was not reported from over a year here. Last time I got that was in late 2024 over a Smash Bros CRT lol.
Mr. Bambu said:
That said, I will admit I find this cast doubt on his expressed change, though even these screenshots seem to be old (the only dated one is from six months ago, you seem to imply they're all from about then). Still, it isn't against the rules to want to change a verse you believe is incorrect, even to want to do so passionately.
Click to expand...
If you want more recent ones, here are others showing this kind of obsession even going to last January:
UfGMGJj.png

It's not a matter of him wanting to change stats, it's a matter of him still having that bitterness he had against me back then, and not really having changed,
 
StrymULTRA said:
UfGMGJj.png

It's not a matter of him wanting to change stats, it's a matter of him still having that bitterness he had against me back then, and not really having changed,
Click to expand...
We don't accept toxicity, but disliking fellow members is not a rule violation. This post just shows a desire to come back and make changes to a verse.

I'm sorry, I just don't see this as a rule violation.
 
StrymULTRA said:
I literally was not reported from over a year here. Last time I got that was in late 2024 over a Smash Bros CRT lol.

If you want more recent ones, here are others showing this kind of obsession even going to last January:
UfGMGJj.png

It's not a matter of him wanting to change stats, it's a matter of him still having that bitterness he had against me back then, and not really having changed,
Click to expand...
My point exactly, actually. The leopard can change his shorts. You, specifically, were reported many, many, many times for causing problems, and yet, here you stand. Why not GodlyCharmander? Why not give the least bit of a try? That is my feeling on it, anyways, after so long being banned.

Most of his screenshots don't mention you, and like. Even if they did, you are the one largely responsible for the statistics of the verse, no? It would be no different than someone suggesting discussing something like Discworld with me. That doesn't strike me as "obsession", any more than any supporter of a verse is obsessed.

Editing to add that unless there is something more substantive to add about the case, then I ask non-staff members to refrain from posting so other staff may hand over their judgment.
 
What I mean was more in the lines of "did the guy really change" because to me it reads to still be the exact same person that was years ago.

I'll leave the rest of the staff to decide, though, as I know that I do not have much power, but only wanted to give some context.
 
Alright, in full context...

I don't find Strym's posts particularly compelling. The focus is on their disagreements over a verse and the posts read as that being their main priority. I'm sorry Strym, this reads as a personal disagreement over a verse's stats, not as the vile behaviour you seem to think it is.

The last sock was a year ago and the user says in a separate discussion that they won't make more, a promise they seem to have kept.

AKM, the aggrieved staff member, is not bothered by the rant against him at all, and as such is not put out by this. This is supported by the fact that the initial ban for it wasn't permanent.

With this context given, I think I might support a second chance, with the provision that good behaviour is observed.
 
Last edited:
I would appreciate a link to the discussion in which GodlyCharmander was originally given their ban. It might not say much so far down the line, but I don't remember the case well and I'd like more than a brief summary if I am going to evaluate an appeal.
 
GrathOfLux said:
I would appreciate a link to the discussion in which GodlyCharmander was originally given their ban. It might not say much so far down the line, but I don't remember the case well and I'd like more than a brief summary if I am going to evaluate an appeal.
Click to expand...
Here is everything:
vsbattles.com

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

UeTa also repeatedly made "threats" of some sort against the wiki, like the following. She was also active in a server I'm in, where she said this. Things like this should 100% not be acceptable, and I don't see any reason to bring her back Edit: Plus, she'd already planned to return with like...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
StrymULTRA said:
Here is everything:
vsbattles.com

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

UeTa also repeatedly made "threats" of some sort against the wiki, like the following. She was also active in a server I'm in, where she said this. Things like this should 100% not be acceptable, and I don't see any reason to bring her back Edit: Plus, she'd already planned to return with like...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, that is the discussion in which one of GodlyCharmander's sockpuppet accounts was banned, not the discussion in which they were originally given their ban.
 
GrathOfLux said:
As far as I can tell, that is the discussion in which one of GodlyCharmander's sockpuppet accounts was banned, not the discussion in which they were originally given their ban.
Click to expand...
Godlycharmander was initially banned for this rant towards AKM, i haven't looked at it again but if my memory serves me right then he was banned for a year. I even remember it was after one dragonball thread that AKM reopened right after it was closed due to sufficient staff approval because he disagreed with the results of it, that led to rejection of that thread which it seems didn't fit well with charmandar. In all of his socks he has been consistently toxic and agressive. If needed, i can likely get other RVR related activities related to his socks.
 
GodlyCharmander was banned for good reason, as I can see, and the several sockpuppet accounts that themselves ended up in the RVRT make it hard to see their case positively. That said, this was all a long time ago. The substantive point of the matter should be whether or not GodlyCharmander has changed enough in this time to not create the same problems here they once did.

The particular message shown above where they singled out Strym back in September 2025 does make me think that they harbour some resentment that I would really rather not bring to the forum. But then, this too was a fair while ago now, and most of the rest of the evidence presented only really tells me that they have strong opinions on the indexing of a verse, not that they will violate our rules in seeking to revise it.

On the other side of the coin, there isn't any specific evidence that has been presented to suggest GodlyCharmander has substantially changed. All that has been brought up in this regard is the appeal message, in which they have stated a few things - that they apologise, that their life has gone in a different direction, and that they haven't checked the site in 8 months. This isn't much, but I wouldn't discard it.

So the evidence for this case right now is quite sparse, and it is hard to answer the above substantive point with any degree of confidence. But I would rather keeping a ban on hold like this was based on strong evidence, rather than putting the obligation on the other side. Knowing what I do, I'd rather allow GodlyCharmander back onto the forum. If issues arise, which we needn't assume they would, we have this thread to handle it.
 
Arceus0x said:
Considering their messages about Strym's revisions in January and earlier, wouldn't this mean that that's a blatant lie though? You wouldn't know about the changes on VSBW without visiting it and if he visited it then the appeal message already contains a lie.
Click to expand...
True. I could write this off as just rounding if there were only the earlier messages, but if Strym is correct that this message screenshotted was typed in January this year, then I'd be inclined to think they have checked the website in the past few months. It's a minor thing, but does call into question why they would have said as much in their appeal message.
 
GrathOfLux said:
True. I could write this off as just rounding if there were only the earlier messages, but if Strym is correct that this message screenshotted was typed in January this year, then I'd be inclined to think they have checked the website in the past few months. It's a minor thing, but does call into question why they would have said as much in their appeal message.
Click to expand...
See, this is my issue here.

It would be one thing if they didn't interact with the community for a long while and then got unbanned, but they've made repeated sockpuppets even recently and proceed to seemingly lie on the very appeal that's supposed to unban them.
They may have the right to want to change something on the wiki but it's another to break several rules just to fight people over undertale.
Please consider that every sockpuppet (iirc) that Charmander made so far broke rules by attacking people.
This is an adult person, change takes time for adults and as we've seen with the likes of Weekly, sometimes it just doesn't happen.
This isn't a teenager that can switch their worldview in a few months time simply by growing up a little, this is someone established and someone who has established with their actions that they will break rules and be rude to attack a single verse that they seem to be obsessed with.
If even their ban appeal contains a lie then why should this person be allowed back?
We aren't a cartoon mickey mouse clubhouse, the wiki gives permabans for a reason - they're permanent. It really weirds me out how recently people've been trying to be lenient with users who clearly didn't care about the rules. Is Vzearr shooting himself in the foot like 100 times not enough evidence that this shouldn't be practiced?

I just genuienly don't see how this would benefit anyone. I'll tell you what it will lead to though. Charmander gets unbanned, they spam big UT revisions, they get into a fight with the supporters, they get warned, they do it again, they get warned, they do it again, they get warned because of excessive leniency, they get warned again and finally get banned after several more fights and mental resources wasted. Oh, and don't forget that there'll be another sockpuppet a few months later that will repeat that process til people figure out it's Charmander.
 
I'm mostly neutral toward this case, though if AKM is not bothered by it, and Charmander is allowed to have his ban lift then i just recommend putting him under strict observation

Arceus0x said:
Considering their messages about Strym's revisions in January and earlier, wouldn't this mean that that's a blatant lie though? You wouldn't know about the changes on VSBW without visiting it and if he visited it then the appeal message already contains a lie.
Click to expand...
About his lastest discord comment, i can't say anything about it since it lack context idk, but i will just point out in general that everyone having bias, we can't stop that and can't police people over it, and even if they was bias, if they raises correct issues that need to be addressed, then we can't do anything other than addressing them.

Go back to Charmander case, the screenshot hardly tell me anything since he wrote one single line about "can't let A verse in X state", so i'm on Random Helper side that the screenshot amount to nothing substantial. Of course Strym or anyone else are free to provide more context and evidence, if they can prove that dude have malicious intents and want to damage the verse or anything similar upon his return then as i had
said this before (forgot my own post bruhh, somewhere in previous pages talking about banning people over planning CRT) i agree with keeping the guy out of the site

Arceus0x said:
See, this is my issue here.

It would be one thing if they didn't interact with the community for a long while and then got unbanned, but they've made repeated sockpuppets even recently and proceed to seemingly lie on the very appeal that's supposed to unban them.
They may have the right to want to change something on the wiki but it's another to break several rules just to fight people over undertale.
Please consider that every sockpuppet (iirc) that Charmander made so far broke rules by attacking people.
This is an adult person, change takes time for adults and as we've seen with the likes of Weekly, sometimes it just doesn't happen.
This isn't a teenager that can switch their worldview in a few months time simply by growing up a little, this is someone established and someone who has established with their actions that they will break rules and be rude to attack a single verse that they seem to be obsessed with.
If even their ban appeal contains a lie then why should this person be allowed back?
We aren't a cartoon mickey mouse clubhouse, the wiki gives permabans for a reason - they're permanent. It really weirds me out how recently people've been trying to be lenient with users who clearly didn't care about the rules. Is Vzearr shooting himself in the foot like 100 times not enough evidence that this shouldn't be practiced?

I just genuienly don't see how this would benefit anyone. I'll tell you what it will lead to though. Charmander gets unbanned, they spam big UT revisions, they get into a fight with the supporters, they get warned, they do it again, they get warned, they do it again, they get warned because of excessive leniency, they get warned again and finally get banned after several more fights and mental resources wasted. Oh, and don't forget that there'll be another sockpuppet a few months later that will repeat that process til people figure out it's Charmander.
Click to expand...
As i have said in this post, if he come back, i recommend to put him under strict observation, if he actually improving, we can loosen our restrains over him over time, but if he do not change and one rule violation, i propose instant ban

Currently on phone and in the middle of work so my post isn't best, forgive me everyone
 
Arceus0x said:
It would be one thing if they didn't interact with the community for a long while and then got unbanned, but they've made repeated sockpuppets even recently and proceed to seemingly lie on the very appeal that's supposed to unban them.
Click to expand...
The last time that occurred, at least according to what I've seen referenced on this thread, was quite a while ago.
Arceus0x said:
Please consider that every sockpuppet (iirc) that Charmander made so far broke rules by attacking people.
This is an adult person, change takes time for adults and as we've seen with the likes of Weekly, sometimes it just doesn't happen.
This isn't a teenager that can switch their worldview in a few months time simply by growing up a little, this is someone established and someone who has established with their actions that they will break rules and be rude to attack a single verse that they seem to be obsessed with.
Click to expand...
Change does take time, yes. That's why this is only being brought up now, down the line.
Arceus0x said:
If even their ban appeal contains a lie then why should this person be allowed back?
Click to expand...
To be clear, their exact wording was:
I haven't really checked the site in over 8 months atp.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably factually incorrect, if what we know from the above matters stands. It leads me to bode poorly on the nature of the appeal, but this is a tangent to the matter. There are numerous explanations you can concoct for why this happened, some of which are more denigrating to the appeal than others. It doesn't prove that GodlyCharmander will violate our rules if they return to the site.
Arceus0x said:
I just genuienly don't see how this would benefit anyone. I'll tell you what it will lead to though. Charmander gets unbanned, they spam big UT revisions, they get into a fight with the supporters, they get warned, they do it again, they get warned, they do it again, they get warned because of excessive leniency, they get warned again and finally get banned after several more fights and mental resources wasted. Oh, and don't forget that there'll be another sockpuppet a few months later that will repeat that process til people figure out it's Charmander.
Click to expand...
This is extremely pessimistic, and I think you're asserting this string of events will occur because Vzearr's case is fresh in your mind, not because of a fair evaluation of the evidence.

To reiterate my previous point - I find the appeal message questionable per the above matter, but I neither think there is strong evidence going for or against GodlyCharmander in this case. Whether this is a good reason to keep them banned, or whether it is a good reason to release their ban, is debatable and rather philosophical. But just as someone trying to make this community a good one, I would personally rather not shut people out on the basis of long bygones.
 
I would like to ask if this thread could be supervised, as it is getting more toxic by the second.

vsbattles.com

Ayanokouji Full Strength Contextualized

I finally fixed the full scaling chain and the statement below will be used as the benchmark statement for my entire premise that the verse is mainly separated by experience, and that Ayanokouji is not physically superior to every single character, he is only more skilled, smarter with better...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
XxZetsuxX said:
I would like to ask if this thread could be supervised, as it is getting more toxic by the second.

vsbattles.com

Ayanokouji Full Strength Contextualized

I finally fixed the full scaling chain and the statement below will be used as the benchmark statement for my entire premise that the verse is mainly separated by experience, and that Ayanokouji is not physically superior to every single character, he is only more skilled, smarter with better...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
Click to expand...
Left a comment.
 
Just a note that the phrase "I haven't really checked the site in 8 months" should probably not be taken as anything beyond that Charmander has only sporadically visited here for 8 months. 🙏
 
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