- 177,299
- 90,179
- Thread starter
- #33,641
Okay. I may have misunderstood earlier then. My apologies about that.
-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 7,780
- 11,569
I can accept that, and I pointed this out earlier (but maybe in another thread).
I think clearly something isn't working here, but maybe you're right and it's the verse itself that's still problematic for our community, and we're putting too much blame on you specifically.
At the bare minimum you should be warned for your behavior, but I guess I'm still not really certain what to do about TR and the people participating in it.
So for lack of confidence, I'll just move to neutral on a topic ban or verse restriction for now.
- 14,998
- 10,336
@LostLightt is behaving very poorly in this thread
vsbattles.com
Tokyo Revengers: Removing Anime Feats
Currently the verse has a problem, it uses anime only feats when it's only tertiary cannon Entirely new feats of tertiary canon, like for example new abilities, should be disregarded. Details added to existing fight scenes, such as damage caused to the surroundings, can be accepted for text...
- 345
- 11
it's like yall tryna piss me off, I aint say shi in that thread then yall started saying i was stonewalling THREE REPLIES INTO THE DEBATE@LostLightt is behaving very poorly in this thread
Tokyo Revengers: Removing Anime Feats
Currently the verse has a problem, it uses anime only feats when it's only tertiary cannon Entirely new feats of tertiary canon, like for example new abilities, should be disregarded. Details added to existing fight scenes, such as damage caused to the surroundings, can be accepted for text...
If I do sumthing wrong I can admit it, but yall should be banned from scalin tr if u finna act like ts
I aint even behaved poorly, I asked yall to provide proof and then got called disingenuous and a stonewaller, jit if I did sumthing wrong I'm the typa guy to admit to it
- 12,757
- 15,220
At this point I think staff should discuss about banning Tokyo Revengers as a whole.
It has caused too much trouble at this point, and we’re not desperate to have Tokyo Revengers on our wiki, it’s not that popular of a verse and the most important, it’s barely powerscaling related.
Deleting it from our wiki brings more benefits than leaving it the way it is.
It has caused too much trouble at this point, and we’re not desperate to have Tokyo Revengers on our wiki, it’s not that popular of a verse and the most important, it’s barely powerscaling related.
Deleting it from our wiki brings more benefits than leaving it the way it is.
- 6,235
- 5,717
Okay, as much as LostLightt is touchy and can be rude and pushy, others are clearly provoking him and then reporting him for getting angry at them.
I also don't see why this means TR should be banned. I do think the verse should be slowed down, as people are firing volleys of revisions. Vzearr made enough to give me instant verse fatigue in only a few days, and since then I've still been taking the lead on evaluating threads for the verse, so I know full well there's definitely been too much too fast. As frustrating as it's been though, I still don't see why it warrants banning.
I also don't see why this means TR should be banned. I do think the verse should be slowed down, as people are firing volleys of revisions. Vzearr made enough to give me instant verse fatigue in only a few days, and since then I've still been taking the lead on evaluating threads for the verse, so I know full well there's definitely been too much too fast. As frustrating as it's been though, I still don't see why it warrants banning.
- 345
- 11
is this admin allowed to do this when i was giving reasoning as to why we have to discuss the anime was canon, they just dismissed me nd banned me
Tokyo Revengers: Removing Anime Feats
btw none of the feats are contradicted, they're expanded on the fights, where r u getting a contradiction lol? If the feat was calc'd using just the manga, the results would be different. That's grounds enough to remove the anime version.
- 21,510
- 36,027
Dude you were asked several times to stop commenting and wait by staff and you kept doing so without following instructionsis this admin allowed to do this when i was giving reasoning as to why we have to discuss the anime was canon, they just dismissed me nd banned me
Tokyo Revengers: Removing Anime Feats
btw none of the feats are contradicted, they're expanded on the fights, where r u getting a contradiction lol? If the feat was calc'd using just the manga, the results would be different. That's grounds enough to remove the anime version.
- 345
- 11
but yall said i was derailing but i was debating and discussing the op.
Is ts real, like, can yall just stop regular members from debating an op?
- 13,826
- 19,638
If the debate becomes circular and all possible points have already been presented, then further replies only serve to derail the discussion and increase the workload for staff. In such cases, action is justified. It’s not just your replies that were removed, but many others as well, including those from staff. If you still have something to add without repeating the same points, make a single, comprehensive post that includes everything you want staff to consider rather than keep going on about same thing over and over again. You can’t continue an endless debate and expect staff to exhaust themselves on a single CRT when there are dozens others to evaluate. So if a staff member asks you to stop repeating points or making circular arguments or derailing, you should do so. If you still have additional points to raise, ask for permission and then present them in one clear post. Thats all one need to do and It’s not that difficult.
- 345
- 11
well i cant make a post cause the admin banned me, and u cant say it was going circular if the debate was like 3 replies long
- 345
- 11
?!
Why yall ignorin me like the thread finna not go through without a single opposition
yall know thats bs too
Why yall ignorin me like the thread finna not go through without a single opposition
yall know thats bs too
- 177,299
- 90,179
- Thread starter
- #33,653
A Fandom staff member gave the following reply to Butler:
"Hello,
Thank you for contacting Fandom Support. After some checks, we don't believe that these two accounts are related, as they don't share the same IP or emails.
Fandom Support"
"Hello,
Thank you for contacting Fandom Support. After some checks, we don't believe that these two accounts are related, as they don't share the same IP or emails.
Fandom Support"
- 5,030
- 4,047
If I may comment on this matter, I find it very unlikely that they are the same person, nor do I think that was the main concern.
The issue is that they may be a "proxy" for Veazer, something that is indicated by their behaviour, friendship, and obsession with TR.
(Now I won't say what I believe on this matter)
The issue is that they may be a "proxy" for Veazer, something that is indicated by their behaviour, friendship, and obsession with TR.
(Now I won't say what I believe on this matter)
- 13,826
- 19,638
I’m fine with banning TR if it’s causing this many issues and requires us to constantly spend ourselves dealing with RVT cases related to it.
- 6,235
- 5,717
It has been exhausting ever since it got unbanned, but in fairness most of the rule violation reports have been minor at most.
- 6,235
- 5,717
For whatever it's worth, my position on TR remains the same. I'd like them to slow down the number of threads so they're not catching up on years of threads in a few weeks, but I don't see a need to ban the verse entirely.
- 15,204
- 22,456
Tbh we should discuss about banning TR in another thread
- 12,483
- 16,845
100%
- 547
- 272
TBH, I don’t like it when Lightt gives answers like that. They come across as provocative or generally unfriendly, staff members are not excluded from this
- 345
- 11
not really if the main issue isn't only new people, but also old members being rude to new people and causeing problems
- 21,510
- 36,027
Get this man off my wall with ts man, actual delusion. Man is inventing random scenarios and coming at me with attitude for **** all of a reason. Only saw this because someone else told me to check my wall then I see this weird ass shit.
Not even gonna remotely entertain this
Delete this verse from the wiki. Why does it attatct these kinds of weirdos and why do we keep pandering to them and defending them. Dude should have got a ban the moment we found out he was parroting for Vzearr like genuinely
Not even gonna remotely entertain this
Delete this verse from the wiki. Why does it attatct these kinds of weirdos and why do we keep pandering to them and defending them. Dude should have got a ban the moment we found out he was parroting for Vzearr like genuinely
- 21,510
- 36,027
Brother I would rather never deal with this verse but whenever it comes back im always called to deal with it because I've always been the main CGM who had to for years since other won't touch it with a 100 foot pole. I truly would rather not care and I'm sitting here just chilling to see your coming with your own nightmare scenarios and delusions. Yes bro you're werid asfdont ever call me a weirdo again, waste yute
it's not a random scenario, appara u been tryna debunk ts verse to below gun level and ur acting like u aint tryna do it
I'm jst tryna get on neutral ground mate, accept it
and dont pmo and try to report my comment for calling u a waste yute when u called me a weirdo
- 21,510
- 36,027
You aren't asking basic questions you came to my wall with random accusations and then basically said to submit to you since you believe you're going to win some debate in an imaginary scenario that doesn't exist. Thats not question, its just weird.Repeat that
and aye i see ur friend m3x. Hop off it mate
Try calling me a weirdo for asking basic questions
- 12,757
- 15,220
Can someone thread ban this weirdo and delete his comments, please? And also ban him. He’s parroting for a permabanned user. Every comment he makes is annoying and he’s always mocking someone or annoying someone. Dude got reported like 3 times already in what, 4 days?
He’s not helpful, he hasn’t contributed anything. Why are we taking so long to do something?
He’s not helpful, he hasn’t contributed anything. Why are we taking so long to do something?
- 345
- 11
i said UR MAKING A THREAD, so we should discuss it to be on a neutral ground
U even admitted to wanting to make the thread, I got told it several times and seen it
- 345
- 11
stop callin me a weirdo and then we can have a discussion
- 6,547
- 6,297
You can restrict you profile, who can access it in privacy settings.
- 6,547
- 6,297
@LostLightt I already warned you previously, and it seems like you’re unwilling to cooperate with others.
Anyway, I’ll be deleting your post here and issuing you a warning not to post in RVT unless you’ve been told to do so.
Edit: butler ninj'd me
Anyway, I’ll be deleting your post here and issuing you a warning not to post in RVT unless you’ve been told to do so.
- 21,510
- 36,027
Thanks but that's hardly the problem here
- 2,601
- 5,149
Okay, sorry, but can we please stop cluttering this thread now and wait for other staff members to make their point?
LostLightt, I understand you're trying to defend yourself, but it would be better to focus on properly addressing the original report rather than replying to every comment under the sun, as that's only cluttering the discussion.
I'll be removing any further comments that don't meaningfully address the report or add relevant information, and I'll issue warnings as well.
I am currently too busy for this.
LostLightt, I understand you're trying to defend yourself, but it would be better to focus on properly addressing the original report rather than replying to every comment under the sun, as that's only cluttering the discussion.
I'll be removing any further comments that don't meaningfully address the report or add relevant information, and I'll issue warnings as well.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,029
- 29,524
I had aimed to not speak on TR again, since I had feuded with Vzearr over it so frequently. However, I will speak on this.
I find LostLight to be consistently aggressive towards others. To an extent, many people have shown elevated hostility towards him, but there are cracks in this particular defense. One of them is going to Dale's wall to aggress against him directly; this is not an agitated, unwise response. This is direct provocation. Mixed with the aggression shown over his remarkably short timeframe on the site, including many discussions on the RVRT up to this point, I find this damning. His response to Dale's directions to not contact him dig the hole deeper. He's framed it as rage baiting but he does this even when he approaches another user unprompted.
There is something to be said for those who have maligned him unfairly. This includes our staff above; the RVRT is one of the places where decorum ought to hold greater weight, and getting into outright childish namecalling on it is extremely out of form, and is even worse when done by a staff member. With that said, in this particular case, acknowledging that he went to a staff member's wall with the apparent intent to pick a fight, I think it can be at least somewhat forgiven.
I have two solutions to offer.
The first is a legitimate final warning. We have been terrible with final warnings in the past. We do not like the word "final". We have often given final warnings for toxicity, only for the user to go and be toxic again; we then say "well... it wasn't as bad... it's okay. one more warning." and that cycle can be allowed to repeat from there. This is not what I suggest. I suggest a warning that requires utter tameness. No fighting, no escalation. LostLightt would be expected to report users rather than verbally fight them back. If this is his "language", his language would have to change.
The second is a ban. I would not request a long ban for current offenses, perhaps 1-2 months. But I do not accept the defense of LostLightt as the victim of subtle aggression any longer, when he wields it even in direct hostility towards another user. If he were a victim, we would not expect him to seek out further conflict! He is a combatant.
I find LostLight to be consistently aggressive towards others. To an extent, many people have shown elevated hostility towards him, but there are cracks in this particular defense. One of them is going to Dale's wall to aggress against him directly; this is not an agitated, unwise response. This is direct provocation. Mixed with the aggression shown over his remarkably short timeframe on the site, including many discussions on the RVRT up to this point, I find this damning. His response to Dale's directions to not contact him dig the hole deeper. He's framed it as rage baiting but he does this even when he approaches another user unprompted.
There is something to be said for those who have maligned him unfairly. This includes our staff above; the RVRT is one of the places where decorum ought to hold greater weight, and getting into outright childish namecalling on it is extremely out of form, and is even worse when done by a staff member. With that said, in this particular case, acknowledging that he went to a staff member's wall with the apparent intent to pick a fight, I think it can be at least somewhat forgiven.
I have two solutions to offer.
The first is a legitimate final warning. We have been terrible with final warnings in the past. We do not like the word "final". We have often given final warnings for toxicity, only for the user to go and be toxic again; we then say "well... it wasn't as bad... it's okay. one more warning." and that cycle can be allowed to repeat from there. This is not what I suggest. I suggest a warning that requires utter tameness. No fighting, no escalation. LostLightt would be expected to report users rather than verbally fight them back. If this is his "language", his language would have to change.
The second is a ban. I would not request a long ban for current offenses, perhaps 1-2 months. But I do not accept the defense of LostLightt as the victim of subtle aggression any longer, when he wields it even in direct hostility towards another user. If he were a victim, we would not expect him to seek out further conflict! He is a combatant.
- 21,510
- 36,027
Put me for a ban because this is just completely nonsensical at this point especially for him to have made his account right after Vzearr was banned and dude has already been called out for parroting for said banned user. That alone should have been grounds for something imo but we were lenient still and here we are. I'm opting for the stricter punishment here personally
- 35,060
- 41,649
I think these comments are of incredibly poor taste, condescending and far too "anime-esque" as it were, and as such, I recommend that this gentleman be advised not to continue this kind of behavior further.
