• 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.
GrathOfLux
Reaction score
6,680

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Limiting thread evaluations presently - please only contact for CRTs if you do not receive input within a reasonable timeframe. Contact me anytime in DMs for HR reports or other urgent matters. I may be able to respond to general questions with a delay.
    Can u plz give ur input, on my crt it's just revamp profile revision and a speed addon
    Plz send help.
    1115267431917703188.gif
    Okay, first I apologize for the use of the word "lame" since as I mentioned I am not the best with the use of English terms since it is not my primary language.

    So answer me what I questioned you on, where did I even say I didn't read the thread.
    • Like
    Reactions: GrathOfLux
    Dereck03
    Dereck03
    Okay, thanks for the response and for accepting the apology, regarding this.
    This was after having been repeatedly questioned on whether you had read the blog, giving an evasive answer each time. Being directly asked on how much of the evidence you had read, including whether you had read the blog, and stating the clear list of what you had read (without the blog being included in your list) is an admission that, at that point in time, you had not read the blog. The actively evasive phrasing does not change this fact.
    Reading the OP, means reading all the proposed evidence, I know that there are many staffs who simply agree sometimes just skim reading, but I am not one of them as I take my evaluation role very seriously and it shows in the amount of people daily asking for my evaluation. It is not an evasive answer as for me, my answer was very concrete, and I myself clarified having read the blog in this thread, same information + scans. I hope this clarifies that I did read everything that was proposed.

    And I wanted to denote that simply agreeing with someone else's argument does not invalidate your vote, which is what is happening in this thread.

    I believe it is a necessity for our wiki to function to its best capacity that staff members with evaluation rights give content revision threads adequate consideration, and I do not believe adequacy was demonstrated here.
    Here I do not agree, I am not perfect, but when you have those 2 questioning the validation of my votes every time is annoying, I gave many advices to stop, because not only to me, but to the votes of maverick and dalesan. And maybe you know this but I used to be just a Content Moderator and even then I was asked for a lot of evaluations on a daily basis and I did it and still had too many people questioning and invalidating my vote until I hit rock bottom here and decided to stop giving evaluations, so I get a thorn every time someone tries to invalidate my vote with nonsense excuses and obviously I will never insult them or anything, I will simply ask them to stop because it is annoying.

    To sum it up, the accusation made that I did not read the thread, evidence, blog and all was baseless as I came from the same thread where the blog was accepted and took the time to read all the evidence.
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    I myself clarified having read the blog in this thread, same information + scans. I hope this clarifies that I did read everything that was proposed.
    Very well, then. Evidently, this was a misunderstanding. I apologise for any needless stress.
    Dereck03
    Dereck03
    Okay, no problem and again I apologize for saying "lame" to you, it was just a misuse of words + stress by seeing too much criticalism towards me.
    Baw, could ya evaluate this?

    can you evaluate this thread
    If you don't mind, can you check these?
    Hey Grath. I was wondering if I could be exempt similarly to Zefra for the new TR ruling? I was never reported of being a sockpuppet and would like to say I'm quite productive in CRTs and fair in debates.
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    I will consider it. At this point in time, I would rather make as few exceptions to this rule as possible.
    Dinozxd
    Dinozxd
    Does the time and post requirement cover old supporters of the verse as well though? I was proven that I wasn't be a sockpuppet before in the RVR. I am also quite helpful in threads and don't get aggressive on them at all (I never got reported for hostility before) so I don't understand why a rule that is going to be made for problematic users and sockpuppets should cover me. I'll leave the decision to you though.
    Hello, when you can, could you check this crt?
    Hello darkgrath, sorry for bothering you, but would you mind commenting on this thread? It's a fairly minor revision.
    Hello Dark, can you please allow me post on the Tokyo Revengers deletion thread, or atleast let me type what I want to write there here? It's kinda important.
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    Could you elaborate on what you would like to write? You don't need to spell it out verbatim, but I want to at least know what point you'd like to make.
    MorrisHatesYou
    MorrisHatesYou
    I think it's better to write to you here since my messages probably won't get ignored like every other time.

    The problem isn't with the current supporters but rather user/users who repeadetly make alternative accounts.

    I will address the common beliefs about the supporters which isn't just true.

    Dalesean said that the supporters are making an upgrade thread within less than an hour after the relevant feats are already calculated and concluded and making a thread about other rejected feats after that.
    Some staff members and wiki bluenames automatically see the TR fans as the "bad guys" due to this whilst not knowing anything.

    Dalesean's point about making threads for rejected feats after that is not true at all, except for one feat, which is Chifuyu dodging a point blank baseball bat (the calc itself is good, but it is considered an outlier), but the supporters aren't really in the wrong there, which I will explain.

    There were calculations that broke the rules and just doesn't make sense before, the calcs that uses 34.3m/s as speed of projectile in projectile dodging feats and Takemichi dodging Mikey's kick that got him bazillion times faster than Mikey. No one made threads about these feats after they were removed, no one.

    The reason why I created an upgrade thread after the staff thread got concluded?


    I intentionally created the upgrade thread after the staff thread got concluded, which I will explain my reasoning for doing so.

    This thread is dedicated to remove some feats, Zefra joined in and suggested to remove the Izana's bullet feat. Here he knows nothing about the context of the feat, I provided the entire context which he didn't know about beforehand, the feat is about Izana body moving on its own to save his friend from bullets, I explained why the gunshot is the trigger for his movement, he said that it was Kisaki saying "Die", I explained to him why it blatantly just doesn't make any sense, he just said that the feat isn't for the CRT even though he brought it up, without being able to disprove my points.

    He brought the context I came up with and twisting the trigger in his favour in the staff thread, he didn't even put out my arguments which he can't refute.

    Only for my reasoning to be accepted one a more trusted supporter than me, @Arnoldstone18 brought up my exact points in the new thread I made.

    If I made the Chifuyu calculation before, I'm afraid that things will go like the Izana feat again.

    Why did I include the Chifuyu feat in the new thread I made?

    The reason why I included the Chifuyu feat in the new thread because some of our arguments were never addressed in the previous thread and the thread got accepted by DDM (the value got accepted by him, not the multiplier), with no other admin or thread mod rejection.

    The feat got rejected only because Chifuyu calls Kojiro "fast".
    (Acording to the new calculation rule when when a character dodges an attack from another character who is comparable to himself/herself/themselves, and the calculation results in the character dodging the attack being several faster than the character who attacks, the feat should be deemed invalid.)

    Kojiro is the attacker and Chifuyu is the dodger in this feat.

    I explained why you can compliment someone's stats without necessarily them being comparable to you, via surpassing perceived expectations.
    And Kojiro guy got one-shot by someone comparable to Chifuyu.


    I brought up these points again since they really weren't addressed, and if you look at the previous thread, we were arguing for Kojiro not being comparable with Chifuyu.
    But in the new thread Dalesean was claiming that we were arguing for Chifuyu and Kojiro being comparable, like wtf?
    And they still weren't addressed.

    Another point which got commonly brought up: Arguing excessively with CGMs.

    As for excessively arguing with CGMs, that isn't true, atleast for me @CorbinMLG @DekuGlazer and @Arnoldstone18
    You can look at all of my blog posts, the only time me and other supporters debated with CGMs for a long time is a blog named "Kakucho blitzes Angry", and that is due to us not knowing the rules about using 34.3m/s in calculations, the other blogs doesn't cause much debates.
    You'll see me debating a with Dalesean on forums, but it's never about calculations but about TR.

    So, in conclusion,

    1) The common belief that the supporters excessively argue with CGMs is wrong, atleast for me and the people I just tagged.

    2) The reason why I made an upgrade thread only after the staff thread got concluded is because I'm afraid things might get twisted up like the Izana feat.

    3) The only time I brought up a rejected feat is Chifuyu's feat because our arguments weren't addressed and no thread mods or admins rejected the feat, the value from the feat was even accepted by DDM, we brought up the feat in the thread again but the arguments were still ignored.



    Also, I don't know if this happens to other verses, but arguments from the regular supporters aren't listened for Tokyo Revengers and the more trusted users' arguments, even if they're not that good, are listened.

    The examples will be the
    1) Izana bullet dodging feat, if you look at the other justification, it just doesn't make sense in the slightest, it goes against how mangas are written, but was easily accepted.
    I explained why it's projectile dodging for 5 TIMES (5 TIMES), and only was accepted when @Arnoldstone18 repeated the same thing I said.

    2) In this thread, the OP attempted to use 2x multiplier on Dark Impulses Mikey, it was automatically agreed by 2 CGMs, even though there are no evidences of that stated multiplier, but luckily CloverDragon was reasonable so it didn't go like that.

    3) Our reasonings about Kojiro not being comparable to Chifuyu/Baju/Ryusei is never addressed even when though I brought up that point in the thread itself. Kojiro dude is weaker than someone who is known for how weak he is. The guy can hardly defeat 10 gangsters, which results him to high exhaustion, heavy panting and bleeding. The other guy can defeat 40 gang members with low difficulty. But somehow they're comparable only because the other guy complimented him once.

    I personally think freezing the verse isn't bad for this reason since the reputation will be set to default.
    Nothing is gonna help when I made arguments just to be ignored and other users who are more trusted makes bad arguments which will be accepted.
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    I'm sorry to say this after such an extensive post, but I don't believe this will be helpful for the discussion. We're not concerned with these particular instances you are referring to. We're concerned with how we can broadly address the frequent reports made regarding the verse in the RVR while continuing to facilitate productive discussions and quality indexing for the verse. This doesn't help us with that goal.

    Need some input here if possible.

    Please Rate
    Do you mind checking my response out when you have time?
    Dinozxd
    Dinozxd
    Ah, that's a relief. Thanks for trying to solve this problem equally and respecting us.
    Dinozxd
    Dinozxd
    Hey Grath. My apoligies for disturbing you once again. Dereck gave his approval about the Fear Inducement and Limited Durability Negation stuff but he still disagrees with the Paralysis Inducement which you have your approval on. Do you mind stopping by once again and re-evaluate that? It would be greatly appreciated.
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    I'll take a look.

    can this thread be reopen?
    1. it didnt even reach the disagreement limit to be closed and
    2. I had a grandtotal of 10 minutes to create a counterargument before closure, which is not enough
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    Out of respect to your case, I've decided to take a thorough look through the thread, including the scene in which the feat occurs and your arguments regarding it.

    Nothing about this is tier 1. Even if we take the scene itself as valid canonicity, filing a bug report to ask the developer to make a new ending is manifestly just a 4th wall break. We don't scale characters off of scenes like this, and this was clearly established on the thread itself. Unless you have genuinely novel input to provide regarding the feat, I would suggest this topic is dropped.
    BasedNecoScaler69
    BasedNecoScaler69
    DarkGrath
    Out of respect to your case, I've decided to take a thorough look through the thread, including the scene in which the feat occurs and your arguments regarding it.

    Nothing about this is tier 1. Even if we take the scene itself as valid canonicity, filing a bug report to ask the developer to make a new ending is manifestly just a 4th wall break. We don't scale characters off of scenes like this, and this was clearly established on the thread itself. Unless you have genuinely novel input to provide regarding the feat, I would suggest this topic is dropped.
    valid concern, except there is no developer-like character in Ciel-sensei. Neco arc says "I" have to get this patched stat. Developers can file their own bug reports that they encounter to fix later. Ciel even says if you want to make a choice that leans towards arcueid, thats fine, but i cant guarantee what happens to the town afterward. Neco instantly goes to try and choose arcueid, implying no gap of time at all.
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    With all due respect, my message wall is not a debate platform. My investigation of the thread, the sources, and the arguments for and against the change were not done with the intention to continue this debate here - it was to express the fact that I will not be reopening the thread, as it was closed for manifestly valid reasons.

    If you believe that there is genuinely more to discuss, and that there are novel arguments which were not made on the original thread, you are allowed to make a new thread to express these arguments. Making multiple threads on the same refuted topic can constitute a rule violation, but this is almost exclusively enforced in cases of users essentially quoting their last arguments verbatim - if you have new information to provide that wasn't on the original thread, no trouble of this sort should occur.
    Umm, i told him about his unban report and he said he can do conversation if we do a gc, like u me and you here my
    discord :- twilight_op

    Plz send me req so that I can add u to gc ?
    If u can do this it would be great help
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    Understood. I have sent you a friend request on Discord.
    Hi hi,

    may I have permission to repost what was deleted in the TR deletion thread
    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    Yes, you may. Do be sure to note that I gave you permission to avoid further confusion.
    You are a good person who seems nice, although you think I'm a sockpuppet I hope you keep up what you're doing, best person on this wiki by far, Idc if I'm banned if all the staff agree but I just wanted to remind you that you're a great person who is reasonable and that you should keep up the good work.

    can you take a look?
    Hı can you take a look ?


    Sorry for distributing. Can I get your input in this thread. Appreciated 🙏.
    Hello, can you take a look at it in your free time?

    GrathOfLux
    GrathOfLux
    It's generally easier to get a thread looked at sooner if there is less to evaluate. A large wall of text is not only something that can take a while to evaluate, but someone who is asked to evaluate it would be more likely to put it on the backlog to deal with shorter threads first.

    That being said, there's no obligation to change anything at this point.
    TheDarkTriadz
    TheDarkTriadz
    You're a hero 🙏
    TheDarkTriadz
    TheDarkTriadz
    Hey, replied to your reply, take your time replying, just wanted to tell you, sorry
    Could you take a look at this
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Back
Top