• 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:
Good question. Would 3 months be sufficient?
Click to expand...
That seems extreme given how new they are and the fact they’re likely just grappling with how we do vs threads here. As long as someone directs them to proper instructions, even a week with possible extension based on what they do afterwards would be enough to gauge if they’re actively trying to improve
 
Make it something like 2 weeks.
People don't like being pinged for things they no longer have any interest in.
Unfollowing every single thread you've every posted in routinely the moment you lose interest in them is a far bigger ask than just not necroing old posts.
 
Which in turn means they're probably not interested in it anymore, especially if there's literally nothing on it in a year or two.
Best to leave the thread alone in that case, and make a new one if you're so interested ( if it's not a stomp/mismatch ).
 
Antvasima said:
Good question. Would 3 months be sufficient?
Click to expand...
That's probably a touch egregious for something benign as necro or stomp threads, it's an annoyance rather than something demanding intense action.

I'd say a month is warranted.
 
Pikaman said:
That seems extreme given how new they are and the fact they’re likely just grappling with how we do vs threads here. As long as someone directs them to proper instructions, even a week with possible extension based on what they do afterwards would be enough to gauge if they’re actively trying to improve
Click to expand...
Abstractions said:
That's probably a touch egregious for something benign as necro or stomp threads, it's an annoyance rather than something demanding intense action.

I'd say a month is warranted.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
We simply forbid a member from creating versus threads alternately even participating in them at all for a certain amount of time, and if they wantonly break the restriction, they receive a real ban instead.
Click to expand...
Just a reminder.
 
Antvasima said:
Just a reminder.
Click to expand...
I’m aware it is only a vs thread ban, but banning a very new member from making matches involving what is likely their favourite verse for 3 months simply because their first week of grappling with our system went poorly seems incredibly harsh and likely to simply deter them from being active on the wiki at all. A week long ban acts as both a warning shot, ample time for them to improve their vs thread etiquette, and a not overly long ban time that disproportionately punishes (somewhat) understandable, if not still poor, behaviour on the forum from a new member. If they persist after their ban expires, I’m of course happy with the concept of a longer time-out.
 
LIFE_OF_KING said:
Many powers in this profile were added without having a finished thread and discussion
Click to expand...
Crabwhale said:
Cloudyagami was banned last time for two weeks, in light of his many small infractions. It appears he has not shaped up in that time.

I recommend a one month block.
Click to expand...
I unfortunately have a hard time keeping track of which specific members that have added unreliable information to our Tokyo Revengers pages, so I would appreciate if others are willing to investigate please, and preferably organise revisions to clean up the verse in question afterwards.
 
Pikaman said:
I’m aware it is only a vs thread ban, but banning a very new member from making matches involving what is likely their favourite verse for 3 months simply because their first week of grappling with our system went poorly seems incredibly harsh and likely to simply deter them from being active on the wiki at all. A week long ban acts as both a warning shot, ample time for them to improve their vs thread etiquette, and a not overly long ban time that disproportionately punishes (somewhat) understandable, if not still poor, behaviour on the forum from a new member. If they persist after their ban expires, I’m of course happy with the concept of a longer time-out.
Click to expand...
Okay. Maybe two weeks would be enough then.
 
Antvasima said:
I unfortunately have a hard time keeping track of which specific members that have added unreliable information to our Tokyo Revengers pages, so I would appreciate if others are willing to investigate please, and preferably organise revisions to clean up the verse in question afterwards.
Click to expand...
The edits are by a guy named "Steezstifler", and honestly I have a hard time thinking they're malicious. Most of them seem to come from a place of genuine knowledge of the verse, and the only problem is that it is done without any CRT or consultation.

I'll drop the man a warning.
 
I hope I am wrong about this

In @Toby020's profile there is the following sentence
Quando caminhando em território aberto, não aborreça ninguém. Se alguém lhe aborrecer, peça-o para parar. Se ele não parar, destrua-o
Click to expand...
Which is translated to
When walking in open territory, don't annoy anyone. If someone annoys you, ask him to stop. If he doesn't stop, destroy him.
Click to expand...
It simply sounds like a generic edgy anime statement but in fact, it is a text written by one of the students who committed a massacre at a school here in Brasil, saying it is a teaching of the "Satanic Bible". The case is quite famous and changed the perspective of many people in the country, but writing the text of a murderer in the profile description is a bit... strange
 
Were you aware of what your profile quote was associated with? I don't particularly care if it's from the "satanic bible", but being a quote of a murderer may make it a bit tasteless.

Even if you weren't aware, I'd appreciate it if you removed the quote.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Were you aware of what your profile quote was associated with? I don't particularly care if it's from the "satanic bible", but being a quote of a murderer may make it a bit tasteless.

Even if you weren't aware, I'd appreciate it if you removed the quote.
Click to expand...
I'll do it now, forgive me, I didn't know that, I got it from an anime publication, please excuse me.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Were you aware of what your profile quote was associated with? I don't particularly care if it's from the "satanic bible", but being a quote of a murderer may make it a bit tasteless.

Even if you weren't aware, I'd appreciate it if you removed the quote.
Click to expand...
I already removed it, I really didn't know it was from bad people, so I'm sorry for everything, I promise not to put any in there
 
Crabwhale said:
Cloudyagami was banned last time for two weeks, in light of his many small infractions. It appears he has not shaped up in that time.

I recommend a one month block.
Click to expand...
Alright I gotta apologize here, I wrongfully attributed the editing of the page to cloudyagami as opposed to the one who had actually done it. Retracting my statement as such, I have no idea who Steezstifler is.

@LIFE_OF_KING In the future when reporting infractions, please link to the revision history of the page and not just the page itself.
 
Crabwhale said:
Alright I gotta apologize here, I wrongfully attributed the editing of the page to cloudyagami as opposed to the one who had actually done it. Retracting my statement as such, I have no idea who Steezstifler is.

@LIFE_OF_KING In the future when reporting infractions, please link to the revision history of the page and not just the page itself.
Click to expand...
Steezstifler was already warned once by Ant for a similar infraction, which he didn't respond to. If he fails to respond to this new message (sent by yours truly), then I think punishment is acceptable.
 
Reporting @WeeklyBattles for spamming the Versus Thread Removal thread despite being told at multiple times to knock it off. For those of you able to see deleted messages, the man has re-posted the same thing multiple times, presumably attempting to goad me into more responses to therefore go against my own request for the spam to be done.

This particular removal request was already spammed previously, at which point it calmed down shortly after. This is apparently no longer good enough. The removal in question is already being looked over, as I asked AKM to take a gander, as well as contacting verse experts from both relevant verses on their opinion (both of whom disagree with the thread being a stomp).

It's a minor offense, but it bears reporting since this is an individual who should know better.
 
I left relevant posts up. You know what you did. Wait for judgement, and certainly don't spam this thread, too. You know better.
 
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
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
I will be mostly absent for a while
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Random-Helper323
Random-Helper323
Back
Top