• 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 - 45

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I suppose that I am outvoted and a few weeks "warning" block might be necessary then, but I still do not know what we are going to do with the WoD pages in the meantime.
 
I just think the guy needs to be less confrontational. We shouldn't only have one knowledgable member on a verse and have to go through paragraphs of petty remarks just to get info on it.

Perhaps freezing discussion on the verse should be done until we have more people analyzing it, if WoD discussions are only where this guy blows up.
 
That might be an idea, yes. We could tell him that he is topic-banned until he has learned to calm down, and be patient and respectful.
 
Antvasima said:
That might be an idea, yes. We could tell him that he is topic-banned until he has learned to calm down, and be patient and respectful.
Click to expand...
Im ok with that. Sounds like a good idea.
 
Okay, I'll clear some things, firsty, Dargoo Faust, I called you insane based on the famous phrase that comes with it:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

You was just doing the same thing over and over, so I called you insane, since we were both talking about ad nausuem a lot at that time, to elude to that very famous statement.

Also, if you want, I will teach people about the verse if they ask me, but I get far more angry when people assert something and then go on to make a claim that's unfounded by the verse, then lie to me about the scan in question.

And yes, he did lie, I'll show it here:

Ogbunabali said:
"Time mages can only undo actions leading directly up to the present, a Master can choose any moment in her subject's timeline and destroy everything after it, sending the subject's present self back in time to the moment of the mage's choosing. The subject arrives in the past at the specified time, inhabiting his own past body and is free to act, changing history by his actions, although the distortions to his timeline are visible under Active Time Mage Sight. He remains in the past for a time equal to Corridors of Time's Duration factor, or until hi "cathes up" to the present. Once in the present, the new timeline sets and any changes the subject made to history become Lasting."

Congradulations you have just described time travel, however this is not a justification for a tier rating.
Click to expand...
Here he quoted the spell we was talking about, however, he added his own parts to the quote itself namely: "Time mages can only undo actions leading directly up to the present,"

That isn't apart of the scan he is quoting, which is this one: https://imgur.com/4pVDZn3

Where the first line is actually:

"Where less-advanced Time Mages can only undo actions leading directly up to the present, a Master may choose any moment in her subject's timeline and destroy everything after it,..."

You see, the "Where less-advanced" part of it chages a HUGE chuck of the context, and I might have given him the benefit of the doubt and that he had forgotton or cut it out to make the quote smaller, but he didn't, he quoted the entire thing but those few words which change the way the spell is framed and worded.
 
>Using Far Cry 3 quotes in 2019

>Derailing the RV Thread to argue World of Darkness here.

Thanks for proving our point
 
So, have we decided on a temporary topic ban until Udl thinks that he can be reasonably patient, objective, and polite when discussing the subject?
 
I honestly don't care why you called me insane. It doesn't change the fact that you purposefully insulted me. You're probably fully aware of the implications of the term outside of a Far Cry 3 reference and used that as an excuse to throw mud.

The fact you refuse to recognize that what you did wasn't warranted make me worry about letting you debate on this topic in the future.
 
For how long should the topic ban be? A few months, with the right to appeal to have it lifted, if he is certain that he can behave properly and not lose his calm and ability to be objective when discussing the WoD subject?
 
I was thinking on waiting for another user to have knowledge on the verse instead of the information being gatekept by someone clearly not in a position to discuss it without lashing out at the people asking for information.

A few months sounds fine though.
 
I don't want to cause conflict, but as it stands many verses would probably fall under this supposed "gate keeping" by this logic, as there are quite a few verses only understood by a small handful of users.
 
There's a difference between having a couple of polite knowledgeable users who share scans and justifications when asked, and one user who outright insults the sanity of the people asking for evidence before putting one or two scans after a quarter of a thread's worth of hounding.
 
Either way though, he's not keeping anyone from posting scans or learning the verse, so it's not gatekeeping.
 
I think that Dargoo is correct.
 
Anyway, I will inform him about the 2 month topic ban then.
 
I have done so: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2729013
 
I'm not very familiar with this wiki, let alone its rules.

I know this can sound lazy but could anyone give an short version of the most serious or unnacceptable violations of the rules?

I feel i can get an better explanation here since this thread is dedicated for rules violation.
 
Yes I would very much like this. It seems a lot of time I post here and am told nothing or that my violations aren't serious enough. I don't know if this is on me (and it probably is) or if the staff here aren't willing to manage problems (which in that case, why even be staff?), but I'd like to know exactly what should be posted here.
 
HierophantDeluxe said:
Yes I would very much like this. It seems a lot of time I post here and am told nothing or that my violations aren't serious enough. I don't know if this is on me (and it probably is) or if the staff here aren't willing to manage problems (which in that case, why even be staff?), but I'd like to know exactly what should be posted here.
Click to expand...
What are exactly your violations?
 
Crimson Azoth said:
You spammed on a controversially banned member's wall, making crude and sexual jokes, the like of which have been seen before by many on this wiki.

You are absolutely getting banned. Can an admin delete everything so we can move on?
Click to expand...
Don't feed the trolls dude. Just way for an administrator to ban him. His comments will probably be deleted anyways.
 
Staff members do have the right to remove comments for reasons regarding, derailment, circled arguments, spam, or if the comments are just plain rude.
 
Blackcurrant91 said:
I hate to do this but in https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2730867#31 Matt deleted peoples comments agreeing with a downgrade for a character/verse he created himself. There is evidence in the thread. I believe this is agains the rules (I could be wrong) but I feel like he should at least have to justify why he did.
Click to expand...
For information's sake, these are the posts that were deleted: 1, 2.
 
Blackcurrant91 said:
people in the thread indicated comments where deleted agreeing with the downgrade.
Click to expand...
Purely incidental, the person whose comment was removed was getting all angry and accusing me of saying regular users opinions don't matter and he was being pretty confrontational. Saying that it was purely because he agreed with the downgrade is trying to push a narrative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Homie890
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
A minor addition about discussion rules
Replies
4
Views
781
Deleted member 40688
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top