• 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 - 47

Status
Not open for further replies.
CinnabarManx421 said:
Hey guys, we should probably take this off of here. We're only gonna clog up the Thread this way. We have Walls for a reason you know, just sayin'.
Blame the person who reported something that isn't even a rule violation.

No people, what this is would be a classic example of "Matt closes thread because only his opinion matters"

I've seen the rants on Discord. "Staff only rely on Matt and not on other staff knowledgeable on DMC." Etc. Etc.

It's one of the oldest complaints on this site.
 
@Yobo

If the argument keeps going for several hundreds of posts without any informed staff member keeping track, it eventually builds up to an expectation that an upgrade or downgrade is going to happen, and then there is a backlash if this is not accepted. I much prefer to handle things slowly and properly.

Anyway I am extremely tired and overworked and do not have the time to argue further about this.
 
Anyway, I would suggest making thread closure without reasoning a rule violation, considering how many issues it causes. But that's for another thread.
 
Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that the thread wasn't closed because it'd be "temporarily postponed until it can get back on track." The final post outright states that it was closed with the intent of remaining closed. Please pay attention to what you read instead of using this blatant excuse.
 
Matthew told me that it would be resumed later in a message on my wall.
 
See here: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2899153
 
Then that should have actually been linked as a response to this ordeal at the beginning instead of letting it spiral down into this, as with every single misreport on this thread.
 
He literally states in the first comment that he believes it won't reach any conclusion which implies he would keep it closed anyway, and instead of closing threads can we not rely solely on matt to take care of every single thread? Isn't stress a supposedly huge problem for the wiki staff but all this is doing is forcing stress on them?

Also, let's not act like this isn't the first time matt has closed a DMC thread like that.
 
Yes, let's stop this. I don't remotely have enough time and energy to deal with it, and it is inappropriate. As far as I understood, Matthew intends to continue discussing the issue when he has some free time from school, which is understandable,
 
From what I understand isn't 3-A Dante debunked and rejected multiple times in the past? If that is the case I believe the thread should be closed. I don't see why Matthew and other knowledgeable members should spend another 500 posts arguing on an agreed subjects.

This is based on my limited understanding about the situation though.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
From what I understand isn't 3-A Dante debunked and rejected multiple times in the past? If that is the case I believe the thread should be closed. I don't see why Matthew and other knowledgeable members should spend another 500 posts arguing on an agreed subjects.

This is based on my limited understanding about the situation though.
It seems like there's new arguments for it, and some knowledgeable members and staff members have started agreeing with it, but I'm not very familiar with the situation either.
 
Blatant. Anyway, preferably link the usernames of those you're reporting. Makes the process a whole lot faster.
 
Would somebody else be willing to handle it? I am very busy.
 
Dooyo is changing the Elizabeth Liones page durability without making a CRT. He necored a year old thread instead of making a nw one. And claims that everyone else but him need to prove a character's stats, despite being the one to challenge them in the first place.

I've told him to make a proper CRT discussion, but keeps on insisting he is right with no proof and vandalizing the page. According to his wall, he's been in trouble for this sort of thing in the past. I think a strict warning is in order.
 
Andytrenom said:
I'm willing to give a warning since the last one was years ago.
If he doesn't improve, I guess more serious actions can be taken.
I believe this is a fair assessment.
 
Same here. I see nothing wrong with Iapitus's comment.

Either way, this guy's been caught messing around. Again.

In a thread that's hostile enough as it is.
 
Yes you ******* can. We work tier based off of size all the ******* time, and this is no different. Someone dwarfs mountains? perfectly viable tier justification. So why would a mountain being the size of a large mountain not be a viable way to justify a tier.

We aren't calculating anything, so why do we need a calc group members approval?

What the **** would we be calculating? Lol. They are not needed, especially when the feats are not something that can be properly calculated. Have you not worked with non-visual works before?


That's pretty hostile and aggressive to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top