Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Acting like a complete douche hellbent on derailing for the sake of derailing even when told multiple times not to is where I'd draw the limit on this.

None of the comments I saw from him would fit hellbent. His derailing wasn't out of nowhere, since it was either a single line or something that fully connected to what was already being talked about. And whenever arguments were brought up, he always answered all off them, so the main problem with derailing - losing what the discussion was about - was never a problem.

Funny you say that, DDM's rebuttal is almost complete. Unfortunately DT is taking a break so that big thread of his will still have to wait but the rebuttal is incoming hard.

Doesn't really matter with what I am saying, does it? My point is you can't complain about being constantly asked to comment. It was one of the reasons of the last time he was given a warning, which was brought up as a reason for this to be more than a warning.

I dunno, couldn't he just contact the staff members involved in the CRT to discuss his issues once more before being given permission to do so?

There isn't, or at least wasn't, any rule against arguing against the new standard at the time, so this was. not something he had to do, no.

Also I definitely saw him being active when the Creation Feats CRTs were being made and operated.

That is meaningless. He could have developed this opinions after, had a too stressful irl life at the moment to get into heated arguments, whatever. Opinions aren't timed events, he can disagree well after an argument was made.

So why he would complain about it even after learning the CRTs were finished and turned into rules is beyond me. Seriously, spending 10 minutes for a simple clarification doesn't hurt.

Because he disagrees with them. He read them all, he quoted arguments from them and answered with his disagreements. What clarification did he need?

Again, he didn't break any rules, written or unwritten. He saw a standard, read the thread they were introduced with, and disagreed with them.

It seems you haven't exactly seen my complaints or Glassman's, have you.

I did. I think they are superfluous and not something worth of "strict warnings" or anything more. The worst thing I see is Clueless saying his position was common sense. As brought up before, this is no worse than stuff like him being told people will always disagree with his stance. Neither is worth taking as something that needs to be reported.

 

[KLOL506]

None of the comments I saw from him would fit hellbent. His derailing wasn't out of nowhere, since it was either a single line or something that fully connected to what was already being talked about. And whenever arguments were brought up, he always answered all off them, so the main problem with derailing - losing what the discussion was about - was never a problem.

Maybe you should look up the parts where he questioned Creation-based stuff, even if it was a sub-category

Doesn't really matter with what I am saying, does it? My point is you can't complain about being constantly asked to comment. It was one of the reasons of the last time he was given a warning, which was brought up as a reason for this to be more than a warning.

Not sure whether that was my specific issue to even tackle but alright.

There isn't, or at least wasn't, any rule against arguing against the new standard at the time, so this was. not something he had to do, no.

I was talking about this specific time, as in, today, or next day, I was explicitly referring to long after the CRT was closed.

That is meaningless. He could have developed this opinions after, had a too stressful irl life at the moment to get into heated arguments, whatever. Opinions aren't timed events, he can disagree well after an argument was made.

Dude he just recently saw the argument from DT that I showed a few hours back.

Because he disagrees with them. He read them all, he quoted arguments from them and answered with his disagreements. What clarification did he need?

Oh, I don't know, actually backing up his disagreements with evidence like Glassman asked, instead of just ending at a "It's crazy how people even allow to scale x and scale y"-esque comment

Again, he didn't break any rules, written or unwritten. He saw a standard, read the thread they were introduced with, and disagreed with them.

And once again, he didn't provide any evidence for his disagreements.

I did. I think they are superfluous and not something worth of "strict warnings" or anything more. The worst thing I see is Clueless saying his position was common sense. As brought up before, this is no worse than stuff like him being told people will always disagree with his stance. Neither is worth taking as something that needs to be reported.

Here's the thing, for every moment he disagreed with the stance he didn't provide evidence like Glassman had asked him to provide with. Full stop.

Honestly this is as far as I go with this back-and-forth. I've provided my reasonings and brought my issues to light. Do what you will with them.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

This user vandalized a bunch of profiles

 

[KLOL506]

This user vandalized a bunch of profiles

Gimme a moment.

EDIT: Ah. It seems you guys got to some of the profiles before I did. I reverted some profiles back to their previous selves myself.

 

[AKM sama]

This thread is not for back and forth. Both sides have posted their comments explaining the situation and that should be it.

I agree with Ricsi, I don't think this is anything serious to take any action against anybody. I see both sides were at fault here. This is a debate forum and disagreements are bound to happen. On a thread that is talking about universal energy systems, some other topics that are somewhat related to it are bound to come up, even if they can be considered a bit of derailment.

While Rather obviously came from a position of bias in his own words, same can be said for the other side. These comments can be misunderstood as coming from a position of bias, even if they were not intended to be that way. Also, I don't get how people expect a thread to be calm when this is going on at the same time.

All in all, I think this is completely avoidable if you guys just take a step back and calm down. It's normal to get heated in a debate. But try to not make comments that provoke more such comments in return since that's what turns a thread bad.

 

[Antvasima]

This user vandalized a bunch of profiles

I blocked him for 6 months and gave him a warning instruction for when he comes back.

 

[KLOL506]

This thread is not for back and forth. Both sides have posted their comments explaining the situation and that should be it.

I agree with Ricsi, I don't think this is anything serious to take any action against anybody. I see both sides were at fault here. This is a debate forum and disagreements are bound to happen. On a thread that is talking about universal energy systems, some other topics that are somewhat related to it are bound to come up, even if they can be considered a bit of derailment.

While Rather obviously came from a position of bias in his own words, same can be said for the other side. These comments can be misunderstood as coming from a position of bias, even if they were not intended to be that way. Also, I don't get how people expect a thread to be calm when this is going on at the same time.

All in all, I think this is completely avoidable if you guys just take a step back and calm down. It's normal to get heated in a debate. But try to not make comments that provoke more such comments in return since that's what turns a thread bad.

Very well. I shall concede.

 

[Antvasima]

This thread is not for back and forth. Both sides have posted their comments explaining the situation and that should be it.

I agree with Ricsi, I don't think this is anything serious to take any action against anybody. I see both sides were at fault here. This is a debate forum and disagreements are bound to happen. On a thread that is talking about universal energy systems, some other topics that are somewhat related to it are bound to come up, even if they can be considered a bit of derailment.

While Rather obviously came from a position of bias in his own words, same can be said for the other side. These comments can be misunderstood as coming from a position of bias, even if they were not intended to be that way. Also, I don't get how people expect a thread to be calm when this is going on at the same time.

All in all, I think this is completely avoidable if you guys just take a step back and calm down. It's normal to get heated in a debate. But try to not make comments that provoke more such comments in return since that's what turns a thread bad.

This largely makes sense to me, although I think that Rather can probably get a mild warning to tone down his sarcasm and hostility to a more normal and respectful tone of conversation.

 

[RatherClueless]

KLOL

Common sense? Right, calling completely perfect scaling chains as BS is definitely common sense.

That is what I was called out for. Yes. That is what an Argument from Incredulity is.

Because your arguments weren't good enough to serve as a thorough debunk of what I and Glass and V had to post.

That doesn't justify it. Even as a joke. Idk about you, but there is barely anything I take as much offense to as someone saying "I dont agree with you because of who you are" or "I'll disagree with you no matter what."

Oh, and you antagonizing us and calling us biased isn't being made fun of. Nice. Impressive.

I've called him out. Maybe not in the most respectful fashion and Ig I should have done that better, but saying "I'll never agree with you" in a vs wiki, especially from a mod, isn't really ok.

You were the one bringing up how standard rules were stagnating. That's on you. Also you being reported for RVR is a threat now?

To the first thing . . . are you sure you replied to the right thing? About the second one, if you tell someone you'll report them for trying to defend themselves or for deescalting a situation while they are already in here, which might get them banned, then yes, that's a threat.

Buddy I don't think we need to even blink to call bullshit on this.

So why exactly are you linking me to me saying that it's a misrepresentation? I am fine with heat and I am not against the calculation itself, but the usge, so the only thing valid in there is that I am vehemently against UES (and even then I tried my best to be productive in there)

I didn't call you as not having common sense, but your proposals overall. Don't twist this.

Fair enough. Not much better though.

You mentioned the "edge of the blade" first, not me, maybe you should have actually read the past slashing-piercing-based threads first before even using such an example?

Why would I read a thread about something that doesn't exist? And why should I bring something up that doesn't exist? My point was simply that the quality of the sword influences the result and saying a blunt sword is just as good for cutting as a sharp sword is a weird take, no matter what our current standards may be. I never meant to derail with that either since I simply mentioned this propperty with a bunch of others, simply to show "The effects may vary". Never did I even consider someone coming in and talking about "piercing damage".

the fact is that you used these points to derail the thread despite us repeatedly telling you not to do so. And it was clear as day you were clearly intending to change our standards and use that as a crutch to aid your arguments on that UES thread

I am not even sure what exactly you think I was trying to accomplish here. I simply responded to derailed topics that directly involved me. Especially if they represented me, my goals or my arguments in a bad light (Like Implying that I want to break a discussion rule). If nobody had derailed while dragging me into it, it would have never gotten to that.

Again? After showing your own?

I actually like playing with open cards and making it clear when I am biased towards a toppic. I'd go even further and say it's important to me. Also, there is a mojor difference between having a bias towards a topic or towards a person. Not to mention, even with all my bias, you agreed with the majority of points I've maid in that first post.

None of this would have happened if you hadn't taken up the attitude you did there and if you even bothered to read the Creation Feats CRTs to see why we scale how we scale and how DontTalk's comment works with that.

What attitude? In my reply I simply said "I didn't mention it, but I'll reply to this anyways." as well as "I am not sure if I get the argument that is being made, but from what I am getting this seems very odd."

Theglassman

no what I called you out was making a Fallacy for no reason other than saying "I don't believe it". You saying there's no issue with using it doesn't change the fact that you have to debunk the feat being a legitimate feat in the first place. If you don't bother doing it no one's going to buy your side. Also I told you in my second comment that the more you antagonize people by saying they lack common sense the less likely you'll get to have anyone buy your argument, and you're just digging your hole deeper here.

And I've told you that's impossible. UES forces the opponent to prove something improvable. That's one of the biggest issues I have with UES. You can almost validate anything using it since it completely foregoes validification based on vague standards which rarely even hold up in verse. Since your opponent would have to prove a negative, the burden of proof isnt on them, since they cant prove it. If the person making the claim actually has evidence for it scaling, then that's fine and dandy, but if not, then this is nothing but an argument from ignorance and when it's fallacy vs fallacy I'll go with the one that isn't upgrading a character every day all day. Also, I said that I never said that the people I debated on that thread lack common sense. That's you misinterpreting what I said.

DDM

Okay, I still found a lot of it weird assumptions that come from no where. Like assuming a magic spell equates to throwing a match in a gas tank despite being able to do so in an environment that has no gas tank or no match as opposed to just snapping their finger and a giant explosion of magic energy happens.

That wasn't literal. It was to illustrate the difference in processes of the same energy source, resulting in vastly different results.

He was just saying he finds it crazy that people are against "Every feat that isn't pure destruction" and even crazier that people find it crazy that those people aren't against them.

You kinda lost me on the end there, but about the first one. I am not against any none destruction feat. Mostly just on how they are handled.

He was more so being rhetorical and joking, this is Bambu just saying "You will drown in the No's" all over again. Also, a simple people disagreeing you isn't something to get sensitive over.

Disagreeing vs saying they wont ever agree are separate things and so is this from predicting the popular oppinion.

Sounds like he was just mentioning the google definition of bias.

Highlighted the unfair part, implying it was just.

Actually, he was just telling you he doesn't need to prove a negative. Saying something is "A chain reaction" requires more evidence that it's not a chain reaction. Not a logical assumption that there were random matches or gasolines that teleported because a mage asked them to...

Strawmanception Seriously, what's your point here? What do chainreactions have to do with this? Let alone my butchered car example.

The point I am making is quite simple, really. Someone makes claim, which we will assume to be false for the sake of argument here. Now this false claim gets validified via the UES. Now the person who disagrees with it due to there being no showings or evidence of it scaling will have to find ways to disprove the feat. How? Good question. There likely wont be much or any evidence, due to the claim being false to begin with. It's like looking for evidence of unicorns not existing. What would that evidence even look like? Idk. To get back to your chain reaction example, imagine this:

"The house fell over as I leaned against it."

I'll claim this was a chain reaction (it actually wasnt). Prove me wrong. Oh and my statement is assumed true unless proven false. While irl you could go and investigate, in fiction you dont have that liberty. You only have what you are given and you have to make judgements based on that. With what is given you can't prove me wrong, just that my assumptions is baseless. Making it so that one side doesn't need any valid basis besides a claim "because if it's false you can simply disprove it" is, at least in my opinion, the worst approach possible, as it makes pushing for inflated statistics easier and harder, if not straight up impossible in some cases, to disprove them.

Actually, it was a more in general thing that a lot of users and former staff did in the past and some who still do. And he thought of you as one of them.

Fair enough, ig.

You frequently said "This will be fun" or "Lovely discussion going on here" both of which are sarcastic comments that rub a lot of people the wrong way.

I just try to take things with humor ¯\(ツ)/¯

Well, ig that covers everything from my side, ig . . . Hope that'll be all then

 

[RatherClueless]

This thread is not for back and forth. Both sides have posted their comments explaining the situation and that should be it.

I agree with Ricsi, I don't think this is anything serious to take any action against anybody. I see both sides were at fault here. This is a debate forum and disagreements are bound to happen. On a thread that is talking about universal energy systems, some other topics that are somewhat related to it are bound to come up, even if they can be considered a bit of derailment.

While Rather obviously came from a position of bias in his own words, same can be said for the other side. These comments can be misunderstood as coming from a position of bias, even if they were not intended to be that way. Also, I don't get how people expect a thread to be calm when this is going on at the same time.

All in all, I think this is completely avoidable if you guys just take a step back and calm down. It's normal to get heated in a debate. But try to not make comments that provoke more such comments in return since that's what turns a thread bad.

well rip me ig, lol

 

[Bernkastelll]

Please, don't derail this thread, take this to the message wall

 

[KLOL506]

Please, don't derail this thread, take this to the message wall

I'd rather we just ended this. Granted I still disagree with many of RatherClueless's new points but it's not worth glossing over again.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Please, don't derail this thread, take this to the message wall

This. You've been told multiple times now, not to derail this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

This largely makes sense to me, although I think that Rather can probably get a mild warning to tone down his sarcasm and hostility to a more normal and respectful tone of conversation.

@AKM sama

 

[AKM sama]

From what I can see on the thread, he was being completely normal until these comments. I don't see anything hostile or sarcastic from him before that, and like I said earlier, such comments can be easily misunderstood as "I will continue to agree with this user regardless of the points" and with the shit-talking on the message wall, you can't really blame him alone for reacting in that way.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Never mind then.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

The only thing I can add to this is that if you want to shit-talk an user, then at least do it in private instead of in a message wall anyone can see. Preferably you shouldn't shit-talk anyone at all, but still.

Regardless, the topic seems to have been resolved. Any futher comment should probably be deleted as to not clog the thread.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It started out fairly tame, and not that his opinion is harmful or anyone's for that matter. But the way he expressed and sort of attempted to shove it down everyone else's throats basically was.

I just wanted to point it this was what the initial report started with; which is what AKM's analysis more or less concluded.

And he literally made posts about him literally "Enjoying people having conflicting opinions and calling their mindsets worthless".

This is more or less the part that seemed report worthy joke or not, having a motive to basically instigate tension is never a good thing. Finally, I never said said any strict action was meant, only a simple suggestion to basically get him to avoid derailing the main topic any further than it already has. But Rather did say he wasn't going to comment on that thread any further from the looks of it, so that sounds like a resolve.

The only thing I can add to this is that if you want to shit-talk an user, then at least do it in private instead of in a message wall anyone can see. Preferably you shouldn't shit-talk anyone at all, but still.

Regardless, the topic seems to have been resolved. Any futher comment should probably be deleted as to not clog the thread.

This I do agree with 100%

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that we should stop this discussion now then.

 

[First_Witch]

Right, another Pandimensional sock, so much for putting the site behind you huh.

 

[First_Witch]

You are all wasting your breath with this fella. Just know that he is socking after putting out this literary masterpiece. Wait for a mod to ban him and repeat the cycle tomorrow or the day after

 

[RatherClueless]

Anyone called a mod yet?

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Do not derail the Rule Violation Threads with irrelevant nonsense or internal disputes. It is solely for making serious, warranted reports of violations of the Site, Discussion, and Editing Rules, and not for discussion or side comments. Such posts should preferably be removed by the staff, and if a member continues to derail after being repeatedly told to stop, this will result in a temporary ban.

 

[First_Witch]

Jesus christ people, save. Your. Breath. Hes back in a week tops, keep feeding him the attention he needs and he might be back a couple days earlier. Dont waste your time.

 

[Crabwhale]

@DaReaperMan @azontr @Meganova_Stella

Stop talking about worthless shit in the RVR. This latest troll poking is the final straw. This is a formal warning. Don't do it again.

 

[Antvasima]

Saikou banned the troll earlier.

 

[Lugh_Tuathe_Dé]

I'm not sure about this but is there a charlotte CRT happened if not someone vandaled his page

 

[PrinceofPein]

I'm not sure about this but is there a charlotte CRT happened if not someone vandaled his page

Yes the changes should be reverted and the vandal blocked as this was done by someone experienced

 

[PrinceofPein]

I'm not sure about this but is there a charlotte CRT happened if not someone vandaled his page

I reverted the edits, this is the Vandal

 

[Confluctor]

6-C is still on his file

 

[PrinceofPein]

6-C is still on his file

Yū Otosaka

Yū Otosaka (乙坂 有宇, Otosaka Yū) is the male protagonist of the story, and a first-year transfer student. He uses his powers to cheat his way through school, but when his path crosses with Nao Tomori, the fate of all power-users is exposed. He has the ability to temporarily possess a person for...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Not anymore

 

[MarvelFanatic119]

This person made this guy Tier 0.

 

[Ailamiona]

This dude vandalized these 3 pages

Ninja'd

 

[Antvasima]

I reverted the edits, this is the Vandal

I blocked him for 3 months and gave him an instruction warning.

 

[Antvasima]

This person made this guy Tier 0.

I blocked him permanently and reverted all of his edits.

 

[Stocking.exe]

This guy vandalized Shinra page

 

[PrinceofPein]

Should be blocked immediately

 

[PrinceofPein]

This guy vandalized Shinra page

This guy also literally vandalised the page,

Mikoto Suoh Fan

vsbattles.fandom.com

He should be blocked he is a troll, e.g. he changed shinra attack name to "Goku destroyer"
While your own guy tried to fix it although he wanked him up so someone should revert the edits since the page has been messed up so badly

 

[M3X_2.0]

This guy vandalized Shinra page

I was about to report that.

 

[Urshani]

reverted the changes