• 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 AKM sama 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.

Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

Sir_Ovens said:
Can we make an exclusive rule that bars all calcs from being evaluated if they come from Vapourrr's proxy?

In fact, if you so much as recieve a message from Vapourrr, your calc making privileges for TR should be stripped from you permanently.

I think this is fair.
Click to expand...
This really isn't enforceable as a rule. A person who makes a calc doesn't have a monopoly on the validity of that calc - two people can hypothetically entirely independently of one another calc the same feat and get the same result, and the person who made it has zero bearing on whether the result is valid.

Obviously, the relevant context here is that Vapourrr has made poor calcs for TR, and we've seen that Vapourrr is using sockpuppet accounts to continue interacting with the wiki, thereby making more poor calcs. But that just means we need to get rid of the sockpuppets if/when they appear, and to reject the calcs as we would with any other invalid calc. If, hypothetically, Vapourr on a sockpuppet account made an entirely valid calc, and someone reposted that calc verbatim on the wiki after they were banned, rejecting that calc purely on the basis of who originally made it would be completely unreasonable.

Just keep an eye out for more sockpuppets and reject bad calcs as always. There is no need to single out Vapourrr.
 
The non-staff intrusions are getting out of hand. This is a remind that you should only comment here if you are directly involved in the report or have relevant information to provide. This is not a venue for non-staff to share their opinions of potential punishments.

And even if you are involved in a report, that isn't free license to post random nonsense here.
 
DarkGrath said:
This really isn't enforceable as a rule. A person who makes a calc doesn't have a monopoly on the validity of that calc - two people can hypothetically entirely independently of one another calc the same feat and get the same result, and the person who made it has zero bearing on whether the result is valid.

Obviously, the relevant context here is that Vapourrr has made poor calcs for TR, and we've seen that Vapourrr is using sockpuppet accounts to continue interacting with the wiki, thereby making more poor calcs. But that just means we need to get rid of the sockpuppets if/when they appear, and to reject the calcs as we would with any other invalid calc. If, hypothetically, Vapourr on a sockpuppet account made an entirely valid calc, and someone reposted that calc verbatim on the wiki after they were banned, rejecting that calc purely on the basis of who originally made it would be completely unreasonable.

Just keep an eye out for more sockpuppets and reject bad calcs as always. There is no need to single out Vapourrr.
Click to expand...
Valid or not, Vapourrr shouldn't even be able to get calcs added onto the wiki via proxy.

If people want to make TR calcs, go ahead. But if they have any connection whatsoever to Vapourrr (DMs, known associate, same Discord server, etc.), they should be barred from ever making TR calcs.

Like the man is permabanned. On principle he should have nothing to do with this site and we should not encourage any sort of loophole.
 
I think that is far too extreme. He's banned from participating on the wiki directly, so sockpuppets and calcs posted directly by him are a no, but you're proposing we essentially ban members from interacting with someone off site. Which is a definite overreach. If our memebers choose to interact with someone off site, as long as they're not also repeating that same banned behavior we have no right to punish them. If the math is good and the scaling is supported, the calcs should be just fine. If any of those aren't good, then we toss out those calcs for those reasons not because a banned member helped in their creation.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Fujiwara: Seems definitely in poor taste, I'd support a warning.

Funny Valentine Thread: I agreed elsewhere that it's suspicious and might be an indicator of something but on its own is not a violation nor worthy of actual action.

Veronica: Violating a topic ban is grounds to have said ban extended, makes sense to me. Further infractions should warrant outright ban time, however.
Click to expand...
This seems fine to me btw.
 
I have to disagree with Hollow's ban.

Let's take Cyber_VERGIL, for example. We couldn't prove the IPs matched, but they had shared accounts, moments of dropping the persona, and stories that don't make sense/have holes in them. That's somewhat substantial evidence, and even then not everyone was entirely comfortable with it.

Hollow and Vapourrr just share somewhat similar interests (I say somewhat because they've only shown genuine interest in like 3 verses), a mercurial personality, parlance and probably a brain cell. Even their calc layouts for the same verse aren't similar.

If you really think he's guilty already, give him time to incriminate yet again.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't necessarily blame people who expect a greater amount of indications, but at some point "the unfortunate new user who is friends with Vapourrrrr and Cloud and calcs TR and has an aggression issue, mistakenly believed to be one of their many socks" becomes much like "the boy who cried wolf" to me.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
one feels
Click to expand...
See, this is my problem here, 'feels'. Not really anything substantial.

Also, Vapourrrr's last blog was August 2nd.
Mr._Bambu said:
There is evidence to be seen here
Click to expand...
I mean you're not technically wrong, as minimal it is, but my point is that this isn't anything close to hard evidence, let alone proof.
Mr._Bambu said:
a direct correlation between the two
Click to expand...
Half of the One Piece discussion thread are in discord group, and the one who admitted to even having the direct correlation in the first place was Hollow.
 
ByAsura said:
See, this is my problem here, 'feels'. Not really anything substantial.
Click to expand...
Do you think he hasn't had enough time to adapt his behavior? How many socks deep is the man, now? It's a turn of phrase, Asura.

I mean you're not technically wrong, as minimal it is, but my point is that this isn't anything close to hard evidence, let alone proof.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid we're often left to speculate on such things, yes. Before proper IP checking this was in fact all we had to work with, barring an outright confession. We still work with it often, given the prevalence of VPNs. What do you suggest we do for evidence, send out the SWAT teams?

Half of the OPM discussion thread are in discord group, and the one who admitted to even having the direct correlation in the first place was Hollow.
Click to expand...
So you agree, good.
 
Again, you're talking about a span of a month or less. It's not impossible, but it's far more unlikely than you suggest.

No. I suggest we ***** wait for anything remotely substantial, since this guy has a history of self-reporting and screwing up. Like holy hell man, I know we didn't just nuke people for this little evidence back then.

Bruh. I feel like you're just ignoring my actual points.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. Frankly, this is just silly.
 
HollowVanity said:
Yeah mate, theres a couple other people on the wiki that were sent by vapour or recommended to join the wiki by vapour
Click to expand...
This is true ^
In a Discord server I'm part of, Vapour, CloudYagami and many others discuss topics related to the extremely popular Tier 9-8 niche, such as Tokyo Revengers, Lookism, Classroom of the elites, etc. Quite a few of them share similarities with Vapour in how they behave, which is common among friends. However, they still have distinct qualities that set them apart. Many of these individuals are open to creating new accounts, and they tend to share a similar thought process, especially when it comes to scaling. I personally think that HollowVanity is among the newcomers who will create new accounts in the future.

Take that as you will. In my opinion, as bad as this sounds, nothijg is particularly rule breaking about this and they have no power over the scaling we do here anyway so don’t worry about anything like vote manipulation. All we can do is keep an eye on them. However, staff have the final say.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
This is true ^
In a Discord server I'm part of, Vapour, CloudYagami and many others discuss topics related to the extremely popular Tier 9-8 niche, such as Tokyo Revengers, Lookism, Classroom of the elites, etc. Quite a few of them share similarities with Vapour in how they behave, which is common among friends. However, they still have distinct qualities that set them apart. Many of these individuals are open to creating new accounts, and they tend to share a similar thought process, especially when it comes to scaling. I personally think that HollowVanity is among the newcomers who will create new accounts in the future.

Take that as you will. In my opinion, as bad as this sounds, nothijg is particularly rule breaking about this and they have no power over the scaling we do here anyway so don’t worry about anything like vote manipulation. All we can do is keep an eye on them. However, staff have the final say.
Click to expand...
Can you send screenshots or at least invite one of the staff?
 
Seems like I got kicked from the server. Im not sure when though. Last time I was active was a few days ago when I disagreed with many of their takes on Tokyo Revengers. They must have kicked me because of that or because I came forward today.

Edit: I was told by @Dinozxd that the server got deleted.
 
Last edited:
ByAsura said:
Again, you're talking about a span of a month or less. It's not impossible, but it's far more unlikely than you suggest.

No. I suggest we ***** wait for anything remotely substantial, since this guy has a history of self-reporting and screwing up. Like holy hell man, I know we didn't just nuke people for this little evidence back then.

Bruh. I feel like you're just ignoring my actual points.

Anyway, I'm going to bed. Frankly, this is just silly.
Click to expand...
Your point was focusing on an insignificant turn of phrase ("one feels") and arguing that we had too little evidence to go on. The first part is silly, but if you'd like me to ignore it for the sake of moving to constructive discussion, I'd be happy to do so.

The fact is that we can't have 100% certainty every time. What we can do is look at things from a historical point of view. Historically, people that say things like "no, no, he's just my brother/friend/etc" after being confronted for acting suspiciously like that person, they tend to be that person putting on airs to get around a ban.

You, similarly, ignored my points, dismissing them on the grounds of the "one feels" statement. This is a user with multiple already created socks who has had time to learn at least something about how to avoid detection. Even if he's learned, nevertheless, don't you think it's at least a little suspicious that after multiple sockpuppeting accounts, suddenly he just has a group of like-minded people who are willing to fulfill the same, exact purpose of sockpuppeting for him, but now all above board? I do.

Now, I'd like to clarify: I was tentative on this situation, but you seem to have misunderstood what it is I was saying, so I hope this helps.
 
Arnoldstone18 said:
This is true ^
In a Discord server I'm part of, Vapour, CloudYagami and many others discuss topics related to the extremely popular Tier 9-8 niche, such as Tokyo Revengers, Lookism, Classroom of the elites, etc. Quite a few of them share similarities with Vapour in how they behave, which is common among friends. However, they still have distinct qualities that set them apart. Many of these individuals are open to creating new accounts, and they tend to share a similar thought process, especially when it comes to scaling. I personally think that HollowVanity is among the newcomers who will create new accounts in the future.

Take that as you will. In my opinion, as bad as this sounds, nothijg is particularly rule breaking about this and they have no power over the scaling we do here anyway so don’t worry about anything like vote manipulation. All we can do is keep an eye on them. However, staff have the final say.
Click to expand...
See, this is good evidence. This I believe. Thank you, Arnold.

Keep an eye on folks from that server, it's not impossible to fake all that too (as some of you know, wink wink), but it's a lot damn harder.

Even in the void of hard evidence of the server, I trust Arnold enough to use this as verification in this instance at least. I'd be fine with an unban.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Your point was focusing on an insignificant turn of phrase ("one feels") and arguing that we had too little evidence to go on. The first part is silly, but if you'd like me to ignore it for the sake of moving to constructive discussion, I'd be happy to do so.
Click to expand...
No, my point was that you have almost nothing to go by.

You keep citing this misinterpretation as if it had anything to do with my counter-arguments in this comment, but it's totally irrelevant and harking on about it is what's silly. So, yes, we should move on.
Mr._Bambu said:
What we can do is look at things from a historical point of view. Historically, people that say things like "no, no, he's just my brother/friend/etc" after being confronted for acting suspiciously like that person, they tend to be that person putting on airs to get around a ban.
Click to expand...
Historically, there are some cases like this, but not that many, and it's not evidence in and of itself or anything.
Mr._Bambu said:
Even if he's learned, nevertheless, don't you think it's at least a little suspicious that after multiple sockpuppeting accounts, suddenly he just has a group of like-minded people who are willing to fulfill the same, exact purpose of sockpuppeting for him, but now all above board? I do.
Click to expand...
Firstly, we knew the discord already existed, IIRC, just not that Hollow was part of it. This isn't sudden. It's kind of like how Donatien was a sock puppet that ran an anti-God of War discord with lots of like minded people, many of whom separately made accounts just to target GoW ratings.

Secondly, sorry, when did I say that this wasn't suspicious, or suggest that suspicion is unwarranted? Literally all I said was that we should actually wait for him to drop the ball or get hard evidence (not even proof) before we ban him.

Hell, I'll say it now, I do think this guy probably is Vapourrrr (even bearing in mind what Arnold said), but the problem is that A) I don't have any reason to act on that, and B) the behavioural/calculation similarities are laser-focused half-truths.

Keep an eye on him, sure, because, at the very least, we have real evidence that Vapourrrr is vicariously sharing opinions through the HollowVanity account.
Mr._Bambu said:
Now, I'd like to clarify: I was tentative on this situation, but you seem to have misunderstood what it is I was saying, so I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
You said the ban is justified (not maybe, or probably justified) based on their correlations, and I disagreed. I don't see what's to be misunderstood about that.
 
Last edited:
ByAsura said:
No, my point was that you have almost nothing to go by.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a fair assessment. This has all the makings of a sock. An explained-away association with the parties they would be a sock of, similar behavior and interests, a new user on the site with an account creation date that is after the ban. Really, the only thing we don't have is an IP check, which we didn't have for earlier socks that were explicitly admitted to.

This is a user, mind you, who we have on record specifically admitting that he attempted to fool us on the ShadowSythez account by changing his manner of speech and pretended to not have read Tokyo Revengers, to such an extent that Ant thought it was a different person. This is the same person who recruited a friend or sibling to get on a discord call with Agnaa to pretend to be his alt.

We aren't always going to get things like "posted to a banned users Imgur account" but even that was the subject of scrutiny, with us almost not banning him due to the claim that they're close IRL friends who share a computer but also use VPNs because Russia. People almost believed that. I don't think there's anything wrong with the stance that our standards for proving sockpuppets should be very very high before taking action, but it's not one I share because I believe in practice this essentially allows all but the most foolish of users to completely bypass any ban so long as they use a VPN.
 
2 similar interests, out of the 3 or so verses they even have interests in.

Fandom themselves said they were probably a sock that time. We didn't just ban them because of small-scale correlations. Anyway, with what Arnold said, this isn't enough to go by because there's more than one person like Vapourrrr in that group.

He literally admitted to using the Spiderr account and living with the guy, which formed gaping holes in his story. That's nowhere near the case here.
 
Last edited:
No, my point was that you have almost nothing to go by.

You keep citing this misinterpretation as if it had anything to do with my counter-arguments in this comment, but it's totally irrelevant and harking on about it is what's silly. So, yes, we should move on.
Click to expand...
I said as much, yes. Hence why I feel this is a misunderstanding.

Historically, there are some cases like this, but not that many, and it's not evidence in and of itself or anything.
Click to expand...
I vehemently disagree, actually. In VSBW's long history, the majority of sock account situations are pre-forum, where we have slightly more refined tools to approach things. As I mentioned before, even that is easily circumvented. We must work on little evidence in this one genre of situation. Here, of course, further evidence is provided via testimony from a trusted user- that is, Arnold- so the point is moot. But in general, we do what we must.

Firstly, we knew the discord already existed, IIRC, just not that Hollow was part of it. This isn't sudden. It's kind of like how Donatien was a sock puppet that ran an anti-God of War discord with lots of like minded people, many of whom separately made accounts just to target GoW ratings.

Secondly, sorry, when did I say that this wasn't suspicious, or suggest that suspicion is unwarranted? Literally all I said was that we should actually wait for him to drop the ball or get hard evidence (not even proof) before we ban him.

Hell, I'll say it now, I do think this guy probably is Vapourrrr (even bearing in mind what Arnold said), but the problem is that A) I don't have any reason to act on that, and B) the behavioural/calculation similarities are laser-focused half-truths.

Keep an eye on him, sure, because, at the very least, we have real evidence that Vapourrrr is vicariously sharing opinions through the HollowVanity account.
Click to expand...
You seem to imply that you believe we have little to go on. I believe there is reasonable concern here. If you find it suspicious, and just presently won't act on that, then fair enough, but we're getting back into semantics again at this point.

Regardless, we've acted on similar levels of data in the past. Even in the immediate past have been situations with less data and more action. I don't agree with that approach necessarily, but here I at least can see the virtue of it. That's all I'm saying, man.
 
I disagree with almost everything you just said, but it seems we're on the same page with an unban, so I don't feel the need to continue.
Mr._Bambu said:
Even in the void of hard evidence of the server, I trust Arnold enough to use this as verification in this instance at least. I'd be fine with an unban.
Click to expand...
 
Reporting ShionAH for literally refusing to engage with my posts in a CRT multiple times.

The Abilities are only disagreed by @Ayewale and not a staff member so I dont care much about that.
Click to expand...
Then after I point out that this is unquestionably wrong
I can do it actually, its a perfectly normal thing to do since Blue Names have no power.
Click to expand...
I swear to god that this isn't something that another member, much less another non-staff, can do.

In response to a staff member:
I already disagreed with you and after you said "No matter what you do I will still disagree" so I wont even argue with you.
Click to expand...
(For context, what they actually said was "...but unless you try different argumentation I'm probably going to still reject it.")

Then Shion made a post where some of their arguments were, verbatim,
"Cringe argument."

"It still is a supporting evidence." [To an argument where I said it doesn't work as evidence at all]

"What the? I am so confused. This isnt even an arguement just a headcanon..."

"I aint even explaining how these are not enough to remove or make it limited lmaooo"

"Why would it not be Plot?? What else could it be???" [I just explained why it would not be plot]

Refuses to give one of Bill's powers a link to the feat after pointing out it has none.

"Wow."

"We aint deleting all the supporting evidence just so you or eficiente can downgrade it when we stop caring about Bill lmao."
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that every single one of these was in response to a detailed argument of mine. I didn't pick 'bad' responses, these ones are straight up deciding to not respond to me. Then they continue in a sequel post:
"Not everyone. I dont see how it is not resistance tbh most "debunks" are completely fanon "Bill is stronger so his power was not drained" was one I heard." [Doesn't respond to my debunk at all, in any way]

"...I cannot answer. You simply say you disagree." [I never even remotely have.]

"No idea which power this is talking about" [in response to a quote from himself a few hours ago?]

"Actually if theres a text explanation its enough. Everyone also knows the feat." [Still refusing to give a power a link. I am flabbergasted at this point]

"Wtf you mean??"

"...I am not answering this, Phoenks or Strym can deal with you"
Click to expand...
I can't stress enough that I'm not just picking the 'bad' arguments, I wouldn't report someone for being stupid. Shion is going out of their way to, in their own words, not answer my post or just break very basic wiki policy. It's terrifically bad faith that they are admitting to themselves.
 
Ayewale said:
Reporting ShionAH for literally refusing to engage with my posts in a CRT multiple times.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to engage you. Bad debating tactics are not rule violations. At worst it just makes him look bad.

That said, some of his post are starting to be kind of rude, so a very mild warning to stay on track would suffice imo.
 
vsbattles.fandom.com

Borsalino (Kizaru)

Real name Borsalino, Kizaru is the only pre-timeskip Admiral to have retained his position after the timeskip, after Akainu was promoted and Aokiji left. He has somewhat of an absentminded and out-there personality, committing such acts as mistaking his snail wiretap for his phone, and politely...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
TheShape03 said:
This user made edits to this character's Lifting Strength apparently without a CRT, he also updated a link that didn't work, so I don't think his intentions were bad but it would be good to let him know that you can't edit the stats without a CRT.
Click to expand...
Left him a Message.
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
He doesn't have to engage you. Bad debating tactics are not rule violations. At worst it just makes him look bad.

That said, some of his post are starting to be kind of rude, so a very mild warning to stay on track would suffice imo.
Click to expand...
I also agree with this.
 
This user violated the site rules on this thread. He specifically broke the "everybody who visits this wiki strictly to ... or try to dismantle our tiering system, will be permanently banned from our community" part of the Be Respectful section.

I posted proof for this on that specific thread and was told to forward it here, so I'll copy and paste what I wrote:


"I know this comment is very late, but there's no reason for this thread to still be open. @Valrhavn is known to have a FT (well, Mashima in general tbh) hateboner on ComicVine, though he uses the name MirioTogata on that website. Y'all caught on to his bias but here's some proof:

1) Constant Ragna vs FT threads whether other users claim that it's made with spite + he argues for sub-mountain level Dragon Gods and directs troll comments at the "FT fandom," verbatim from his comments. This user is also a very big Ragna fan as seen on his profile.

2) Big Kishimoto fan as seen by their activity on their VSBattles profile and on ComicVine (look at MirioTogata's comments).

3) Mirio and Valrhavn both have an unhealthy obsession with downgrading Fairy Tail's speed. As if this thread wasn't proof enough, here's overwhelming proof given this user's activity on CV (look for his comments/posts):

One

Two

This thread he made is a literal copy and paste of his original ComicVine one.

More comments from him.

And the final one I'll post because I think this is more than enough."

This user consistently went out of his way to annoy fans of Mashima's series on ComicVine and has such a big hateboner to the point where he's made threads on this site as well, as seen in the thread I posted and the one I will post below. Every point that he brought up was already addressed in previous threads so they bring no substance other than ill intent, and other users commented on how this seemed like a spiteful thread considering his history of FT downgrade threads on this site. He even went out of his way to ask for support to downgrade the series and claimed that his threads keep getting shut down because one of the staff members is heavily biased in favor of Fairy Tail.

Others claimed that he could not have any spite, but considering the evidence, it's pretty much confirmed that these two users are the same and he in fact does not have good intentions.
 
I don't think anything here comes remotely close to an attempt to dismantle our tiering system. We have a great deal of individuals who vehemently disagree with ratings on certain verses, and while many would accept the voice of the many, some will remain insistent. Presuming it is done respectfully (and without a great deal of spamming) it is not and should not be against our rules.
 
Reporting @Fallen_Angelicx for being passive agressive and trying to falsely close CRTs

"It seems you are not knowledgeable on vs battle standards at all"
"^^ your point is useless"
"Downplaying the feat. His power has been sealed for 10k year which would make his pre-reincarnated self 10k+ years old which is longtivety. Ressurection comes from him Reincarnating into his now 16 year old self."
"What kind of downgrade thread is this??"
"This is why people who aren't knowledgeable on certain verses should not make content on things they don't know."
"This is how ik you are not knowledgeable on the verse at all. The context in the feat is literally both characters using their tricks, one of space manipulating and one time manipulating to then make a universe. Its still space-time manipulation because they're using space-time based powers to create a universe. Stop downplaying the feat without knowing the context."
"I'm gonna ask a mod to close this as shionah is not knowledgeable on the verse and is making a thread based on assumptions. Only knowledgeable people on verses and mods are allowed to comment or make content on verses."
"That's not the point. Seeing stuff doesn't make u knowledgeable on everything. Don't blame the page. It is simply your fault and problem making a thread on something you don't know about to argue based on assumptions and hearsays which is why I'm gonna ask this to get closed."
"You haven't attacked what I just explained. That's just ignorance."
"Bro why you mad?? 💀💀 chill out with the aggressiveness, like we said we're gonna do that, just wait cuz remember we gotta get the actual scans on inconsistent ah imgur" (To a perfectly normal comment. I assume they did this since I told them to stop being angry before.)

I dont care what the punishment is but trying to gatekeep a verse because "you dont know anything" is weird.

Edit: "Why do you always do this??? Always ignoring what's posted as usual. Downplay feats as usual."
 
Last edited:
Mr._Bambu said:
Those particular comments do seem a bit unnecessarily aggro. I'll dig through the thread when I have time to assess what's going on.
Click to expand...
I dont even care about the aggro much just the whole "You dont know the series enough! Close this CRT" seems like he is trying to lock the verse downgrades
 
ShionAH said:
I dont even care about the aggro much just the whole "You dont know the series enough! Close this CRT" seems like he is trying to lock the verse downgrades
Click to expand...
That's what I would call aggro behavior. While we are slow to apply them in most circumstances, our site has rules regarding respect and kindness. So I'll look into it and decide if this is a case where it's bad enough to warrant a violation.
 
I banned him for 6 months as I was uncertain if he was just completely clueless or not.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Reporting @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for invalidating an administrator's vote in a staff thread

We don't decide whether their vote is valid or not only because they got debunked. Their stance should still be noted in the vote tally regardless.
Click to expand...
"Because they got debunked". Okay so we're just lying now, cool. Elizhaa disagreed because he said there was evidence of QS. I asked him for that evidence. I have yet to receive a response, so until that happens, I don't feel comfortable counting the vote.

He actually agreed with the premise of the thread itself (that being that the infinite size statement alone wasn't enough), hence why I'm waiting to count his vote.

To be clear, this goes both ways, where a "just trust me bro" statement wouldn't be counted as an agreement, either.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Elizhaa disagreed because
Click to expand...
I am not reading the rest of post since it seems to be waste of time of back and forth but you acknowledged that he disagreed with your thread.

Simply add it to vote tally or my report will still be open since this is vote manipulation (invalidating staff member's vote). You added Qawasd's vote despite he acknowledged that he wants to wait for opposition. Same standard applies on disagreement part.

Sounds for me a double standard. If it is agreement, you note them down, and if it is disagreement, you don't unless it satisfies you.

Sorry, I am not here to entertain you. He made his stance very clear of being in favour of low 1-C twice (even thrice)

He said it 4 times, he is in support of low 1-C, and all what you did is contesting against his points thinking that you can invalidate his stance.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
I am not reading the rest of post since it seems to be waste of time but you acknowledged that he disagreed with your thread.

Simply add it to vote tally or my report will still be open since this is vote manipulation (invalidating staff member's vote). You added Qawasd's vote despite he acknowledged that he wants to wait for opposition. Same standard applies on disagreement part.

Sounds for me a double standard. If it is agreement, you note them down, and if it is disagreement, you don't unless it satisfies you.

Sorry, I am not here to entertain you.
Click to expand...
If you didn't read my post, then be quiet.
 
JTGamer96 said:
Would it be better to simply close the thread? For one, I really just don't agree with the downgrade after all the taking points that've been brought forth by staff and knowledgeable members, and it seems to have gotten pretty hostile looking over the history of the replies.
Click to expand...
No, it very much should stay open. A bit of hostility shouldn’t change that (and it’s the staff members who should decide whether or not the thread is fine)
 
They are not accusations when he clarified himself 4 times and you insisted to not count it. For me, it seems a vote manipulation based in gaining an advantageous biased vote tally to pass a thread.

You could have done the same as Qawasd's vote "(disagree for now)" but you didn't. So for me it sounds a biased double standard vote manipulation.
 
JTGamer96 said:
That has nothing to do with DMC or anything I said, and btw, both of the calculations in that thread are on the same level regardless. You can't simply count people who aren't knowledgeable in a verse or haven't ruled in favor of your changes as agreements.
Click to expand...
It's... literally Ant commenting on the DMC thread? And saying that my reasoning for the downgrade made sense?? what else do you want man
 
Based on the thread linked above, I agree more with Dread. Elizhaa iirc has on multiple occasions agreed with DMC remaining Tier 1. Also, agreeing with some points and or a premise =/= agreeing with the outcome. While it could be more of a misunderstanding rather than a "Vote manipulation" I also do agree with Dread to not include Elizhaa's vote.
 
This user made statistical changes.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Jeanne D'Arc (Majo Taisen)

Jeanne D’Arc is a character in Majo Taisen - The War of Greedy Witches and a participant of Walpurgis, a one-on-one tournament between witches to determine whose desire is strongest, and be granted their wish by Agrat Bat Mahlat. Jeanne is a popular french hero, even regarded as one of the most...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
They've done it again.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Wu Zetian (Majo Taisen)

Wu Zetian is a character in Majo Taisen - The War of Greedy Witches and a participant of Walpurgis, a one-on-one tournament between witches to determine whose desire is strongest, and be granted their wish by Agrat Bat Mahlat. Wu Zetian was born to a lowly civil servants family, who were ousted...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
ImmortalDread said:
Reporting @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara for invalidating an administrator's vote in a staff thread

We don't decide whether their vote is valid or not only because they got debunked. Their stance should still be noted in the vote tally regardless.
Click to expand...
Regarding this: Elizhaa has the role they do because they are trusted within this community to lend judgement on threads. It is not the right of any given individual to discount that because they do not feel comfortable with the level of statement Elizhaa gave in giving this judgement. That is not to say that every staff member is right inherently, but it is not up to you, Fuji, to decide that Elizhaa's vote is to be discounted.

I agree that Elizhaa should elaborate more if prompted- after all, there must be substantiation to this trust we give to our staff. Faith, in this instance, requires evidence, and if staff members can't at least prop up their stances a little, then that raises concern. But Fuji would still seem to be in the wrong here.
 
They have deleted Warning Messages off their walls and Dereck restored them only a moment ago.
loxIPA2.png

A clear troll to me.
 
StorytellingDemonKing said:
Reporting this user for vandalizing Rimuru's (Nanatsu no Taizai) page
Click to expand...
He keeps doing it. Now he vandalized this profile:
vsbattles.fandom.com

Milim Nava (Web Novel)

Milim Nava is one of the first, and strongest Demon Lords. She is also a Dragonoid. Tier: 3-A | Unknown | Low 2-C With Wrath King Sataniel Name: Milim Nava Origin: Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken Gender: Female Age: 2000+ Classification: Dragonoid Powers and Abilities: Superhuman Physical...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
Antvasima said:
Are any of you willing to help out here please?
Click to expand...
It is bias/selective counting of votes. It should also be noted that the OP/Anyone can't make a claim that they debunked a point without the thread itself being finished, since the point of a CRT is to approve or disappeov of an argument.

Punish wise idk what Fuji's history is. So barring a consistent issue with the user a warning should be sufficient imo.
 
StorytellingDemonKing said:
He keeps doing it. Now he vandalized this profile:
vsbattles.fandom.com

Milim Nava (Web Novel)

Milim Nava is one of the first, and strongest Demon Lords. She is also a Dragonoid. Tier: 3-A | Unknown | Low 2-C With Wrath King Sataniel Name: Milim Nava Origin: Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken Gender: Female Age: 2000+ Classification: Dragonoid Powers and Abilities: Superhuman Physical...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Click to expand...
Well they were warned, so perma-ban it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheMonkeMan
  • Locked
Editing some rules for the Wiki
Replies
21
Views
807
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
Tokyo Revengers: Discussion Rule
Replies
93
Views
2K
Jasonsith
Jasonsith
Antvasima
  • Locked
A new rule for social media links?
Replies
76
Views
983
Antvasima
Antvasima
IdiosyncraticLawyer
  • Locked
Franchise-specific discussion rules revamp
Replies
29
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
ImmortalDread
  • Locked
Staff Discussion rule addition (very non-controversial)
Replies
18
Views
451
ImmortalDread
ImmortalDread
Top