• 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)

I would like to report KING again due to his toxic behavior in threads.
Add this to the list too. It's high time someone took action against him.
 
Ok show me which one you're talking about so I know
This post, I even noted in my response post its what you were reported for.
@Hellbeast There's been a rule change to not allow non-staff to comment anymore on RVR unless they're directly involved in the report, fyi, to avoid clutter

@DaReaperMan and you already know this.
If you read the post making the report in the first place you'd see I am involved. The post I posted above is addressed to me and is involved in the report.
 
Yeah, I was the one who warned him on the 4-B DC Comics thread, and it seems that he has been extremely problematic and occasionally rude while also expressing ego. I do agree that some action must be taken but what do you propose ArmorChompy?
 
Yeah, I was the one who warned him on the 4-B DC Comics thread, and it seems that he has been extremely problematic and occasionally rude while also expressing ego. I do agree that some action must be taken but what do you propose ArmorChompy?
I don't believe it's my place to make suggestions since I made the report. I don't disagree with a 6 months suggestion personally but again it's not up to me.
 
This will be my last comment.

It’s very strange that he suggests the SMT CRT (amongst others) only got through because it was a “clusterfuck”. The verse had been dead for upwards of three years, in-spite of the copious amounts of information that went:

  • unnoticed
  • misinterpreted
  • not contextualized

It took upwards of a year to fix the entire verse, and a large Harvard essay was made to rectify this, not because we wanted to bypass some user comprehension radar, but because the verse was in a sorry state. This isn’t much different from other verses right now. There are constant DC CRTs to fix YEARS old outdated profiles, all because there’s so much information to delve into.

Some of us don’t have the time or energy to pump out constant feats & blogs every day, and sit and argue over fictional stats. You shouldn’t demean others effort for attempting to make the wiki a more updated place.
 
I don't believe it's my place to make suggestions since I made the report. I don't disagree with a 6 months suggestion personally but again it's not up to me.
Fair, I think 6 months sounds like a good amount of time, or at least 3. But what do other staff members propose?
 
Well, since his last ban was for 1 month, 3 months seems like a reasonable escalation, and 6 months seems a bit too harsh, but it depends on what other staff members here think as well.
 
Due to the previous behavior I've seen from KING, as well as the stunts he has pulled in this current offense, 3 months sounds like a reasonable extension.

He must learn to watch what he says, because without the inflictions of speech, everything he says can be taken out of context and be seen as offensive. Nobody can tell what he's saying is a joke, and he must learn how to express himself without causing friction with people who don't know what his implications are.
 
sees myself mentioned and quoted in these linked posts
Holy shit it’s me!
Well, since his last ban was for 1 month, 3 months seems like a reasonable escalation, and 6 months seems a bit too harsh, but it depends on what other staff members here think as well.
I disagree. Given the repeated nature of these things and how he’s been warned for this on top of the already present 1 month ban, a 6 month ban is fair. I’m not opposed to 3 months if that’s what the majority decides, but that’s my take
 
This user has vandalized this profile to Boundless, i've reverted the edits btw.
Blocked.

This is the second time they did that despite being warned by Dereck, so a block is in order.
Well, since his last ban was for 1 month, 3 months seems like a reasonable escalation, and 6 months seems a bit too harsh, but it depends on what other staff members here think as well.
I think 3 months is fine for now.
 
Okay. What text should we use as the motivation for the 3 months block?
 
Okay. What text should we use as the motivation for the 3 months block?
From what I vaguely recall, it was derailing threads and persisted despite multiple warnings and self-admitted to shady tactics to get characters/verses revised.
This user made a huge abilities change to this profile without any CRT.

He claim to "do it for fun".
Yes, I permabanned him. Making giant vandalisms and admitting to do it for fun is definition of blatant vandalism/trolling.
 
From what I vaguely recall, it was derailing threads and persisted despite multiple warnings and self-admitted to shady tactics to get characters/verses revised.
Okay. Are you willing to apply it here and in our wiki?
Yes, I permabanned him. Making giant vandalisms and admitting to do it for fun is definition of blatant vandalism/trolling.
Thank you for helping out.
 
Thank you for helping out so much. It is very appreciated.
 
@Frieza_force_soldier_100 Please do not apply changes like that even if it may be accepted in the future because they need to be fully accepted beforehand, it sets a bad precedent and only serves to set back our desire to maintain the site's quality if people can just make important changes freely without them being verified or validated.

This is a warning.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the warning.

So should we undo the following revision then?

 
I agree with the warning.

So should we undo the following revision then?

Yeah, the changes weren't accepted yet and Agnaa brought up a new point and proposal that seems like it's going to go through. So, for now, that should be removed.
 
I don't think a permaban is necessary for a one-time offense, especially considering it wasn't used in a derogatory manner. And I think that statement afterward may be sarcasm or a joke, obviously, that doesn't excuse it, but I don't think it's permaban worthy.


Edit: NO WHY IS THIS MY 5,000th MESSAGE.
 
Back
Top