• 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)

ÆONS said:
I somewhat share your and Confluctor's sentiment, but I fell further discussion on its legitimacy should be kept there.
Click to expand...
The only issue is comparing a event to someone’s abilities from what I can understand. Edit: There are also other issues too.

Other than that, in regards to this entire report, I will stay out of even though I did directly engaged with the individual in question.
 
Last edited:
Malomtek said:
I'm reporting this post because at this time, we are still engaging in an ongoing debate. Fuji is basically trying to shut down this debate because "two staff said its fine so the thread is accepted", and misrepresenting the staff members' tentative "it seems fine" approvals as implicit (or explicit) disagreement with me.

I do not like these attempts to shut down discussion and essentially force a preferred outcome through when several things are still in contention. Especially not with that smug attitude on display here.

Note that this kind of smug, arrogant, passive-aggressive behavior is not just to me. The other day, Fuji had said of one member "Oh my god you genuinely cannot be this dense" just because he disagreed with her. This kind of behavior is clearly a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with Fuji, and it should stop here.

Two staff members tentatively agreeing with something doesn't mean that discussion in over, yet Fuji seems to insist on acting as if that's the case.
Click to expand...
Malomtek said:
And also, this may seem petty, but Fuji seems intent making strawmen out of certain arguments of mine by isolating certain phrases and wprd choices and ignoring the context surrounding them, to an extent that, put bluntly, reads like deliberate and malicious bad faith argumentation.

Check, for example, this entire exchange about how "particles" relate "physical law", wherein Fuji keeps claiming that I'm somehow arguing that particles exist disconnected from physical law, when, if anything, I'm arguing practically the opposite, that something being made out of "different particles" doesn't necessarily mean they're following fundamentally different physical laws:
Click to expand...
How many times must we do this song and dance, Malomtek?

After reading the notable posts in the thread, I see absolutely nothing that requires a report for Fujiwara's actions. Most everyone agrees with their point of view, and if there is any kind of disagreement to the points made, then people can hash it out there, especially if Confluctor is starting to have second thoughts on it as Hammer has stated.

Your statement about this "being petty" can extended to this report as a whole. Can Fujiwara be a tad more tactful and patient with their responses, particularly towards you considering the history between you two? Absolutely, they should. But overall, their actions are fine, and this whole thing is coming off as whiny.
 
Starter_Pack said:
How many times must we do this song and dance, Malomtek?
Click to expand...
I feel like I'm being singled out for something.

Starter_Pack said:
After reading the notable posts in the thread, I see absolutely nothing that requires a report for Fujiwara's actions. Most everyone agrees with their point of view, and if there is any kind of disagreement to the points made, then people can hash it out there, especially if Confluctor is starting to have second thoughts on it as Hammer has stated.

Your statement about this "being petty" can extended to this report as a whole. Can Fujiwara be a tad more tactful and patient with their responses, particularly towards you considering the history between you two? Absolutely, they should. But overall, their actions are fine, and this whole thing is coming off as whiny.
Click to expand...
Is not even the "Oh my god you genuinely cannot be this dense" comment worthy of reprimand? Keep in mind, I was previously reported by these very same people for talking to staff members in private, and I feel that that is significantly worse than DM discussions with staff.
 
Last edited:
ÆONS said:
When Fuji already made her points and a staff member made statements agreeing with her, you decided to come over and make a long list of arguments which weren't actually convincing or generally missed the point of what Mokou was talking about, to the point of even contradicting yourself as you have shown above.
Click to expand...
Where's the "self-contradiction"? I don't see it. If you can explain what and where it is, you should bring it up in the (other) thread.

ÆONS said:
And even after Mokou debunked your points and a staff came over and agreed with her, you still insisted that no one was paying attention to you—I can't speak for others, but I was the person listening to you and your arguments did not convince me Fuji was wrong—and kept on going.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing you people - and way too many people in this forum, honestly - throw around the word "debunked" as if these discussions were concluded with any amount of finality, when they aren't. I replied to the staff to check my own counterarguments because of the fact that their contribution to the threads basically came down to a tentative "yes this seems fine", which is hardly an indicator of a thorough look-over in any case.
 
My friend, I have dealt with you on more than one occasion because of your gripe with Fujiwara. When I have to break up the same pair of toddlers for slapping each other on repeated occasions, you both make an impression.

And furthermore, far more notable members such as Impress or Agnaa have made much more demeaning statements than calling someone dense. Despite this, as I mentioned before, making statements like this should be avoided, and I will personally request to them that they cut back on the insults if I have to.

Also, questioning the authority of staff is a far more insulting prospect, considering your assumption that because people only felt the need to agree with the proposed changes with no expansion on them, they did not read the thread in question.

I have said this before, and I am sure I will have to say it again. Quit being so sensitive, and taking everything anyone does to you as an insult.
 
Malomtek said:
Where's the "self-contradiction"? I don't see it. If you can explain what it is, you should bring it up in the (other) thread.
Click to expand...
It's this:
Why do you keep inventing arguments I never made? I never argued that particles are disconnected from physical laws, I argued that just because something is made of "different particles" (i.e. tachyons instead of baryons) doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the same physical laws as anything else in the wider universe. Or, in short, "different particles =/= different physical laws". If there was a hypothetical antimatter planet floating somewhere in a universe like ours, it would still follow the same physical laws as everything else.
Click to expand...
Mokou and Shmooply already gave responses in that thread so I won't repeat them here. Also it is weird that you told me flat out that I cannot explain what "self-contradiction" you have made in that thread and that I can only mention it over there... even though you put it out there right here in this thread. I literally copy-pasted all that from what you posted here.
Malomtek said:
I keep hearing you people - and way too many people in this forum, honestly - throw around the word "debunked" as if these discussions were concluded with any amount of finality, when they aren't. I replied to the staff to check my own counterarguments because of the fact that their contribution to the threads basically came down to a tentative "yes this seems fine", which is hardly an indicator of a thorough look-over in any case.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I might've used the wrong term to express how Mokou dealt with your arguments. Nevertheless, though, it wouldn't change the fact that your arguments were fallacious—from my POV at least—and that just about everyone payed attention to them and still ended up agreeing with Mokou's point of view. I'm not even getting into the fact that when people were getting into an understanding of how things worked, you came over and decided to stonewall the changes to the point of doing this.

Considering your actions now as well as your relentless stalling of the 2-C upgrade thread even when most people came to an agreement, should you really be surprised that people would try to hurry things along without you?
 
Starter_Pack said:
My friend, I have dealt with you on more than one occasion because of your gripe with Fujiwara. When I have to break up the same pair of toddlers for slapping each other on repeated occasions, you both make an impression.

And furthermore, far more notable members such as Impress or Agnaa have made much more demeaning statements than calling someone dense. Despite this, as I mentioned before, making statements like this should be avoided, and I will personally request to them that they cut back on the insults if I have to.

Also, questioning the authority of staff is a far more insulting prospect, considering your assumption that because people only felt the need to agree with the proposed changes with no expansion on them, they did not read the thread in question.

I have said this before, and I am sure I will have to say it again. Quit being so sensitive, and taking everything anyone does to you as an insult.
Click to expand...
I guess that's mostly fair enough, except for this part:

Starter_Pack said:
Also, questioning the authority of staff is a far more insulting prospect, considering your assumption that because people only felt the need to agree with the proposed changes with no expansion on them, they did not read the thread in question.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is a fair characterization of what I'm trying to do. Asking if staff could re-check the arguments and counterarguments being presented isn't "questioning their authority" or assuming anything about how they "felt", in fact I feel that that is a very basic part of forum debates.

ÆONS said:
Mokou and Shmooply already gave responses in that thread so I won't repeat them here. Also it is weird that you told me flat out that I cannot explain what "self-contradiction" you have made in that thread and that I can only mention it over there... even though you put it out there right here in this thread. I literally copy-pasted all that from what you posted here.
Click to expand...
There's no self-contradiction, for reasons I literally just copy-pasted to this very same thread a while ago: saying that "different particles don't necessarily mean different physical laws" is not the same as saying "particles are disconnected from physical laws".

ÆONS said:
Perhaps I might've used the wrong term to express how Mokou dealt with your arguments. Nevertheless, though, it wouldn't change the fact that your arguments were fallacious—from my POV at least—and that just about everyone payed attention to them and still ended up agreeing with Mokou's point of view. I'm not even getting into the fact that when people were getting into an understanding of how things worked, you came over and decided to stonewall the changes to the point of doing this.

Considering your actions now as well as your relentless stalling of the 2-C upgrade thread even when most people came to an agreement, should you really be surprised that people would try to hurry things along without you?
Click to expand...
I don't put much stock into this "everyone agrees with me and not you" argument ("appeal to popularity", etc) on account of the fact that practically everybody in those threads are Touhou supporters (other than me and the staff members, of course), which allows for heavy bias in favor of Touhou upgrades.
 
Starter_Pack said:
My friend, I have dealt with you on more than one occasion because of your gripe with Fujiwara. When I have to break up the same pair of toddlers for slapping each other on repeated occasions, you both make an impression.

And furthermore, far more notable members such as Impress or Agnaa have made much more demeaning statements than calling someone dense. Despite this, as I mentioned before, making statements like this should be avoided, and I will personally request to them that they cut back on the insults if I have to.

Also, questioning the authority of staff is a far more insulting prospect, considering your assumption that because people only felt the need to agree with the proposed changes with no expansion on them, they did not read the thread in question.

I have said this before, and I am sure I will have to say it again. Quit being so sensitive, and taking everything anyone does to you as an insult.
Click to expand...
These seem like sensible sentiments to me.
 
can yall try to do this nonsense when im not suffering under a 9 hour retail shift

Anyways, I don't have anything else to add here that hasn't already been said. I will admit that I have a tendency to come off as rude or aggressive, but that's more or less a consequence of how I talk to people in general; I often find myself sounding like an asshole without really intending it. But as Starter_Pack has pointed out, I haven't really done anything report worthy.

ÆONS said:
The most suspicious behavior she engaged in was pushing the thread to be closed before two of the staff gave their proper say-so—I also commented in that thread which essentially enabled such thinking, so I might not be blameless. Still, I don't think it was anything that needed attention from staff beyond the two who commented there.
Click to expand...
Real quick though, I didn't mean to push the thread through or anything. I genuinely wanted to know if the agreements present, both from staff and regular users, were enough to apply the edits. Though it doesn't matter now since we have the requisite 2 staff agreements anyways :v
 
Malomtek said:
I'm reporting this post because at this time, we are still engaging in an ongoing debate. Fuji is basically trying to shut down this debate because "two staff said its fine so the thread is accepted", and misrepresenting the staff members' tentative "it seems fine" approvals as implicit (or explicit) disagreement with me.

I do not like these attempts to shut down discussion and essentially force a preferred outcome through when several things are still in contention. Especially not with that smug attitude on display here.
Click to expand...
Against my better judgement I'm gonna respond to this.

I was not trying to shut down the thread early in an attempt to silence you or whatever. In fact, I kept debating you, and even asked as to whether or not I should apply the edits or continue the debate for the sake of fairness. Hell, I'm STILL waiting on confirmation to apply the edits. Furthermore, you seem insistent that my reading of the staff agreement was malicious in nature. All I said was that they didn't agree with you, which is true, because if they DID agree with you, they wouldn't have accepted acausality. Also, I can go through dozens of threads where staff say something to the effect of "this seems fine" and it's taken as an agreement. You're making an issue out of something that has literally never been an issue.

Also, things were very clearly not in contention, there was near unanimous agreement on acausality, save for one person who didn't think the reasoning was valid but was fine with it anyways. We cannot hold up threads forever just because one person disagrees with it.
 
Petition to get an exclusive RVRT for Fujiwara and Malmotek because they have a compulsion to report each other every other week.

In all seriousness though at this point I think this is bordering on frivolous reports and a gross misunderstanding of what's even report-worthy, I think wasting time like this should genuinely begin to get penalized, bans or otherwise.

This behavior literally has been going on for ******* MONTHS.
 
Remind me again what I did in this specific situation

Like I was literally at work all day, I said nothing warranting a report, and didn't even see this whole discussion until several hours after it was basically concluded, and you still wanna "both sides" this shit? C'mon now.
 
Remind me where I said "I want specifically Fujiwara to be punished this one instance because I can't reas the thread and recognise who posted what", and you've made the same level of report three weeks back as well FYI, where suddenly contacting staff is worth reporting a user over and this had to be stretched across the entire thread.
 
The_Impress said:
Remind me where I said "I want specifically Fujiwara to be punished this one instance because I can't reas the thread and recognise who posted what", and you've made the same level of report three weeks back as well FYI, where suddenly contacting staff is worth reporting a user over and this had to be stretched across the entire thread.
Click to expand...
The_Impress said:
In all seriousness though at this point I think this is bordering on frivolous reports and a gross misunderstanding of what's even report-worthy, I think wasting time like this should genuinely begin to get penalized, bans or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Was that not what you meant by this line?

Anyways, the comparison you're making here feels a little disingenuous since I wasn't even the main person behind that report. Someone else brought it up, several other people went "hey we should probably report this", and I was the one who actually made that report, which in hindsight I will admit was a bad idea given we lacked some context at the time. But even then I don't think it's fair to paint it as me against Mal when I was more or less just the messenger in that scenario :v
 
I do agree with what Starter Pack has been saying as well as points spoken by Impress, but I get tired of sounding like a broken record and I'm tired in general. I also worked all day IRL combined with having to repeat a lot of the reasons why ZaStando was banned both before and after said work shift.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Was that not what you meant by this line?
Click to expand...
I have never facepalmed so hard in my life
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Anyways, the comparison you're making here feels a little disingenuous since I wasn't even the main person behind that report
Click to expand...

Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
and I was the one who actually made that report,
Click to expand...
???????????????
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
which in hindsight I will admit was a bad idea given we lacked some context at the time. But even then I don't think it's fair to paint it as me against Mal when I was more or less just the messenger in that scenario :v
Click to expand...
Unless the wiki appointed you the messenger of the report, no, that doesn't matter, you still reported it, what you report falls on you. No user needs ******* secretaries, as them to report it themselves next time.
 
Look, Fujiwara and Malomtek, please make an ongoing effort to try to be polite and respectful to each other, not be oversensitive, and not report each other any more unless it is genuinely warranted. Thank you.

(That goes for other people in the Touhou group that tend to report Malomtek as well.)
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I do agree with what Starter Pack has been saying as well as points spoken by Impress, but I get tired of sounding like a broken record and I'm tired in general. I also worked all day IRL combined with having to repeat a lot of the reasons why ZaStando was banned both before and after said work shift.
Click to expand...
Post in thread 'Rule Violations Reports - 62'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violations-reports-62.72760/post-2421761


I have to look through the relevant reports regarding ZaStando.
 
Thank you for helping out.
 
Antvasima said:
Thank you for helping out.
Click to expand...
You are welcome. I am still of the opinion that he should stay banned as there has been multiple reports regarding his own actions after going through with it.

Even if he did mellowed out, a potential problem will been if he continue to cause drama and other things behind the scene.
 
I suppose so, yes.
 
Hello!

Well, I would like a 1 month Ban (30 days to be exact).
I say this becouse, I feel like think this forum has consumed almost half of my time.

That's why, I would like to take a little "break" from it, and I think 30 days (1 month) is enough.
Also becouse I had an intense debate with the users @Delta333 and the latter one @Rabbit2002 who came after and defended him.


I recognize I literally losed my mind and I was entering in the harrasing territory in Discord and here, trying to apolgize with the first one.
And I kinda feel guilty about it.
I want this break to review my self and think about the stupid and crazy stuff I've done in this forum.
I need time to settle my mind and come back as a new and better person.
It's summer and I think I need time for myself aswell, to enjoy and think about.

Please, could Ant or any Staff member do me the favor?

I would appreciate it.

As I said, a 1 month Ban (30-31) days should be enough.

-Greetings!!! and I wish every single user that is reading this, a really nice day!!!
 
Thank you for helping out.
 
I do remember this user. He has a long history complaining about Yu Yu Hakusho ratings being too low for his liking compared to other Shounen verses getting Tier 5 or Tier 3 ratings from statements without realizing full context. Such as using generic destroy the world statements to support his and what absolutisms either actually having calculations or are specifically stated to be One Shot or instantly destruction statements.

Anyway, I also think 6 months is reasonable. Especially since he made a lewd joke.
 
Last edited:
I am obviously open to input regarding if 6 months was too harsh. I am not familiar with Muuuuh, so if he has otherwise been well-behaved, we can be considerably more lenient.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I do remember this user. He has a long history complaining about Yu Yu Hakusho ratings being too low for his liking compared to other Shounen verses getting Tier 5 or Tier 3 ratings from statements without realizing full context. Such as using generic destroy the world statements to support his and what absolutisms either actually having calculations or are specifically stated to be One Shot or instantly destruction statements.

Anyway, I also think 6 months is reasonable.
Click to expand...
Okay. Never mind then, I suppose.
 
It's not technically a violation, but how does this user keep replying to me after being blocked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
113K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
  • Featured
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
6K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • 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
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
711
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top