• 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)

Someone is constantly messing with Tensei Slime Profiles .Veldora's profile has been Edited 4 times without a CRT .On 4th September his Tier was changed to 2-B from Low2-C .
 
I would like to officially warn BigSmoke for his input on Breaking Bad threads, namely, two separate threads literally putting Saul Goodman against literally ******* Goku, one made immediately after I closed the first one.

For the record, no, simply because Saul is a lawyer doesn't mean he can make someone with the intent to kill him in a versus match not want to kill him. That's ridiculous, and outside of very specific cases and interactions with characters (that are very debated), it isn't something that happens, because the entire point of SBA is that the characters involved are willing and intending to kill. If Goku can just be asked kindly to not kill Saul, what the **** are we doing here?

I locked the thread initially because, yeah, no, it should be pretty obvious why this is a stupid idea only made for the purposes of "Haha Saul incon'd Goku lol", which furthermore, has been an incredibly common track record with BigSmoke over several years. If anyone remembers the Cool Cat incident, well, remember that.

Frankly, I'm tired of it. It may not seem like much, but BigSmoke has a clear reputation for both rampantly upgrading verses and making ridiculous, illogical matches for the sole sake of what's funny. I closed the thread, and he decided to make another one instead. This should warrant a warning, though ideally, I would prefer to ban him from making threads with Breaking Bad characters since he has clearly shown an inability to behave and act logically.
 
One specific instance regarding Big Smoke, which was recent, was him claiming that Slippin Jimmy was canonical to Better Call Saul, despite not having actual evidence. He then attempted to use feats from the former to upgrade the latter.
 
BigSmoke quoted a rule that may allow this sort of incon
In character, but will attempt to win the battle. Characters will not give up of their own accord. That means a character that is uninterested or sees no chance of winning won't simply leave and characters wouldn't simply become friends with each other. This doesn't prevent a character being made to give up, because the other character manipulates them via things like, for example, mind control, fear inducement, psychological tricks or superhuman charisma.
Click to expand...
I don't think this actually qualifies; even under their argument, Goku wouldn't be "made to give up", he would be "made to spare him", which doesn't really seem like it qualifies. There's a difference between conceding, and being convinced to not kill. And I fundamentally feel like this sort of rule should only apply for this sort of thing being done to a supernatural extent, not just ordinary social influencing.

Still, this does lie within an arguable range, and people in the thread did agree, so I don't think you should have closed the threads or reported him for making another one. It's something you should have argued, either there or in a general CRT for these sorts of resolutions to a fight.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the ban

Edit: I think banning him from making BB profiles might be a a good idea since the Saul Goodman page is poorly made and uses inflated stats.
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
BigSmoke quoted a rule that may allow this sort of win

I don't think this actually qualifies; even under their argument, Goku wouldn't be "made to give up", he would be "made to spare him", which doesn't really seem like it qualifies. There's a difference between conceding, and being convinced to not kill.

Still, this does lie within an arguable range, and people in the thread did agree, so I don't think you should have closed the threads or reported him for making another one. It's something you should have argued, either there or in a general CRT for these sorts of resolutions to a fight.
Click to expand...
It's not within arguable range whatsoever, the feat used as reference for how Saul 'could win' was when dealing with someone who didn't particularly intend to kill him to begin with. On top of that, the circumstances were wildly different and were dealing with someone Saul could at least intuitively attempt to debate with. There is no argument meant to be had, it's ******* ridiculous to put Saul against Goku and literally anyone can see this. The very fundamental rules structure of the site does not leave there to be an argument to be had on this matter. If people who didn't want to fight could, in nearly any circumstance, simply ask the opponent nicely and get an incon, the entire battle system would be a travesty.

Agnaa, you are one that highly values consistent rulings. To accept this as a reasonable debate would be incredibly inconsistent with several years of VSBW history, standards, and common sense. And, as we can see, plenty of others agree in this matter. Putting Saul Goodman against Goku is not a reasonable or fair debate, and for him to simply make another thread after I closed the first one is just proving my point.

Don't get me started on Breaking Bad's actual profiles, which he has repeatedly pushed nonsensical upgrades onto with zero regard for any amount of basic common sense in regards to the human body. He calculated the striking strength of a normal, real-life, human, fat and physically unfit man into 9-C and attempted to use that as justification for a character being 9-C. He applied a calc that isn't just wrong, but would scale to literally all obese humans to 9-C, with zero self-awareness on the matter.

I am absolutely not in the mood to see Breaking Bad wanked to 9-C and then thrown into ridiculous, impossibly unfair and illogical matches in a way that has happened all too often by BigSmoke's whim specifically.

Remember, I am not asking to punish him in any general manner. I am just asking that BigSmoke in particular is removed from the Breaking Bad sphere due to his general tendencies involving it and his history. At the very, very least, given his immense history with Cool Cat and similar topics, he should be given a warning - but that is beyond light.
 
Last edited:
It's not within arguable range whatsoever, the feat used as reference for how Saul 'could win' was when dealing with someone who didn't particularly intend to kill him to begin with

It is arguable if it convinced people. If you've got the better argument, you should've been able to waltz in there and have everyone agree it was a stomp; that's how threads like this are usually done.

Also, that's not the feat iirc; the feat used was him convincing Tuco (described there as a "crazed meth-addict") to not execute two people.

If people who didn't want to fight could, in nearly any circumstance, simply ask the opponent nicely and get an incon, the entire battle system would be a travesty.

This isn't just anyone, this is a character with social influencing. I agree that it shouldn't qualify, but the rules right now leave wiggle room for it by not requiring such convincing to be supernatural.

Agnaa, you are one that highly values consistent rulings. To accept this as a reasonable debate would be incredibly inconsistent with several years of VSBW history, standards, and common sense.

Do we actually have another ruling of considering a character with decent social influencing not able to do this?

If so, that should have been presented, instead of you just closing the thread, and when asked for an explanation, just saying "You should know why this isn't allowed". If someone has brought up a rule on the site which seems to support their view, you need to explain the issue, not just tell them to look at the rules again.

I am absolutely not in the mood to see Breaking Bad wanked to 9-C

If 9-Cs unreasonable, it should be argued against and removed.

Remember, I am not asking to punish him in any general manner. I am just asking that BigSmoke in particular is removed from the Breaking Bad sphere due to his general tendencies involving it and his history.

I don't see a reason for that right now. I see him weaseling through rules we leave open to do wack shit. I don't want to just punish people who abuse our shitty standards, I want to fix the standards.

If he'll keep on making bad arguments based on things that are currently accepted, I kinda want that to be done so we know what needs to be patched up.
 
Moritzva said:
It's not within arguable range whatsoever, the feat used as reference for how Saul 'could win' was when dealing with someone who didn't particularly intend to kill him to begin with. On top of that, the circumstances were wildly different and were dealing with someone Saul could at least intuitively attempt to debate with.
Click to expand...
bruh it was a crazed meth addict
Moritzva said:
There is no argument meant to be had, it's ******* ridiculous to put Saul against Goku and literally anyone can see this. The very fundamental rules structure of the site does not leave there to be an argument to be had on this matter. If people who didn't want to fight could, in nearly any circumstance, simply ask the opponent nicely and get an incon, the entire battle system would be a travesty.
Click to expand...
except saul has done so several times with way worse people than goku, it's perfectly in character for him if you just watch his show
Moritzva said:
Agnaa, you are one that highly values consistent rulings. To accept this as a reasonable debate would be incredibly inconsistent with several years of VSBW history, standards, and common sense. And, as we can see, plenty of others agree in this matter. Putting Saul Goodman against Goku is not a reasonable or fair debate, and for him to simply make another thread after I closed the first one is just proving my point.
Click to expand...
seems pretty fair considering that saul has talked people who are a: more intelligent than goku and b: literally insane down from killing him or others
Moritzva said:
I am absolutely not in the mood to see Breaking Bad wanked to 9-C and then thrown into ridiculous, impossibly unfair and illogical matches in a way that has happened all too often by BigSmoke's whim specifically.
Click to expand...
i think i’ve made one other stomp match for it, unintentionally.

if you have a problem with the verse being upgraded, go to the crt i made, which was accepted by two moderators.
Moritzva said:
Remember, I am not asking to punish him in any general manner. I am just asking that BigSmoke in particular is removed from the Breaking Bad sphere due to his general tendencies involving it and his history.
Click to expand...
???

go look at the walter white profile. over half of it was made by me. i've checked.

i have made several profiles for the verse, which i had to get accepted by people who you guys assigned to keep me in check.

in total, i've probably added more content to the verse than any other user on this ******* wiki. it is one of the only good contributions i've ever made to this site. after several years of getting punished for making cool cat profiles and upgrading the god damn annoying orange, i finally come back and make contributions to an actual verse, and now i'm not ******* allowed to do that either. if you ban me from this topic, i have nothing to add here. i'll just go back to making shitty joke profiles, like the boss baby or some shit like that. and you're not gonna be able to stop me, because i won't be breaking any rules. i will simply be making fodder for people to use in joke vs threads, rather than doing anything helpful. so thanks for that! really helps keep the quality up here!
 
Agnaa said:
snip
Click to expand...
I get the impression you aren't too aware of Better Call Saul from the phrasing of your posts.

The rules do not leave enough wiggle room for that, and 'social influencing' is not grounds for mind control.

I'll keep this concise: Agnaa, if you want to fix the standards, fix them. Your arguments are pedantic and are missing the point being presented. The "rules we leave open", as you put them, aren't open - basic common sense says otherwise. Our rules says staff can close stomp threads, and there is no world in which you are arguing for Saul Goodman fighting Goku isn't a stomp. The most basic, obvious bits of common sense says so. I do not need to argue this, it is a given, and if you are under the impression that Saul Goodman has magical social influencing that would lead one to believe the thread isn't a stomp... You're very wrong. He's just a good lawyer.

Not to mention, we set a standard with our previous debates over BigSmoke and Cool Cat that his behavior then (which is quite similar to now) isn't okay. Our rules don't allow this, Agnaa, years of precedent says so. If your only point of contention is "well, technically, the rules allow it", you're simply wrong.

BigSmoke is a massive repeat offender who has broken the rules multiple times (no, he does not 'weasel through holes', he has been reported and punished for this sort of behavior before), has passed egregiously flawed, disapproved calcs in actual CRTs (which you, yourself, argued against - despite this, he still put it on his most recent Breaking Bad CRT), and I can't overstate this enough, unironically put a regular, perfectly human lawyer with no supernatural powers against Goku from Dragon Ball, twice.
 
Also, I'm not going to respond to all of what BigSmoke said, but it's simply wrong. As someone who has actually watched Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, I can confidently say that Saul Goodman has zero feats of dealing with talking some random guy who has a set intent to kill him with zero other motivation. He talked down Tuco from killing someone else, but that was as a bystander and by playing to the actual emotions of the situation and using the motivations and character of the people involved to his advantage.

You can't do that with Goku, or in a versus match. That's stupid. Our versus rules, by any amount of common sense, don't allow regular people to ask nicely and suddenly get an incon. Not to mention, by SBA, Saul Goodman would be willing to kill at all (for some reason!) and would just ******* die.

If you want to make a match with Saul, pit him against Phoenix Wright in a debate or something. It's absolutely ridiculous and utterly inane to try to pit him against Goku.
 
Moritzva said:
I get the impression you aren't too aware of Better Call Saul from the phrasing of your posts.
Click to expand...
watched the series, have been obsessed with it for months. shut up.
Moritzva said:
The rules do not leave enough wiggle room for that, and 'social influencing' is not grounds for mind control.
Click to expand...
he doesnt need mind control, the dude convinced a meth addled drug lord not to kill him. probably wouldn't be too hard to convince goku
Moritzva said:
I'll keep this concise: Agnaa, if you want to fix the standards, fix them. Your arguments are pedantic and are missing the point being presented. The "rules we leave open", as you put them, aren't open - basic common sense says otherwise. Our rules says staff can close stomp threads, and there is no world in which you are arguing for Saul Goodman fighting Goku isn't a stomp. The most basic, obvious bits of common sense says so. I do not need to argue this, it is a given, and if you are under the impression that Saul Goodman has magical social influencing that would lead one to believe the thread isn't a stomp... You're very wrong. He's just a good lawyer.
Click to expand...
you could've argued that in the actual thread. thanks for closing it and just reporting me instead.
Moritzva said:
Not to mention, we set a standard with our previous debates over BigSmoke and Cool Cat that his behavior then (which is quite similar to now) isn't okay. Our rules don't allow this, Agnaa, years of precedent says so. If your only point of contention is "well, technically, the rules allow it", you're simply wrong.
Click to expand...
with cool cat, i didn't even read half of the source material, which was the main problem aside from derek savage's copyright chicanery. neither of these apply to breaking bad. sorry to let you down.
Moritzva said:
BigSmoke is a massive repeat offender who has broken the rules multiple times (no, he does not 'weasel through holes', he has been reported and punished for this sort of behavior before), has passed egregiously flawed, disapproved calcs in actual CRTs (which you, yourself, argued against - despite this, he still put it on his most recent Breaking Bad CRT), and I can't overstate this enough, unironically put a regular, perfectly human lawyer with no supernatural powers against Goku from Dragon Ball, twice.
Click to expand...
nah. agnaa disapproved the calc after i used it in the crt. sorry again.
 
BigSmoke4269 said:
watched the series, have been obsessed with it for months. shut up.
Click to expand...
I... was talking to Agnaa. The line directly above said it was Agnaa I was responding to. Please, read my posts before commenting before telling me to "shut up".

Also, it's definitely not okay to be using unapproved calcs on CRTs, either! This entire topic is a landmine of "things you should not do", and the fact that your counterargument to breaking one rule (using a disapproved calc on a CRT) is breaking another (using a calc that wasn't approved at all and passing it as accepted on the OP) doesn't help your case.
 
I'll keep this concise: Agnaa, if you want to fix the standards, fix them.

I'll make a thread for it later today. A bit busy rn.

The "rules we leave open", as you put them, aren't open - basic common sense says otherwise. Our rules says staff can close stomp threads, and there is no world in which you are arguing for Saul Goodman fighting Goku isn't a stomp.

Ant has refused to close "stomp threads" because people in the thread disagreed over whether it was a stomp or not. A parallel to what happened here.

Not to mention, we set a standard with our previous debates over BigSmoke and Cool Cat that his behavior then (which is quite similar to now) isn't okay. Our rules don't allow this

Cool Cat was explicitly rejected multiple times, and he kept coming back trying to argue it despite that.

This thread had him convincing multiple people that it was okay, pointing to a rule that we actually have that currently leaves wiggle room for this sort of thing.

Those are quite different situations.

has passed egregiously flawed, disapproved calcs in actual CRTs (which you, yourself, argued against - despite this, he still put it on his most recent Breaking Bad CRT)

I was about to say this is reason to topic ban him from it, but apparently he used it before I rejected it. So it's just bad form in pre-emptively using a calc.

he's just a human, he doesn't have superhuman mind manip

Yeah, the argument was that he had social influencing, which is within human levels, and which our SBA page seems to currently say is valid for getting an opponent to concede.

I disagree with this and will make a thread to change it later today, but it currently has room to be allowed.
 
Agnaa said:
I disagree with this and will make a thread to change it later today, but it currently has room to be allowed.
Click to expand...
This is the most important part, so I'll just address this. I currently do not believe it is allowed, simply enough. If you plan on making a thread to clarify, feel free to do so, but that still doesn't address using unapproved calcs on CRTs.

And again, it's Saul Goodman vs. Goku, I do not need to explain why that's not a reasonable matchup and I'm not going to do it again. There is no defense or debate for it being "arguable", it's not.
 
Moritzva said:
And again, it's Saul Goodman vs. Goku, I do not need to explain why that's not a reasonable matchup and I'm not going to do it again. There is no defense or debate for it being "arguable", it's not.
Click to expand...
you never explained it bro, you just keep saying "it's saul goodman vs goku". if you actually explained to me which rules it broke, maybe i wouldn't have made a second thread.

oh, wait. it didn't break any rules? no fuckj way thats insane
 
ShivaShakti said:
One specific instance regarding Big Smoke, which was recent, was him claiming that Slippin Jimmy was canonical to Better Call Saul, despite not having actual evidence. He then attempted to use feats from the former to upgrade the latter.
Click to expand...
there was evidence though. you just refused to see it because the show was too goofy lol
 
BigSmoke4269 said:
you never explained it bro, you just keep saying "it's saul goodman vs goku". if you actually explained to me which rules it broke, maybe i wouldn't have made a second thread.

oh, wait. it didn't break any rules? no fuckj way thats insane
Click to expand...
I don't think it should take a lot of explaining why putting Saul (who, by SBA, is willing to kill and not interested in giving up just because the battle seems unwinnable - thus ruining the entire thread from the get-go) against Goku is a bad idea.
 
in-character, but willing to kill. in-character saul freaks the **** out and tries to slimeball his way out of the situation, which would be much more viable in a fight with goku
 
alright. fair enough.
BigSmoke4269 said:
go look at the walter white profile. over half of it was made by me. i've checked.

i have made several profiles for the verse, which i had to get accepted by people who you guys assigned to keep me in check.

in total, i've probably added more content to the verse than any other user on this ******* wiki. it is one of the only good contributions i've ever made to this site. after several years of getting punished for making cool cat profiles and upgrading the god damn annoying orange, i finally come back and make contributions to an actual verse, and now i'm not ******* allowed to do that either. if you ban me from this topic, i have nothing to add here. i'll just go back to making shitty joke profiles, like the boss baby or some shit like that. and you're not gonna be able to stop me, because i won't be breaking any rules. i will simply be making fodder for people to use in joke vs threads, rather than doing anything helpful. so thanks for that! really helps keep the quality up here!
Click to expand...
i'll just leave you with this. you can either leave me be, or strip me of the one serious contribution i'm making here. your choice.
 
BigSmoke does have a history of being quite problematic, and his attitude on the RVR thread doesn't really help is case. I do agree that some of the match ups of a normal human lawyer convincing Goku to back out of the fight even though Goku is literally the type of character where martial arts fights is the only thing in life he pretty much lives for besides food, and that not even a debate. Though making really bad threads isn't something I'd give harsh punishments for.

But I pretty much agree with Moritzva that if this is something he does a lot, some discipline is in order when partaking in Vs Threads.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
BigSmoke does have a history of being quite problematic, and his attitude on the RVR thread doesn't really help is case. I do agree that some of the match ups of a normal human lawyer convincing Goku to back out of the fight even though Goku is literally the type of character where martial arts fights is the only thing in life he pretty much lives for besides food, and that not even a debate. Though making really bad threads isn't something I'd give harsh punishments for.

But I pretty much agree with Moritzva that if this is something he does a lot, some discipline is in order when partaking in Vs Threads.
Click to expand...
I am willing to settle for him simply not making Breaking Bad versus threads anymore. That is remarkably lenient and doesn't even address the problems with his CRTs.
 
since when were we topic banning people for making stomp threads? hell, this wasn’t even a stomp thread, it was just following rules which you don’t like.
 
I am still against a topic ban for BigSmoke.

As seen in this thread, there are people who believe that Social Influencing is a valid wincon for battles. This includes staff members, such as @Duedate8898 .

As other members, including staff, hold this view, BigSmoke could reasonably hold this view as well.

Moritzva shut down a match that had people actively agreeing that Saul had the capability to get an incon from Goku through Social Influencing. When she closed the thread, Mori did not explain why, and even when asked for elaboration, did not explain. BigSmoke was within all his rights to create a new thread under this condition; staff members believe that such a wincon is valid in general, people contributing to the thread believed that the wincon was valid in this instance.

It is just not a rule violation and should deserve zero punishment.

I do not care if Mori and other staff members believe that Saul could not pull that off against Goku. That is a matter to actually be discussed in a thread. If that argument is convincing, the majority will agree that it is a stomp, and the thread will be closed.

Mori's earlier arguments relied on a misunderstanding of the vs thread rules. It does not say that characters will start willing to kill, just willing to win. So Saul would not run in trying to throw punches at Goku.
 
May I ask something? (I was in the thread, and I found it funny and a joke thread), but then I asked myself. How can Goku even deal with this?
He has no resistance to Social Influencing, and I tried to debate on it, and it seems rather incon and not stomp.
@Moritzva, You seem to have rather personal issues with the user shown in this thread. Again, I am not involved in his warning, but I was interested to know how the thread would go. @Agnaa reasoning seems more objectively and reasonable enough.

Like you are punishing a user where the rule still allows him? (which I know myself it is dumb thread to begin with but I am being really objective) I would rather change the rule and then give a verbal warning if it was not allowed.
You can delete my comment but
Agnaa said:
I disagree with this and will make a thread to change it later today, but it currently has room to be allowed.
Click to expand...
Moritzva said:
This is the most important part, so I'll just address this. I currently do not believe it is allowed, simply enough. If you plan on making a thread to clarify, feel free to do so, but that still doesn't address using unapproved calcs on CRTs.

And again, it's Saul Goodman vs. Goku, I do not need to explain why that's not a reasonable matchup and I'm not going to do it again. There is no defense or debate for it being "arguable", it's not.
Click to expand...
 
Moritzva said:
I am willing to settle for him simply not making Breaking Bad versus threads anymore. That is remarkably lenient and doesn't even address the problems with his CRTs.
Click to expand...
This seems like a good and harmless solution to me as well.
 
Meh, is it really worth topic banning someone for a bad thread? And also, I'm pretty sure Goku has never shown a resistance to SI.
 
The rule doesn't, and this is a heavy repeat offender violating basic common sense. Not to mention the problems with the CRT (adding an unapproved calc to an OP without noting such) that is further in bad faith.

As said earlier, it's nothing severe, but given BigSmoke's history and how it would only take the tiniest bit of common sense to avoid placing the funny Better Call Saul guy against Goku, keeping him from creating versus threads at a minimum seems more than reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
9 10 11
Replies
401
Views
26K
Jeeeeepil123
Jeeeeepil123
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
985
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top