• 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)

Dereck03 said:
Just look at the warning that Mori gave him in their wall... Clearly says BB VS THREADS.
Click to expand...
I know, but from the comments on the RVT, it seems to cover more than just that due to the upgrading of characters to 9-C which was heavily inaccurate.
 
Well, maybe the matter should be reconsidered? Not that it matters to me personally, so I'll leave it here.
 
Colonel_Krukov said:
I know, but from the comments on the RVT, it seems to cover more than just that due to the upgrading of characters to 9-C which was heavily inaccurate.
Click to expand...
the verse has multiple 9-C feats. whether you think they’re viable or not is up to you, but i believe i’m allowed to have an opinion. you don’t need to ban me from debating with you. that is not how this website is supposed to work. i don’t see you going after the people who accepted the “heavily inaccurate” crt, so i’d like to know why you guys are so infatuated with me. i haven’t been reported on this thread for breaking an actual rule in years. it’s always about me doing something incredibly minor, and someone reporting me here because i’m a “repeat offender”. quit twisting the truth. i’m a repeat offender who stopped offending over a year ago. so why can’t any of you stop chasing me around? why do i need to be persecuted for the slightest mistake? what, is it because of cool cat? you know, the thing i did years ago? is it because i annoy you? the feeling is more than mutual, so maybe i should report all of you for that. just leave me alone, for christ’s sake.
 
Isn't it enough to give him a strict warning and try to reason with him first? If he persists we can ban him, but I do not want us to be overly harsh and trigger-happy regarding personal expression.
 
Oh, sorry. That is different then. If he is not possible to reason with we likely have to resort to a ban, yes.

For how long do you think that we should ban the member in question?
 
Okay. Would one of you be willing to apply the ban, with reasoning for it included?
 
I need assistance in scrutinizing the following matter:
Basically earlier today I deleted this profile, as it was a very poorly formatted and unjustified tier 0 which looked like blatant trolling, and so I also blocked the user who created it, as they had seemingly joined with the sole purpose of making this thing.
Now, they have asked me through another wiki why I blocked them and to undo the ban.

Now, I still think the whole story is kinda sus, but errors exists, so I'd like someone to help me deal with this matter.
 
@SamanPatou As far as I can tell that user didn't create the profile; they updated the statistics to the badly formatted / unjustified version that it was before you deleted it.

The profile was originally made in 2014 and has a history of edits.

Looking at it before he edited it, I think the page is low-quality enough that it isn't worth keeping, but it shouldn't have been deleted just for the Tier 0 stuff which was added by that guy.
 
We usually ban those new users who change characters statistics to tier 0 without justification as clear case of vandalism/trolling. So I shouldn't let them back. Also we don't ban people for creating poorly made tier 0 pages either, just instructions seems fine in that case, which clearly isn't here.
 
Damage3245 said:
@SamanPatou As far as I can tell that user didn't create the profile; they updated the statistics to the badly formatted / unjustified version that it was before you deleted it.
Click to expand...
That's my bad then, I know it's not a justification, but I can say I had just woken up and I've been too hasty.
I apologize and I'll pay more attention next time.

Damage3245 said:
The profile was originally made in 2014 and has a history of edits
Click to expand...
Hadn't it been deleted before by Matthew? I must have overlooked some things, I apologize again.

Damage3245 said:
Looking at it before he edited it, I think the page is low-quality enough that it isn't worth keeping, but it shouldn't have been deleted just for the Tier 0 stuff which was added by that guy.
Click to expand...
I can perfectly restore it as it was before their edits.

Dereck03 said:
Also we don't ban people for creating poorly made tier 0 pages either, just instructions seems fine in that case, which clearly isn't here.
Click to expand...
Yes, I surely wouldn't have banned them if the profile was simply poorly made but possibly legit.
 
So should the member in question remain banned then, and for how long in that case? If we let him back, he should preferably receive an instruction message.
 
Since I have absolutely no hatred for anybody, sometimes there is a line into this hating boner in MG threads and my threads.

I am reporting this user Blackcurrant91 for derailing/bullshitting an utterly significant matter thread I created in a staff discussion.
This is not his first time doing it. He absolutely did not read a single word in that thread and the other one, but he wanted to bone hate against us and me and derail/bullshit in my thread.
  1. First message
  2. Second message
  3. This message came absolutely out of nowhere since Glassman and I were focusing more on the outcome of the acc type 5
This is not his first time; he did this once in my friend's thread (Plot manipulation for MG character's content revision).
This is absolutely disrespectful and intrusive. I did not take my time to cooperate with other staff members and knowledgeable members to find a solution that took weeks, to get this hate and derail out of nowhere. And you can be assured that he did not read a single message in that thread and wanted to comment and derail my thread.

Everyone knows my intention for creating this thread, especially since I asked permission from all relevant members in that thread if I could create this staff thread to discuss it there. Other members who are relevant in that thread also vouch for this.
I did not mention Anos or other MG characters anywhere unless we want to use them as instances. And I did mention other characters as well.

It's irritating to deal with people like him who have a negative opinion of verse supporters. I have countless content revisions coming in the future; I don't want him to derail in my CRTs just for the sake of hate on Anos verse supporters.
 
Last edited:
Dont have anything to say in response to this at all, literally nothing of substance in this report whatsoever. Anyone with half a brain could see I was one of multiple people requesting Anos supporters to stop derailing the thread with comments about how Acausality 5 would apply to him the moment there was anything close to a more reasonable definition.
 
Blackcurrant might be leaning into reportable behavior but you're making it out like the Acausality Type 5 thread wasn't plagued by Anos supporters asking how proposed revisions affected him. From my point of view, such observances should be pointed out given the stubborn refusal of that particular's verse supporters from staying on-topic and thereby delaying and burying relevant discussion. And I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that these supporters are particularly vexatious.
 
Naitodesu said:
Blackcurrant might be leaning into reportable behavior but you're making it out like the Acausality Type 5 thread wasn't plagued by Anos supporters asking how proposed revisions affected him. From my point of view, such observances should be pointed out given the stubborn refusal of that particular's verse supporters from staying on-topic and thereby delaying and burying relevant discussion. And I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that these supporters are particularly vexatious.
Click to expand...
If you read the whole conversation between me and Glassman, we never mentioned them to scale them to acc type 5. If you truly read what I said, I mentioned other instances. You have absolutely 0 clues why I mentioned those 3 characters to Glassman. I literally wrote my reasoning in that post and this post, and Glassman absolutely understands me. There is 0 reason to derail my thread for what you think. I recommend you read everything before having an opinion in my thread.

And we were on-topic with Glassman, I have no clue what you meant with refusal since this is not even valid, to begin with.
 
This is clearly something that should have been delt with on peoples walls. Nothing here RVR worthy, if the only 'bad' thing I did was specifically mention Anos supporters then sure in the future I won't specifically mention them but I was clearly not the only person who thought the thread was derailed/plagued by comments about Anos when it should have been delt with in a different thread. I have nothing else to say.
 
The very thread that was made during the aftermath of an Acausality Type 5 CRT for Anos that was rejected under the new standards for Acausality Type 5? I might agree with the endgame of it in returning leniency to Acausality Type 5 standards, but it's not like it's a reach to perceive that thread being made in bad faith, especially in context with the overall reputation of Anos verse supporters.

Again, I agree that it should not have been brought up in the thread itself, but I'm not going to condone this incident being framed by some kind of victim complex of one man expressing unfounded hatred against the verse when we have many examples of behavior from supporters that have only served to increase prejudice against the verse.

This incident concerns Blackcurrant for sure, but as Reaper has already commented in the above-mentioned thread, it's hardly unwarranted, and instead peels away to reveal what I believe to be the root of the problem. Again, Blackcurrant likely crossed a line with derailment and targeting of a particular verse and its supporters, but he's simply being vocal about something that I feel a lot of people simply aren't vocal enough about.
 
Naitodesu said:
The thread made during the aftermath of an Acausality Type 5 CRT for Anos that was rejected under the new standards for Acausality Type 5? I might agree with the endgame of it in returning leniency to Acausality Type 5 standards. Still, it's not like it's a reach to perceive that thread being made in bad faith, especially in context with the overall reputation of Anos verse supporters.
Click to expand...
I don't care when it was made; you have absolutely 0 right to judge my intention in creating this thread about a significant matter. You don't know me, and neither do I know you. It is unfair to judge me. And no, I did not create this thread after rejection for Anos. I created it where absolutely no character qualifies it. YET, you did not now read anything in that thread till now. And yet, you want me to accept your justification on Blackcurrant? My report is valid and reasonable. I woke up and saw a bunch of users derailing the thread, including him.

Thanks for your input. Let staff decide this. You are nowhere relevant in my report. And honestly, it is partial that you still have an opinion after not reading anything in the two threads we discussed characters and Acc type 5.
 
Dread said:
You don't know me, and neither do I know you. It is unfair to judge me. And no, I did not create this thread after rejection for Anos. I created it where absolutely no character qualifies it. YET, you did not now read anything in that thread till now.
Click to expand...
Why so defensive about it? I merely stated why it is easy to see why the thread might be made in bad faith. I never explicitly stated that I believed in it, I merely pointed out the basis on which others may believe such things. It's much easier to believe in than you think.
Dread said:
I woke up and saw a bunch of users derailing the thread, including him.
Click to expand...
And that is completely fair, though I observe a surprising lack of familiar names in that thread that I've observed also derailing, they need to be reported as well if we are setting the precedent with Blackcurrant.
Dread said:
Thanks for your input. Let staff decide this. You are nowhere relevant in my report. And honestly, it is partial that you still have an opinion after not reading anything in the two threads we discussed characters and Acc type 5.
Click to expand...
Why would you assume I didn't read anything? Perhaps I drew a different conclusion seeing the same thing you're seeing. That's a little myopic to presume. I merely wanted to weigh in as another witness and interested party as a witness to the behavior on the thread that I personally find concerning. I never denied Blackcurrant's wrongdoings either, but there's larger context to it that I'm afraid might be ignored if not pointed out.
 
Reporting user @flmxn for vandalizing Arc Warden's profile. I've already reverted the changes, and explained in the edit that he shouldn't change the statistics of a character (especially to a tier as high as tier 1) without an accepted CRT.
 
Dread said:
snip
Click to expand...
This report is entirely unnecessary. Is BlackCurrant being a bit more inflammatory than he needs to be? Perhaps. Is that a reportable offense in any capacity? Absolutely not.

There's no personal attacks here, no breaking of even minor wiki rules, Hell he's not even cursing. If we went around hounding people for shit this minor, we wouldn't have a userbase left.
 
Shmooply said:
Reporting user @flmxn for vandalizing Arc Warden's profile. I've already reverted the changes, and explained in the edit that he shouldn't change the statistics of a character (especially to a tier as high as tier 1) without an accepted CRT.
Click to expand...
Would a 3 months block be appropriate? The member in question does not seem malicious, but they did make a massive tier change that had not been accepted anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
30 31 32
Replies
1K
Views
93K
Comiphorous
Comiphorous
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
415
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top