-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 7,001
- 4,288
Normally I wouldn’t be complaining about this, I know where these opinions come from and I've been around d long enough not to let it effect me, but this time it went a bit too far.
Especially after this was said
He always disagree with anything related to maou so
They should put Everything12 as opponents in here since he always disagrees whenever there is a MGK op
no hate tho
Especially after this was said
And they continued.
- 4,269
- 2,796
What part of this is report worthy? This is just banter and joking that you always disagree with Maou Gukin threads... is this a genuine report?
The most that's needed is for a staff to go to the thread and tell them to knock it off if it makes you upset. Or better yet, have you tried asking them to stop? This is a pointless report.
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 14,979
- 10,869
They were obviously joking. Not seriously talking though.
- 2,126
- 1,725
yeah i think all of them should be banned for atleast 3 months. These sort of personal attacks are unappreciable. Even if these were jokes ,a person should not be bullied for their opinion especially when he is a staff.
DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 15,984
- 12,672
It's just light slander tbh. Not that bad.
I've seen people get let off for direct insults before.
I've seen people get let off for direct insults before.
- 9,400
- 8,204
Well it doesn't sound like they are insulting or demeaning you, they are just saying what usually happens in those threads from what I've seen.
And that's not bad or anything, having an opponent is in most cases beneficial to the verse itself, rather than having everyone blindly agree on everything.
I can understand if that becomes an annoyance for the supporters, sometimes I too feel the same way about a certain opponent of the verse I follow, but they don't seem to hate you, they are just joking around.
- 4,269
- 2,796
Seriously. You read that and thought "Why yes, these warrants a 3 month ban, how dare they disrespect staff!
".If you genuinely think this is bullying or a personal attack, please look up the definitions for those words. I won't say anything else on this matter.
- 11,537
- 18,034
You can ask them to stop if you don't feel comfortable with it but this is just light banter that is definitely not report-worthy, much less ban-worthy
- 18,393
- 14,311
@Everything12,
Based on a thorough examination of the comments made by the individuals referred to in the report, I can see (from an impartial and neutral perspective) that none of the comments contain any elements of personal attack, reportable conduct, incivility, bullying or similar behavior. Rather, the comments are meant to be playful and grounded in reality, as they reference your known stance as an opponent to the MG verse and your disagreement with the majority of threads on the platform, regardless of their acceptance or rejection.
It should be noted that the verse community has become accustomed to your routine of dissenting opinions in the threads, to the extent that your perspective carries minimal value, as it is often not accompanied by substantive arguments, but instead, a generic disagreement.
In this vein, I can attest that I have also experienced frustration with your disagreements in the past, particularly in the context of my MG cosmology thread. Despite respectfully requesting the reasons behind your disagreement, I was disappointed by the lack of productive discourse and ultimately, chose to ignore your contribution. Subsequently, you agreed with Ultima's conclusion, which was in alignment with the premise of my thread.
This case represents a factual reality and if your desire is for people to remain silent and pretend to the contrary, it can be considered a “personal attack”, which is absurd. It is important to note that having an opponent can frequently bring value to the verse, as long as arguments are presented and a willingness to appreciate counterpoints exists.
Regarding the comment made by @Pain_to12, warning Dereck not to be honest in the thread should not be interpreted as a warning to be disrespectful. Additionally, the fact that @Pain_to12 liked a comment by Reina indicates an understanding of the playful nature of the comments.
To conclude, it is critical to emphasize that there is no ill-will towards you personally, but rather a recognition of your frequent presence and participation in our threads.
Based on a thorough examination of the comments made by the individuals referred to in the report, I can see (from an impartial and neutral perspective) that none of the comments contain any elements of personal attack, reportable conduct, incivility, bullying or similar behavior. Rather, the comments are meant to be playful and grounded in reality, as they reference your known stance as an opponent to the MG verse and your disagreement with the majority of threads on the platform, regardless of their acceptance or rejection.
It should be noted that the verse community has become accustomed to your routine of dissenting opinions in the threads, to the extent that your perspective carries minimal value, as it is often not accompanied by substantive arguments, but instead, a generic disagreement.
In this vein, I can attest that I have also experienced frustration with your disagreements in the past, particularly in the context of my MG cosmology thread. Despite respectfully requesting the reasons behind your disagreement, I was disappointed by the lack of productive discourse and ultimately, chose to ignore your contribution. Subsequently, you agreed with Ultima's conclusion, which was in alignment with the premise of my thread.
This case represents a factual reality and if your desire is for people to remain silent and pretend to the contrary, it can be considered a “personal attack”, which is absurd. It is important to note that having an opponent can frequently bring value to the verse, as long as arguments are presented and a willingness to appreciate counterpoints exists.
Regarding the comment made by @Pain_to12, warning Dereck not to be honest in the thread should not be interpreted as a warning to be disrespectful. Additionally, the fact that @Pain_to12 liked a comment by Reina indicates an understanding of the playful nature of the comments.
To conclude, it is critical to emphasize that there is no ill-will towards you personally, but rather a recognition of your frequent presence and participation in our threads.
It is a matter of fact and not an expression of hate.
The user stated clearly that their message was not intended to convey hate and was meant to be lighthearted and humorous in nature.
In this instance, it is noted that you were the only one who disagreed with the prevailing view. This scenario is considered to be normal and acceptable. It is important to emphasize that there was no intention to personally attack or bully anyone through these differing opinions.
This was not even a warning or hate, this was a joke based on your activities in our verse.
And it was evidently a playful remark that is not intended to cause harm.
Last edited:
- 7,001
- 4,288
I see.
- 10,775
- 18,705
And well Everything, leaving aside the game and jokes I did not make any comment to make fun of you or in any way to throw hate in any way, I just joked with something that is usual and you know very well that I never make jokes about you or anyone, first time I do it, Besides I have been knowing you for a few years and debating with you in any way and I don't hate you or anything even though you are always or most of the time against my verse which I don't even care because I am not a wanker or a heated guy who gets angry when someone disagrees with me. That's all
- 18,393
- 14,311
Thank you for taking the time to understand the statement. Your comprehension is much appreciated.
- 165,228
- 72,258
- Thread starter
- #17,216
Is this explanation satisfactory to you, @Everything12, or do you still feel like you are being ganged up upon simply for trying to do your job?
- 10,775
- 18,705
I mean, I mean, what he reported is not report worthy at all and those who commented on the matter acknowledge it, I don't need anyone's approval about their satisfaction on this matter if I never acted in bad faith against him.
- 10,775
- 18,705
Well, as previously stated no one insulted him or threw hate at him, i and they just made a little joke that was not a personal attack or anything to be offended by and the joke itself is something that is practically true in any case so I don't know where the bad feelings would comes from.
I always think I get along well with everyone, I show respect and only play with people who are close to me and have good humor, but what bad luck that the first time I make a tiny joke it results in a drama and a report. As I said, I don't have any problem with E12 and i think we usually get along fine, it's up to him what he thinks of me, I don't really care.
Case closed from my own.
- 18,393
- 14,311
^ I assume, everything12 accepted that those are not report worthy, so the case likely can be closed.
- 165,228
- 72,258
- Thread starter
- #17,223
Yes. Agreed.
DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 15,984
- 12,672
Neither are you, lol.dread ur not staff please just let them handle it
And iirc us "normal" users can comment on threads like this, if we have something of value to say about the situation.
- 10,503
- 9,259
Errr ur right
but there was nothing of value there
ant already covered it.. but i'll drop it idrc either way
Abstractions
Femur Breaker
VS Battles
FC/OC VS Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Human Resources
- 2,620
- 2,666
Reminder to keep the peanut gallery to a minimum, thank you.
- 30,097
- 31,408
Yeah, looking up. I don't think any penalty or bans are needed; I think asking them to move the banter to DMs seems like the most reasonable solution.
- 8,266
- 1,400
why do vs thread necros keep getting reported here when the rules literally state there is no time limit
i'm even not talking about outdated threads, i've seen users getting warned here for simply necroing. i understand that it's very mildly annoying for some people but there is no rule against it, why is it brought here
DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 15,984
- 12,672
Because trying to bump threads that have been inactive for like 2-3 years is often pointless and the profiles will have very likely changed in that time ( thus making the match now outdated as stated in the rule ).
Plus it's annoying.
- 3,087
- 1,652
- 8,266
- 1,400
not a rule violation
yes, but i still see people getting warned for necroing matches that aren't outdated
you may not like it, but no rules are being broken. there aren't any rule violations to report. i'd like to think we can settle things like this on a personal level here without running off to tattle to the mods. especially when they're just doing something that our current rules explicitly allow them to do.
- 14,767
- 20,633
Threads necroed after 3 years usually are outdated though
DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 15,984
- 12,672
Not my problem, you shouldn't be uselessly bumping and commenting on threads that were left to die.
If nobody has replied in years it's pretty safe to say they either don't care about the match anymore or want to recreate it.
Quite simple..
- 8,266
- 1,400
yes, then it's a rule violation. i see people getting reported when the matches aren't outdated.
deal with it somewhere else, i don't care. rvr is made for rule violations. unless the match is outdated, they are literally following the rules.
- 165,228
- 72,258
- Thread starter
- #17,235
I do think that we have rules against bumping very old threads actually. These are more lenient when it comes to versus threads, but our members should still use their common sense to not bump outdated threads for characters with currently mismatched statistics, as that will just bother the other members that are subscribed to them.
DivineAura44
He/Him- 4,672
- 3,005
What if instead going on about what is right and what isn't (because at the current moment, there is no limit on a necro, I even made a whole post on necro limits and all staff agreed there was not a limit from my recollection) staff just idk, make a new rule? Maybe something along the lines of any thread "Posting in vs threads which contain outdated material is considered a necro. This rule also applies if a thread is x years old." Staff can come up with a timeframe.
- 18,393
- 14,311
No, the current rule is fine, it is explicitly stated
As long as the versus thread remains current, there is no violation of rules. This is precisely why an exception was made for versus threads, as characters can still be updated even if they have been inactive for an extended period of time. Therefore, instead of creating a duplicated thread, you may engage in debate within the existing versus thread.
Last edited:
- 18,393
- 14,311
@BigSmoke4269
As a thread moderator, it falls within their duties to assess whether a user who has received a warning in the RvR thread has violated any regulations. The problem arises from users making baseless reports, rather than with the system itself.
It is in reality crucial to avoid placing undue blame on the system/standards, as many users may be unaware of or disinclined to read lengthy rules.
In conclusion, there is no need to revise the current rule. The matter can be considered resolved.
As a thread moderator, it falls within their duties to assess whether a user who has received a warning in the RvR thread has violated any regulations. The problem arises from users making baseless reports, rather than with the system itself.
It is in reality crucial to avoid placing undue blame on the system/standards, as many users may be unaware of or disinclined to read lengthy rules.
In conclusion, there is no need to revise the current rule. The matter can be considered resolved.
DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 15,984
- 12,672
dread ur not staff please just let them handle it
Similar threads
