Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Antvasima]

What does that have to do with this? Just that this is a double standard? My evaluation is counted when I am on side with them, but then got nulled when I am against them? Nah. Done.

I just meant that we cannot suddenly hand out thread moderator rights to all content moderators and calc group members, so please be patient for a while longer. We will ask about you in our next staff recruitment survey.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

I don't understand. What does that have to do with voting?

It’s because Dereck was the one opposition but since content mod votes don’t count as staff votes, their vote is essentially nulled yet they’re one of the knowledgeable members on the verse is what I’m getting from it

 

[CloverDragon03]

That doesn't mention controversial verses though, it says significant following or large amount of material. MG is somewhat popular but I'd say it's definitely still relatively fringe? The reason why we don't require three staff votes is because it tends to be hard to get people involved in such a niche verse.

There's also this rule from the same page:

2+ votes is for your everyday verse. MGK is far from your everyday verse, in fact it's become a very popular verse for power scaling in particular

I don't understand. What does that have to do with voting?

It's genuine frustration that his votes don't even count for the verse he's worked on for 3+ years

 

[Eseseso]

@Eseseso

Please avoid making these types of edits in the future. They are apparently not allowed according to our rules for this verse.

I understand your concern and appreciate you speaking to me about this.

I'm not sure that it breaks the rules for the OP verse, but I checked and I did break the rules for minor content revision by not having one staff member approve the change, for which I do apologize.

I will try avoiding this type of mistake in the future.

 

[Dereck03]

I don't understand. What does that have to do with voting?

Dereck but as far as I am aware Content Mods cannot vote on CRTs, no?

.

I just meant that we cannot suddenly hand out thread moderator rights to all content moderators and calc group members, so please be patient for a while longer. We will ask about you in our next staff recruitment survey.

I am not asking for voting rights, I am complaining about the convenience in which my votes are invalidated, if I am agreeing about removing something from my verse my vote is counted, but when I disagree with something, suddenly they start questioning that I have no voting rights. Don't you see the double standard here?

And I'll just make this mini announcement given the situation, everyone who sees this and always went to my wall to ask me for input on their threads, don't do it anymore.

Oh no, let's go with the drama....

First of all I am very objective so I will go straight to the point of the problem.

I see a bit of dishonesty in the tally made in that thread. I already clarified it in this comment. OP used order (emphasizing to remove Law & Concepts based on order) instead of Law which was correct. Even the OP said she was aware and if there was a distinction she would change it which she didn't even more so when it was clearly Law stuffs and I had clarified it. So she left it as an order to remove the abilities directly.

And furthermore, Fujiwara is stuck saying that a specific feat that is the Time Stop feat being discussed is the one that gives the resistances to Anos, which is incorrect.
We have proof that the abilities (especially Nosgalia's) are said to exert the power of order with their words, meaning the one who resists the order gains the abilities based on the order = Cm & Law. But there we have everyone ignoring and DeagonX throwing warnings to everyone who tries to say something.

And yet, the tally does not indicate anything about removing any order-based resistance. It only rejects the possibility of Anos gaining resistance to Law Manip on a time stop basis.

And here's my response to all the drama, so check it out and don't ignore it. Cya.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I understand your concern and appreciate you speaking to me about this.

I'm not sure that it breaks the rules for the OP verse, but I checked and I did break the rules for minor content revision by not having one staff member approve the change, for which I do apologize.

I will try avoiding this type of mistake in the future.

The rule is to not use anime-only things for justifications

 

[CloverDragon03]

I am not asking for voting rights, I am complaining about the convenience in which my votes are invalidated, if I am agreeing about removing something from my verse my vote is counted, but when I disagree with something, suddenly they start questioning that I have no voting rights. Don't you see the double standard here?

And I'll just make this mini announcement given the situation, everyone who sees this and always went to my wall to ask me for input on their threads, don't do it anymore.

This is definitely a pressing issue. Like, it very much seems as if people just want to validate and invalidate votes based on what's convenient for them at the time, not actually based on existing policies

 

[Antvasima]

.I am not asking for voting rights, I am complaining about the convenience in which my votes are invalidated, if I am agreeing about removing something from my verse my vote is counted, but when I disagree with something, suddenly they start questioning that I have no voting rights. Don't you see the double standard here?

If that is true, then it would obviously be a double-standard, yes, but I am not sure if it was what intended.

And I'll just make this mini announcement given the situation, everyone who sees this and always went to my wall to ask me for input on their threads, don't do it anymore.

And here's my response to all the drama, so check it out and don't ignore it. Cya.

If you wait for around a month or so then you will likely get voting rights for all future content revision threads. I would greatly appreciate if you can talk about this issue with me in private in the meantime. I definitely don't want you to leave, as you are one of our absolutely most helpful staff members.

 

[Eseseso]

The rule is to not use anime-only things for justifications

In the past for OP, my understanding was that we did use the anime to clarify certain usages of Haki when the manga was unclear about it, such as Luffy's usage of durability-negating Buso Internal Destruction/Ryou against Zoan Kaido during the fight on the rooftop.

 

[Tatsumi504]

Snip

Honestly you are beating about the bush way too much here. I've already explained the short of everything here

So to save everyone the time, I took the liberty of only bringing the relevant stuff.

Starting off, this is fujiwara's summary of the staff consensus in the thread.

My report is in relation to "Removal of Resistance to Order by resisting Time Stop" specifically in which fujiwara claims that 2 staff were in favor of the removal (Deagonx & Glassman).

Firstly, this agreement was in relation to her summary of the topics being discussed. However, the agreement she received was not in relation to removing "Resistance to Order by resisting Order". The two staff only reached this consensus regarding time stop specifically not Order. This is basically Vote Manipulation. She's claiming she received permission to remove CM and Law resistance by resisting Order when in fact, she only received permission based on Time Stop specifically. The heading of the summary shows this and Anos Resistance was based on both Order and Time Stop. An ability with multiple justifications cannot be removed merely by discrediting only one of them.

A second case of Vote Manipulation being—I might be wrong since I had to skim through the thread— she never received any agreement from TheGlassman12 regarding this specifically. She took glass agreement on a different topic and is claiming he agreed to this specifically. On going through the thread, I only found Deagonx agreement on the matter and he agreed specifically to removing Resistance to Order based on Time Stop not removing Resistance to Order based on resisting Order.
Deagonx reasoning on this is made pure and simple

He doesn't believe X being the source of Y requires a resistance to X in order overcome Y however, the resistance in question is based on two things, one of which is a direct instance of resisting X of which it's removal was never even discussed not to mention agreed on in the first place.

So once again, my report of dishonest edits stands and now possibly 2 cases of vote Manipulation have been added on top of it.

Can you just address what I have written here and get this over with? There is no use for all this bickering. Please address what has been outlined here and get it over with. I said this at the beginning. From personal experience, my argument will be swept under the rug and it has once again happened.
From what I've outlined, there is not only unlawful edits but vote manipulation as fujiwara only received a vote from you. Glassman never addressed this specific case so your stance that 2 votes are enough is defeated as she has only 1 vote.

Looking at your previous messages, the ultimate conclusion should've been to reword the justification and provide the appropriate scans not outrightly deleting what was indexed. You are unconsciously upholding the wrong values. Her edit is not in anyway justified!

 

[Antvasima]

Also, please bear in mind that I am mentally thoroughly exhausted from all work today, both in this community and IRL, so I apologise if I have mishandled this situation as a consequence of this and not receiving sufficient staff help in this thread.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

In regards to the staff votes, the thread on question had received 6 separate evaluations before dying for a month. There was no indication of more staff giving evaluations, and Elde was going to apply other edits, so I went ahead and applied the downgrade since I had a small staff majority in that regard. It's two votes to one, and while that isn't super clear cut, it IS still acceptable in lieu of further input.

 

[Dereck03]

If you wait for around a month or so then you will likely get voting rights for all future content revision threads.

I don't know what this has to do with what is being discussed here, you make it sound like I am desperate for a promotion when I never applied for any position other than my current Content Mod, from then on I have been receiving messages that I have been rejected for admin who knows how many times when I have NEVER applied for an administrator position or any other position.

Once again my problem is with the clear double standard.

 

[Reiner04]

In anycase, a Verse as big as Maou Gaken who has disagreement from one of our staff who has worked on the verse for 3 years should seek atleast 3 staff votes, as far as I am aware we still take and give a great value to a staff opinion especially when they're knowledgeable on the verse than anyone is, Considering 2 staff approval being enough despite Dereck's disagreement is not just invalidating his vote but it's like it doesn't hold any value at all.

 

[Dereck03]

so I went ahead and applied the downgrade since I had a small staff majority in that regard. It's two votes to one, and while that isn't super clear cut, it IS still acceptable in lieu of further input.

And yet, the tally does not indicate anything about removing any order-based resistance. It only rejects the possibility of Anos gaining resistance to Law Manip on a time stop basis.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am evidently not able to properly evaluate and handle this complicated situation, especially in my current mental exhaustion, so I am just throwing up my hands into the air at this point.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

I would greatly appreciate if you are willing to take over here please.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't know what this has to do with what is being discussed here, you make it sound like I am desperate for a promotion when I never applied for any position other than my current Content Mod, from then on I have been receiving messages that I have been rejected for admin who knows how many times when I have NEVER applied for an administrator position or any other position.

Once again my problem is with the clear double standard.

But there is no intended double-standard. I am barely able to keep track of what is really going on regarding this issue, as there is too much conflicting information being presented. I am far too busy, distracted, and exhausted for that. I am just trying to help out in this thread since our 20 administrators haven't been available.

Basically, I recognise that it would be valuable to give you evaluation rights, and I have been trying to give them to you for quite a while now, but I cannot just overrule another bureaucrat. We need to be on the same page.

 

[Deagonx]

I agree with Fuji, and I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. I do not understand why this verse in particular entails so much drama. It was a minor revision that myself and Glassman agreed with. If there was a basis for resistance to Law/Concept manip on a basis other than "can resist spells cast by gods" then the profile should have included that with scans and a more thorough explanation.

And if that is indeed the case, then you can make a CRT for it and if the reasoning is as sound then we can adjust the profile accordingly.

Particularly, I think the biggest problem MG faces is the conduct of the threads. MG I think is the most difficult verse to deal with for me personally, because if I ever deign to agree with the removal of an ability (and to be clear, I often don't! I agreed with keeping other abilities like the regeneration level and concept manip!) I am immediately hit 3-4 quote replies from verse supporters re-explaining their reasoning that they'd already stated earlier, like I didn't read it or something. At least with Fuji, when I disagree she is willing to accept when I just don't share her reasoning, and is able to explain it to me politely without feeling like I'm being pressured or bullied into changing my mind.

The resulting situation is that it becomes very hard to evaluate due to how messy the thread comes from the long posts and repetitive arguing. I wonder if it would be prudent to have some of these matters handled in staff discussion, and allow the verse supporters and opposers to make their case thoroughly with their evidence and reasoning in a more structured way, with 2-3 posts each, and then allow a voting period without the constant sniping of comments that disagree.

 

[Antvasima]

Given that Dereck03 is easily one of our most valuable (hard-working and helpful) staff members, and the thread in question is evidently very important for him, I am making an exception and lending him my vote for it/voting the same way that he did, so he will not leave our staff and community. This may very well be an unwise decision, but Dereck03 leaving would be far worse.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I agree with Fuji, and I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here. I do not understand why this verse in particular entails so much drama. It was a minor revision that myself and Glassman agreed with.

Can we see the proof for this. Can you link where you agreed in my thread regarding removal of anything from the profile?

 

[Dereck03]

Anyway, if any of the others would like to know my opinion about all this, here and here they are.

I clarify that the OP used Order instead of Law to reject Cm & Law, and leave it that way even when I clarified that it should be changed to Law and not Order. And that the tally never indicated the removal of the current resistances from Anos' profile but the possibility of Anos gaining Resistance to Law Manip via Law Based Time Stop not Resistance to Order as the OP makes clear.

And yet the resistances were removed ignoring what was said.

 

[Deagonx]

Given that Dereck03 is easily one of our most valuable (hard-working and helpful) staff members, and the thread in question is evidently very important for him, I am making an exception and lending him my vote for it/voting the same way that he did, so he will not leave our staff and community. This may very well be an unwise decision, but Dereck03 leaving would be far worse.

Perhaps it would be prudent then to create a staff discussion for this issue and come to a more decisive vote for or against.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a reminder that I allow Dereck03 to have a vote in that thread and other threads for that particular verse until we finally get him promoted, by lending him my vote in them, as it is a far less bad option than if he leaves our community.

However, this should not be used as a precedent. It is done as a last-ditch desperation move. It is an exception, not a rule.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

As for this whole not counting vote of content mods or whatever. I'm going to say this, there votes matter regardless of their stance and they damn sure matter when said content mods are knowledgeable on the verse when compared to me for example. I have made my thoughts on shit like this clear many times on revisions of verses i dont know and that is that knowledgeable members thoughts/votes on matters of a verse they know regardless of what staff position they hold or if they are a regular user holds weight.

This should never happen and regardless of if it wasn't the intentions, we need to make sure it doesn't happen. If someone's logical response to something is being ignored without reason we have problems. This post is speaking in general, I want everyone to understand that. Stop the nonsense, this shouldn't be an issue.

And if that is indeed the case, then you can make a CRT for it and if the reasoning is as sound then we can adjust the profile accordingly.

This is a thing to. If anyone feels something was inaccurately done. They can always make a CRT.

Particularly, I think the biggest problem MG faces is the conduct of the threads. MG I think is the most difficult verse to deal with for me personally, because if I ever deign to agree with the removal of an ability (and to be clear, I often don't! I agreed with keeping other abilities like the regeneration level and concept manip!) I am immediately hit 3-4 quote replies from verse supporters re-explaining their reasoning that they'd already stated earlier, like I didn't read it or something. At least with Fuji, when I disagree she is willing to accept when I just don't share her reasoning, and is able to explain it to me politely without feeling like I'm being pressured or bullied into changing my mind.

The resulting situation is that it becomes very hard to evaluate due to how messy the thread comes from the long posts and repetitive arguing. I wonder if it would be prudent to have some of these matters handled in staff discussion, and allow the verse supporters and opposers to make their case thoroughly with their evidence and reasoning in a more structured way, with 2-3 posts each, and then allow a voting period without the constant sniping of comments that disagree.

I do agree that when debating, it becomes an issue when multiple users comment to one person when all it takes is one. This leads to repetitive arguing and more comments regarding the same thing and stress on the person trying to comment to 3 or 4 people.

 

[Dereck03]

Given that Dereck03 is easily one of our most valuable (hard-working and helpful) staff members, and the thread in question is evidently very important for him, I am making an exception and lending him my vote for it/voting the same way that he did, so he will not leave our staff and community. This may very well be an unwise decision, but Dereck03 leaving would be far worse.

I completely reject the notion of this while I appreciate the help, I don't know if you misunderstood my situation thinking I am going to abandon this site which I am not, I simply said I am tired of the double standard and was done with it.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, if any of the others would like to know my opinion about all this, here and here they are.

I clarify that the OP used Order instead of Law to reject Cm & Law, and leave it that way even when I clarified that it should be changed to Law and not Order. And that the tally never indicated the removal of the current resistances from Anos' profile but the possibility of Anos gaining Resistance to Law Manip via Law Based Time Stop not Resistance to Order as the OP makes clear.

And yet the resistances were removed ignoring what was said.

Perhaps it would be prudent then to create a staff discussion for this issue and come to a more decisive vote for or against.

Are you willing to start a staff only thread about how that revision should be handled please, Dereck03?

 

[Theglassman12]

@Antvasima No offense Ant, but what’s with the favoritism here? Hardly any Content mod or Calc member gets this level of leeway and needs to have thread mods and admins to agree with them. Plus Dereck never said he’s leaving the wiki, so stop with jumping the gun.

@EldemadeDityjon stop with this constant derailment on asking for proof, we’re not gonna baby you on your own CRT on who voted for what.

 

[Dereck03]

This is a thing to. If anyone feels something was inaccurately done. They can always make a CRT

The problem here Grifin, is that why should we make a CRT to add something that was removed for no reason?

I clarify that the OP used Order instead of Law to reject Cm & Law, and leave it that way even when I clarified that it should be changed to Law and not Order. And that the tally never indicated the removal of the current resistances from Anos' profile but the possibility of Anos gaining Resistance to Law Manip via Law Based Time Stop not Resistance to Order as the OP makes clear.

 

[Antvasima]

I completely reject the notion of this while I appreciate the help, I don't know if you misunderstood my situation thinking I am going to abandon this site which I am not, I simply said I am tired of the double standard and was done with it.

Oh. I thought that you were going to quit our staff because your vote was not counted.

Anyway, Griffin obviously has good intentions, but the problem here is that we cannot just suddenly give the staff members who were enlisted to handle different tasks the same rights as our thread moderators, and not give our thread moderators the rights that they do not have available (content moderation and calculation evaluations for example). It just isn't practically workable.

However, I do think that we should try to pay better attention regarding which of the calc group members and content moderators who qualify for thread moderator positions and are able to handle both tasks at once, and then ask our staff about if they can be promoted to such positions.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Are you willing to start a staff only thread about how that revision should be handled please, Dereck03?

I just want clarification from you Ant Can I revert the changes on Anos profile or not ? As dereck explained it was removed without a discussion in the thread. If it really needs to go then Fujiwara should make the Downgrade thread on her own accord. Also I am already ready with my sandbox if you agree with reverting the changes I will revert it otherwise I will stop.

Though this is clear bias that those who are Defending Fujiwara are not even trying to show a single proof for where it was agreed regarding removal of anything in the profile.

@EldemadeDityjon stop with this constant derailment on asking for proof, we’re not gonna baby you on your own CRT on who voted for what.

You can't even prove you agreed with something by Linking it here? Thanks for concession.

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima No offense Ant, but what’s with the favoritism here? Hardly any Content mod or Calc member gets this level of leeway and needs to have thread mods and admins to agree with them. Plus Dereck never said he’s leaving the wiki, so stop with jumping the gun.

Well, I thought that he would leave the wiki, and he is continuously helping me our A LOT with tasks that I would otherwise have to handle, much like AKM, Medeus, Bambu, and Butler, so I have to show him some favouritism in that regard, given that I am not able to handle any more work than I already do.

 

[Deagonx]

is that why should we make a CRT to add something that was removed for no reason?

It wasn't for no reason. Fuji explained that the logic for the Time Stop was the basis for the existing resistance, and thus the two were intrinsically related.

So this would only be resistance to time stop, and not resistance to order, since order is just a mechanism through which the time stop is used. By the way, as a side note, Anos currently has resistance to law manipulation and CM1 based on this:

Law Manipulation & Conceptual Manipulation (Type 1. Can resist abilities that stems purely from Order)

If the above logic is rejected, this would need to be removed from his profile.

 

[Tatsumi504]

In regards to the staff votes, the thread on question had received 6 separate evaluations before dying for a month. There was no indication of more staff giving evaluations, and Elde was going to apply other edits, so I went ahead and applied the downgrade since I had a small staff majority in that regard. It's two votes to one, and while that isn't super clear cut, it IS still acceptable in lieu of further input.

What is with this lie and deagonx supporting it too?
You received only 1 vote for the changes you applied, 1 vote only!

In anycase, a Verse as big as Maou Gaken who has disagreement from one of our staff who has worked on the verse for 3 years should seek atleast 3 staff votes, as far as I am aware we still take and give a great value to a staff opinion especially when they're knowledgeable on the verse than anyone is, Considering 2 staff approval being enough despite Dereck's disagreement is not just invalidating his vote but it's like it doesn't hold any value at all.

It isn't 2 it's only 1. The other one is vote manipulation. Skim the thread and search for where glassman agreed and you will find it is non-existent.

In derecks case, he has been receiving multiple requests to evaluate threads and they have been passed. Hell even his disagreement on a verse he supports is counted but when he votes in favor if said verse he suddenly has no voting rights?

Finally, in light of the problems I've caused ant in the ant with my edits, I don't wish to bother him so I implore @Deagonx to stop ignoring my comments and concentrate on the issue at hand

 

[Antvasima]

I just want clarification from you Ant Can I revert the changes on Anos profile or not ? As dereck explained it was removed without a discussion in the thread. If it really needs to go then Fujiwara should make the Downgrade thread on her own accord. Also I am already ready with my sandbox if you agree with reverting the changes I will revert it otherwise I will stop.

I have no idea. It seems best if Dereck03 starts a staff only thread regarding this issue, as I am too exhausted and confused from conflicting information, and we cannot continue to spam and derail our rule-violation thread regarding the specifics of a content revision thread forever.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

The problem here Grifin, is that why should we make a CRT to add something that was removed for no reason?

I ment to immediately re apply it if the thread got closed to call more attention to it so it doesn't happen again. Last thing we need is a profile having stuff being added and removed back and fourth without anyone knowing what is happening then it becomes worse. I understand your point though.

 

[Dereck03]

It wasn't for no reason. Fuji explained that the logic for the Time Stop was the basis for the existing resistance, and thus the two were intrinsically related.

While clearly ignoring all my other comments clarifying that the time stop has nothing to do with Anos gaining resistance to the order if not resisting the power of the order of Nosgalia who even has scans in the profile and clearly says that his words exercise the power of the order but you' all say no clearly ignoring what the series say.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I ment to immediately re apply it if the thread got closed to call more attention to it so it doesn't happen again. Last thing we need is a profile having stuff being added and removed back and fourth without anyone knowing what is happening then it becomes worse. I understand your point though.

It only lacked scans but we can just revert it and add the scans to it. If someone really Disagrees with that they should logically do a seperate Downgrade thread. Because Whatever Discussed in CRT has no relationship with whatever removed.

The scan was in power modification resistance it's still in resistance section though.

 

[Dereck03]

Anyway, it was never my intention to get into this but I did it because I was called out and I was even more frustrated by the clear double standard shown here, I have nothing more to say and what was given was given then, that alone will prove the honesty or dishonesty of this whole affair.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

It only lacked scans but we can just revert it and add the scans to it. If someone really Disagrees with that they should logically do a seperate Downgrade thread. Because Whatever Discussed in CRT has no relationship with whatever removed.

Then that is a certified screw up and yes, whatever was unjustly removed should be added back without issue.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Anyway, Griffin obviously has good intentions, but the problem here is that we cannot just suddenly give the staff members who were enlisted to handle different tasks the same rights as our thread moderators, and not give our thread moderators the rights that they do not have available (content moderation and calculation evaluations for example). It just isn't practically workable.

However, I do think that we should try to pay better attention regarding which of the calc group members and content moderators who qualify for thread moderator positions and are able to handle both tasks at once, and then ask our staff about if they can be promoted to such positions.

I'm simply saying there votes on a subject they are knowledgeable on should have value. Regardless I understand what your trying to say so I will not press the issue any further.