• 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)

I think blocking CraigTucker is a good call, randomly spamming the Pride Month thread followed by some trolling and asking for "Rape requests."

As for LukeChaosBlobz, I agree that a profile creation ban seems warranted. And he really should make a profile for this external forum.

As for Favfav12, even if their is no IP Address overlap or Email Address overlap, those don't disprove them being socks given one could always use a VPN to make unique, untrackable IP Addresses. Though innocent until proven guilty. However, his OP does seem like a copy paste of Pizzabox's content revisions not to mention that he joined shortly after Pizzabox started going on hiatus. And keeping it up despite spamming emojis being frowned upon or spamming the random offsite Reddit topics of SMT/Persona downplayers. At bare minimum, he does seem like a stereotypical troll/time waster but I do see strong implications of him being the same guy trying to abuse alts to get around a topic ban.
 
TheGatememer said:
The emoji frankly doesn’t mean much on its own. But combined with all the other stuff I pointed out in my original report, and the fact that there seems to be some IP overlap according to Ant, it isn’t exactly a good look.

Also, I’m wondering why you continue to make the same Megami Tensei threads asking us to debunk the same arguments you’ve copy pasted over and over again
Click to expand...
Well, maybe we can topic-ban all three accounts in lack of better options, given that at best somebody is using his real life friends to argue for something by proxy, and at worst they are using sockpuppets?
 
ShakeResounding said:
Gonna report this user (I would tag him but he doesn't have the same name here) for repeatedly making low-quality profiles with the wrong tier/edits to the profiles of the Sonic franchise. He seems relatively new and I've tried to steer him on the right path, as well as even pointing him towards the verse's general discussion thread to maybe get some help, but I'm fed up. Here's some examples.

Images: Example #1, #2, #3, and a bonus one.

Profiles:

Kleptomobile (already a key on the Eggmobile profile), Amy Rose variant (literally just canon Amy but altered, probably shouldn't have a profile), and the Egg Dealer to name a few.

The profiles have only the very fundamentals, having neither scans nor references, and the cherry on top is wrong ratings in several areas (Tier, Speed, and Lifting Strength) for several of them (Adventure/Modern Era characters rated at the level of Classic Era characters, for example). Keep in mind the verse page very clearly states where each era scales in both AP and Speed to avoid this exact instance, and the renders he adds that weren't there prior are all just so low-effort.

Maybe this is harsh, but he's actively making the pages worse or making profiles that are plain bad. A ban is probably too harsh, but I highly recommend restricting him from profile editing. At the very least, until he can actually create profiles both consistent with the ratings and up to our standards.
Click to expand...
I gave a wiki message wall warning to this member to follow your instructions btw.
 
TheGatememer said:
I don’t know what the standard ban length is for sock puppeting, but I’d imagine it would be a year minimum, since that’s how long their matchup ban is.
Click to expand...
Sock puppeting in general is usually permaban worthy offense unless their are excuses for it such as to get around a forgotten password which in that case it's not really sock puppeting but just general "Alt account" and thus not ban worthy. Using socks to get around ban is definitely permaban for the alt while the original account may have a ban extended to a prolong period possibly including permanent ban. And abusing multiple accounts to agree with oneself on content revisions especially is permaban worthy offense. But even in minimal cases where their is clear malicious intent of abusing multiple accounts, anything less than 6 months to a year is too generous.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Sock puppeting in general is usually permaban worthy offense unless their are excuses for it such as to get around a forgotten password which in that case it's not really sock puppeting but just general "Alt account" and thus not ban worthy. Using socks to get around ban is definitely permaban for the alt while the original account may have a ban extended to a prolong period possibly including permanent ban. And abusing multiple accounts to agree with oneself on content revisions especially is permaban worthy offense. But even in minimal cases where their is clear malicious intent of abusing multiple accounts, anything less than 6 months to a year is too generous.
Click to expand...
Well, me and AKM have tended to be generous to members with multiple accounts, as long as no harm was done and no ban was evaded, by simply contacting them in private, asking them to choose which account they want to continue with, and then ban the others, but in this case a type of ban was in fact evaded, so I would personally be fine with if we apply a 6 months block to the main account, and permanent blocks to the others.
 
DivineAura44 said:
Just to make sure you guys are certain that the guy you are going to ban for an entire year is Pizzabox and not just like his brother or something? There could be alternate reasons to the similarity in arguments, more than just sockpuppeting. It could be someone from the same discord server who discusses these topics with him. Banning someone for a year based off a suspicion (mostly based on similar thinking and a reply which has multiple interpretations) doesn't sit well with me. At least call them to defend themselves before you do.
Click to expand...
We did so earlier though, and he apparently had nothing to say for himself.
 
Propellus said:
That shouldn't excuse him by vandalizing a page.
Click to expand...
Ant gave him a warning and just mentioned his experience with the user and expressed some compassion. No one is making excuses, he will receive something firmer if he continues the vandalism, but it's not inappropriate to take into consideration someone's history or personal state.
 
Pardon? You asked for clarification and clarification was given, as well as additional means of scaling Singularity to Low 1-C which you willfully ignored and instead opted to just push your own OP without addressing any counterarguments and instead falling back on staff that immediately agreed with your claims without bothering to hear the other side of the argument. I dont see how i did anything wrong here
 
Having read through the thread, he even acknowledged that it was a downgrade in his second response:

WeeklyBattles said:
Ive called some staff here to weigh in on this, as the logic for this downgrade is extremely shaky at best
Click to expand...

Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.

I don't know how we usually deal with such things, but given Weekly's history of being dogmatic in discussions like this and being immature/refusing to acknowledge his own wrongdoing, I think that some level of action should be taken.

WeeklyBattles said:
You asked for clarification and clarification was given
Click to expand...
No. Milly very clearly wasn't asking for clarification, the post was very clearly an argument for a downgrade and you acknowledged that early on. The word "clarifications" in the title was not a request for information, it was a statement of intent. I do not believe you actually interpreted it as a question, because it obviously wasn't and you didn't treat it as one until you'd already argued back and forth many times.
 
Deagonx said:
Having read through the thread, he even acknowledged that it was a downgrade in his second response:



Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.

I don't know how we usually deal with such things, but given Weekly's history of being dogmatic in discussions like this and being immature/refusing to acknowledge his own wrongdoing, I think that some level of action should be taken.


No. Milly very clearly wasn't asking for clarification, the post was very clearly an argument for a downgrade and you acknowledged that early on. The word "clarifications" in the title was not a request for information, it was a statement of intent. I do not believe you actually interpreted it as a question, because it obviously wasn't and you didn't treat it as one until you'd already argued back and forth many times.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is factually incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is facutlaly incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.
Click to expand...

We are already completely off-topic. This RVR report has absolutely nothing to do with the details of the argument. Do not change the subject.
 
Deagonx said:
Throughout the course of the discussion he appears to get increasingly frustrated that Milly did not agree with him, indicating that he thinks his argument is objectively correct. At some point he shifted gears to this weird approach that "this isn't a CRT because "clarifications" is in the title, and doubled down on this despite being specifically corrected by the OP.
Click to expand...
This is actually extremely prevalent, as on several occasions, he asserts I don’t know anything about the verse or it’s cosmology. Mind you, I have argued in favor of this verse on multiple occasions (on and off site), was the person who came up with the logic of Singularity being Low 1-C to begin with, and wrote several of the justifications for Bayonetta 3 character’s AP.

It is abundantly clear that one’s “knowledge of the series”, to Weekly, is entirely dependent on if you like the verse and agree with him uncontested, which is bad faith arguing personified.
 
Milly_Rocking_Bandit said:
Reporting @WeeklyBattles.

Even after an attempt of dissuasion from me, and a moderator, that being @Planck69, weekly continues to try and manipulate my thread into it not actually being a CRT (despite the fact that it’s under the CRT portion, and I didn’t at all ask for it to be moved to the Q&A).
Click to expand...
The whole situation is just bizarre to me, having just finished reading the thread.

Even if it started as a QnA (and reading the OP and some of the earliest comments, I did not get that impression at all), so? I've seen QnA and clarification threads turned into revisions. Trying to forcefully dismiss the purpose of the thread would quite honestly just be a waste of time.
 
The first iteration of the OP makes the following proposed revision:

"The way I’m viewing it, his erasure seems to be the only thing that exceeds his AP, and the only thing that’s actually shown to be effective on that level. Which, the way is put, would make him 2-A, and Low 1-C with erasure."

Qualifying for a CRT.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
The problem is that the thread itself is acting like scaling to Existence Erasure is the sole reason why Singularity is Low 1-C, when this is facutlaly incorrect as has been brought up several times in that thread, and which has been ignored multiple times, with Planck even outright accusing me of lying about it. The thread itself is inaccurate as its downgrading a character based on a faulty argument.
Click to expand...
I'm saying your viewpoint isn't objectively correct and I disagree with it, not that you're lying.

And the issue here isn't you disagreeing or your arguments. Those are whatever. It's you repeatedly trying to misconstrue the premise of the thread despite its maker telling you otherwise to get it handwoven away like a QnA.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
What? This is the entire reason for this subject existing.
Click to expand...
This is about your conduct in the thread, not who was right or wrong in the argument. Namely, your insistence that it was a request for information rather than a CRT despite it clearly being a downgrade CRT, and continuing to argue that point even after Milly clarified very concretely that this wasn't the case.
 
Deagonx said:
This is about your conduct in the thread, not who was right or wrong in the argument. Namely, your insistence that it was a request for information rather than a CRT despite it clearly being a downgrade CRT, and continuing to argue that point even after Milly clarified very concretely that this wasn't the case.
Click to expand...
Okay, fine, its a downgrade CRT. Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.
 
WeeklyBattles said:
Okay, fine, its a downgrade CRT. Doesnt change the fact that the stuff presented in the thread is more than sufficient to prove the argument being made is faulty.
Click to expand...
Weekly can you stop arguing a CRT on the RVR? Setting aside the fact that all the staff that visited agreeing with the thread's premise clearly shows the counterargument isn't ironclad, you're not being reported cause some staff cabal is targeting your "poor bullied Low 1-C rating~", it's that you're twisting and trying to get a CRT dismissed off of nothing but title wording.
 
Planck69 said:
Weekly can you stop arguing a CRT on the RVR? Setting aside the fact that all the staff that visited agreeing with the thread's premise clearly shows the counterargument isn't ironclad, you're not being reported cause some staff cabal is targeting your "poor bullied Low 1-C rating~", it's that you're twisting and trying to get a CRT dismissed off of nothing but title wording.
Click to expand...
Can i stop being reported for minor infractions just because people dont like me?
 
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
1K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
414
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top