Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bruh, you could've just asked Planck to deal with this or asked him for permission again to post one more comment in response, or make Georr not respond to your post. What is the purpose of this report to begin with?I believe the matter at hand may not meet the criteria for an official report in the RvR context. However, it is worth noting the issue raised in the provided link, as it carries some significance.
In a previous discussion initiated by @Planck69, both myself and @Georredannea15 were requested to present our viewpoints in a concise manner, limited to a single post. I complied with this request by refraining from addressing other individuals directly and instead shared my own perspectives in a single post. However, @Georredannea15 did not adhere to Planck's instructions and chose to respond to my points, thereby gaining an advantage over me, as my arguments were specifically "counter-addressed."
This situation places me at a disadvantage, which I perceive as unfair since I am no longer allowed to address back. In following Planck's directive, I purposely refrained from engaging in back-and-forth arguments until someone from the supporters of God of War adopted a similar approach. If our intention is to foster a thoughtful discussion while ensuring fairness for all participants, this type of comment can be seen as misleading.
To rectify this issue, it is suggested that both parties be granted permission to engage in a back-and-forth exchange or that a single post be designated to avoid the impression of favoritism.
Once again, it is important to note that this report is not directed towards any specific individual, but I do believe there is a flaw in the current approach.
The current situation does not pertain to any personal responsibility on my part. Rather, it concerns the inequitable treatment exhibited by supporters and staff members that has led to this member's appointment.Bruh, you could've just asked Planck to deal with this or asked him for permission again to post one more comment in response, or make Georr not respond to your post. What is the purpose of this report to begin with?
My issue is @KLOL506 liking the post, which deems acceptable for him. I considered asking you for an additional permission, but this simply goes against the notion of making the thread staff-only, is to avoid back and forth.As said above, you could've just asked me to deal with the issue and get him to cut down the responses to you on his post or asked for one more permission to make a final rebuttal.
I assume, I added an exception to this type of staff threads, but the idea got rejected.As it is, this seems to be an issue with the standard in general, in which case it'd need an actual thread to address and not a nebulous report here.
You literally could've asked Planck to allow you to comment once more, like seriously, stop making a mountain out of a molehill.The current situation does not pertain to any personal responsibility on my part. Rather, it concerns the inequitable treatment exhibited by supporters and staff members that has led to this member's appointment.
The directive put forth by Planck was explicit in its aim to prevent prolonged debates, not to facilitate them. I perceive it as unjust to merely disregard this directive.
My intention here is not to instigate conflict (nor to report any relevant members), but rather to highlight that I initially engaged in this discussion with respect and fairness, only to find myself unfairly disadvantaged by other supporters.
I can't give you permission because apparently calc group members can't do that anymore. Planck was literally there. He has higher power than me. You could've just asked him on his wall.My issue is @KLOL506 liking the post, which deems acceptable for him. I considered asking you for an additional permission, but this simply goes against the notion of making the thread staff-only, is to avoid back and forth.
It is entirely possible, and likely the case that he just agrees with Georredannea15's analysis about the thread and didn't take the issue of into account. I hardly take a kudos as endorsing back-and-forth or anything of the sort.My issue is @KLOL506 liking the post, which deems acceptable for him. I considered asking you for an additional permission, but this simply goes against the notion of making the thread staff-only, is to avoid back and forth.
You literally could've asked Planck to allow you to comment once more, like seriously, stop making a mountain out of a molehill.
The directive put forth by Planck was explicit in its aim to prevent prolonged debates, not to facilitate them. I perceive it as unjust to merely disregard this directive.
^^I considered asking you for an additional permission, but this simply goes against the notion of making the thread staff-only, is to avoid back and forth.
I suppose; But again, if you don't mind, tell Georr to remove his post without addressing my points or simply turn it back to content revision if you want to remain in fairness.It is entirely possible, and likely the case that he just agrees with Georredannea15's analysis about the thread and didn't take the issue of into account. I hardly take a kudos as endorsing back-and-forth or anything of the sort.
To rectify this issue, it is suggested that both parties be granted permission to engage in a back-and-forth exchange or that a single post be designated to avoid the impression of favoritism.
Like I said, I can't give permissions anymore because CGMs lost that privilege
Should've just asked Planck to do that in the very beginning.I suppose; But again, if you don't mind, tell Georr to remove his post without addressing my points or simply turn it back to content revision if you want to remain in fairness.
There will be no back-and-forth going on here anymore if the previous thread is anything to go by. You should've just asked Planck for permission to make one final rebuttal and that should've been the end of it.To rectify this issue, it is suggested that both parties be granted permission to engage in a back-and-forth exchange or that a single post be designated to avoid the impression of favoritism.
What he said was almost the same as what was discussed in previous revisions, so I said that these had been discussed before and still exercised my right to write a counter-argument. I have no idea why he objected to this.For the record, I viewed Georr's comment as merely his own post and his side of the argument considering what was discussed, and Tanin and Gilver have yet to formulate their counter-arguments as well, though I will note down that they will also get only one chance to comment their own thoughts on the matter without having to respond to yours to begin with.
In a previous discussion initiated by @Planck69, both myself and @Georredannea15 were requested to present our viewpoints in a concise manner, limited to a single post. I complied with this request by refraining from addressing other individuals directly and instead shared my own perspectives in a single post. However, @Georredannea15 did not adhere to Planck's instructions and chose to respond to my points, thereby gaining an advantage over me, as my arguments were specifically "counter-addressed."
This situation places me at a disadvantage, which I perceive as unfair since I am no longer allowed to address back. In following Planck's directive, I purposely refrained from engaging in back-and-forth arguments until someone from the supporters of God of War adopted a similar approach. If our intention is to foster a thoughtful discussion while ensuring fairness for all participants, this type of comment can be seen as misleading.
Additionally, Georr posted two comments in a staff thread that has no permission from any staff member:
In a previous discussion initiated by @Planck69, both myself and @Georredannea15 were requested to present our viewpoints in a concise manner, limited to a single post. I complied with this request by refraining from addressing other individuals directly and instead shared my own perspectives in a single post. However, @Georredannea15 did not adhere to Planck's instructions and chose to respond to my points, thereby gaining an advantage over me, as my arguments were specifically "counter-addressed."
This situation places me at a disadvantage, which I perceive as unfair since I am no longer allowed to address back. In following Planck's directive, I purposely refrained from engaging in back-and-forth arguments until someone from the supporters of God of War adopted a similar approach. If our intention is to foster a thoughtful discussion while ensuring fairness for all participants, this type of comment can be seen as misleading.
I guess I made 2 and one got deleted.Dread is allowed to make the same total number of posts as Georr has used in that thread in order to hopefully resolve the situation.
Therefir and I handled it.User contributions for Puteri manis | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom
vsbattles.fandom.com
This guy has been vandalizing pages such as this.
Naruto Uzumaki (Storm Series)
Naruto Uzumaki (うずまき ナルト, Uzumaki Naruto?) is the main protagonist of the Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm series and shinobi of Konohagakure's Uzumaki clan. He became the jinchūriki of the Nine-Tails on the day of his birth — a fate that caused him to be shunned by most of Konoha throughout his...vsbattles.fandom.com
Okay. A second comment is fine for Dread then.I guess I made 2 and one got deleted.
You also sent two other unauthorized comments which you got from no staff members, so I think the decision @Deagonx made is fair.Additionally, Georr posted two comments in a staff thread that has no permission from any staff member:
- comment #1
- comment #2 (the link does not work as it is deleted)
Follow up, he's still editing pages without CRTs. I say ban his ass for a month.This user has consistently added statistics to multiple pages without CRTs even after having been warned on his wall prior.
He should be deemed as a troll to this point honestlyFollow up, he's still editing pages without CRTs. I say ban his ass for a month.
I am fine with if you do so then.Follow up, he's still editing pages without CRTs. I say ban his ass for a month.
Nop
I undid the downgrade in Lubu and Thor