Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[ImmortalDread]

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.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/issue-with-qualitative-superiority-in-god-of-war-downgrade.156098/post-5896486

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.

 

[KLOL506]

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.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/issue-with-qualitative-superiority-in-god-of-war-downgrade.156098/post-5896486

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.

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?

 

[Planck69]

@ImmortalDread

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.

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.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

I assume, I added an exception to this type of staff threads, but the idea got rejected.

 

[KLOL506]

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.

You literally could've asked Planck to allow you to comment once more, like seriously, stop making a mountain out of a molehill.

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.

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.

Also what, I can't like posts I find acceptable everywhere else now?

 

[Planck69]

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.


Regardless, this is honestly a nothing burger issue. Policy isn't changed on the RvR and the incident on the thread itself could've been resolved with a few posts to me or another moderator.

 

[KLOL506]

Also for the record, I would be the last person to even endorse a back-and-forth between you two solely because of what transpired in the original upgrade thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

^^

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.

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.

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.

 

[KLOL506]

^^

Like I said, I can't give permissions anymore because CGMs lost that privilege

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.

Should've just asked Planck to do that in the very beginning.

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.

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.

 

[KLOL506]

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

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.

Also, this is not just my arguments, yes, I may have written extensively and long, but there are more Planck and Gilver's arguments as well.

 

[KLOL506]

Instead of cluttering the RVT like this Georr, we discuss this privately with you.

And Dread, ask Planck for permission to make your final rebuttal.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Who is he? Why are you misgendering me in this thread? Also, no you got absolutely no right to write a counter-argument while @Planck69 specifically disallowed this to avoid back and forth argument.

So you intentionally broke staff's member request as you admitted. Alright, so I will be reporting you.

Someone else except those two GoW's staff member to evaluate this report since the user above admitted for not listening to a staff member's request.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/issue-with-qualitative-superiority-in-god-of-war-downgrade.156098/post-5896486

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

Ehhh... no. Each of us had only one right to write, and we wrote it.

 

[KLOL506]

Georr, Dread, stop bickering like this back and forth between each other and take it to your walls.

You made the report, let staff deal with it.

 

[Georredannea15]

Okay.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

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

 

[ImmortalDread]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/issue-with-qualitative-superiority-in-god-of-war-downgrade.156098/post-5896486

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:

• comment #1
• comment #2 (the link does not work as it is deleted)

 

[Antvasima]

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

I guess I made 2 and one got deleted.

 

[KLOL506]

I will clarify that the counter-argument response to Dread was deleted and reposted with explicit mention that it was not targeted at Ant, but at OP, but I do agree there are still some remnants we could do without.

Other than that, Georr's first comment after this was merely to show Deagonx where the counter-arguments were made (Which really doesn't contribute any more new points to the OP, it only shows where the arguments are located), the second comment after that made in a response to Georr was deleted at my request.

 

[Antvasima]

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

Therefir and I handled it.

 

[Antvasima]

I guess I made 2 and one got deleted.

Okay. A second comment is fine for Dread then.

 

[KLOL506]

As long as there is no back-and-forth between the two and it deals solely with OP, sure.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

 

[Georredannea15]

I want to report @ImmortalDread and @Deagonx here. This is because DeagonX never warned Dread to get permission from Planck to post comments, but even though I got permission from Planck for this staff thread, he repeatedly deleted my comments and threaded me without any community group decision.

He said he disagreed with my permission and deleted my comments and banned me from the thread without any community decision but made no warnings against him even though he was in the same situation at Dread.

This is clearly biased and an abuse of power.

 

[Deagonx]

You commented the same thing three times, despite me deleting it and telling you not to each time, that is why I threadbanned you. Prior to that, you asked me for permission to comment on the thread, and I said no, because we had agreed here earlier that each you and Dread would get a certain number of comments and then stop, and then you claim to have gotten it from Planck, but that's more or less besides the point because thread mods are only supposed to authorize single substantive comments, not an indefinite amount of comments.

That said, however, my conduct should be brought up with HR if you have concerns, not the RVR. This is not the venue for allegations of staff misconduct.

 

[Crabwhale]

Complaints about staff are to be brought up with the Human Resources group, not in the RVR.

Also, reporting Dread seems completely unsubstantiated in this case to me.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You never added in your post that you get permission from Planck. Besides, the thread moderator can thread ban you without any collective community decision, if he saw you constantly violating the staff thread's guidelines which you indeed did by sending it three times in a row.

As for my comments; I never commented without any staff approval – one I got from Ant and from Planck, and I have stated in both of my posts to prevent such cases. As for “case similarity” argument – I got quoted/tagged twice in that thread, which at some point, clarification from my side deemed to be necessary, which is the reason I asked for permission to clarify.

While you were replying to an admin who simply merely expressed his opinion. It was not deemed as a necessary comment.

Also, other fact;

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)

You also sent two other unauthorized comments which you got from no staff members, so I think the decision @Deagonx made is fair.

Again, I am being reported for?

 

[Deagonx]

To be clear, let us consider this matter settled as far as RVR is concerned. Georredannea15 is welcome to contact the HR group, but I won't allow this matter to clutter the RVR once again.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

This user has consistently added statistics to multiple pages without CRTs even after having been warned on his wall prior.

Follow up, he's still editing pages without CRTs. I say ban his ass for a month.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Follow up, he's still editing pages without CRTs. I say ban his ass for a month.

He should be deemed as a troll to this point honestly

This user looks a bit sus as well

 

[Antvasima]

Follow 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.

 

[Excellence616]

Hello!

Was there any CRT to downgrade Thor and Lu Bu from Record Of Ragnarok?

 

[Giannysmag]

Hello!

Was there any CRT to downgrade Thor and Lu Bu from Record Of Ragnarok?

No. This user has been going on an editing spree, also changing Denji's speed as well as Yuji's, Hanami's and Mahito's AP all without a CRT

Edit: I've undone the edits mentioned

 

[Dragonite007]

Hello!

Was there any CRT to downgrade Thor and Lu Bu from Record Of Ragnarok?

Nop

 

[Excellence616]

The guy should be warned.

 

[Dragonite007]

Hello!

Was there any CRT to downgrade Thor and Lu Bu from Record Of Ragnarok?

I undid the downgrade in Lubu and Thor

 

[Eficiente]

vsbattles.com/threads/mario-bros-lifting-strength-upgrade-attempt-1.155080/

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara 's attitude in this thread is defamatory towards me as she refuses to be civil when it was already pointed out how to handle the topic. I can't do anything not viewed as wrong, I would appreciate staff with enough time to look into it fairly.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Efi, you were asked by two other people before me to stop being needlessly aggressive. This isn't defamation; This is people being sick of how you treat them and asking you to step back a little bit and cool off, which you deflected by just putting the blame on them.

To be blunt, I don't particularly care for your attitude towards others, and I've seen this behavior from you multiple times in several other threads. I can and will speak up when I see someone causing an issue. Civil or not, when you choose to do this "everyone who disagrees with me is biased or stupid" shtick, I will call you out on it, because you, as a thread mod, need to do better.