- 165,173
- 72,106
- Thread starter
- #25,001
I have done so now.
-
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
- 165,173
- 72,106
- Thread starter
- #25,002
- 165,173
- 72,106
- Thread starter
- #25,003
@Dereck03 @DarkDragonMedeus @DarkGrathAlso, there has been an appeal to be able to participate in an upcoming Tokyo Revengers discussion thread that allegedly concerns an anime adaption of the series which clarifies the nature of a speed feat.
Antvasima
vsbattles.fandom.com
I was told that you have participated in discussions about Tokyo Revengers.
- 30,036
- 31,245
I haven't been heavily invested so neutral. I also do not remember the user in questions reputation.
- 9,924
- 3,678
a lot of people are commenting on dreads profile and talking about how terrible of a person he is (deserved)
are we allowed to do this tho??
are we allowed to do this tho??
- 29,796
- 24,876
Dread has already been banned. There is no point in people leaving messages there as some kind of platform to rant against another user. At this point people should just move on, so I'll be deleting those messages from Dread's wall and hope that people will just let it go.
- 3,250
- 7,939
If he’s ever going to come back after the ban then that’s really going to be worth my concern. But I agree we should let it go for now, or convey this to staff chat if anyone wishes.
- 14,890
- 12,401
Chase's translations suck, but I don't think that's grounds for a permaban. I'd say more something like one year.
The thread's too dense to dig through on my own. So unless Tony can point out things that were mistranslated, used to argue for a change in stats, and don't have the possibility of a simple mistake, I think banning permanently is ludicrously harsh.
We should not be approaching things with an "Al Capone for tax evasion" mindset, we should enforce our rules consistently.
If our rules suck, we should change them.
Refusing to do so, and trying to seek out loopholes like this, will only damage the site more in the longterm. By undermining trust in staff when another example of mistranslations comes up which we (rightfully) hand out a shorter ban for. Or by letting a creep run free because we never changed our rules to disallow Chase's off-site comments.
Unless this is true, But Deagon said the exact opposite earlier.
Or rather, he said that while they were used, the mistranslations didn't impact the scaling.
The thread's too dense to dig through on my own. So unless Tony can point out things that were mistranslated, used to argue for a change in stats, and don't have the possibility of a simple mistake, I think banning permanently is ludicrously harsh.
We should not be approaching things with an "Al Capone for tax evasion" mindset, we should enforce our rules consistently.
If our rules suck, we should change them.
Refusing to do so, and trying to seek out loopholes like this, will only damage the site more in the longterm. By undermining trust in staff when another example of mistranslations comes up which we (rightfully) hand out a shorter ban for. Or by letting a creep run free because we never changed our rules to disallow Chase's off-site comments.
Last edited:
- 11,365
- 17,721
I thought we were done with this matter…
KingNanaya
He/Him- 2,640
- 3,662
this is true
the thread was originally a tier 1 downgrade, with the purpose of removing an 8D statement and a 2-A feat using his translations.
- 14,890
- 12,401
Nanaya, your post isn't very clear.
I can't find the translation you show in the review doc, and so, I can't be sure that it's a mistranslation.
I can't find the translation you show in the review doc, and so, I can't be sure that it's a mistranslation.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 2,640
- 3,662
I didn't know there was a google doc with all of that. that's my bad
- 32,811
- 38,003
IIRC, the document did state that the Moon Cell stuff was a work in progress.
- 3,250
- 7,939
Agnaa, I think you're taking a blind spot on the main reason why Chase was banned from this community.
- 14,890
- 12,401
- 30,036
- 31,245
Chase sent me this message on Discord.
- 3,250
- 7,939
The mistranslation conspiracy wouldn't impact anything on the case. And the entire reason why Chase was permanently banned is because of his morals and mindset, and not because he directly broke the rules of this community. If you're arguing that he should receive less punishment because he hasn't broken a rule then he shouldn't even be banned in the first place.
- 14,890
- 12,401
That's incorrect. The mistranslation idea was pushed by Crab to find an excuse to ban Chase that didn't involve changing our site rules, since our site rules don't currently involve "bad morals and mindset expressed elsewhere". You can read him literally saying that in posts like these.
However, doing so establishes a precedent of permabans for translation mistakes that haven't yet been demonstrated as malicious, which I think is a bad idea.
- 10,622
- 9,720
Let’s be honest, Chase was banned because we enforced a last minute “translation suck” report and banned the guy permanently. He was banned by this, and not for the creepy stuff he’s been doing and saying off-site, these things just made his translation report result in a permanent ban. We pushed it to ban him.
Personally I don’t think there’s a problem in breaking our rules like we did and banning someone like Chase, and I don’t think anyone should be crying because we did this.
I agree that this rule should be changed to accommodate cases like this. Then we can take actions without breaking rules.
Personally I don’t think there’s a problem in breaking our rules like we did and banning someone like Chase, and I don’t think anyone should be crying because we did this.
I agree that this rule should be changed to accommodate cases like this. Then we can take actions without breaking rules.
- 3,250
- 7,939
The majority of the staff already agreed on his ban before Crab's indication against Chase regarding mistranslations. Perhaps I should've said, "changed the results of this case".
This of course we can all unanimously agree on.
This sounds rather reasonable.
- 3,250
- 7,939
- 1,663
- 2,589
Be that as it may, as per Chase's userban history, the official reason he was banned was a link to Crabwhale's mistranslation post.
In any case, I tend to agree with Agnaa; we need to ban people for the right reasons. This summarizes it quite nicely:
As it stands, if we're being 100% honest, the ban doesn't align with the site rules, BUT, we can change that (Something which I am also in favor of). We should be able to decide that we don't want these type of creepy users in our community, and we, frankly, owe that to the rest of our users.
The following staff voted in favor of Chase's ban:
EDIT: See Darkgrath's post below
Also worth calling:
EDIT: See Darkgrath's post below
Please Advice.
TOPIC: Should we make an addition to our rules that allows us to ban Chase for the real reason he was banned (i.e., extremely inappropriate off-site behavior); essentially, in extreme cases, should we begin to consider off-site behavior when punishing users? For the staff who agreed to Chase's ban, this'll be kinda the same thing, but applying it to the wiki as a standard.
EDIT: See Darkgrath's post below
Last edited:
- 4,474
- 5,715
I am intending to make a staff discussion thread on this topic shortly. I have expressed previously on the RVRT in regard to Chase's matter that I believe our off-site rules are flawed, and I have also expressed privately that I was not happy with the way that Chase's matter was resolved. I share many of Agnaa's thoughts, and I intend to compile my arguments for the way our off-site rules should be revised soon.
If possible, I would like if discussion on the topic is left for that discussion once I have made it, so the RVRT can be left for its intended purpose.
- 14,890
- 12,401
Also, this may be beating a dead horse at this point, but the doc reviewing Chase's TLs seemed to sort of give overblown reactions.
Like, in row 25 of the BB translations, the judge gets on Chase's case about using a slightly wrong definition of 扱える (using "manipulate" instead of something more accurate like "exploit" or "handle"), but stuff like that isn't exactly rare.
In a Mario thread, some scans were translated by a professional translator a user of the site contacted. I noticed that they seemed to be interpreting そんな (that feeling/action) as something more along the lines of この (this place). I told them about this, and they agreed I was right. This was an error that was tiering relevant (one interpretation implies that the physical space of the dream is physically infinite, one implies that the place is something people always dream of), and about on the same scale as a fair few of Chase's. Yet it was done by a professional translator, and no-one really cared to see it as a rule violation.
Or if we're not certain that this off-site person being DM'd really is a professional translator, this sort of stuff happens fairly frequently in things with official releases. Translating "took until 6 o'clock" (1.5 hours) as "took 6 hours" is a particularly egregious one I remember. ofc, not with the same density as Chase's, but that can be chalked up to inexperience/rushing.
Essentially, this is a restatement of Deagon's earlier post, backed up by actually knowing practical examples in the same language.
Like, in row 25 of the BB translations, the judge gets on Chase's case about using a slightly wrong definition of 扱える (using "manipulate" instead of something more accurate like "exploit" or "handle"), but stuff like that isn't exactly rare.
In a Mario thread, some scans were translated by a professional translator a user of the site contacted. I noticed that they seemed to be interpreting そんな (that feeling/action) as something more along the lines of この (this place). I told them about this, and they agreed I was right. This was an error that was tiering relevant (one interpretation implies that the physical space of the dream is physically infinite, one implies that the place is something people always dream of), and about on the same scale as a fair few of Chase's. Yet it was done by a professional translator, and no-one really cared to see it as a rule violation.
Or if we're not certain that this off-site person being DM'd really is a professional translator, this sort of stuff happens fairly frequently in things with official releases. Translating "took until 6 o'clock" (1.5 hours) as "took 6 hours" is a particularly egregious one I remember. ofc, not with the same density as Chase's, but that can be chalked up to inexperience/rushing.
Essentially, this is a restatement of Deagon's earlier post, backed up by actually knowing practical examples in the same language.
- 7,240
- 13,125
TL;DR: Translating is hard even when you're very good at both languages and the types of errors made in Chase's TLs were fairly tame, and the few instances where it could be described as egregious are difficult to take seriously because the differences very plainly have no scaling implications.
I think waiting for DarkGrath's staff discussion is best and we can workout what we think the best approach is and revisit the issue.
I think waiting for DarkGrath's staff discussion is best and we can workout what we think the best approach is and revisit the issue.
- 10,683
- 4,751
someone messed with orion page in the tier section
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Orion_(DC_Comics)
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Orion_(DC_Comics)
- 987
- 369
bumping this
- 9,190
- 6,593
@MorrisHatesYou is the user appealing, he hasn't really done anything terrible asides arguing his concepts of feats to death with staff. The only report I remember of him was on him being a sock which turned out to be false.
I work with him, @Dinozxd and @CorbinMLG on Tokyo Revengers revisions, while also checking out the feats/ideas they bring up so that they aren't something that'll rile up things with the verse again. They've been doing well and have grown very well accustomed to how we do things here.
So far we have just been making calcs and addressing the validity of those calcs before sharing with a cgm while patiently waiting for the anime adaptations to provide clarifications for a lot of things that were argued non-stop in the most recent CRTs. There is a big feat that just got adapted last week and @MorrisHatesYou wants to make sure he is able to participate in a future thread that addresses the feat. There is a high chance ill make that thread or someone might beat me to it. So in the event a Tokyo Revengers thread is made can @MorrisHatesYou @CorbinMLG and @Dinozxd also be allowed to participate?
- 165,173
- 72,106
- Thread starter
- #25,030
Also, there has been an appeal to be able to participate in an upcoming Tokyo Revengers discussion thread that allegedly concerns an anime adaption of the series which clarifies the nature of a speed feat.
Antvasima
@DMUA @Dalesean027
What do you think?
- 16,007
- 25,079
I've personally watched it to see the scene in question a couple of days ago, im fine with them using the on screen movement as the anime shows it but its still kinda got the same problem of our view of izana being blocked blocked by kakucho running towards the screen but considering we see he was already right behind kakucho running right after the first shot was fired its safe to say he was already running after him so just the steps he took to get ahead of kakucho and 90degree arm movement of the push should be fine.
I've no personal objections with them being involved in the threads as long as they aren't giving the CGMs a hard time who go to help out
- 16,007
- 25,079
Oh I had no knowledge of any of this, if that's what decided I can't really say otherwise since I've not worked otherwise with TR since the discuss rule.
- 3,082
- 1,648
If this is off topic and people delete worthy then whatever but I would like to add to this by suggesting "just" (Read: just) linking to an RVR post when banning people be prohibited.
- 1,663
- 2,589
Btw, there was another thing they mentioned:Also, there has been an appeal to be able to participate in an upcoming Tokyo Revengers discussion thread that allegedly concerns an anime adaption of the series which clarifies the nature of a speed feat.
Antvasima
To clarify, the username of the person they linked is "Tetsuoforsetti," and the banned user SoloKaneki, has openly admited to using the nickname "Tetsuo." This paired with the fact that both accounts seem to be interested in Tokyo Revengers, is reason for concern imo.
Regarding those 3 users, I tend to agree with M3X; let them participate under staff supervision.
- 10,771
- 18,692
This conclusions seems fine to me. However, I don't believe that significant staff intervention is strictly necessary unless there is some kind of derailment that warrants it.
Excellence616
He/Him- 5,347
- 3,675
- 10,771
- 18,692
You do not appear blocked to me and looking at your account block log you have never been blocked.
Similar threads
