• 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)

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @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 @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Therefir @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GarrixianXD @Catzlaflame @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus

It is extremely important that you prioritise following, bookmarking, and regularly inspecting this thread, especially our administrators, and given that I plan to go on a vacation soon.

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
 
Reporting user Arcker123 for they're inability to listen to instructions and their poor attitude.

When a match was labelled as a stomp, they refused to listen to reason, claiming that a character with a 100% chance of winning wasn't a stomp, and kept saying that "Even if it's a 100% chance to win, doesn't necessarily mean it's a stomp" which doesn't make sense and refused to listen to what I was saying. Their posts had the typical sarcastic attitude and told another member that they were coping, despite them trying to say that it was a stomp as well.

They then posted on my wall, and I gave them a warning not to continue the circular discussion, but they have ignored that.
 
I'm not entirely sure if this is considered a rule violation or not, but I believe some action should occur here.

I'm reporting @Joshyyy_64 for creating this thread here out of pure spite for the verse, and its supporters because of his supposed mistreatment in this versus thread here (I can't comment on its legitimacy yet because I haven't read through it, but if he was mistreated, I still don't think what he proceeded to do is good. Knowing why an action occurred isn't grounds to say the proceeding action was alright)

Now, I don't think just having some level of alternative intentions when creating a CRT is necessarily wrong. But blatantly saying that you made this thread to spite Bleach supporters is kinda..... well.... not good, and probably falls under our rules for being disruptive to our community. But again, as I already said. I could be wrong on this, especially since I just woke up.

Edit: Josh asked me to add some extra context to my report. I still don't believe this resolves him of doing that oopsy, but I don't wanna be completely one sided in my report.
 
Last edited:
He did admit to do that out of spite, but in the OP of the CRT, he also said he'd immediately close the crt if whatever he brought up (idk I just skimmed through his examples ngl) did fall under death manip.
I want to remove Gremmy's death manipulation if at all possible or *maybe change it slightly depending on if or not the below excuses account for death manip
Click to expand...

Do all the above excuses count for death manipulation? If so, I'll close the thread immediately and if not, let's get debating
Click to expand...

So I don't know, he wasn't actively trying to get it removed per say
 
Epsilon_R said:
So I don't know, he wasn't actively trying to get it removed per say
Click to expand...
That’s kinda the point.

He made a CRT claiming he was trying to get an ability removed, while actively knowing that the reason for why he was trying to get it removed was to spite the fans.

If he actually believed the ability wasn’t deserved, and was actively trying to get it removed, as opposed to just trying to spite people, then that wouldn’t be a problem, at least in terms of behavior.

I support an official warning.
 
Epsilon_R said:
So I don't know, he wasn't actively trying to get it removed per say
Click to expand...
I don't fully agree with this,While talking to @Spectra_Schiffer in the vs thread, he openly said that he would open this for removal purposes
IMG_20231228_183310.jpg
 
Colonel_Krukov said:
Reporting user Arcker123 for they're inability to listen to instructions and their poor attitude.

When a match was labelled as a stomp, they refused to listen to reason, claiming that a character with a 100% chance of winning wasn't a stomp, and kept saying that "Even if it's a 100% chance to win, doesn't necessarily mean it's a stomp" which doesn't make sense and refused to listen to what I was saying. Their posts had the typical sarcastic attitude and told another member that they were coping, despite them trying to say that it was a stomp as well.

They then posted on my wall, and I gave them a warning not to continue the circular discussion, but they have ignored that.
Click to expand...
This is absurd and ridiculously biased. The idea that saying somebody should respond to arguments instead of complaining being report worthy is absurd.

It’s not a rule violation to make a case against a thread closing you disagree and it never has been. Me disagreeing with your arguments and pointing out why I believe them to be flawed when you closed my thread and thus I had nowhere else to make the point is absurd.

The idea that it’s report worthy to discuss a concept on the wall and respond when you keep arguing the point is ridiculous. Nothing here is a rule violation.

Edit: The thread Was labeled a stomp by only 3 users whilst several others said otherwise. I was annoyed he stopped discussion whilst it was ongoing based on so few votes.
 
Epsilon_R said:
He did admit to do that out of spite, but in the OP of the CRT, he also said he'd immediately close the crt if whatever he brought up (idk I just skimmed through his examples ngl) did fall under death manip.




So I don't know, he wasn't actively trying to get it removed per say
Click to expand...
Just because he was supposedly willing to concede the point when sufficient evidence was provided means nothing to the report I'm making because the reason behind why the thread was created in the first place was based on spite filled pretenses. he was unhappy with how he was being treated by the Bleach supporters in the versus thread, and in an emotional action, created a thread to hopefully remove one of Gremmy's main wincons so Lucius had a better chance of winning.

That's wrong, and he should be warned for this. I'm not calling for his ban or anything. Just tell him "hey don't do this again."

I would also personally advocate for closing the Gremmy vs Lucius thread because it's a complete shitshow right now, and has already caused enough trouble as is. Leaving it open will probably just cause more divide and hatred between the communities, which is something I don't want to happen.
 
Catzlaflame said:
That’s kinda the point.

He made a CRT claiming he was trying to get an ability removed, while actively knowing that the reason for why he was trying to get it removed was to spite the fans.

If he actually believed the ability wasn’t deserved, and was actively trying to get it removed, as opposed to just trying to spite people, then that wouldn’t be a problem, at least in terms of behavior.

I support an official warning.
Click to expand...
I also think a warning explaining that he shouldn't make threads out of spite in the future is a good idea.
 
Arcker123 said:
The idea that it’s report worthy to discuss a concept on the wall and respond when you keep arguing the point is ridiculous. Nothing here is a rule violation.
Click to expand...
That isn't report worthy. But you know what is? You continuing to argue with someone when they have asked you to stop, specially when this someone is a staff member giving you instructions. What you should have done is simply ask the opinion of another staff, not keep pestering Krukov when they told you they didn't want to continue the discussion.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
That isn't report worthy. But you know what is? You continuing to argue with someone when they have asked you to stop, specially when this someone is a staff member giving you instructions. What you should have done is simply ask the opinion of another staff, not keep pestering Krukov when they told you they didn't want to continue the discussion.
Click to expand...
He kept responding to my argument, it's entirely unfair of him to claim the victim and claim he doesn't want to discuss whilst at the same time continuing the discussion. I have a right to respond in such a scenario.

Also quick question, why am I being called the sarcastic and impolite one when he makes absurdly passive aggressive comments like this:
If you're unwilling to accept basic logic, then perhaps vs debating isn't something you should be getting into.
Click to expand...
I said nothing like this at all.
 
Because you aren't? Like, 100% chance of winning means it's a stomp, yet you argue otherwise and are unwilling to listen to a basic fact. If something has a 100% chance of happening, then it by definition is guaranteed to happen, yet you keep arguing otherwise. I don't understand why are yet trying to accuse me of playing the victim, I just said if you're not not willing to listen to me, to drop the matter and leave it at that (I even gave you a warning to stop and you replied yet again).

You can't deny you're innocent, telling people that they're coping and posting the "🗿" emote in a sarcastic manner.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Krukov said:
Like, 100% chance of winning means it's a stomp, yet you argue otherwise and are unwilling to listen to a basic fact. If something has a 100% chance of happening, then it by definition is guaranteed to happen, yet you keep arguing otherwise.
Click to expand...
I never said otherwise and if you were paying attention I granted all of this to you in the wall.

I just said a decisive win like this hasn’t been shown to be a stomp. You just keep repeating the claim as if I disagree, which I don’t, but I digress, the content of my argument is not a rule violation.
Colonel_Krukov said:
I don't understand why are yet trying to accuse me of playing the victim,
Click to expand...
Because you were objectively more rude and demeaning than I was yet you want to cry about me being impolite.

I was a lot kinder and more charitable to you than you were to me.
Colonel_Krukov said:
I just said if you're not not willing to listen to me, to drop the matter and leave it at that (I even gave you a warning to stop and you replied yet again).
Click to expand...
Because you continually tried to argue. You can’t just say that you want to halt the conversation and then continue it by r continuing to give arguments.

How in the world is it a rule violation to respond here? I’m not wrong for responding to your arguments, and if you didn’t want to continue, you would’ve just ignored me. This is another reason you’re just playing victim and completely exacerbated this nothing burger report.
 
Colonel_Krukov said:
they're coping
Click to expand...
This is not a rule violation. Me telling people to respond to arguments is not a rule violation and isn’t indicative of anything. You are just exacerbating complete non points to act like this report has any merit whatsoever.
Colonel_Krukov said:
posting the "🗿" emote in a sarcastic manner
Click to expand...
Case in point.

This is a joke emoji I throw out there for personal amusement sometimes. It is not an insult, nor is it indicative of any bad behavior. This is ridiculous.
 
Arcker123 said:
How in the world is it a rule violation to respond here? I’m not wrong for responding to your arguments, and if you didn’t want to continue, you would’ve just ignored me. This is another reason you’re just playing victim and completely exacerbated this nothing burger report.
Click to expand...
Time and time again you do this bullshit and is frankly tiring. If he doesn't respond? "He's not justifying his answers!" "They are just ignoring everything" and then you have the bull to claim he's playing victim and is exacerbating a report.

You have proven time and time again you are unreasonable, trying to debate you is an exercise in futility, because you refuse to acknowledge people don't have to engage you. If you'd learn when to shut up, you wouldn't have so many reports against you.

I won't vote here for any ban, warning or whatever, but I wouldn't blame other staff for their decision to give you any of them, based on your behavior on this thread alone.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I agree with Colonel and Lephyr regarding Arcker's behaivor on what they say. But if Arcker has gotten multiple warnings at least going off the "Time and time again you do this" comment, then a short block may be in order.
Click to expand...
As seen here he's had multiple warnings on top of a ban for incisive behavior. Just this month there was this incident as well.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Time and time again you do this bullshit and is frankly tiring. If he doesn't respond? "He's not justifying his answers!" "They are just ignoring everything" and then you have the bull to claim he's playing victim and is exacerbating a report.

You have proven time and time again you are unreasonable, trying to debate you is an exercise in futility, because you refuse to acknowledge people don't have to engage you. If you'd learn when to shut up, you wouldn't have so many reports against you.

I won't vote here for any ban, warning or whatever, but I wouldn't blame other staff for their decision to give you any of them, based on your behavior on this thread alone.
Click to expand...
I’m not gonna tell you I behave the best, but this is entirely irrelevant. I never said I would chastise for refusing, I just felt like I could respond if he did.

You’d still just be mischaracterizating this
 
He's also, IMO, been overly obstinate and unreasonable in some bleach threads recently. Such as arguing that the word "very" in the phrase "the very world" is synonymous with saying "the entire world."

Which is... a wild thing to dig your heels in on.
 
Eh, I don't agree that it's limitless. Stonewalling a discussion in that manner isn't really appropriate. If someone held up a thread for two pages arguing that Naruto is a Saiyan that's really not something we should characterize as a simple difference in perspective.

Similarly, arguing that a common and simple word means something it doesn't in order to get a character upgraded isn't appropriate. It's as Lephyr said, it's an exercise in futility.
 
That’s a wholly false equivalence. The very world can refer to the entire world, hell just “the world” can refer to the entire world. Arcker wasn’t stonewalling 🗿 regardless, I fail to see why your opinion that Arcker holds an absurd opinion regarding a Bleach thread matters here. Idk why you’re throwing your semantics argument as a relevant topic here. Yall were holding differing interpretations, if you found the back and forth fruitless, you can stop engaging in the debate. Take to Damage as an example, when he disagrees with something and finds the back and forth unproductive he simply says “we can agree to disagree but my stance remains X”.

I’m going to cease responding here to avoid derailing, I suggest you cease the derailing as well.
 
Meh, I'm more with Arc on this, particularly that I don't think arguing semantics is really all that relevant. We don't punish that sorta thing. But the stuff that is relevant is, imo, worthy of a warning - but I would escalate that to a short ban given that he's received multiple warnings for similar behavior.

Though, that being said, I don't think this...
If you're unwilling to accept basic logic, then perhaps vs debating isn't something you should be getting into.
Click to expand...
...was really appropriate on Krukov's end.
 
I agree with Clover on this.

Arc is correct that a disagreement regarding semantics on a CRT isn't really something punishable in any way. It's not even relevant as "support", IMO. If it were, we'd all kinda get the boot at one point or another, let's be real...

Anyway, I think Arcker needs to make a much greater effort not to be so consistently antagonistic. He's been reported for similar incidents many times, and it's always very similar behavioral patterns. I'm cool with the dude, so I don't want to see him banned or anything of the sort, but he does need to put more effort into being more amicable with people, especially staff members, and not to antagonize them on a regular basis.
Major HST supporters that actually pump out quality revisions are getting few and far between, so I'd really hate to see one go. I think a warning to shape up should suffice, but I won't oppose a short block if the others feel strongly about it.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Though, that being said, I don't think this...

...was really appropriate on Krukov's end.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, and for reasons I personally disagree with, let it be known

This is the area of HR, and not something to be discussed here. Furthermore, that's actually something I give props to Arcker, the fact he could've responded in kind to that, but didn't. Ultimately, however, doesn't change the core issue.
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Unfortunately, and for reasons I personally disagree with, let it be known

This is the area of HR, and not something to be discussed here. Furthermore, that's actually something I give props to Arcker, the fact he could've responded in kind to that, but didn't. Ultimately, however, doesn't change the core issue.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, though admittedly I don't think it's worth the trouble of going to HR, I just don't think it helped matters at all
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
That’s a wholly false equivalence. The very world can refer to the entire world, hell just “the world” can refer to the entire world.
Click to expand...
Right, but his point was that the word "very" means "entire," not that the phrase "the world" meant the entire world.

Arc7Kuroi said:
Yall were holding differing interpretations
Click to expand...
Right, but that's the issue. If someone says the word "clear" means "tall" that's not a matter of interpretation. We have a baseline of reasonability that we expect of people, and IMO this is pretty far over the line.

But hey, if people disagree it is what it is.
 
CloverDragon makes sense to me.

One thing though: I can actually understand why there would be some confusion regarding the parts of the Stomp Thread page that the user quoted.

Common Examples of a Decisive/Non-Stomp Match​

  • Both characters have several methods of winning, including options that allow them to win instantly. However, one character can reliably use/activate their winning move(s) first.
Click to expand...
We say that^ yet also say:
A stomp thread is a VS thread where, for all intents and purposes, one of the characters is unreasonably outmatched by their opponent. Whether it is through a difference in statistics, abilities or even (in very rare cases) skill between the two parties, these matches are heavily one-sided and provide little to no challenge or danger for the winning character.
Click to expand...

If a character uses an instant-win attack faster than their opponent... that means they instantly win.... I don't see how this wouldn't be a stomp, even though, our page says otherwise.

I think we should remove the "instant win" part to make that point:
  • Both characters have several methods of winning. However, one character can reliably use/activate their winning move(s) first.
Click to expand...
Does this seem like a good idea?
@CloverDragon03 @LephyrTheRevanchist @DarkDragonMedeus @Deagonx @UchihaSlayer96
 
Having shit takes in CRTs is only a violation (or even supporting evidence) when it can be construed as stonewalling.

Regarding the core issue for Arcker's thing: I think he's acting very unreasonable but that is not terribly uncommon. I think he's downplaying his own unreasonable actions and upplaying how unreasonable others are acting towards him. Arcker is a consistently reported individual and in my experience, when investigated, these reports tend to have some merit to them. I would also agree to at the very least another warning for the pile, as this isn't Arcker's worst incident, or at most a short block, as mentioned by DDM.

Regarding Krukov: his comment was unprofessional, but I don't really give a damn about that. I would have been significantly less patient in his shoes. The staff of our site are users the same as anyone else, I do not hold any of you (or myself) to expectations of sainthood. Abuse of any measure is going to yield negative results, and as far as I'm concerned Krukov handled it as well as one can expect him to. It is a virtue to be patient with rough cases, not a sin to fail to do so. Nothing he said crossed the line.
 
Catzlaflame said:
CloverDragon makes sense to me.

One thing though: I can actually understand why there would be some confusion regarding the parts of the Stomp Thread page that the user quoted.

We say that^ yet also say:


If a character uses an instant-win attack faster than their opponent... that means they instantly win.... I don't see how this wouldn't be a stomp, even though, our page says otherwise.

I think we should remove the "instant win" part to make that point:

Does this seem like a good idea?
@CloverDragon03 @LephyrTheRevanchist @DarkDragonMedeus @Deagonx @UchihaSlayer96
Click to expand...
I'm fine with this proposal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
10 11 12
Replies
452
Views
29K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Catzlaflame
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
1K
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top