• 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)

James_Plays_4_Games said:
I'm reporting @E6pire and @zaraus for having insistently made false accusations about the quality of my input in the following thread, in an attempt to finish the job of getting the thread accepted, potentially at my credibility's expense: Regular Show Revision. The thread itself is within the rules and I don't want to try reverting any revisions in accordance with this report, but I want to give attention to how the two aforementioned members practically cheated their way through my disagreement with one of the details.

Context
At the beginning, we briefly wrote about plenty of ideas that were quickly settled honestly, with me having agreed with most of them. Only one disagreement ultimately matters for this report. For what concerned the thread for the longest time and for what concerns this report, we were observing a scene from Regular Show where characters were fighting in a huge battle on two teams. One of the characters in question, the God of Basketball, has MFTL speed, as told on his VS Battles Wiki profile. He was shown to punch a different character named the Hammer twice, before preparing a wind up punch, which got him hit by another opponent's sneak attack, followed by the Hammer succeeding to punch the God of Basketball away while the latter was injured.

My opinion and E6pire's opinion differ about why the scene played out the way it did. I believe the Hammer was too slow to hit the God of Basketball until the latter was distracted by being in pain from having been sneak attacked, and I think the character who sneak attacked him doesn't have MFTL speed because the God of Basketball accidentally left himself vulnerable. E6pire believes the Hammer needed to have MFTL speed to punch the God of Basketball because the latter's injury wasn't severe enough, and the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball has MFTL speed due to intercepting his wind up and/or senses. Both opinions are based on seeing visible evidence and coming up with a belief about it for reasons, obviously, which I don't need to go into more detail about in this report. Also, I don't think I need to explain here that it doesn't matter whether one of the interpretations is correct or incorrect, since my report is about behavior in a discussion, and it's not against the rules to be reasonably wrong. Anyway, evidently, I am taking into consideration the other side's interpretation, which is an important detail to keep in mind concerning the events.

Proceeding Discussion
Normal discussion proceeded when I explained my ideas, except, along the way, starting at their second reply to me, E6pire couldn't help continuously falsely accusing me of dishonesty. It started as accusing me of merely "acting on probabilities", which supposedly invalidates my idea, even though their idea is also just as much "acting on probabilities" under their logic, which I had expressed. This disagreement escalated to them making far more direct and excessive accusations of me outright ignoring their point about the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball, and E6pire was acting as if I was really doing it, when I really wasn't. Zaraus concurred with everything E6pire wrote of me with the same bad attitude. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.
This was making the discussion drag on for longer than it should've, with some annoying repetition, because E6pire and Zaraus mostly weren't acknowledging my legitimate response, and thus, their own idea didn't adapt to mine for the discussion to actually proceed. Of course, it wasn't mandatory for me to provide input in the first place, but I have sufficient interest in Regular Show to do that, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, since the forum website is meant for this kind of communication. The kind of communication that isn't allowed is excessive false accusations like the ones E6pire and Zaraus made, including the subsequent ones that are even worse.

The message by me linked to this text is proof that I, in fact, wasn't ignoring the point that E6pire and Zaraus accused me of ignoring. I posted such a message because the distrust in me was that distracting. If I address every point someone makes and they still tell me that I'm ignoring their point, then there's no other fair input that I could provide. Admittedly, I had missed one message, but that was after the two members already believed that I was totally ignoring their point anyway, which I wasn't doing, as I proven in my message linked at the beginning of this paragraph. It was unreasonable for them to have accused me the way they did. Also, I posted such a message because I actually do occasionally phrase things in an accidentally misleading way, so I wanted to confirm that I truly wasn't making a mistake. I wouldn't be making this report if my words were acknowledged by the other members understandably, regardless of the sentiment I truly wanted to convey.

Following the comment in the previous paragraph, I hoped for E6pire and/or Zaraus to answer me without being distracted by the possibility of me ignoring their point. Instead of our discussion getting back on track like I had hoped, the two's negative narrative about me was adjusted, suggesting that I was merely being biased and egotistical as a result of not being able to "win the argument", and that I should be excluded from providing input because I don't understand how to actually provide it. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.

You could say that the discussion ended up going back on track after that, but it was at my expense, shunning me when I didn't do anything to deserve it, with my credibility perhaps harmed unfairly. I decided to stop answering them because reporting them is more productive than trying to fruitlessly defend myself, and their idea of asking for a staff member's opinion isn't bad by itself. Still, they circumvented my disagreement by getting rid of me and treating my input as nothing but trouble, so E6pire could go on their merry way to perform the revision without putting in effort to converse with me productively.

Summary
I joined the thread attempting to stimulate reasonableness in the performance of a revision by having a discussion, and I left having been told that I'm just a sabotaging egomaniac who doesn't know how to give a valid argument and who shouldn't be providing input. For tens of messages, the discussion that I was part of hardly advanced from when I joined to when I left, because most of the time, I was falsely accused of ignoring the other side's interpretation by the same two people, and when this was disproven, their distrust in me somehow became stronger, with the blame for the lack of progress being pinned on me. E6pire and Zaraus have an outrageous inability to handle someone disagreeing with their interpretation, and they seem to put in a lot less effort into fairness than they should, instead opting to put effort into accusations like trolls would. This forum website shouldn't tolerate members who misbehave like this.
Click to expand...
If the word "debate" affects you so much, the problem is not with us but with you.
 
James_Plays_4_Games said:
I'm reporting @E6pire and @zaraus for having insistently made false accusations about the quality of my input in the following thread, in an attempt to finish the job of getting the thread accepted, potentially at my credibility's expense: Regular Show Revision. The thread itself is within the rules and I don't want to try reverting any revisions in accordance with this report, but I want to give attention to how the two aforementioned members practically cheated their way through my disagreement with one of the details.

Context
At the beginning, we briefly wrote about plenty of ideas that were quickly settled honestly, with me having agreed with most of them. Only one disagreement ultimately matters for this report. For what concerned the thread for the longest time and for what concerns this report, we were observing a scene from Regular Show where characters were fighting in a huge battle on two teams. One of the characters in question, the God of Basketball, has MFTL speed, as told on his VS Battles Wiki profile. He was shown to punch a different character named the Hammer twice, before preparing a wind up punch, which got him hit by another opponent's sneak attack, followed by the Hammer succeeding to punch the God of Basketball away while the latter was injured.

My opinion and E6pire's opinion differ about why the scene played out the way it did. I believe the Hammer was too slow to hit the God of Basketball until the latter was distracted by being in pain from having been sneak attacked, and I think the character who sneak attacked him doesn't have MFTL speed because the God of Basketball accidentally left himself vulnerable. E6pire believes the Hammer needed to have MFTL speed to punch the God of Basketball because the latter's injury wasn't severe enough, and the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball has MFTL speed due to intercepting his wind up and/or senses. Both opinions are based on seeing visible evidence and coming up with a belief about it for reasons, obviously, which I don't need to go into more detail about in this report. Also, I don't think I need to explain here that it doesn't matter whether one of the interpretations is correct or incorrect, since my report is about behavior in a discussion, and it's not against the rules to be reasonably wrong. Anyway, evidently, I am taking into consideration the other side's interpretation, which is an important detail to keep in mind concerning the events.

Proceeding Discussion
Normal discussion proceeded when I explained my ideas, except, along the way, starting at their second reply to me, E6pire couldn't help continuously falsely accusing me of dishonesty. It started as accusing me of merely "acting on probabilities", which supposedly invalidates my idea, even though their idea is also just as much "acting on probabilities" under their logic, which I had expressed. This disagreement escalated to them making far more direct and excessive accusations of me outright ignoring their point about the character who sneak attacked the God of Basketball, and E6pire was acting as if I was really doing it, when I really wasn't. Zaraus concurred with everything E6pire wrote of me with the same bad attitude. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.
This was making the discussion drag on for longer than it should've, with some annoying repetition, because E6pire and Zaraus mostly weren't acknowledging my legitimate response, and thus, their own idea didn't adapt to mine for the discussion to actually proceed. Of course, it wasn't mandatory for me to provide input in the first place, but I have sufficient interest in Regular Show to do that, and there's nothing wrong with doing that, since the forum website is meant for this kind of communication. The kind of communication that isn't allowed is excessive false accusations like the ones E6pire and Zaraus made, including the subsequent ones that are even worse.

The message by me linked to this text is proof that I, in fact, wasn't ignoring the point that E6pire and Zaraus accused me of ignoring. I posted such a message because the distrust in me was that distracting. If I address every point someone makes and they still tell me that I'm ignoring their point, then there's no other fair input that I could provide. Admittedly, I had missed one message, but that was after the two members already believed that I was totally ignoring their point anyway, which I wasn't doing, as I proven in my message linked at the beginning of this paragraph. It was unreasonable for them to have accused me the way they did. Also, I posted such a message because I actually do occasionally phrase things in an accidentally misleading way, so I wanted to confirm that I truly wasn't making a mistake. I wouldn't be making this report if my words were acknowledged by the other members understandably, regardless of the sentiment I truly wanted to convey.

Following the comment in the previous paragraph, I hoped for E6pire and/or Zaraus to answer me without being distracted by the possibility of me ignoring their point. Instead of our discussion getting back on track like I had hoped, the two's negative narrative about me was adjusted, suggesting that I was merely being biased and egotistical as a result of not being able to "win the argument", and that I should be excluded from providing input because I don't understand how to actually provide it. Below are some quotations of the two of them, with links to the original messages.

You could say that the discussion ended up going back on track after that, but it was at my expense, shunning me when I didn't do anything to deserve it, with my credibility perhaps harmed unfairly. I decided to stop answering them because reporting them is more productive than trying to fruitlessly defend myself, and their idea of asking for a staff member's opinion isn't bad by itself. Still, they circumvented my disagreement by getting rid of me and treating my input as nothing but trouble, so E6pire could go on their merry way to perform the revision without putting in effort to converse with me productively.

Summary
I joined the thread attempting to stimulate reasonableness in the performance of a revision by having a discussion, and I left having been told that I'm just a sabotaging egomaniac who doesn't know how to give a valid argument and who shouldn't be providing input. For tens of messages, the discussion that I was part of hardly advanced from when I joined to when I left, because most of the time, I was falsely accused of ignoring the other side's interpretation by the same two people, and when this was disproven, their distrust in me somehow became stronger, with the blame for the lack of progress being pinned on me. E6pire and Zaraus have an outrageous inability to handle someone disagreeing with their interpretation, and they seem to put in a lot less effort into fairness than they should, instead opting to put effort into accusations like trolls would. This forum website shouldn't tolerate members who misbehave like this.
Click to expand...
I think the result of the crt I did must have bothered you, you say these things, there is nothing wrong with giving fallacy in discussion, there is a section for this in the wiki, there is nothing wrong with saying that your claims are wrong, I clearly say that I am waiting for the admin, the admin says I will look at it later, instead of waiting for the admin, you say you said this to me, you said that, if you are uncomfortable discussing as if your admin is preventing you from seeing the messages, there's nothing I can do.
 
zaraus said:
If the word "debate" affects you so much, the problem is not with us but with you.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this addresses anything I wrote. You didn't tell me the word "debate" and I wasn't complaining about engaging in a debate. I'm complaining about your behavior within the debate.
E6pire said:
I think the result of the crt I did must have bothered you, you say these things,
Click to expand...
Don't distract from the subject. My report is about your behavior, not about the result of your thread. I clearly stated in my report that I don't care to revert the result you reached in accordance with my report.
there is nothing wrong with giving fallacy in discussion, there is a section for this in the wiki, there is nothing wrong with saying that your claims are wrong,
Click to expand...
So? After I disagreed with you about me doing a fallacy for a reason that I expressed, you merely told me that my ideas were funny as in ridiculous and that I was continuously ignoring your point. Those were lies, and they persisted and escalated the longer the discussion was happening. I didn't claim that it's inherently wrong to tell someone that they're doing a fallacy.
I clearly say that I am waiting for the admin, the admin says I will look at it later, instead of waiting for the admin, you say you said this to me, you said that, if you are uncomfortable discussing as if your admin is preventing you from seeing the messages, there's nothing I can do.
Click to expand...
In the end, as I described, I left the thread for the staff member to decide your revision's fate. You don't have control over me to decide that I'm not allowed to participate in the thread, but as you described, our discussion was unproductive (no matter who's fault it was), so I had quit it anyway.
 
zaraus said:
If the word "debate" affects you so much, the problem is not with us but with you.
Click to expand...
E6pire said:
I think the result of the crt I did must have bothered you, you say these things, there is nothing wrong with giving fallacy in discussion, there is a section for this in the wiki, there is nothing wrong with saying that your claims are wrong, I clearly say that I am waiting for the admin, the admin says I will look at it later, instead of waiting for the admin, you say you said this to me, you said that, if you are uncomfortable discussing as if your admin is preventing you from seeing the messages, there's nothing I can do.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’re helping your case by basically going “well it’s actually your fault for being offended by this”

Anyways, you’ve all made your points clear, so there’s no need to clog the thread any further
 
I agree with James Plays for Games that what they both seem to say quite regularly seem quite mean spirited. I don't think it's enough for them to be banned or anything, but Bambu has given them warnings. So it seems they just need to be more respectful in the future and be more acknowledging that if staff majority vote against something, that points to their proposals being rejected.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
It's unlikely we'll need to delete the entire verse for this. The situation is certainly bad given the potential for long-running corruptions but it isn't dire enough to Old Yeller the sorry thing. If nobody more knowledgeable volunteers, I suppose I will go through Jozay's threads and see what, if anything, is outright amiss, and return with my findings. I will grumble about it, however.
Click to expand...
Is there any progress on this issue? Considering that I initially helped you with this issue, I would also like to point out that if truly large-scale corruption is detected, I will not hesitate to voluntarily take on the task of fixing all affected profiles.
 
Antvasima's last ping on the subject represents the last development- none of those staff seem willing to assist here, so it may well befall me to dig through them. I appreciate the offer of assistance in the aftermath of that, given that I'm not familiar with the verse.

(I will try to get to this sooner rather than later, sorry if it takes awhile)
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu said:
It's unlikely we'll need to delete the entire verse for this. The situation is certainly bad given the potential for long-running corruptions but it isn't dire enough to Old Yeller the sorry thing. If nobody more knowledgeable volunteers, I suppose I will go through Jozay's threads and see what, if anything, is outright amiss, and return with my findings. I will grumble about it, however.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
I agree with Bambu. We just need volunteers to evaluate if the recent TSSDK revisions have been legitimate.
Click to expand...
CodeCCLL said:
Is there any progress on this issue? Considering that I initially helped you with this issue, I would also like to point out that if truly large-scale corruption is detected, I will not hesitate to voluntarily take on the task of fixing all affected profiles.
Click to expand...
Mr. Bambu said:
Antvasima's last ping on the subject represents the last development- none of those staff seem willing to assist here, so it may well befall me to dig through them. I appreciate the offer of assistance in the aftermath of that, given that I'm not familiar with the verse.

(I will try to get to this sooner rather than later, sorry if it takes awhile)
Click to expand...
@Celestial_Pegasus @Elizhaa @Community_Gamer @Metalballrun @CrimsonStarFallen @Everything12 @God900 @InfiniteCosmology @Ionliosite @Metalballrun @Milly_Rocking_Bandit @RitsuØ1 @The_real_cal_howard @Community_Gamer @Lesser_Goddess_Alexia @AzuRizzz @Satanichia_Chlammy_Mafahl @Wikisource @Shiraito983 @GarrixianXD @Hl3_or_bust @AmogusSusfunni

Are any of you willing and able to help out with this please? Bambu is already helping out a lot as it is.
 
Antvasima said:
Are any of you willing and able to help out with this please? Bambu is already helping out a lot as it is.
Click to expand...
This isn't something a blue names can check because only staff can look at the edit history of threads, but I'll still look at past threads, their last edit dates, and the dates of the staff's last comment on the thread and list the ones that are likely to have something like this.

The thread where the rule violation occurred.
vsbattles.com

Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken Upgrade for Characters (Simple and short)

Introduction There's no introduction per say just agree with what you can and state why don't agree with what you can't Social Influencing for Demon lords and heroes and a special one for Rimuru Demon lords are by all means "a threat" to the society a system created by Veldanava to keep society...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

Threads similar to this that may have been edited after staff comments.
vsbattles.com

Tensura Revision : Part 3

Part 1, Part 2 Conceptual Existence For spiritual lifeforms Spiritual Lifeforms Abstract Existence should now be Conceptual Existence Proof one- Laws are abstract and they are also conceptual on Type 2 level since its "The world" Abstract Existence (Type 1 - Laws - Spiritual Lifeforms consist...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

Tensura Revision 2 : More addition

Vector Manipulation Minitz Unique skill : It allows the user to exert a powerful force on any matter in their line of vision, applying directionality to the push/pull force of the star to crush or rip apart their opponents.[1] The only way to oppose this ability is to send out a directional...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

Cosmology Revision : Range and Tier upgrade of Tensura characters

Yes,the only thing prilly can get 5D is Imaginary world,its does sayd can filled 10.000 X world but we cant just sayd it can contain/ecompassed infinite world... But if in case it can yes it would be l1c.. as the imaginary space beeing the smallest infinity ecompassed another infinite and its...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

4th wall breaking/ Awareness throughout slime verse

I.ned on making this a singular upgrade but ig almost everyone or everyone in slime can get this 1. Rimuru Creates Real life mangas that is readable by everyone in the series for example he created a spin off manga of the series for Veldora to read, Veldora was also reading how not to summon a...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

Rimuru Volume 16 complete upgrade

Alright back at it again no more (small upgrades) and am here to completely upgrade slime boy first of all his hax Should be simple enough Void manipulation with Nihility banish Summoning with true dragon summoning Greatly enhanced space time manipulation or infinte speed teleportation via Space...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

The threads I have listed are the thread on which the OP was edited after the staff's evaluation of the thread in the past. Therefore, first of all, edit of these threads should be checked by the staff.

However, since I couldn't see the exact times of the staff's comments and the OP's edits, I based them only on the date.

Apart from that, to make it easier to check for minor time differences if I think "what else can I do?", I could list the threads where the OP was edited on the same day as the staff/staffs evaluation. This would save a small amount of time by preveny unnecessary checking of some threads that were not edited at all and some threads that were not edited after the staff review, but as you can imagine it would not help much.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
@Celestial_Pegasus @Elizhaa @Community_Gamer @Metalballrun @CrimsonStarFallen @Everything12 @God900 @InfiniteCosmology @Ionliosite @Metalballrun @Milly_Rocking_Bandit @RitsuØ1 @The_real_cal_howard @Community_Gamer @Lesser_Goddess_Alexia @AzuRizzz @Satanichia_Chlammy_Mafahl @Wikisource @Shiraito983 @GarrixianXD @Hl3_or_bust @AmogusSusfunni

Are any of you willing and able to help out with this please? Bambu is already helping out a lot as it is.
Click to expand...
Excuse me but can someone explain to me what's going on? I just came back and saw I was tagged by Antvasima.

If you require any help, I am willing to help to the best of my ability.
 
Wikisource said:
Excuse me but can someone explain to me what's going on? I just came back and saw I was tagged by Antvasima.

If you require any help, I am willing to help to the best of my ability.
Click to expand...
@Jozaysmith?'s one recent CRT was accepted by staff, but after acceptance, he altered his CRT to add some broken abilities like non-duality and immortality without asking staff to evaluate the thread again to get them accepted without anyone noticing it. He got banned for 2 years as punishment. We don't know for how long or how many times in the past he has done it, so knowledgeable members of the verse have been pinged to help look for CRTs or changes he has potentially made this way.
 
Reiner04 said:
@Jozaysmith?'s one recent CRT was accepted by staff, but after acceptance, he altered his CRT to add some broken abilities like non-duality and immortality without asking staff to evaluate the thread again to get them accepted without anyone noticing it. He got banned for 2 years as punishment. We don't know for how long or how many times in the past he has done it, so knowledgeable members of the verse have been pinged to help look for CRTs or changes he has potentially made this way.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see 🗿
 
I have no idea, I presume it's just the default setting the forum came with- as you say, we already allow this to be done on the wiki, there's not really any reason to restrict it here. Unless I want to start cursing at non-staff and then hiding it, I suppose.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Antvasima's last ping on the subject represents the last development- none of those staff seem willing to assist here, so it may well befall me to dig through them. I appreciate the offer of assistance in the aftermath of that, given that I'm not familiar with the verse.

(I will try to get to this sooner rather than later, sorry if it takes awhile)
Click to expand...
Combing through the Jozaysmith? situation. I regret to inform the thread that there appears to be an expiration date for the history of threads here on the forum- at multiple points in these threads I was met with this. This means that I can only work with what staff members specifically spoke about as accepted/rejected; given the proclivity of many staff members to say only a couple of words ("looks good") and nothing more, this renders everything about this investigation tenuous.

Several options exist to address this without going scorched earth mode and deleting the verse. For these threads in particular, "looks good" as a staff vote may be invalidated for our purposes. Alternatively, we may simply reopen the CRTs and re-evaluate them starting from zero, or we may attempt to undo the specific edits done by these CRTs (this will take substantially longer than the other two, I believe).

Due to the meandering and non-cohesive nature of Jozaysmith?'s writing, it is difficult to pinpoint what many of these CRTs did in particular- the process will take longer than anticipated regardless. I will await suggestions on what to do about a lack of edit history before continuing on.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
I will await suggestions on what to do about a lack of edit history before continuing on.
Click to expand...
If there is no suggestion about this..
Mr. Bambu said:
Several options exist to address this without going scorched earth mode and deleting the verse. For these threads in particular, "looks good" as a staff vote may be invalidated for our purposes. Alternatively, we may simply reopen the CRTs and re-evaluate them starting from zero, or we may attempt to undo the specific edits done by these CRTs (this will take substantially longer than the other two, I believe).
Click to expand...
Well, but shouldn't we also consider the possibility that such an event has never happened in any other content revision before? After all, it did happen, and shortly afterwards it was noticed by someones, the user was reported, and the changes were reverted by you. So at least if you haven't found anything that raises suspicion in the thread edit histories that, you can alread checked, then it might be an option for the verse to continue with self, upgrade/downgrade revisions.

So yes, if we do that, of course there will be some people who will be disgruntled, who will want to think that it is being covered up. But in my opinion, the options you present are not something you can easily put into practice in a verse like TSSDK. Of the threads that Jozaysmith made, with the exception of one Web Novel continuum downgrade thread (and another thread that wants to roll back changes to that downgrade thread is already being discussed), they are all upgrade threads that concern the Light Novel continuum, so it's not really a Web Novel continuum issue, but there are still ongoing or planned revisions to both continuums, pages that need to be created/revised in verse. While this is happening, how can one go through the difficult and lengthy process of re-evaluating Jozaysmith's content revisions/manually undoing his edits?

In Jozaysmith's case, I can certainly understand those who feel that there is no smoke where there is no fire, but in this case perhaps it might make more sense to actually take measures to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again. For example, the verse page could include that rule "Due to the controversial nature of the verse and some past rule violations, TSSDK content revisions have a pre-review period of 24 hours (sample) before staff can consider the content revision. This period is reserved for the content revision to be sufficiently viewed / and discussed by members, and staff should not be called in to evaluate the content revision during this time." or adding the verse to the list of controversial verses that require content revisions to be evaluated by at least 3 staff members would be an additional measure that could be taken in any scenario.
 
Well, but shouldn't we also consider the possibility that such an event has never happened in any other content revision before?
Click to expand...
Such a possibility was never ruled out, but we must continue under the assumption that it has. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, that sort of thing. I began this investigation from the earliest up- so far I've only found threads with lost histories.

So yes, if we do that, of course there will be some people who will be disgruntled, who will want to think that it is being covered up. But in my opinion, the options you present are not something you can easily put into practice in a verse like TSSDK. Of the threads that Jozaysmith made, with the exception of one Web Novel continuum downgrade thread (and another thread that wants to roll back changes to that downgrade thread is already being discussed), they are all upgrade threads that concern the Light Novel continuum, so it's not really a Web Novel continuum issue, but there are still ongoing or planned revisions to both continuums, pages that need to be created/revised in verse. While this is happening, how can one go through the difficult and lengthy process of re-evaluating Jozaysmith's content revisions/manually undoing his edits?
Click to expand...
The process will be bad for the verse, yes, but I must stress that Garrixian's proposal of deletion is a very real consideration that represents a much more dire alternative. We cannot run the risk of a verse having randomly implemented upgrades hidden by the guise of apparently legitimate upgrades, this jeopardizes the validity of the pages fundamentally. It would be better for the health of our wiki to not have these pages and to restart from the bottom up than to have them with the very strong possibility of there being illegitimately added content in them.

In Jozaysmith's case, I can certainly understand those who feel that there is no smoke where there is no fire, but in this case perhaps it might make more sense to actually take measures to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again. For example, the verse page could include that rule "Due to the controversial nature of the verse and some past rule violations, TSSDK content revisions have a pre-review period of 24 hours (sample) before staff can consider the content revision. This period is reserved for the content revision to be sufficiently viewed / and discussed by members, and staff should not be called in to evaluate the content revision during this time." or adding the verse to the list of controversial verses that require content revisions to be evaluated by at least 3 staff members would be an additional measure that could be taken in any scenario.
Click to expand...
Such a rule may be an additional measure, although this wouldn't solve the potential current risk. Additionally, I don't think such a rule would fully abate the matter- the CRT can be edited at any time by the individual, this only forces them to wait a further 24 hours if they want to deceitfully add in more changes: the only real measure would be to have only staff members implement changes, which I really don't want to do. I'm open to the existence of such a rule, but I can't think of anything that would actually solve the issue in the future. I would agree requiring three staff votes, as this may do a little to abate the issue.
 
Oh, sorry.

vsbattles.com

Tensura AP upgrade: for all tops(Read the crt)

disclaimer -please before arguing read the crt PLEASE this upgrade thread is using the translated volume, i will also add future volumes feat, Note; No matter how bad or off the translation of the future volume will be twisted the feat i will represent will still not alter additionally i will...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

Simple Short Upgrade for slime boy

disclaimer i am here to propose a very simple Hax and intelligence upgrade For rimuru tempest only, I was meant to do bulk hax upgrade but i don't want to get in the way of celestial pegasus so i would wait until he makes a volume 16 upgrade thread before acting the base hax&IQ upgrade Super...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

General hax upgrade for Slime characters

as obvious i have come back again but this time for practically everyone in verse since everyone can use magic the feat now this is a thread for magic users, i checked and recently the arguments for them seem to fall in place for Conceptual manipulation type 3/2, reality warping, Law...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

I don't know how exhaustive a list you wanted but these three all present the above error. I imagine the issue is the same for all of them.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
Oh, sorry.

vsbattles.com

Tensura AP upgrade: for all tops(Read the crt)

disclaimer -please before arguing read the crt PLEASE this upgrade thread is using the translated volume, i will also add future volumes feat, Note; No matter how bad or off the translation of the future volume will be twisted the feat i will represent will still not alter additionally i will...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

Simple Short Upgrade for slime boy

disclaimer i am here to propose a very simple Hax and intelligence upgrade For rimuru tempest only, I was meant to do bulk hax upgrade but i don't want to get in the way of celestial pegasus so i would wait until he makes a volume 16 upgrade thread before acting the base hax&IQ upgrade Super...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
vsbattles.com

General hax upgrade for Slime characters

as obvious i have come back again but this time for practically everyone in verse since everyone can use magic the feat now this is a thread for magic users, i checked and recently the arguments for them seem to fall in place for Conceptual manipulation type 3/2, reality warping, Law...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

I don't know how exhaustive a list you wanted but these three all present the above error. I imagine the issue is the same for all of them.
Click to expand...
i don't think there are any problems with these 3 threads though. The staffs already agreed with what was edited in. I can give u most of the links to jozay thread if u find it difficult to check.
 
Last edited:
If you like. The issue here is that I can't see the Histories of these threads, which means it is more difficult to verify if there was anything fishy going on. I can't confirm it without knowing. So, we await a response from the IT guy.
 
Mizuki67 said:
just check here https://vsbattles.com/search/3464207/?t=post&c[content]=thread&c[users]=Jozaysmith?&o=date

all of his slime revisions are here
Click to expand...
Not what he’s talking about.

It’s the individual threads. Let’s say for this thread:
vsbattles.com

Tensura AP upgrade: for all tops(Read the crt)

disclaimer -please before arguing read the crt PLEASE this upgrade thread is using the translated volume, i will also add future volumes feat, Note; No matter how bad or off the translation of the future volume will be twisted the feat i will represent will still not alter additionally i will...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

We can see that he edited the OP. We just need to know what he added (theoretically, after the staff accepted the thread)

Regardless, the sys admin is working on it, so let’s leave it at that for now.
 
Passersby said:
idk if this is RVR worthy, or if it really counts for much but people in this thread have been weirdly hostile for no appearent reason, basically ignoring everything i've said and instead of trying to tell me why i'm wrong, they constantly remind me that i just am,altough the last post is kinda clear cut about it

well, first time reporting something, but it is what it is
Click to expand...
It's annoying to argue with someone who can't grasp an extremely basic conclusion from a small and simple amount of elements and grasps at every straws to dismiss it. People aren't being "weirdly" hostile for "no apparent reason", perhaps maybe it's time for you reflect as well with the attitude you have been giving.

I have no further say in whatever punishment I may get because I already said the things and I meant them.
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
who can't grasp an extremely basic conclusion from a small and simple amount of elements and grasps at every straws to dismiss it
Click to expand...
....this is quite ironic, but whatever


my purpose here is simply to make everyone who has nothing of value to add to the convesation shut up because it's annoying

if you have anything of value to offer and prove me wrong, say it there, not here

edit: apologies for replying again, i will be leaving now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
8 9 10
Replies
386
Views
24K
SYX769
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
940
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top