- 10,541
- 12,361
From what I'm gathering, seems Fandom runs everywhere on UTC.
-
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
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,921
- 11,304
Though, then recalling again, it’s hella strange since my screen displays 4:57 PM while it’s 4:57 AM for yours; perhaps I’ll straight up request fandom to check if Weekly’s edit was before or after Rusty’s edit via request through Zendesk, or if someone can do it for me it’ll be appreciated.
- 3,211
- 3,469
This is a weird point to talk about imo because Rusty also just had no recollection of ever approving the vaporization end, which is very sus.
- 11,363
- 13,481
To make this clear. I don't remember evaluating Weekly's calculation at all, which is why I'm willing to admit this could be a mistake on my part.
When I commented initially, I took responsibility for that.
It was over 1 year ago and I was trying to get away from everything RWBY related on this wiki. I had no recollection of this blog at all until the previous downgrades.
Note: I figured out the comment's time zone matches what is on your device. Changing my time zone to match my fandom time zone, I can find out the truth.
Weekly's Edit: 05:56, 20 March 2023
My Evaluation: 3/20/2023 8:57 AM
This means my evaluation was made almost three hours after he made the edit. So while Weekly still did change the melting to vaporization for some reason, he did it before my evaluation. Meaning I do share responsibility as I didn't notice the calculation was using vaporization values and not melting values.
Note: There is a possibility I'm still doing something wrong, so maybe it'd be best for someone else to confirm this.
I apologize for any confusion this is causing.
Last edited:
- 3,211
- 3,469
No worries, I thank you for coming back to evaluate this and make sure it's correct.
- 10,541
- 12,361
This doesn't seem the case for me, but honestly it's getting pretty convoluted.
- 31,580
- 28,032
I suppose it's not impossible that you may have had the calc open for a while when it was the first version, Weekly updated it, and you evaluated it while it was still the first version on your screen because you hadn't seen the changes.
But that wouldn't be an intentional act on Weekly's part.
But that wouldn't be an intentional act on Weekly's part.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,676
- 14,054
After I did the same thing (well, changing the Fandom time zone to match my local one), Weekly's edit appeared 3 hours and 1 minute before your comment. So I believe you're correct about that.
Last edited:
- 10,541
- 12,361
Taking that into consideration, I revert back to my initial thoughts. The original report doesn't seem sufficient to me to act out against Weekly. The situation with the calc doesn't seem malicious in nature.
- 31,638
- 34,661
Yeah, I think we can move on from that.
- 1,308
- 894
Reporting @ThatUnknownGuy6543 for repeatedly ignoring scans and arguments, calling them "headcanon" Examples are here, here, here, here, here. here is the thread.
He is completely stone-walling, calling the scans and arguments "headcanon" even with the evidence provided. Since he is a new user I don't know how to act, but I think at least reporting it is a necessity.
He is completely stone-walling, calling the scans and arguments "headcanon" even with the evidence provided. Since he is a new user I don't know how to act, but I think at least reporting it is a necessity.
- 13,833
- 4,021
Honestly, I dont see anything report-worthy or rule-breaking in those comments. It's not like he is only saying "that is headcanon" to the opposition's argument and nothing else. He is also using his own arguments.
- 31,638
- 34,661
He just sounds more annoying than outright hostile or malicious. But don't think it's bad enough for a report.
- 1,308
- 894
Yeah, I somewhat agree, Though I think it is enough for him to at least get an unofficial warning. Since he is still stonewalling, and his one message on the message wall, is already a warning for insulting people. As mentioned, it is not him being wrong or anything like that, but rather him completely disregarding the scans provided.
To repeat myself, I am not looking for an official warning or anything like that, but at least some kind of instructions for him (I should have made that clear earlier...)
- 3,707
- 2,721
I do not see any insults in the linked messages.
The only thing remotely close is calling your argument headcanon, but the implication there is merely that they don't believe your interpretation is correct, not any sort of personal insult. In addition, I do not see stonewalling, but a genuine attempt to argue, even if incorrect.
I'm sorry, but I don't condone setting a precedent that one can't try to argue their position by issuing any warning here, even an unofficial one.
If the argument is frustrating you, I'd recommend simply waiting for someone else's input instead of continuing to engage.
- 1,308
- 894
That is fine, Maybe then I am just seeing it through a biased perspective. But my intentions were never meant to be a countermeasure towards one's own scaling beliefs... So I deeply apologize if that was what it looked like To repeat myself. I was not looking for any countermeasures for scaling beliefs nor an official warning, but an instruction since he seemed new...
regarding the insults, it was not linked due to being much earlier and seems to have been deleted(proof exists on his message wal), but that was not supposed to be in this report...
This will be my last message here to not clog anything up, But I need to Apologize again for wasting everyone's time, and my own misunderstanding.
Feel free to delete the entire report and the responses since this seems to have just been a mistake from me...
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,921
- 11,304
Just ignore him. If he tries and attract attention with irrational nonsense then you can report him for inappropriate derailing; straight up calling stuff headcanon is seen as a poor tactic and can be treated as derailing depending on the circumstance. Anyways, stonewalling is not a violation at all and you can do the same to him stonewalling may be a violation but it depends specifically on the action and intention of the user being reported. Generally, he merely unwilling to engage with you in a debate isn’t a violation but rather a poor strategy on his part.
Last edited:
- 3,707
- 2,721
I concur with Antvasima.I personally think that deliberate stonewalling can warrant a warning or even a ban when extreme enough. I am unaware of if that is the case here though.
Deliberate stonewalling would be an offense, as it would be an intentional attempt to disrupt or hinder the discussion, rather than an attempt to participate in it. In general, deliberately hindering important functions of this forum is something worth reporting.
The conclusions of myself and DarkDragonMedeus were based on the fact that we did not personally see any sort of intentionally malicious behavior in the comments provided. They were not based on the fact that 'stonewalling is not a violation', and I certainly would not urge you to 'do the same to him.'
Please do not tell people that, GarrixianXD.
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,921
- 11,304
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to encourage stonewalling. I told Dark Soul that he can “do the same” because he sounds frustrated when interacting with Unknown Guy, and I meant he can choose not to engage with him if he wants, which you also told him to do if he’s frustrated.
And as for “deliberate” stonewalling being an offence, I disagree.
Before I go into detail, I must address if there’s any misunderstanding towards the definition of “stonewalling”. As I comprehend: it means not interacting with your opponents during a debate in a thread discussion.
Firstly, I do not recall nor do I see ignoring other users in a CRT discussion is against the current site rules or discussion rules (of course, if I’m wrong then please point it out); perhaps it is unconducive towards a conventional discussion, yes, but not notably disruptive towards the progression and the concluding staff evaluations of the content revision thread, which ultimately determines the direction of the discussion and topic. Staff members are to review the arguments of both sides and give unbiased evaluations that pertains to which premises and arguments are more valid, reasonable and appealing; not according to which side has the most comments, which side responded first, or which side is more engaging with their opponent and more active. With said, not being engaging with the opposing party as a part of the supporting party should not cause disruptive consequences to the overall progress and conclusion of the discussion.
Secondly, we all have the rights to not interact with other users that we do not like or generally do not want to talk to. We put certain users into the ignore list of the people who requests for a reason. Members should not be forced to interact with users that they do not want associate with during content revision discussions.
Not to mention that unnecessary prolong and repetition of already addressed arguments are far more disruptive to a discussion compared to stonewalling. One of the parties can unreasonably and stubbornly dispute the argumentation of their opposition out of bias, and with their opposition responding over and over it can clutter the discussion through circular argument. It may not only negatively lengthen the thread but it’ll also tire the staff members who are putting the effort into evaluating the topic and arguments from both sides, with that it can also delay staff evaluations as a byproduct.
Of course, I think it should be encouraged to engage with others in discussions and reasonably give responses to opposing arguments from others. However, we should not force people into responding to their opponent especially if they’re frustrated with debating with them, which may worsen their feeling of ad nauseam.
As what you said by “hindering important functions”, I find that statement of yours quite vague. Though, of course we prohibit impediments towards the progression of any discussion on this site; no objections on this part of yours at all.
Last edited:
- 10,541
- 12,361
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,921
- 11,304
I think you seem to misunderstood me. I’m talking about ignoring your opponents in a content revision thread, not being obnoxious and generally being adamant in a CRT. And not to mention that rule you pointed out straight up says not to engage in unreasonable arguments. Well, if this is going to become some kind of debate on whether ignoring your opponents in a CRT is justified or not then please carry it to the staff chat and not discuss it here.
CodeCCLL
He/Him- 2,426
- 1,268
Stonewalling: to stop a discussion from developing by refusing to answer questions or by talking in such a way that you prevent other people from giving their opinions.
So yes, stonewalling is against the rules and you should not encourage it.
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,921
- 11,304
Respectfully, you haven’t provided much insight against my stance and I already asked for this to be conveyed into a private PM if this becomes a debate. Please don’t comment further on this and this goes for every other non-staff out there who wants to speak against me.
Last edited:
GarrixianXD
University Enthusiast
Any/AllVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Translation Helper
- 4,921
- 11,304
Actually, I concede to the point that stonewalling can be a violation. Depending on the circumstance, such as disregarding the arguments and points made by a user out of bias and pulling out comments that is unhelpful towards the discussion, out of the line of their debate can be interpreted as stonewalling as well. However, my stance on merely choosing not to respond and address to the points made by other users of the discussion still stands.
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,944
- 22,664
I will preface this by saying that I was uncertain whether this was realistically a violation of our rules, and consulted with other Calc Group Members in deciding whether this was likely to be intentional or not. All that answered this question directly agreed that it probably was intentional, and thus worthy of reporting.
I evaluated this calculation of someone creating a crater some months ago, where after my instructions it received an end value of 9-B. Somewhat recently, @Dinozxd edited it some, arguing from a new angle- despite these changes being comparatively very minor, they resulted in a volume increase of approximately 3x. I noted this, and said that it didn't matter much anyways because I felt his changes weren't right to make. He asked to at least redo the calc with a higher quality image, and I acquiesced permission to do that.
When he did this, the volume of the crater had still nearly doubled, obviously leading to a 2x higher result. In his post on that fact, he said that it was likely because his friend incorrectly pixel scaled the original image, that he was now scaling using an upright image of the character rather than a general calculator, and that he was now accounting for the bends in the character's arms, leading to a higher result.
Now, this didn't actually make much sense to me. No change that subtle should have led to a 2x increase in volume, and making the line representing the length of a character's arm longer (that is, more pixels), should only have reduced the centimeters-per-pixel value of the image, meaning any lengthening of that line would in fact lower the end result. The other two facts of the issue didn't seem to be able to cause this disparity either- the original image was crudely pixel scaled, but the updated one wasn't much better. So I took a very close look at what it was he was actually doing.
These are the two images of note in this case. The left image is the original used in the calculation, the right one the newly proposed more accurate one. As you can see, the right image is noticeably larger, and thus the same lines on either image give different pixel counts. Still, they are largely proportionately similar- obfuscated slightly by the use of too-fat lines (leading to a margin of error of around 10%), the left yellow line is correctly translated to the right blue line, and the orange line is similarly proportionately accurate. When I say this, I mean that the pixel counts are accurate, they upscale by a consistent factor of about 1.4x.
403 / 285 = 1.414x
380 / 266 = 1.429x
Noticeably, the red line does not follow this trend.
128 / 107 = 1.196x
Now, I hear you say, this is obviously because the line now accounts for curvature. But as I pointed out, this should make the disparity even larger- the red line should proportionately have the most dramatic change. The shortest route between any two points is a straight line, and we are no longer dealing in one straight line.
If you put this image into an image editor and check the pixel measurements, I've already said that on both images you'll find a margin of error of about 10%, the correct pixel counts will be within 10% of those reported. But this is not true for the red line on the new image- the red line in the new image is a whopping 40% off of being accurate, with the actual pixel count being 178 pixels.
Every calc group member who gave their opinion on the subject agreed that this is too big of an error to be actually a mistake.
I explain all of this to give proper context to the alleged action. This user created a calculation, and later returned to it under the guise of "fixing" it, only for the calculation to end up being twice as high as it once was. He preemptively blamed this on different methods, when in truth this singular error regarding this red line accounts for practically all of the difference between the new value and the old (I mean this very literally- the original volume result was 1.162e5 cm^3, doing the calculation with accurate pixel scaling from the new calculation we get 1.167e5 cm^3).
So. He appears by all accounts to have cheated the system, or at least tried to, to yield a substantially higher result. I'd like to hear opinions from other staff on the matter.
I evaluated this calculation of someone creating a crater some months ago, where after my instructions it received an end value of 9-B. Somewhat recently, @Dinozxd edited it some, arguing from a new angle- despite these changes being comparatively very minor, they resulted in a volume increase of approximately 3x. I noted this, and said that it didn't matter much anyways because I felt his changes weren't right to make. He asked to at least redo the calc with a higher quality image, and I acquiesced permission to do that.
When he did this, the volume of the crater had still nearly doubled, obviously leading to a 2x higher result. In his post on that fact, he said that it was likely because his friend incorrectly pixel scaled the original image, that he was now scaling using an upright image of the character rather than a general calculator, and that he was now accounting for the bends in the character's arms, leading to a higher result.
Now, this didn't actually make much sense to me. No change that subtle should have led to a 2x increase in volume, and making the line representing the length of a character's arm longer (that is, more pixels), should only have reduced the centimeters-per-pixel value of the image, meaning any lengthening of that line would in fact lower the end result. The other two facts of the issue didn't seem to be able to cause this disparity either- the original image was crudely pixel scaled, but the updated one wasn't much better. So I took a very close look at what it was he was actually doing.
These are the two images of note in this case. The left image is the original used in the calculation, the right one the newly proposed more accurate one. As you can see, the right image is noticeably larger, and thus the same lines on either image give different pixel counts. Still, they are largely proportionately similar- obfuscated slightly by the use of too-fat lines (leading to a margin of error of around 10%), the left yellow line is correctly translated to the right blue line, and the orange line is similarly proportionately accurate. When I say this, I mean that the pixel counts are accurate, they upscale by a consistent factor of about 1.4x.
403 / 285 = 1.414x
380 / 266 = 1.429x
Noticeably, the red line does not follow this trend.
128 / 107 = 1.196x
Now, I hear you say, this is obviously because the line now accounts for curvature. But as I pointed out, this should make the disparity even larger- the red line should proportionately have the most dramatic change. The shortest route between any two points is a straight line, and we are no longer dealing in one straight line.
If you put this image into an image editor and check the pixel measurements, I've already said that on both images you'll find a margin of error of about 10%, the correct pixel counts will be within 10% of those reported. But this is not true for the red line on the new image- the red line in the new image is a whopping 40% off of being accurate, with the actual pixel count being 178 pixels.
Every calc group member who gave their opinion on the subject agreed that this is too big of an error to be actually a mistake.
I explain all of this to give proper context to the alleged action. This user created a calculation, and later returned to it under the guise of "fixing" it, only for the calculation to end up being twice as high as it once was. He preemptively blamed this on different methods, when in truth this singular error regarding this red line accounts for practically all of the difference between the new value and the old (I mean this very literally- the original volume result was 1.162e5 cm^3, doing the calculation with accurate pixel scaling from the new calculation we get 1.167e5 cm^3).
So. He appears by all accounts to have cheated the system, or at least tried to, to yield a substantially higher result. I'd like to hear opinions from other staff on the matter.
- 16,181
- 13,877
Could be wrong, but it gets super close, but I think the issue is, bro used MS paint, and took the horizontal/vertical lengths of where the line extends to, as "line lengths".
This shit (like the 22x4px).
Checking, tracing the red line, well if he took the lower values, MS paint lists off, you do get within a few pixels of the value he lists.
Of course now this is just straight up wrong, those values just where the line begins and ends on the X and Y axis across. not the actual line length (aka it doesnt account for diagonals and curves and stuff), that's not what those numbers mean, but if that's what he mistook them for, that'd explain it.
I say this because I've had to explain this shit to multiple dudes, it's an actual common mistake
This shit (like the 22x4px).
Checking, tracing the red line, well if he took the lower values, MS paint lists off, you do get within a few pixels of the value he lists.
Of course now this is just straight up wrong, those values just where the line begins and ends on the X and Y axis across. not the actual line length (aka it doesnt account for diagonals and curves and stuff), that's not what those numbers mean, but if that's what he mistook them for, that'd explain it.
I say this because I've had to explain this shit to multiple dudes, it's an actual common mistake
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,676
- 14,054
Hm, that could be plausible. Could you explain exactly how a number close to 126 would be derived in that way? Since I'm not seeing it, messing around with similar things myself. Closest I get is 150.
Even after that, it is a bit suspicious that the same error wouldn't be made on the other lines, or in the user's previous pixel-scaled calcs. Since it seems like a knowledge-error, rather than a slip-up that could accidentally happen any time a measurement occurs.
Even after that, it is a bit suspicious that the same error wouldn't be made on the other lines, or in the user's previous pixel-scaled calcs. Since it seems like a knowledge-error, rather than a slip-up that could accidentally happen any time a measurement occurs.
- 16,181
- 13,877
Like, if he mistook the values like that.
That gets 122px, and I def could've slapped an extra 2-3px on the big green one depending where and when he begin drawing line in particular (they overlap, obv cant tell).
Of course, this is like, not what these numbers mean, at all, they're not the "true" line lengths, but I can kinda see what happened because this shit happens all the time for new calcers stuck using the travesty that is MS paint.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,676
- 14,054
Ahh okay. Now that you point it out, the other lines were definitely done the same way, but just happened to have similar errors that rendered that unnoticeable.
The original calc did that too, making it give a value ~17% above what it should have gotten. (That's the reason for the 10% error, not the thick lines; lines that thick could never lead to a ~40 pixel difference on lines that long)
This is why it's important to re-measure when evaluating!
Anyway, this no longer has substance as a rule violation, imo.
The original calc did that too, making it give a value ~17% above what it should have gotten. (That's the reason for the 10% error, not the thick lines; lines that thick could never lead to a ~40 pixel difference on lines that long)
This is why it's important to re-measure when evaluating!
Anyway, this no longer has substance as a rule violation, imo.
Last edited:
- 16,181
- 13,877
Yeah ok 100%, that's what happened.
403px is the exact same, and the horizontal line is like the same too (im like, just doing quick lines, not lining them up exactly).
He def just like, ****** up reading what these values mean and misunderstood them. Actual common mistake I've had to explain to lads before.
No punishment needed imo, just tell him to download Paint.net or some shit.
403px is the exact same, and the horizontal line is like the same too (im like, just doing quick lines, not lining them up exactly).
He def just like, ****** up reading what these values mean and misunderstood them. Actual common mistake I've had to explain to lads before.
No punishment needed imo, just tell him to download Paint.net or some shit.
- 1,371
- 558
Is this the conclusion of the report then or...?
I would've answered the questions on my part but it seems like Chariot already pointed out what I've done wrong. I just don't wanna be known as the guy who "fakes pixel scaling", because I've geniunely never done that.
- 16,181
- 13,877
Not a green name but, idk Im vouching for you, MS paint DOES suck. Just go download paint.net, it actually lists line lengths, even down to the decimal, and hell, even angles if ya ever need that.
The problem was caught, figured out, and easy to solve. No real harm done imo over a common accident.
As a point of reference
Paint.net; what MS paint lists is what paint.net lists as the "offset", while the actual line itself is "Length".
- 1,371
- 558
Understood. Thanks for the help
- 3,707
- 2,721
Thank you for understanding, and I believe I see now where the confusion comes from.
Oftentimes, a debate ends up going in circles, or two people simply fundamentally disagree on something and are unable to compromise.
In this scenario, I don't think there's anything wrong with deciding to stop the circular debate and instead wait for someone else to provide their input in order to move the conversation in a more productive direction, rather than endlessly flood the thread with the same argument.
I believe this is different than stonewalling because in this instance both parties have indeed responded to each other and heard each other's arguments- they simply still disagree. Stonewalling, to me, would be more like refusing to even hear their side of the argument or respond to it in the first place; especially if they are responding to other arguments.
This is the last I'll say on the issue here, but I felt it was important to clear up what I felt was the difference, and why I suggested they stop engaging while also stating that stonewalling was a violation.
If other staff members feel they disagree on this distinction, then perhaps we do need a staff discussion to make the rule more clear.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 22,944
- 22,664
Yeah, I wasn't aware that MS Paint had anything so scuffed.
We uh. We probably should go through pretty much all of your calculations, though, if you've just been reading straight up the wrong thing for pixel count this entire time.
- 15,455
- 7,161
As someone who uses almost just MS Paint for calcs, I think that's mainly just the fact that the user didn't know about these values being how far the line stretches across the ordinate and abscissa, with the real lenght being got through the Pythagorean Theorem.
Thus, if the line is "100 x 56", then the true lenght is sqrt((100^2) + (56^2)) or around 114.61 px.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Featured
- Locked
