- 4,602
- 6,514
@Twisted_Little_Raven I think you know that comment was not appropriate nor helpful for resolving this matter. Please refrain.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The meat part of the chicken was never the bit of consequence, it was always the bone.Wow seriously? I'm reported for this nonsense? I said I take the meat off the bone 99% of the time. And that 1% being there genuinely being nothing to eat. And I even trust that 1% even now and then because the dog eats them properly. This is treated like I'm willingly trying to kill a dog. If it did. I would; break them before giving them to the dog, give it to the dog regularly. Both of which I don't do. That means, even if my dog has shown competency with eating them, I still don't do it hardly at all. Blowing this up like some intentional dog killer is insane. This has nothing to do with me trying to cause controversy lol. Anyway I'll stop doing it if people care that much. If it's too late and y'all wanna pull ban hammer instead, my reaction is; nvm I'll chill
I just want to clear something up: Feeding chicken bones isn’t inherently animal abuse. In fact, they are regularly given raw to medium/large dogs in raw diets. It’s cooked bones that can’t be fed to dogs, since they can splinter, and potentially cause punctures in their guts.
Now, I don’t know if Raven is being reported/banned for other reasons, and I’m definitely NOT saying you SHOULD feed your dogs raw chicken bones (ask your vet) but I feel it’s important to emphasize that it’s not inherently animal abuse. I feel this information is relevant to the report anyways.
I was just tired of the discussion. Shocker some people agree to advice without saying they do. I'm the type of person to dismiss your advice and turn around and be grateful for it. This is really an issue just about my personality really. Because I felt bad after the discussion I just didn't feel like saying it. That's just how I am. I just wanted to drop a discussion. That's why I dismissed him. It doesn't mean I didn't feel bad about it later and never planned on stopping. Like y'all aren't involved in my life. I'm the type of person who doesn't bend the knee until I calm down. This is why I brought up, actions being more important than words essentially.The meat part of the chicken was never the bit of consequence, it was always the bone.
The conversation went:
Raven: Chicken bones are good, I see why dogs eat 'em.
Username: That's actually unhealthy for the dog and has a significant chance of causing them harm.
R: No, if you chew them a lot they aren't dangerous.
U: They are dangerous no matter what. Don't feed them to dogs.
R: I feel this is an exaggerated threat that happens much more rarely than is suggested.
U: It isn't exaggeration. This is extremely dangerous to your dog. Stop.
R: It isn't significantly more dangerous than anything else, etc etc
U: It is more significantly dangerous, here's sources that explain that. (This carries on about several tangents, you'll have to forgive my paraphrasing of the content of these messages)
R: You didn't show me anything new, so drop it.
U: Well no, I did, I showed evidence of what I was saying that showed you are wrong, it is a major danger to your dog that you're taking unnecessarily.
R: "I didn't ask for evidence."
And right about here is where the report was filed. This exchange is the damaging bit, and the final messages are in particular what leads me to agree to action being taken. Had it been a situation where one would listen to the other and recognize that their actions are actively and noticeably increasing the risk of death to an animal, then I would say no harm, no foul. But this is either willfully ignoring these risks, or intentionally picking a fight. Username had an extremely measured and reasonable attempt to show these dangers to you, which you ignored and even seemed to get aggressive against.
Considering everything that's gone on in this thread, including their most recent deleted comment, I'm in favor of a permanent ban.Deleting comments for further inflammatory content... due to Raven's request for any ban, if given, to be rendered permanent (see deleted comment), I suppose I'd pivot my vote back to permanent. She did break our rules and she has been banned for similar things, so I agree with a ban broadly, and if the offender insists that it ought to be permanent, then I find myself in an accommodating mood.
Just letting u know though in debates I will need to see what he’s written and will respond and he should also see it. If I bring in countering or supporting arguments then he won’t see it nor will I see what he’s written. Outside of that then yes I want to ignore himThank you for the information. I will handle it.
Yeah she’s cooked. Ban awayYeah, Raven's new post makes that an easy permaban.
I cannot make the ignore option that specific.Just letting u know though in debates I will need to see what he’s written and will respond and he should also see it. If I bring in countering or supporting arguments then he won’t see it nor will I see what he’s written. Outside of that then yes I want to ignore him
Could you give some highlighted examples; he seems mostly ignorant and clueless regarding our tiering policies rather than outright destructive.
That’s not good then cause if I bring in countering or supporting argument and he can’t see what I’ve written then I’m not gonna but that’s a L on the system. That’s the point of debates is to see what we written and suchI cannot make the ignore option that specific.
Post in thread 'Alien x 1B debunk to possibly 1B and immesurable speed debunk' https://vsbattles.com/threads/alien...-immesurable-speed-debunk.171113/post-6688832Could you give some highlighted examples; he seems mostly ignorant and clueless regarding our tiering policies rather than outright destructive.
You will see what he has written, but he will not see what you have written.That’s not good then cause if I bring in countering or supporting argument and he can’t see what I’ve written then I’m not gonna but that’s a L on the system. That’s the point of debates is to see what we written and such
You began the aggression there entirely on your own. You began talking about a resolved RVR case without knowing fully what was going on, accusing others of "armchair footballing her life" and sarcastically referring to people as "wise" because we won't...Reporting @Arcker123 for insulting another user's intelligence. By claiming they have a sub 90 iq.
This is insanely pettyReporting @Arcker123 for insulting another user's intelligence. By claiming they have a sub 90 iq.
So starting to talk about an RVR case is aggression on this site?You began the aggression there entirely on your own. You began talking about a resolved RVR case without knowing fully what was going on, accusing others of "armchair footballing her life" and sarcastically referring to people as "wise" because we won't...
People acting like feeding a dog chicken bones deserve a perma ban....dox Raven and personally go to her house? I'm not sure what prompted you to start picking fights like this, but it is blatantly cartoonish.
So we allowed to call others stupid or sub iq here?So filing a rule violation against someone for calling you stupid
I never claimed people where sub iq or stupid just not wise when concerning irl people. Big difference there.when you just referred to everyone else as stupid,
Twisted raven is a member of the bleach thread is she not and has she not contributed to bleach enough to be considered part of that thread?is evidently and obviously a complete waste of this thread's time. I am inclined to give a warning against you for seemingly intentionally derailing a thread related to Bleach and not, strangely enough,
There's a thread for that?VSBW gossip and complaints.
I think he might have been reported for less tbh in the past. Rule breakers and people who feed their dog chicken bones should get reported am I right or am I right?This is insanely petty
Below 90 doesn't even make you dumb perse. Just means you're "Low Average."This is insanely petty
look at the top of the page for more contextPeople acting like feeding a dog chicken bones deserve a perma ban.
There was, before people were damn fools about it.There's a thread for that?
Fine fine.Now, you can accept that's the end there, or continue on with the knowledge that the specific actions you've taken here are disruptive and volatile, and will thus have disruptive and volatile consequences. At present, I propose a warning for unnecessarily stirring the pot. I'll wait for input from other staff on the matter.
And that’s not good. In debates, we are supposed to give arguments or supporting opinions/facts. If I was to think what he said is agreeable or not then it’s not a debate. I’m not upset with u but this should be looked into more for the systemYou will see what he has written, but he will not see what you have written.
No I'm saying you're pettyI think he might have been reported for less tbh in the past. Rule breakers and people who feed their dog chicken bones should get reported am I right or am I right?
Arcker you're fineBelow 90 doesn't even make you dumb perse. Just means you're "Low Average."
While that definitely is an insult and Arcker should not being saying things like that, I agree with Bambu that what you said was clearly the instigation. Also, I do not understand how Deceived's comment was described as "Sexualizing;" seemed harmless to me.Reporting @Arcker123 for insulting another user's intelligence. By claiming they have a sub 90 iq.
I recant my claims.While that definitely is an insult and Arcker should not being saying things like that, I agree with Bambu that what you said was clearly the instigation. Also, I do not understand how Deceived's comment was described as "Sexualizing;" seemed harmless to me.
Well, there likely isn't much to do about the issue, as setting other members to automatic ignore is an emergency solution to prevent increasingly severe conflicts in our forum without having to ban anybody.And that’s not good. In debates, we are supposed to give arguments or supporting opinions/facts. If I was to think what he said is agreeable or not then it’s not a debate. I’m not upset with u but this should be looked into more for the system
Oh boy. Well then then would become unfair in the long run but and honestly it should be tweaked a bit but if theres nothing to be done then fine I’ll drop itWell, there likely isn't much to do about the issue, as setting other members to automatic ignore is an emergency solution to prevent increasingly severe conflicts in our forum without having to ban anybody.
Yeah... That is no okay...