• 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)

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.
 
But this to me is still weird. Because I didn't make this post to cause controversy which several ppl here assumed. The Post was about me. Me eating them. It was @AnAverageUsername who salvaged the comment to talking about dogs not eating them. Which I also find it weird, he didn't tell me to not eat them, immediately jumped to the dogs defense, instead of saying you both shouldn't eat them. This was even before I mentioned I chew them properly so this can be implied to assume he didn't care about my well being at all.

I mentioned raw chicken bones too @TheGatememer But they said I was ignorant.

What I have an issue with;

That Crabwhale doesn't get involved in any of my reports until us falling out, that Im treated like Hitler or a malicious dog killer, and that this was done to cause controversy when this was just a post about me, salvaged into a debate about dogs eating chicken bones, and the only concern for my dog and not me.

I just woke up to a message essentially roasting me (Arc), I woke up to reports treating me like Hitler, and lying about my intentions.

Like this doesn't even fall under y'all jurisdiction. And was made out to be related any of my past reports. When In reality it was some guy who took a comment about me, and turned it into a dog vs bones debate. Like... Imagine my surprise when I see all this nonsense in my report. Once again I prove people are biased towards me. Not surprising
 
Twisted_Little_Raven said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

I do not propose we create an animal wellness committee for VS Battles to see how well each user takes care of their pets, but when a user intentionally talks about their treatment of their pets, and their reckless treatment of the pet's life, that is a cause for concern. It should not be done. Now that the information is here, action can be taken. And given your refusal to oblige initially, one does not feel confident in any statement of compliance later.

The claim isn't that you are intentionally killing your dog. The claim is that you stubbornly refuse to dodge an easily dodgeable obstacle to your dog's life, hoping instead that each time they will simply tank it. This is knowledgeable ill treatment of an animal and is punishable as animal abuse in many locations. Whether you want your dog dead or not is irrelevant.

Now, to acknowledge something:
TheGatememer said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is relevant, as Raven seemed to pivot to raw chicken bones some way into the original discussion. At other times, she has seemed to imply that she would simply feed the dog the bones of her own eaten chickens which has obvious implications on her health that make the raw chicken theory decidedly unlikely. But, this latter bit is not certain, either, and she now seems to dispute it.

With all of the above said and out of the way. We are interpreting much, and we lack the means to verify our information. In light of this, these interpretations must be taken with a healthy dosage of grains of salt. I will rescind my support for a permanent ban on these grounds: if the allegations were more concrete, I would support it. Still, the refusal to give suggestions on the health of her dog any time of day, when she appeared by all accounts to be in the wrong, and not offering any explanation then, does strike me the wrong way, as does the now-deleted rant.

Under any interpretation, Raven's actions are inflammatory. I dislike this, and it comes after many instances of inflammatory behavior in the past. I would support a ban, although not a permanent one. Agnaa has currently proposed "a few months"- given that she is under duress, I may shoot lower than this, suggesting a month or two instead, but I would not be vehemently opposed, either.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I still don't like the fact that I woke up being roasted, being painted as Hitler, lying about doing this for controversy. And yes my deleted comment cuts a deeper wound than what Arc said. Like his post was a direct attack on me as a whole. Also he should of asked me in DM, instead of roasting me. Because everyone knows if I roast back I'm getting in trouble. I don't think what I said is worse than what he said.

Anyway what matters more. Me lying about stop feeding chicken bones while agreeing I would, or never admitting I would stop and doing so anyway. Like nobody even asked will I stop. The discussion was just about the danger lol
 
Last edited:
You can't exactly fault people for only working within the information they were given, either. Your presentation of information showed that you were misinformed on a topic, actively disagreed about whether you were misinformed, and then verbally told off being informed correctly, all while what is on the line is possibly an animal's life. It is not unreasonable for people to take that a certain way, whether you were secretly grateful or not. We only have the words. Here, they are one and the same.

Arc's comment was in response to the above: without you offering some clarification, he can only see what is presented beforehand: someone who doesn't know about the casual risk to a dog's life and someone who doesn't give a damn about learning about it, even when someone offers it. Arc's post was wrong to make, but it isn't unreasonable outrage. Your post could have solved it all by clarifying the truth of the matter, but instead you've ranted about Crab making you out like "Hitler", which shouldn't be made and is farther into the unreasonable outrage scale, given the context.
 
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.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Considering everything that's gone on in this thread, including their most recent deleted comment, I'm in favor of a permanent ban.

Considering what they've just posted... I'll apply that ban now.
 
BlackeJan said:
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
Click to expand...
I cannot make the ignore option that specific. 🙏
 
Pepsimanslover_69 said:
Reporting @Xleane on his behavior on this thread.

Rude to everyone, including staff and generally poor reaction to disagreement.
Click to expand...
Could you give some highlighted examples; he seems mostly ignorant and clueless regarding our tiering policies rather than outright destructive.

But I do not need to explain further that Raven earned her permaban, again...
 
Antvasima said:
I cannot make the ignore option that specific. 🙏
Click to expand...
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
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Could you give some highlighted examples; he seems mostly ignorant and clueless regarding our tiering policies rather than outright destructive.
Click to expand...
Post in thread 'Alien x 1B debunk to possibly 1B and immesurable speed debunk' https://vsbattles.com/threads/alien...-immesurable-speed-debunk.171113/post-6688832
Post in thread 'Alien x 1B debunk to possibly 1B and immesurable speed debunk' https://vsbattles.com/threads/alien...-immesurable-speed-debunk.171113/post-6688755
He calls Alien X fans wankers and twisters of logic here.

The rest is just how he reacts to disagreement, I would call it rude but now that I think about it's more so demanding of evidence, which isn't a rule violation but the way he does it is gonna need a bit of improvement.
 
BlackeJan said:
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
Click to expand...
You will see what he has written, but he will not see what you have written. 🙏
 
KingogKings777 said:
Reporting @Arcker123 for insulting another user's intelligence. By claiming they have a sub 90 iq.
Click to expand...
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...

...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 filing a rule violation against someone for calling you stupid, when you just referred to everyone else as stupid, 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, VSBW gossip and complaints.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
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...
Click to expand...
So starting to talk about an RVR case is aggression on this site?
Cause this was my first post about it.
And I only said I quote "vsbw are so wise when it concerns irl people" how is that calling someone stupid?
Mr. Bambu said:
...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.
Click to expand...
People acting like feeding a dog chicken bones deserve a perma ban.
Mr. Bambu said:
So filing a rule violation against someone for calling you stupid
Click to expand...
So we allowed to call others stupid or sub iq here?
Mr. Bambu said:
when you just referred to everyone else as stupid,
Click to expand...
I never claimed people where sub iq or stupid just not wise when concerning irl people. Big difference there.
Mr. Bambu said:
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,
Click to expand...
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?
Mr. Bambu said:
VSBW gossip and complaints.
Click to expand...
There's a thread for that?
KingTempest said:
This is insanely petty
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
There's a thread for that?
Click to expand...
There was, before people were damn fools about it.

The fact of the matter is that any retort raised by Bleach thread members was, with some investigation- just that, a retort, to your aggravation. Without that aggravation, a single "ur stupid" comment would be hardly worthy of report on its own- with that aggravation, it becomes evident that you are starting shit for no reason.

If you want to gossip about how you believe VSBW staff are foolish for their concern for an animal's life, there's probably a Discord you can find to do so in. Unnecessarily creating drama on site, however, is a rule violation, one we take fairly seriously.

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.
 
Antvasima said:
You will see what he has written, but he will not see what you have written. 🙏
Click to expand...
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
 
KingogKings777 said:
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?
Click to expand...
No I'm saying you're petty

Arcker123 said:
Below 90 doesn't even make you dumb perse. Just means you're "Low Average."
Click to expand...
Arcker you're fine
 
BlackeJan said:
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
Click to expand...
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. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
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. 🙏
Click to expand...
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 it
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
37 38 39
Replies
2K
Views
113K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
  • Featured
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
6K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
709
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top