Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Damage3245]

@Sdjlakjh Anything you have to say in your defense?

 

[Sdjlakjh]

@Sdjlakjh Anything you have to say in your defense?

For the time manip stuff, I don't believe it's leading question? Since the author previously stated that the LMK characters are beyond physical laws. I'm just asking him to elaborate further on what does it mean (I even already mentioned this in a CRT before)

Wait how does the intelligence doc a rule breaking? I just asked the writer's opinion on it (he ignored anyway)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Asking authors for evidence for our hobby is considered leading and a rule violation in of itself. It is not allowed period, following many negative outcomes of such behavior in the past (read: Devil May Cry). If this is you, this is a legitimate rule violation, and it bears stating plainly that any such "evidence" gathered in this way is unusable for our site.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Asking authors for evidence for our hobby is considered leading and a rule violation in of itself. It is not allowed period, following many negative outcomes of such behavior in the past (read: Devil May Cry). If this is you, this is a legitimate rule violation, and it bears stating plainly that any such "evidence" gathered in this way is unusable for our site.

Thing is, the author himself said that said characters can escape a blackhole as they are beyond physical laws. The only question I gave is what does he meant by being beyond physical laws?

A leading question is based on a framework that has no reference to the source material or author statement. It only counts as leading if I ask him: "is this character beyond concepts?" As there is no reference to the original source

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Thing is, the author himself said that said characters can escape a blackhole as they are beyond physical laws. The only question I gave is what does he meant by being beyond physical laws?

A leading question is based on a framework that has no reference to the source material or author statement. It only counts as leading if I ask him: "is this character beyond concepts?" As there is no reference to the original source

Again, I already explained all this in a CRT that I proposed for LMK characters having resistance

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Thing is, the author himself said that said characters can escape a blackhole as they are beyond physical laws. The only question I gave is what does he meant by being beyond physical laws?

A leading question is based on a framework that has no reference to the source material or author statement. It only counts as leading if I ask him: "is this character beyond concepts?" As there is no reference to the original source

I will state for the purposes of the thread my opinion.

Action taken should be light- a warning at worst. Being unaware of our policies on the subject means that going forward, this behavior should not be repeated, but we should not go for maximum possible punishments. It goes without saying that evidence gathered via these questions is unusable. Any resistances added under the pretense of this evidence ought to be removed, regardless of what the author has said.

It's not a big deal, you just need to understand that it is against our rules.

 

[Shmooply]

Please stop pretending that isn't the only leading question you asked.

(Archive)

(Archive)

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I will state for the purposes of the thread my opinion.

Action taken should be light- a warning at worst. Being unaware of our policies on the subject means that going forward, this behavior should not be repeated, but we should not go for maximum possible punishments. It goes without saying that evidence gathered via these questions is unusable. Any resistances added under the pretense of this evidence ought to be removed, regardless of what the author has said.

It's not a big deal, you just need to understand that it is against our rules.

As I read your rules, author statements are fine if they have references to the source material. As we are focusing on the spacetime manip resists, LMK characters beforehand was already showing such feats, I am simply usin the statement to see if such case could also be applied to their resistances

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Please stop pretending that isn't the only leading question you asked.

(Archive)

(Archive)

As I remember in the vsbattle rule, statements are fine if it's within the source material. I did not simply ask the author "hey are LMK characters boundless"? That would be a violation

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As I read your rules, author statements are fine if they have references to the source material. As we are focusing on the spacetime manip resists, LMK characters beforehand was already showing such feats, I am simply usin the statement to see if such case could also be applied to their resistances

Author statements are usable in most circumstances. Asking the author for evidence is never usable and is a violation of our rules. You asking is a rule violation. If you read the rules, you would know this, and thus I encourage you to drop it. Evidence gained in this manner cannot be used, plainly and simply. You cannot argue against the fact that the rule exists, and so I see little point in carrying on.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Author statements are usable in most circumstances. Asking the author for evidence is never usable and is a violation of our rules. You asking is a rule violation. If you read the rules, you would know this, and thus I encourage you to drop it. Evidence gained in this manner cannot be used, plainly and simply. You cannot argue against the fact that the rule exists, and so I see little point in carrying on.

Hm so if character A was able to outsmart character B, I can't ask the author if char A was indeed smarter than B?

 

[Shmooply]

I guess I should of clarified in my original report. I used the google doc as proof that the account is owned by you, not that it has anything to do with asking leading questions.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I guess I should of clarified in my original report. I used the google doc as proof that the account is owned by you, not that it has anything to do with asking leading questions.

Well thought so cause I was just asking his opinion on what he thinks of my docs (it was already accepted beforehand in the website so it's not my goal to try leading question)

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Hm so if character A was able to outsmart character B, I can't ask the author if char A was indeed smarter than B?

You can't ask authors powerscaling related questions, correct. No matter the content of the question it is considered pestering and potentially leading, and thus a rule violation.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You can't ping members, nor is this the place to suggest changes to rules. You will need to create a Staff Discussion thread. I will spare you the time, if you like, by saying that this rule is absolutely necessary, and you really should not, rules or not, be pestering authors for powerscaling stuff. It's a rule for what I consider a good reason.

Now then. As you do not have any real defense on this subject, I will consider an informal warning to knock it off sufficient. If other staff disagree, they may say as much- otherwise, I consider the matter concluded. I will delete unnecessary posts.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

You can't ping members, nor is this the place to suggest changes to rules. You will need to create a Staff Discussion thread. I will spare you the time, if you like, by saying that this rule is absolutely necessary, and you really should not, rules or not, be pestering authors for powerscaling stuff. It's a rule for what I consider a good reason.

Now then. As you do not have any real defense on this subject, I will consider an informal warning to knock it off sufficient. If other staff disagree, they may say as much- otherwise, I consider the matter concluded. I will delete unnecessary posts.

Sure I'll see that soon

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Spamming messages to the RVRT is also a rule violation, for the record. You've sent six recently, if you have something to say, do so on my wall.