Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Mr. Bambu]

I did not use the word coward but the point was him trying to make fun my claim without actually debating me on that. However I'll better ignore him because he himself admitted being a troll.

You're right, but only because you instead said "Then be a man and pull up to debate instead of continuously running away while being fearhaxed." It's inappropriate, childish behavior, and trying to skirt around the fact that you said it by arguing semantics does not make me hopeful for an improvement in said behavior.

@Mr. Bambu If me asking him to debate is not good behaviour from your perspective, then shouldn't you take some action against him saying this as well?

This is obviously not what is actually at issue. It is the rudeness, not the action of requesting engagement, that is the problem. Rudeness is in fact against the very first rule you should read on our site. I deem your actions to be at a greater severity of rudeness than usual, and so I have (I note again) informally (for now) warned you to stop it- continuing to be mean for the sake of it won't help you, is the point.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Apologize in advance if I'm not allowed to mention this now, but I believe Hellformer may have an unfinished report issued against him by an admin that got buried by other concurrent reports several months ago.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Apologize in advance if I'm not allowed to mention this now, but I believe Hellformer may have an unfinished report issued against him by an admin that got buried by other concurrent reports several months ago.

Good intel. I won't be graduating the current situation to a warning for now, but given that one received universal agreement from several staff members, I will add it to the Tracker for later considerations. Thank you.

 

[Hellformer]

You're right, but only because you instead said "Then be a man and pull up to debate instead of continuously running away while being fearhaxed." It's inappropriate, childish behavior, and trying to skirt around the fact that you said it by arguing semantics does not make me hopeful for an improvement in said behavior.

Okay

This is obviously not what is actually at issue. It is the rudeness, not the action of requesting engagement, that is the problem. Rudeness is in fact against the very first rule you should read on our site. I deem your actions to be at a greater severity of rudeness than usual, and so I have (I note again) informally (for now) warned you to stop it- continuing to be mean for the sake of it won't help you, is the point.

How is it not an issue? That guy who supposedly reports me for this:

You're right, but only because you instead said "Then be a man and pull up to debate instead of continuously running away while being fearhaxed."

can somehow openly call me a dick and you guys are not gonna take any action against it? Honestly, this is highly unjust treatment of members and extremely disappointing.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

We're not even taking action against you, my man. And for the record, yeah, I would consider you picking the fight still a more severe violation than him calling you a dick in response, "disappointing" or not.

I consider the matter closed. Play nice or don't play.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Reporting @TheSilverKing14 for behavior in the nasu discussion thread, particularly this:

Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

My paragraph implied that she was not fighting with her MEODP and thus gave Fujino the advantage at that point during the fight. If you've actually read Knk you would know the reapson she didn't use MEODP from the start was the fact that she stated verbatim "Things without form are hard to see...

vsbattles.com

You can't read. You can't grasp what you send or what you read. You can't keep a consistent interpretation of the series. You can't do anything right in relation to KnK lol. Even Fate and Tsukihime which you and your little group of trolls wank beyond belief your lot misinterprets and twists to fit your own needs and your group cannot even be consistent with those series. Hence, I have no reason to take anything what you or or your group say and appealing to foolish idiots that are in the majority is ignorant and a logical fallacy aka appeal to common belief fallacy which is what you do to shoot down whenever someone makes or proves TM is strong.

also seems to type like hyperzero ( a banned user) , though I’m unsure if they’re the same person or just affiliated

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Reporting @TheSilverKing14 for behavior in the nasu discussion thread, particularly this:

Nasuverse Discussion Board (New Forum)

My paragraph implied that she was not fighting with her MEODP and thus gave Fujino the advantage at that point during the fight. If you've actually read Knk you would know the reapson she didn't use MEODP from the start was the fact that she stated verbatim "Things without form are hard to see...

vsbattles.com

also seems to type like hyperzero ( a banned user) , though I’m unsure if they’re the same person or just affiliated

I don't know Hyperzero, but this user does sound rude and condescending. I best give him a warning at least.

 

[KingNanaya]

also seems to type like hyperzero ( a banned user) , though I’m unsure if they’re the same person or just affiliated

While this is better suited for a private report, @TheSilverKing14 was active way before hyperzero became an active user. Hyperzero became active at the request of @Grand_Saver_Ritsuka before being banned. Timeline and motive don't match up, especially considering that @TheSilverKing14 would post memes during your debates with hyperzero.

 

[Antvasima]

Our forum did not find any overlaps between TheSilverKing14 and Hyperzero.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Reporting @Hellformer for changing the context of what was accepted. in this CRT.

Here, it was decided that Low godly regeneration, was gonna at most get a "Possibly".

With Elizhaa, and DDM agreeing to that rating, but somehow a solid rating was what was implemented?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Reporting @Hellformer for changing the context of what was accepted. in this CRT.

Here, it was decided that Low godly regeneration, was gonna at most get a "Possibly".

With Elizhaa, and DDM agreeing to that rating, but somehow a solid rating was what was implemented?

@Firestorm808 @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus the staff that accepted the revision

@Hellformer the user being reported

-

For what is worth, I believe Firestorm later implied he supported a solid rating with this comment. But as it's not explicitly stated, I can see where the report stands.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

@Firestorm808 @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus the staff that accepted the revision

@Hellformer the user being reported

-

For what is worth, I believe Firestorm later implied he supported a solid rating with this comment. But as it's not explicitly stated, I can see where the report stands.

Regarding that comment, it would still not be enough, since It would be after the other 2 agreed to his previous stand. SO even in the best case scenario he agreed to it, which would be a stretch by itself, it still wouldn't change it would only be 1 staff.

(If you want, I can edit this So I have it in one post and delete this one?)

 

[Hellformer]

@Firestorm808 @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus the staff that accepted the revision

@Hellformer the user being reported

-

For what is worth, I believe Firestorm later implied he supported a solid rating with this comment. But as it's not explicitly stated, I can see where the report stands.

Someone else had reported me for this few weeks ago, however firestorm clarified that he was fine with a solid rating.

 

[Hellformer]

Here
@LephyrTheRevanchist @Dark_Soul20189
However you can re-ask him if he's fine with a solid rating. I wouldn't mind.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Here
@LephyrTheRevanchist @Dark_Soul20189
However you can re-ask him if he's fine with a solid rating. I would mind.

As my point stand, I don't think the others expressed themself to agree, so I would be best if we can wait for direct input from the staff in questioned.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Here
@LephyrTheRevanchist @Dark_Soul20189
However you can re-ask him if he's fine with a solid rating. I wouldn't mind.

Thank you. I think the report is unfounded then.

 

[Hellformer]

Regarding that comment, it would still not be enough, since It would be after the other 2 agreed to his previous stand. SO even in the best case scenario he agreed to it, which would be a stretch by itself, it still wouldn't change it would only be 1 staff.

(If you want, I can edit this So I have it in one post and delete this one?)

Firestorm had clarified in that thread itself that either GG reformed himself or AX reformed GG. And I replied with which one makes sense and he did not raise any contentions against it. And btw Elizha him/her self agreed with the thread after this specific conversation. So I don't see any point in reporting me.

 

[Hellformer]

Thank you. I think the report is unfounded then.

Thank you very much

 

[Firestorm808]

I will be adding my new comment to that thread to dissuade further reports.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Antvasima]

There seems to have been a rule-breaking when applying an unaccepted Ninjago revision while claiming that it was approved.

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Ninjago Attack Potency update

DISCLAMER: Althought this CRT seems very big, its actually very simple (plz don't get discouraged😭🙏) Ok so many characters in the Ninjago (all have them) have been really ditched in terms of Attack Potency, Strength and Durability (the WHOLE VERSE IS DEPENDENT ON ONE MORRO FEAT) and there are...

vsbattles.com

Help would be appreciated.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

There seems to have been a rule-breaking when applying an unaccepted Ninjago revision while claiming that it was approved.

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Help would be appreciated.

Since Im the OP starter, I think I can respond to this:

1. Finepoint never re-open the thread bc of his own arguments, but for Agnaa to add more to it
2. Agnaa never disagreed at all on the 4-C part, she just had no comment on the issue
3. Craw never disagreed on the thread, his opinion on 4-C was just "less iffy"
4. Qawsef was the only one who genually stated to have a disagreement with the thread
5. Dark was referring to the Mergequake feat when stating he was unsure about the disagreement, and ended up accepting it due to UES
6. Idk what's unclear about Finepoint's reply, as he approved Tier 4 scaling

It seems to me that a universal energy system is not only supported by evidence by seems intended by the creators, so I will accept that, and therefore the 4-C feat. I have no serious objections to the tier 2 proposals either, including for the dragons.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

There seems to have been a rule-breaking when applying an unaccepted Ninjago revision while claiming that it was approved.

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Help would be appreciated.

This is what I found after going through the thread. Evaluating staff that commented were @Crabwhale @Qawsedf234 @DarkDragonMedeus @FinePoint @Dereck03 @Agnaa

• Crabwhale gave a neutral vote for the 4-C scaling, until a proper UES could be argued. He later didn't fully vote after discussion continued.
• DDM accepted 4-C scaling via UES
• Qawsedf rejected the 4-C scaling
• Dereck also left a neutral comment
• FinePoint supported 4-C scaling

At that point, seems thread got closed but reopened to hash out other arguments.

• After discussion restarted and arguments were being given, Agnaa asked the staff that commented to give their thoughts again
• Qawsedf once more rejected 4-C scaling
• DDM agreed with rejections (seemingly also to the 2-C feats?; notably, Agnaa and Crab also rejected 2-C, with only FinePoint having accepted it before the thread got reopened)
• FinePoint did not comment again

So indeed, both 4-C and 2-C scaling got rejected after getting reopened.

If I got something wrong, staff members are naturally welcomed to correct me.

 

[Antvasima]

@GarrixianXD

Since you have evaluated this issue previously, it might be of interest for you to help out here as well.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

DDM agreed with rejections (seemingly also to the 2-C feats?; notably, Agnaa and Crab also rejected 2-C, with only FinePoint having accepted it before the thread got reopened)

DDM didn't disagree, as he seemingly agreed to the 2-C scale via UES and rejected a downgrade thread on the same issue

I also find it suspicious that the message was made by a guy with 0 edits and no posts

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

DDM didn't disagree, as he seemingly agreed to the 2-C scale via UES and rejected a downgrade thread on the same issue

Did you meant to link something else?

Regardless, I will wait for DDM to comment and clarify, but he stated he agreed with the counterarguments (which were in favor of rejecting 4-C) and later expressed he was unsure of 2-C.

Edit: Correction, he flat-out rejected 2-C and then was unsure of 4-C. Either way, both upgrades were rejected, since only FinePoint was agreeing.

 

[Agnaa]

My view of that thread, as I espoused when I was asked about it, found that Seiji (not evaluating staff) and Fine had reservations about the rating. As Lephyr pointed out, Qawsed disagreed with 4-C, Fine initially agreed with 4-C but seemed to hesitate later, and DDM supported it earlier but made ambiguous statements later.

Looking back, that was enough of a mix that we should've tried to really nail down proper answers from people, and get more input. But I also don't think the 4-C stuff was taking something clearly rejected, and adding it in spite of that, such that it would be a rule violation. The thread was just kind of a clusterfuck.

As I mentioned, I think the best way forward would be to make a new thread bringing up the important counterarguments, to reformat discussion outside of that clusterfuck.

I also find it suspicious that the message was made by a guy with 0 edits and no posts

I don't. Seems like a lurker, not some sock that's out to get you.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I don't. Seems like a lurker, not some sock that's out to get you.

I think for me the comment is glitched? It links to an entirely unrelated post

Looking back, that was enough of a mix that we should've tried to really nail down proper answers from people, and get more input. But I also don't think it was taking something clearly rejected, and adding it in spite of that, such that it would be a rule violation.

As I mentioned, I think the best way forward would be to make a new thread bringing up the important counterarguments, to reformat discussion outside of that clusterfuck.

I'd be fine with this.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

My view of that thread, as I espoused when I was asked about it, found that Seiji (not evaluating staff) and Fine had reservations about the rating. As Lephyr pointed out, Qawsed disagreed with 4-C, Fine initially agreed with 4-C but seemed to hesitate later, and DDM supported it earlier but made ambiguous statements later.

Looking back, that was enough of a mix that we should've tried to really nail down proper answers from people, and get more input. But I also don't think the 4-C stuff was taking something clearly rejected, and adding it in spite of that, such that it would be a rule violation. The thread was just kind of a clusterfuck.

As I mentioned, I think the best way forward would be to make a new thread bringing up the important counterarguments, to reformat discussion outside of that clusterfuck.

I don't. Seems like a lurker, not some sock that's out to get you.

I can make a CRT later, since there's more supporting evidences

 

[Agnaa]

I think for me the comment is glitched? It links to an entirely unrelated post

Yeah, but I knew it was about the user reporting it on message walls. They have 0 edits and 0 posts on the wiki, but a few posts on the forum.

 

[Qawsedf234]

got something wrong, staff members are naturally welcomed to correct me.

On my end I never accepted the 4-C stuff and still disagree with its usage.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's been a while since I looked through the thread; so I do not remember every detail I agreed with. But I do remember some back and forth and often times people changing a stance, myself perhaps included.

But based on what I gathered, the main thing I agreed with was the idea that it meets criteria for a UES. But I was unsure on the context of the star creation feat or if it was considered casual. And likewise, I agree that the "Merging universes" was indeed a 2-C feat, but what I do not remember was whether or not to officially deem the feat casual let alone something that low end feats could downscale from and by extension scale to physical stats.

 

[GarrixianXD]

@GarrixianXD

Since you have evaluated this issue previously, it might be of interest for you to help out here as well.

I share the same sentiment with Lephyr here.

 

[Antvasima]

There seems to have been a rule-breaking when applying an unaccepted Ninjago revision while claiming that it was approved.

Antvasima

vsbattles.fandom.com

Help would be appreciated.

@Scarletjet

 

[Antvasima]

Also, it seems like the unapproved changes need to be reverted. Are you and any other involved Ninjago supporter members willing to help with properly cleaning up your mess, @Lloydblitzed ?

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Also, it seems like the unapproved changes need to be reverted. Are you and any other involved Ninjago supporter members willing to help with properly cleaning up your mess, @Lloydblitzed ?

I think it was decided that we need to decide the fate of the verse in a CRT, which was created already.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if the revisions were rejected, they are not allowed to remain unless your new CRT has been decisively accepted by our staff members with evaluation rights, especially if the revisions within it were rejected recently previously.