Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[LuffyRuffy46307]

I don't know if it counts as a report, but this guy is saying something 18+ on the site

Monkey interacts with radiation | 0-0-0

Goku isn't human, so that comparison would fall flat. However you might have a point if Garou uses his GRB, then again were Saiyans actually be shown to be weakened by Radiation levels or is it speculation? Also I'm pretty sure saiyans have the ability to create artificial moons which emit...

vsbattles.com

 

[GrathOfLux]

I don't know if it counts as a report, but this guy is saying something 18+ on the site

Monkey interacts with radiation | 0-0-0

Goku isn't human, so that comparison would fall flat. However you might have a point if Garou uses his GRB, then again were Saiyans actually be shown to be weakened by Radiation levels or is it speculation? Also I'm pretty sure saiyans have the ability to create artificial moons which emit...

vsbattles.com

I don't really have the time to attend to this situation at this moment, but I've deleted the offending comment and the replies containing it. I think this is a fairly obvious rule violation, but unless it's not been handled by the time I'm available, I'll leave this matter to the other evaluating staff.

 

[Robo432343]

I don't know if it counts as a report, but this guy is saying something 18+ on the site

Monkey interacts with radiation | 0-0-0

Goku isn't human, so that comparison would fall flat. However you might have a point if Garou uses his GRB, then again were Saiyans actually be shown to be weakened by Radiation levels or is it speculation? Also I'm pretty sure saiyans have the ability to create artificial moons which emit...

vsbattles.com

can someone please close this thread

it is a very obvious stomp
i cant believe im the one saying this

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I don't really have the time to attend to this situation at this moment, but I've deleted the offending comment and the replies containing it. I think this is a fairly obvious rule violation, but unless it's not been handled by the time I'm available, I'll leave this matter to the other evaluating staff.

I checked their posting history. I would support a warning and that's it, as the last comment they made that could've been taken as provocative (particularly towards OPM supporters) was done on 2022

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Reporting @Tjdwo, It is clear he is trying to just get rid of any people that disagree with him, or his opinion. Not only did he falsely accuse @Wankbreaker of "biased transitions" with no real evidence, but he is also trying to get rid of him completely from the thread. This is pretty clear cut, he is just trying to get rid of people disagreeing with him, and what he wants.

It is clear as day, he is doing whatever he possibly can to get rid of opposition. What better way than to target the most active user, who just happens to be a translator?

 

[Tdjwo]

Reporting @Tjdwo, It is clear he is trying to just get rid of any people that disagree with him, or his opinion. Not only did he falsely accuse @Wankbreaker of "biased transitions" with no real evidence, but he is also trying to get rid of him completely from the thread. This is pretty clear cut, he is just trying to get rid of people disagreeing with him, and what he wants.

It is pretty clear as day, he is doing whatever he possibly can to get rid of opposition. What better way than to target the most active user, who just happens to be a translator?

I'll love to see where exactly I violated any rule here. Please show me exactly which rule I violated because I can't see it at all. I'm reporting wankbreaker because he's made multiple comments without asking for permissions and here you are crying about me trying to "get rid of him?" How is reporting someone for not asking for perms a rule violation?

 

[Wankbreaker]

Just to clarify, I previously asked Antvasima for permission, and he obliged.

 

[KingNanaya]

Reporting @Tjdwo, It is clear he is trying to just get rid of any people that disagree with him, or his opinion. Not only did he falsely accuse @Wankbreaker of "biased transitions" with no real evidence, but he is also trying to get rid of him completely from the thread. This is pretty clear cut, he is just trying to get rid of people disagreeing with him, and what he wants.

yeah, no. he was saying that he should ask to receive permission to make repeated comments, as @Wankbreaker hadn't received indefinite comment permission as he had claimed.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

I'll love to see where exactly I violated any rule here. Please show me exactly which rule I violated because I can't see it at all. I'm reporting wankbreaker because he's made multiple comments without asking for permissions and here you are crying about me trying to "get rid of him?" How is reporting someone for not asking for perms a rule violation?

idk, maybe due to him already Having Ant's premission to comment there, and being somewhat of a staff member, but more importantly. A offical translater on the wiki, being in a thread, where one of the main issues is translation?

 

[KingNanaya]

A offical translater on the wiki, being in a thread, where one of the main issues is translation?

Apparently, translation helpers still need permission to make comments in threads.

 

[Tdjwo]

idk, maybe due to him already Having Ant's premission to comment there, and being somewhat of a staff member, but more importantly. A offical translater on the wiki, being in a thread, where one of the main issues is translation?

Or maybe if you stopped crying and actually used your eyes to read the comment I reported, you would know it had nothing to do with translation. And even if it did, him being "somewhat" of a staff member doesnt automatically make him immune to permission requests.

 

[Wankbreaker]

yeah, no. he was saying that he should ask to receive permission to make repeated comments, as @Wankbreaker hadn't received indefinite comment permission as he had claimed.

Again, bureaucrats have explicit permission to allow for unlimited comments, something ant doesn’t speak against.

The first time I asked, he explicitly said a “few comments”, I asked again, and he allowed me to continue posting without citing anything that would imply a specific number.

 

[KingNanaya]

The first time I asked, he explicitly said a “few comments”, I asked again, and he allowed me to continue posting without citing anything that would imply a specific number.

can you please show where this was? I had looked on his wall, and this was the only post relating to posting permissions on the thread that I saw.

 

[CloverDragon03]

There's a clear miscommunication here so I think the easiest way to handle this would be to ask Ant to clarify if the perms he gave were indefinite or not

 

[KingNanaya]

There's a clear miscommunication here so I think the easiest way to handle this would be to ask Ant to clarify if the perms he gave were indefinite or not

even if they were, he was asked prior to stop making comments

post 66 here https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-0-swirl-of-the-root-retake.170615/page-2

 

[Wankbreaker]

Reporting @Tdjwo and @KingNanaya for stonewalling this thread for an entire page and an a half, even after being repeatedly told to stop by @IdiosyncraticLawyer and I.

Tier 0 Swirl of the Root Retake

This is a false mistranslation. Nowhere in the raw scans does it even remotely imply that the Counter Force takes the shape of the Akashic records. @Wankbreaker I might be missing something, since I only looked at part of it and aren't familiar with the verse at all, but this passes the sniff...

vsbattles.com

 

[Vzearr]

Reporting @Tdjwo and @KingNanaya for stonewalling this thread for an entire page and an a half, even after being repeatedly told to stop by @IdiosyncraticLawyer and I.

Tier 0 Swirl of the Root Retake

This is a false mistranslation. Nowhere in the raw scans does it even remotely imply that the Counter Force takes the shape of the Akashic records. @Wankbreaker I might be missing something, since I only looked at part of it and aren't familiar with the verse at all, but this passes the sniff...

vsbattles.com

I will be as honest as I can, Tdjwo is consistently causing trouble in threads he doesn't agree with, derailing them, providing no insight into why he disagrees, I first noticed it here, where he openly admitted to derailing! He is now seen to be consistently in the rvt where he shows similar behavior, so I'll say that I believe a ban is needed here, we can't just let him keep going on with this behaviour.

As for Nanaya, I support a warning, whether informal or formal.

 

[Tdjwo]

I will be as honest as I can, Tdjwo is consistently causing trouble in threads he doesn't agree with, derailing them, providing no insight into why he disagrees, I first noticed it here, where he openly admitted to derailing! He is now seen to be consistently in the rvt where he shows similar behavior, so I'll say that I believe a ban is needed here, we can't just let him keep going on with this behaviour.

As for Nanaya, I support a warning, whether informal or formal.

The thread you linked was indeed a derailing comment but that was intentional because it was a topic already discussed on multiple occasions already. In fact, almost everyone seemed to agree that the thread you made then was purely unnecessary at that time.

This particular case however, has nothing to do with me derailing. How is me reporting someone to an staff/admin a form of derail?

 

[KingNanaya]

even after being repeatedly told to stop

You mean like how you were told by @Deagonx to stop posting, and how you continued to do so over the course of 2 months? And when called out on this fact, you ignored the rules that stated that staff members can remove the permissions to comment, if they were given that permission by staff? Or how @IdiosyncraticLawyer threatened to get staff members to delete @Tdjwo comment that originally called this fact out? We called out your poor behavior. I can admit that on my side, I was being pretty antagonistic while doing so. I could have handled myself better.

As for Nanaya, I support a warning, whether informal or formal.

I'd be fine with either one.

 

[Tdjwo]

Btw, this is my very first comment that i made that apparently "constitute" as a rule violation. And this is the same person that had been complained about by a thread moderator previously

Tell me how i'm at fault here.

 

[Wankbreaker]

You mean like how you were told by @Deagonx to stop posting, and how you continued to do so over the course of 2 months? And when called out on this fact, you ignored the rules that stated that staff members can remove the permissions to comment, if they were given that permission by staff?

Bureaucrats can give indefinite permission to comment. You were told this quite a few times. Plus:

I do not think that we have strict set rules regarding this issue, but it does not exactly seem to be an image helper or translation helper area of input, unless they have something genuinely important to share.

Image/Translation helpers can inherently comment on staff threads if deemed important. Tdjwo directly replied to some of my points. Trying to silence the opposition using underhanded methods is not a good idea. You don’t want to go that route.

Or how @IdiosyncraticLawyer threatened to get staff members to delete @Tdjwo comment that originally called this fact out? We called out your poor behavior. I can admit that on my side, I was being pretty antagonistic while doing so. I could have handled myself better.

Because you two were stonewalling the thread multiple times.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Btw, this is my very first comment that i made that apparently "constitute" as a rule violation. And this is the same person that had been complained about by a thread moderator previously

Tell me how i'm at fault here.

Did you get permission to even comment on the first place? Also, Wankbreaker got permission by Antvasima to make a few posts at that time so I'd rather be on the side that Deagon overlooked that.

 

[KingNanaya]

Bureaucrats can give indefinite permission to comment.

I'm aware. And I cited the rules to you.

If a staff member determines that a regular member has misused their granted privileges, another staff member can remove them.

Image/Translation helpers can inherently comment on staff threads if deemed important.

Conflicts with what I was previously aware of, which was this:

Because you two were stonewalling the thread multiple times.

not what was happening at all.

Trying to silence the opposition using underhanded methods is not a good idea. You don’t want to go that route.

You went that route.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Did you get permission to even comment on the first place? Also, Wankbreaker got permission by Antvasima to make a few posts at that time so I'd rather be on the side that Deagon overlooked that.

He got permission to comment, as long as the comments were constructive. I would hardly call stonewalling for over a page constructive.

KingNanaya received no such permission,however (which is ironic, given the situation.)

 

[Tdjwo]

Did you get permission to even comment on the first place? Also, Wankbreaker got permission by Antvasima to make a few posts at that time so I'd rather be on the side that Deagon overlooked that.

Which one? If you're referring to my post to Deagon, then yes, I was given perms by Antvasima

 

[Wankbreaker]

I'm aware. And I cited the rules to you.

I don’t wanna swing my position around, but a TL helper is hardly a “regular member”, don’t you think?

Conflicts with what I was previously aware of, which was this:

not what was happening at all.

Lawyer told you to stop, and you repeated the same thing over and over.

You went that route.

In what scenario?

 

[GarrixianXD]

All of you just chill out. Y'all are now cluttering the RVRT and it is not making any of you look better. Oh and btw, staff reports go to HR and that applies for helpers as well.

 

[Vzearr]

This particular case however, has nothing to do with me derailing. How is me reporting someone to an staff/admin a form of derail?

It's kind of ironic, you were talking about wankbreaker not having permission to post in that thread yet you were posting 10x more than him. You were told by idio to stop commenting countless times yet you kept going, you didn't have permission to comment in that thread yet you commented, countless times, derailing the thread further with each comment.

 

[Agnaa]

Translation Helpers do not, by default, have permission to post in staff-only threads.

Antvasima's permission to post did seem temporary, as he asked about which specific point was being made, and then said a few posts could be made about that. However, this wasn't the most obvious thing ever, so missing it was understandable.

An interested thread mod can overrule a disinterested bureaucrat's permission to post in a thread, imo. Here "interested" and "disinterested" refer to having direct involvement in the day-to-day posts of a thread.

From the start, Tdjwo and KingNanaya shouldn't have kept bickering about this in the thread. If you're reporting someone for violating a rule like that, I'm fine with gracing one or two posts about it, but after that you should wait for staff or go to the RVR.

I think Wankbreaker's permission to post there should be considered gone until another staff member provides it again. I think Tdjwo and Nanaya should get a light punishment, as they did repeatedly go against a staff member telling them to stop clogging up a staff only thread.

I'm gonna go clean up any superfluous posts from both of these threads.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Translation Helpers do not, by default, have permission to post in staff-only threads.

While that is the case, Ant said that these members are free to comment if it is important, I quoted the exact message above.

(A direct response to someone tackling a few major counterpoints I personally made seems important, imo.) but I’ll leave it at that.

Antvasima's permission to post did seem temporary, as he asked about which specific point was being made, and then said a few posts could be made about that. However, this wasn't the most obvious thing ever, so missing it was understandable.

This was on the first occasion I asked. I asked again after that, and there was no mention of a “few” posts.

https://vsbattles.com/profile-posts/90721/

An interested thread mod can overrule a disinterested bureaucrat's permission to post in a thread, imo. Here "interested" and "disinterested" refer to having direct involvement in the day-to-day posts of a thread.

 

[KingNanaya]

This was on the first occasion I asked. I asked again after that, and there was no mention of a “few” posts.

Okay. I suppose that you can probably make some posts there then.

A direct response to someone tackling a few major counterpoints I personally made

No, it was to Deagon. Tdjwo started off saying:

The current proposition Deagonx defends

He only responded to Deagon, Not you.

Post#78

 

[Wankbreaker]

No, it was to Deagon. Tdjwo started off saying:

He only responded to Deagon, Not you.

Some of the points he quoted weren’t from Deagon at all, but me.

 

[Agnaa]

No more back-and-forth on that point, please. Someone responding to you doesn't give you permission to post in a staff only thread, otherwise you could easily get nigh-indefinite permission with no real oversight.

 

[Wankbreaker]

I do not think that we have strict set rules regarding this issue, but it does not exactly seem to be an image helper or translation helper area of input, unless they have something genuinely important to share.

^ here is what I was quoting.

 

[Agnaa]

While that is the case, Ant said that these members are free to comment if it is important, I quoted the exact message above.

(A direct response to someone tackling a few major counterpoints I personally made seems important, imo.) but I’ll leave it at that.

Ant said he wasn't certain of the rules in that area, luckily I am.

Our pages for Content Moderators, Thread Moderators, Calculation Group, and the like, mention in their Benefits section how such users get permission to post in staff-only threads.

You'll notice that Image Helpers and Translation Helpers lack that.

I'd also point out from the wording of Ant's comment, and the context it was said in, that it was likely about RVR posts specifically despite you asking a more general question, as he says "it does not exactly seem to be an image helper or translation helper area of input", which is not true for certain staff only threads, but is always true for the RVR.

This was on the first occasion I asked. I asked again after that, and there was no mention of a “few” posts.

Are you linking the wrong thing? Because that's exactly the instance I was talking about.

You ask for permission

Could I receive additional permission to comment on the root thread?

Ant asks you which points you want to bring up

What do you wish to say there?

You vaguely allude to them

Pretty much just bring up a couple of new arguments, and address a misconception the supporters have

Ant says you can make some posts about them

Okay. I suppose that you can probably make some posts there then.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Ant said he wasn't certain of the rules in that area, luckily I am.

Our pages for Content Moderators, Thread Moderators, Calculation Group, and the like, mention in their Benefits section how such users get permission to post in staff-only threads.

You'll notice that Image Helpers and Translation Helpers lack that.

I'd also point out from the wording of Ant's comment, and the context it was said in, that it was likely about RVR posts specifically despite you asking a more general question, as he says "it does not exactly seem to be an image helper or translation helper area of input", which is not true for certain staff only threads, but is always true for the RVR.

Alright, I’ll leave it at that then.

Are you linking the wrong thing? Because that's exactly the instance I was talking about.

You ask for permission

Ant asks you which points you want to bring up

You vaguely allude to them

Ant says you can make a few posts about them

There was another instance where he specifically said “a few”, I thought you were referring to that.

https://vsbattles.com/profile-posts/89040/

 

[Tdjwo]

Translation Helpers do not, by default, have permission to post in staff-only threads.

Antvasima's permission to post did seem temporary, as he asked about which specific point was being made, and then said a few posts could be made about that. However, this wasn't the most obvious thing ever, so missing it was understandable.

An interested thread mod can overrule a disinterested bureaucrat's permission to post in a thread, imo. Here "interested" and "disinterested" refer to having direct involvement in the day-to-day posts of a thread.

From the start, Tdjwo and KingNanaya shouldn't have kept bickering about this in the thread. If you're reporting someone for violating a rule like that, I'm fine with gracing one or two posts about it, but after that you should wait for staff or go to the RVR.

I think Wankbreaker's permission to post there should be considered gone until another staff member provides it again. I think Tdjwo and Nanaya should get a light punishment, as they did repeatedly go against a staff member telling them to stop clogging up a staff only thread.

I'm gonna go clean up any superfluous posts from both of these threads.

Sorry. I was too busy to respond on time.

Idio wasn't helping the case at all because he refused to do something about the issue both KingNanaya and I complained about. Instead, he wrongly assumed Ant gave Wank infinite perms and blaming us instead, despite correcting him. All we both wanted was a staff member to deal with Wankbreaker's comments.

 

[Agnaa]

Which is why I'm only suggesting a light punishment. You rightly noticed a staff member doing the wrong thing, but you didn't handle it in an appropriate way, such as:

• Bringing it to the RVR, since it ultimately involved an ordinary-ish user's rule violation being overlooked.
• Bringing it to HR, since it involved a staff member misapplying the rules.
• Bringing it to any staff member on their wall or in DMs.
• Waiting for another staff member present in the thread to wake up and check on things.

Making another 30 posts about the situation in the same staff-only thread doesn't really help, and just ends up derailing. And since you were ultimately doing that, Idiosyncratic's insistence that you stop posting about it there was reasonable.

 

[KingNanaya]

Last thing I'll say is that I've had 1 prior informal warning. I don't want this to drag out any longer, so I'd to receive my punishment sooner rather than later if I'm found deserving. I admit fault for my end of this ordeal. I'll try my best to handle the situation better next time.

 

[Tdjwo]

Which is why I'm only suggesting a light punishment. You rightly noticed a staff member doing the wrong thing, but you didn't handle it in an appropriate way, such as:

• Bringing it to the RVR, since it ultimately involved an ordinary-ish user's rule violation being overlooked.
• Bringing it to HR, since it involved a staff member misapplying the rules.
• Bringing it to any staff member on their wall or in DMs.
• Waiting for another staff member present in the thread to wake up and check on things.

Making another 30 posts about the situation in the same staff-only thread doesn't really help, and just ends up derailing. And since you were ultimately doing that, Idiosyncratic's insistence that you stop posting about it there was reasonable.

You are right. But I think Wank should be punished as well because he clearly was in the wrong as well.

And I thought tagging a staff member on the thread was enough. I didn't think it was necessary enough to bring to RVT