• 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)

@GarrixianXD Yeah even with this "staff approval" this isn't enough, especially when most staff members aren't familiar with every single banned member on the site and just assumed it's fine, but it snowballs down to the users on site to copy and paste their entire arguments onto the site in the first place. Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.
 
GrathOfLux said:
I have some issues with these conditions, and I know I'm not the only one, but they are what is currently allowed and disallowed. I am aware that Topaz, at least, did receive permission from Antvasima to post the main CRT. However, I can't see any evidence that Topaz received any evaluation or permission for this post, which is just Fuji's own words copy-pasted, complete with all the side-notes and tangents therein.

This is plainly just direct proxying. Direct proxying of this sort has effectively the same consequences as temporarily unbanning a user for the purpose of letting them post what they want on the wiki - the fact that we already allow this on the basis of the judgement of an individual staff member is, in my opinion, extremely unrestrictive, but this isn't even that. This instance is effectively no different from just sharing their account with Fuji, and I don't believe our rules - unrestrictive as they are - even allow for this.

I would endorse a strict warning.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, Topaz didn't even show Ant what they wanted to post which is a red flag. Worth consideration.

Edit: especially since they straight-up pasted Fuji's comments off-site.
Theglassman12 said:
@GarrixianXD Yeah even with this "staff approval" this isn't enough, especially when most staff members aren't familiar with every single banned member on the site and just assumed it's fine, but it snowballs down to the users on site to copy and paste their entire arguments onto the site in the first place. Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Though, I'd think it'd be unfair to put this burden on Topaz; the issue shouldn't lie on him because it wasn't discussed by multiple staff.

@Topaz404 Reminding you that don't act as a proxy for Fuji now; you'll be informed once things are settled.
 
Last edited:
GrathOfLux said:
I would endorse a strict warning.
Click to expand...
Theglassman12 said:
Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.
Click to expand...
GarrixianXD said:
@Topaz404 Reminding you that don't act as a proxy for Fuji now; you'll be informed once things are settled.
Click to expand...
To be honest this isn't even the first time that Topaz was warned for being a proxy.

I think this is worth a consideration.
 
StrymULTRA said:
To be honest this isn't even the first time that Topaz was warned for being a proxy.

I think this is worth a consideration.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Considering I can't find evidence that Topaz received permission for that comment, that they were warned at the time by a staff member about doing this, and they stated afterwards they would not do it again, this is actually quite marked.

This is also not even just the second time I can find of Topaz doing this directly, but the third, though that instance was from prior to receiving their warning.

I would still settle for a strict warning on this matter, but all the information should be on the table.
 
As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.
 
Mr. Bambu said:
As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.
Click to expand...
You've misunderstood. I do think Topaz's latest comment on the thread does violate our rules on proxying, and that Topaz has violated our rules in this respect twice before now.

I'm advocating for a warning not because they don't violate these rules, but because I would rather we resolve this issue and prevent further issues without moving towards a ban, and I think that is feasible.
 
Vzearr said:
Pretty sure we allow people to type out stuff banned users have said as long as it is stated to be by that user and isn't toxic.
Click to expand...
Another requirement is that a high-ranking staff member should accept that a revision is posted and that it seems to be genuinely constructive for the reliability of our wiki pages. 🙏
 
GarrixianXD said:
As much as I agree with you that Fuji should absolutely stay off the site and users here shouldn't act as her proxy, I don't think Topaz is deliberately violating the rules here. Though, don't take this as me agreeing with Crabwhale's explanation of the guideline.

Our official guideline says:

We're allowed to be proxies for banned members, as long as staff members approve of it. Topaz provided that they had permission from Ant to post Fuji's arguments as a proxy. Judging by how we implemented our guidelines, I think it'd be natural for Topaz to think he fulfilled the criteria of staff approval to be a proxy, which you can say he did in a sort of sense. I don't recall there being a set number of staff approvals needed to permit proxy comments onto the site.

However, I'll say that Ant did make quite a hasty decision, and it would be much more preferable if he asked us about the Fuji proxy issue in the staff chat for our opinion on it, instead of entirely making that decision himself. However, perhaps better to not discuss it here.
Click to expand...
Well, I only intended to allow posting matter of fact analytical arguments in the initial post and possibly for later relevant rational clarification purposes and the like, not anything beyond that, so I do not really see the harm in that, but maybe I should have asked our administrators about it first in private.

Regardless, I do not think that Topaz has done anything bad here. 🙏
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bambu said:
As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.
Click to expand...
Yes, that seems fine, in case Topaz did not just post matter of fact logical arguments and evidence, but posted personal attacks or other to the topic irrelevant content from Fujiwara. 🙏
 
In the case of Topaz, I believe the conclusion was the OP did not break any rules, but arguments posted afterwards were literally just repeated copy/pastes from the same banned user. Which a staff permission should at best be limited to one post as the standard assumption; and more or less each and every post would require permission if it comes to that (Though I doubt giving full permission for a banned user to debate as if they were never banned would be accepted). I agree a warning and agreeing that he should avoid copy/pasting any further comments on the thread.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
In the case of Topaz, I believe the conclusion was the OP did not break any rules, but arguments posted afterwards were literally just repeated copy/pastes from the same banned user. Which a staff permission should at best be limited to one post as the standard assumption; and more or less each and every post would require permission if it comes to that (Though I doubt giving full permission for a banned user to debate as if they were never banned would be accepted). I agree a warning and agreeing that he should avoid copy/pasting any further comments on the thread.
Click to expand...
Yes. My intention was mainly to just allow an initial post with useful logical arguments and linked evidence, not any personal comments. 🙏
 
I'm fine with requiring mod review/approval to post threads with arguments from a banned user. The main issue for which Fujiwara was banned was her temper. Her revision threads have always been sound and well reasoned and good contributions to fixing profiles and cleaning up the wiki. I'd feel differently if it were a user who was banned primarily with regard to their behavior around a specific verse like the Tokyo Revengers people from last year.
 
Deagonx said:
I'm fine with requiring mod review/approval to post threads with arguments from a banned user. The main issue for which Fujiwara was banned was her temper. Her revision threads have always been sound and well reasoned and good contributions to fixing profiles and cleaning up the wiki. I'd feel differently if it were a user who was banned primarily with regard to their behavior around a specific verse like the Tokyo Revengers people from last year.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Strongly agreed. 🙏
 
Arkansalter2 said:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/sosuke-aizen-vs-asriel-dreemurr.176258/page-4#post-6942425 Ok. Johner will not accept that in this thread, it would be a stomp. He is just making fanfics of how Aizen would somehow win against Asriel (in which wouldn't be possible lol). Basically, he is the second coming of robo. Again, I get that he's somewhat new and a bit clueless but cmon my guy.
Click to expand...
Comments like those don't help. Avoid them in the future. (Also, already closed the thread)

Now, as for the thread specifically: He has a specific mentality he follows, that if there's a possibility or chance that a power works a certain way, then it can be applied. This in and of itself isn't a wrong mentality to have, is just we here don't take those hypotheticals as legit until the work itself shows it's legit. That's all there is to the issue. I severely dislike how we are quick to villanize someone just because they have a different mentality to the wiki's culture. I don't see anything report worthy here, plain and simple. If we start giving warnings quite literally for having a different opinion, then lol. Specially with someone that has actually done quite a good job slowly learning the sites in and out, as he has asked people on their respective verse discussion threads how things interact and have made threads asking questions.

So yeah, making bad versus threads is not a rule violation. These are my thoughts in the matter.
 
Samlex1234 said:
If you were not sure why report it? Why not post in The All purpose thread?
Click to expand...
Arkansalter2 said:
Agreed. This should have been posted in the All-Purpose request thread.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your concerns, but this case has already been resolved. Unless you have someone or something to report, or can provide relevant information regarding an existing rule violation, please refrain from commenting in rule violations thread.
 
Not a major point, but in relation to the warning issued against Chariot some time ago, Chariot recently posted on the issue again and immediately took up the same toxic tone he held previously. On it's own, probably not worthy of rebuking, but in the context of it being an old discussion that is nevertheless taken up again with the same heat and intensity as last time, I have issued another formal warning. If these warnings do not yield results, given the short relatively timeframe between them, I will pursue greater punishment. The last report can be read around here, for clarity's sake.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
There is legitimately nothing to warn here
Click to expand...
There is, actually. It is the same exact behavior as there had been before, which was reportable at the time. You disagreed then and you disagree now. This objection is noted but please do note that the thread is for meaningful additions, not proclamations of innocence that were heard in the last cycle.
 
Theglassman12 said:
What exact behavior in this post is report worthy? Can you quote what line exactly that implies he’s insulting anyone because I don’t see anything there that’s report worthy.
Click to expand...
Please do not strawman.
Click to expand...
This is blatantly not what strawmanning is, I don't feel the need to explain it to people who see it every day, but it is a common, practically trivial form of aggression to randomly namedrop debating terminology in arguments to accuse the other side. This is particularly notable here, because the last report (linked above) hinged on random accusations thrown aggressively around by Chariot.

Correct, he wouldn't, which is precisely why the storm didn't take your claimed 20 minutes to fully disperse.

If he did not wait, then by the time they say everything is normal, no meaningful degree of time has passed.
If he did not wait, then the globe showing no indication of the storm or clouds dispersing across the globe, means it had already occurred.

You have conceded on this front, but what you agree with, goes against the very argument you're presenting.
Click to expand...
This is a lesser issue, but worthy of note in terms of hypocrisy. Chariot insists that nobody (or, at least, not me, which I don't really hold an issue with) explain his argument, and then misexplains my argument in order to present his as the, as he may put it, objectively correct one.

This occurs throughout the posts, this is just an easily recognizable example from this particular post. I'll refrain from citing posts beyond the first, given that the report covers the first and was in response to that.

If there is to be discussion, I feel it appropriate to say Grath ought to have a significant say, as the second evaluator of the last report and a significant evaluator of Chariot's past behavior. I would be content to rescind the warning if Grath (or HR in general, really) felt it right to do so, whether in place of an informal warning or otherwise.
 
What part of not understand what strawmanning is can be report worthy? This just sounds more like Chariot’s not familiar with the definition, which last time I checked I don’t recall “not understanding debating terms” to be report worthy. We just explain that they’re wrong and move on, assuming Chariot was misusing the term strawman. Which btw, Grath’s post you linked said she can’t really say anything against him for the strawmanning accusations, and moreso he’s being aggressive to Imaginym and the others. So far I’m not seeing anything that extreme beyond him saying you’re strawmanning and that you conceded to a point, which doesn’t feel report worthy on its own.
 
I also evaluated the previous report and shared my thoughts on the matter while also pointed out things he said to me in the past. However, I think what he has been saying in the latest report is quite tame. I don't think "Don't Strawman" is really that bad. It's common for people to accuse mere misunderstandings as strawmanning. I can understand why each side might consider each other annoying, but I don't think he said anything report worthy within the latest report.
 
Theglassman12 said:
What part of not understand what strawmanning is can be report worthy? This just sounds more like Chariot’s not familiar with the definition, which last time I checked I don’t recall “not understanding debating terms” to be report worthy. We just explain that they’re wrong and move on, assuming Chariot was misusing the term strawman. Which btw, Grath’s post you linked said she can’t really say anything against him for the strawmanning accusations, and moreso he’s being aggressive to Imaginym and the others. So far I’m not seeing anything that extreme beyond him saying you’re strawmanning and that you conceded to a point, which doesn’t feel report worthy on its own.
Click to expand...
I have no expense in this report, but I severely doubt he doesn't know what a strawman is when he's used it at least a hundred times and sometimes correctly.
 
Vzearr said:
I have no expense in this report, but I severely doubt he doesn't know what a strawman is when he's used it at least a hundred times and sometimes correctly.
Click to expand...
To his credit, in my experience, I don't think most people using the word know what the word means- it's a buzzword, little more. I spoke with Glass, and elaborated that I feel it is potentially irrelevant whether he knows or doesn't know, however; the word itself is used as aggression, a means of shutting down the other side from conversation by painting their position itself as wrong. It may be less bad if the word is used ignorant of its actual meaning (like a child swearing), but it still seems wrong from my position.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
That's not the point of contention, though? The point is that mistakenly saying someone is strawmanning is not report-worthy
Click to expand...
His contention literally says something completely different.
Theglassman12 said:
What part of not understand what strawmanning is can be report worthy? This just sounds more like Chariot’s not familiar with the definition
Click to expand...
 
CloverDragon03 said:
That's not the point of contention, though? The point is that mistakenly saying someone is strawmanning is not report-worthy
Click to expand...
This isn't really the point, it's a misinterpretation of the point. I don't believe it's mistaken that he said that- I am open to the idea that he doesn't know what the word means, but I do believe using the word is a return to the baseless accusations he was reported for earlier in the same thread. He didn't say it by mistake, he just doesn't know what word means what definition- using 'em is still seemingly a knowledgeable aggression on his behalf (judging by the use of the word he makes earlier).

Judging by the search Vzearr posted above, I would say he has an approximation of the meaning of the word, some of these are at least close to what it means. I wouldn't consider that meaningful normally, but the main defense is "he just doesn't know what he's saying", so it may be worth looking at that, speaking to Glass and DDM.
 
My take is that he has an understanding of what the term means, but that doesn't make him immune from getting it wrong, not "oh he's clueless on what it means." And that's fine
 
So your defense is that he uses the phrase, he knows what the phrase means, and he throws it around baselessly, as he did originally, as was originally deemed reportable, and worthy of a warning, but you personally think it should not be, yes? This is duly noted already, it is duly noted again.
 
A person is responsible for the words that they say. They have to be the monitors of their own dialect. What they put into the ether must be evaluated with that in mind. Chariot is capable of self-regulation and looking into his own words. Per your statement, it is your belief he even knows what they mean- I don't think I agree, but this comment will address that as though he does.

If he is known to throw baseless accusations, and those accusations are an element of the preceding warning, and he knows that this word is an accusation, then it falls to Chariot to be more careful not to throw baseless accusations, whether as a debating tactic or in life in general. Once he says the word, he is throwing the accusation, and if one constantly throws unfounded accusations, as Chariot has been found to do and has been found to be reportable, then he is responsible for that. It's his fault. He can believe himself to be correct, most people should be doing that until proven otherwise. This is not at issue. What is at issue is the continued trend of making that into an opportunity to throw the insult and accusation, even when it doesn't apply whatsoever. It's toxic nonsense, and while it is the standard for many powerscalers entering DebateLord mode, it isn't right, and Chariot in particular has been warned for the behavior before. I'm not certain whether your feeling is that he lacks control over his own words he says, or whether we just cannot judge those, but in either scenario I don't think it negates the legitimacy of the report (and in the latter instance is just demonstrably wrong, that is the function of this thread in fact).
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Vzearr i mean, my point still stands, what about this is report worthy to begin with? I’m still waiting on the part that this in of itself is a rule violation.
Click to expand...
I said I have no opinion on this report, I was just saying why your reason as to why it's not report worthy is bunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
41 42 43
Replies
2K
Views
124K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Leloutchis134
Conversation as the main argument to invalidate a feat
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Leloutchis134
Leloutchis134
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
H3110l12345I20
(ANSWERED) What is so bad about having comedic and unserious verses?
Replies
4
Views
674
Omnificence
Omnificence
JoshSSJGod
Rule Revision Regarding Banned Users and Proxies.
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Back
Top