- 1,580
- 485
Oh, my bad
-
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)
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
- 506
- 170
I know is none of my business asking this but, do you have the source of this diferent scanlation group ? This would help clean a little earl's reputation here, while he does have his wrongs, its only right to earl be judged by what he truly did.
You can send on my wall, so it doenst derail the current talk here.
- 14,917
- 12,434
I don't have the source on me right now for drama that happened 2 and a half years ago.
And hell, the point of posting the scan wasn't for the written text itself; it was about whether GER had the same "visuals" as in other parts of the manga, the funky badly-translated and badly-typeset text and the cut panel distract from that, but none of it really matters for why the scan was presented & looked at.
And hell, the point of posting the scan wasn't for the written text itself; it was about whether GER had the same "visuals" as in other parts of the manga, the funky badly-translated and badly-typeset text and the cut panel distract from that, but none of it really matters for why the scan was presented & looked at.
Last edited:
- 1,342
- 675
Someone made Anos' profile a 1-B.
- 13,731
- 3,682
And he just did it again.
vsbattles.fandom.com
Error | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom
Anos Voldigoad (アノス・ヴォルディゴード, Anosu Vorudigōdo) is the reincarnation of the man who was feared as the Demon King of Tyranny 2,000 years ago and is the main protagonist of Maou Gakuin no Futekigousha. As the war between humans and demons raged on, Anos eventually grew tired of the constant...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 24,248
- 24,998
I feel like someone should just lock the profile.
- 4,942
- 1,316
I undid it
Edit: Actually, Dereck beat me to it
- 30,117
- 31,442
Link to said user?
- 13,731
- 3,682
Bang.prito
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 30,117
- 31,442
I locked the profile and warned him.
- 1,808
- 2,809
Bang.prito
vsbattles.fandom.com
I don't know what kind of decision has to be made, but someone needs to do something or keep an eye on said user.
Kusuo Saiki
Saiki Kusuo is the protagonist of Saiki Kusuo no Psi-nan (斉木楠雄のΨ難 Saiki Kusuo no Sainan, lit. "The Disaster of Psi Kusuo Saiki"). He is a high school student who possesses a wide range of psychic powers, making him one of the most powerful beings in the world. Born with these extraordinary...
vsbattles.fandom.com
I don't know what kind of decision has to be made, but someone needs to do something or keep an eye on said user.
- 20,504
- 1,587
I never edited that scan fam. We've gone over this. I just found it in another Jojo thread.
- 30,117
- 31,442
Since he pretty much ignored my warning, I decided to ban him.Bang.prito
Kusuo Saiki
Saiki Kusuo is the protagonist of Saiki Kusuo no Psi-nan (斉木楠雄のΨ難 Saiki Kusuo no Sainan, lit. "The Disaster of Psi Kusuo Saiki"). He is a high school student who possesses a wide range of psychic powers, making him one of the most powerful beings in the world. Born with these extraordinary...
I don't know what kind of decision has to be made, but someone needs to do something or keep an eye on said user.
- 165,240
- 72,283
- Thread starter
- #3,015
The arguments above regarding Earl largely seem to have a point. He is in fact argumentative, unreasonable, and obstructive to getting solutions to content revisions, due to others having to argue with him for a long time. However, this is not enough to ban him outright, but we might be able to give him specific topic bans.
- 165,240
- 72,283
- Thread starter
- #3,016
I think that you refer to avoiding a permanent ban via a sockpuppet.
Anyway, that is considerably more serious, and we at least had to give a symbolic punishment, but were trying to be fairly lenient given that you had significantly shaped up your behaviour.
That said, from what I recall, the other bureaucrats and the HR group mostly decided those punishments.
- 10,710
- 9,862
No, I'm refering to the multi account stuff. I was told that I wouldn't be banned, but it was a lie. I helped a lot of members here calculating feats and doing more stuff, I also helped the person who asked me about the old account, I could have made it more difficult, but I did not. If Earl can't be blamed for something he did 2 years ago, don't say that "I avoided a perma ban" because of something I did in 2017.
- 10,710
- 9,862
I never gave any attention to this, since the ban happened during the forum move. It didn't affect me. But when you comment that a person cannot be blamed for something they did 2 years ago, but blamed me for something I did more than 3 years ago, I really can't keep quiet. It doesn't seem right to me. Here you have Earl, who is being reported, there are several people who complain about him and he has a history of reports and you have me, who was reported at most 3 times in 4 years and sometimes gets aggressive. You say that Earl cannot be blamed for something he did 2 years ago, but you blame me for something I did in 2017, when I was 14 years old.
Really, this doesn't seem correct to me.
Really, this doesn't seem correct to me.
- 165,240
- 72,283
- Thread starter
- #3,019
Well, from what I recall, I argued for that you were a constructive member, and personally apologised to you about the ban because of this.
We were placed in a situation where we had to do something symbolic to make clear that sockpuppets are not acceptable though.
We were placed in a situation where we had to do something symbolic to make clear that sockpuppets are not acceptable though.
- 165,240
- 72,283
- 10,710
- 9,862
I deleted the contents of a page, in fact. But I was 14, I had no idea of almost anything related to the wiki. Today I am 18, I am an adult according to the law. I spent hours during the night doing calculations, helping some people. Many times they were useless. If an act of vandalism stands out in relation to various acts of help and cooperation, I don't know what the evaluation criteria is here. honestly.
About Earl, don't get me wrong, all my complain isn't about his behavior, but your statement that you can't blame him for something he did 2 years ago, while I was banned for something that happened even before. I just want coherence regarding what to do with stuff that happened a long time ago. Now, if you want to know what I think: Ban Earl from commenting in DMC related threads, since the report is most lijely about his behavior regarding this franchise, and the people who stands in favor of the report are DMC supporters.
About Earl, don't get me wrong, all my complain isn't about his behavior, but your statement that you can't blame him for something he did 2 years ago, while I was banned for something that happened even before. I just want coherence regarding what to do with stuff that happened a long time ago. Now, if you want to know what I think: Ban Earl from commenting in DMC related threads, since the report is most lijely about his behavior regarding this franchise, and the people who stands in favor of the report are DMC supporters.
- 14,917
- 12,434
It is completely valid to not judge someone for non-permabannable offenses they committed 2 years ago, while simultaneously judging someone for permabannable offenses they committed 4 years ago. Precisely because one of those would lead to a permanent ban and one wouldn't.
(Of course, I don't think pretty much anyone should get permabanned, because of situations like yours where a child/teen does something dumb but eventually matures, but that's not how the site works right now)
(Of course, I don't think pretty much anyone should get permabanned, because of situations like yours where a child/teen does something dumb but eventually matures, but that's not how the site works right now)
- 10,710
- 9,862
The way you put it, yes, it is valid. But if we add things like age and what the person did after the act, then I disagree and I think it shouldn't be evaluated differently.
And I am criticizing exactly how it works now, I also don’t agree with permaban, not anymore. I think that preventing certain people from commenting on certain threads about X franchises works much better. I think there is no way to prevent chaos (here, on the forum) without removing a person’s freedom of speech, but it’s better to restrict some things than all of their access.
And I am criticizing exactly how it works now, I also don’t agree with permaban, not anymore. I think that preventing certain people from commenting on certain threads about X franchises works much better. I think there is no way to prevent chaos (here, on the forum) without removing a person’s freedom of speech, but it’s better to restrict some things than all of their access.
- 165,240
- 72,283
- Thread starter
- #3,025
Well, as I mentioned, we were forced into a situation where we couldn't make a complete exception for you specifically, but as I have said, including in my earlier apology to you, if I recall correctly, I did not like having to do so at all in your case. Also, we did not know about your age.
- 20,504
- 1,587
I've heard a lot of these "stonewalling" arguments. And let me ask everyone here.
What exactly is stonewalling?
I've been called out to be "stonewalling" when i was in fact making an argument that people like Agnaa and Ant agreed with me on when they joined the thread.
I have been called out to be stonewalling on the regeneration issue regarding DMC despite the fact that Dargoo ended up agreeing with me on.
I have been called out for stonewalling on the "particle beams aren't matter manip" issue, despite DT later on saying (when we asked him) "Just leave it as resisting particle beams in the profile".
I have been called out for stonewalling for continuously arguing "Being hit by AZ isn't resistance to AZ" despite that being a site standard.
I have been called out for stonewalling in saying "gameplay isn't assumed to be canon all the time and no CRT needs to be done to change it" by glassman, despite wok checking the thread and saying "that is correct there is no rule that gameplay has to be accepted as canon therefore the argument above can be made".
I have been called out for stonewalling recently by Ant here in a thread where Agnaa said he agreed with me at some point.
So what exactly qualifies for stonewalling? Because if these qualify as stonewalling, honestly no need to ban me. I will leave the site willingly, it's not worth staying here if any sort of continuous argument is stonewalling regardless of how correct or how much sense the argument makes.
What exactly is stonewalling?
I've been called out to be "stonewalling" when i was in fact making an argument that people like Agnaa and Ant agreed with me on when they joined the thread.
I have been called out to be stonewalling on the regeneration issue regarding DMC despite the fact that Dargoo ended up agreeing with me on.
I have been called out for stonewalling on the "particle beams aren't matter manip" issue, despite DT later on saying (when we asked him) "Just leave it as resisting particle beams in the profile".
I have been called out for stonewalling for continuously arguing "Being hit by AZ isn't resistance to AZ" despite that being a site standard.
I have been called out for stonewalling in saying "gameplay isn't assumed to be canon all the time and no CRT needs to be done to change it" by glassman, despite wok checking the thread and saying "that is correct there is no rule that gameplay has to be accepted as canon therefore the argument above can be made".
I have been called out for stonewalling recently by Ant here in a thread where Agnaa said he agreed with me at some point.
So what exactly qualifies for stonewalling? Because if these qualify as stonewalling, honestly no need to ban me. I will leave the site willingly, it's not worth staying here if any sort of continuous argument is stonewalling regardless of how correct or how much sense the argument makes.
Last edited:
- 20,504
- 1,587
So Ant, at some point we gotta disregard what the masses are saying and have reasonable people give everything an objective check.
All of these "stonewalling" arguments start to lose meaning when you realize that just about everyone who made that argument is a person who supports DMC, no one wants to see their verse get downgraded. So what's the best solution? Easy, just have everyone who wants the verse upgraded call stonewalling on the guy who is trying to give something below what they want.
Does this mean that all their points about me "stonewalling" are null? Absolute not. What this means is that you, HR members or other people you think are trustworthy in their judgement should just check the threads in question and make your own judgement of the situation rather than going off of what people are saying which, as i've pointed out several times now, have been wrong claims on multiple occasions (like the GetBackers case or the DxD case being called a "lie").
All of these "stonewalling" arguments start to lose meaning when you realize that just about everyone who made that argument is a person who supports DMC, no one wants to see their verse get downgraded. So what's the best solution? Easy, just have everyone who wants the verse upgraded call stonewalling on the guy who is trying to give something below what they want.
Does this mean that all their points about me "stonewalling" are null? Absolute not. What this means is that you, HR members or other people you think are trustworthy in their judgement should just check the threads in question and make your own judgement of the situation rather than going off of what people are saying which, as i've pointed out several times now, have been wrong claims on multiple occasions (like the GetBackers case or the DxD case being called a "lie").
- 165,240
- 72,283
- Thread starter
- #3,030
Okay then.
@SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan
Would you be willing to investigate the situation with Firephoenixearl please?
@SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan
Would you be willing to investigate the situation with Firephoenixearl please?
- 19,386
- 9,972
Except the site standard does NOT affect the absolute zero resistance for Dante because we showed you proof the characters kept getting frozen by said absolute zero enemies, only to break out of it. Something that is allowed for resisting absolute zero in the first place. The site standard being changed does not affect that feat whatsoever because it followed the guidelines for having absolute zero resistance feat to begin with, yet you keep on claiming it did with ZERO evidence to back up your claim despite the evidence we all showed you.
oh so you’re appealing to motive? On the same people who actually agreed with 2 of your 5 speed downgrades? One of them being the fastest speed feat DMC has remotely gotten on the wiki for the longest time in recent memory? If we flat out did not want any form of downgrade to occur whatsoever despite the evidence we wouldn’t have agreed to them or remove BFR via Yamato (something we all agreed on to be removed in the first place). Stop making these accusations on a group of people who like a verse by claiming we only argue back because we like the series. We have a actual argument to be made and we have our reasons as to why. I can easily flip the script by claiming the only reason why you want to downgrade DMC is because you want Ikki to beat Dante, nothing more nothing less, but I won’t because that’s an appeal to motive, that’s not actually arguing against the points.
oh so you’re appealing to motive? On the same people who actually agreed with 2 of your 5 speed downgrades? One of them being the fastest speed feat DMC has remotely gotten on the wiki for the longest time in recent memory? If we flat out did not want any form of downgrade to occur whatsoever despite the evidence we wouldn’t have agreed to them or remove BFR via Yamato (something we all agreed on to be removed in the first place). Stop making these accusations on a group of people who like a verse by claiming we only argue back because we like the series. We have a actual argument to be made and we have our reasons as to why. I can easily flip the script by claiming the only reason why you want to downgrade DMC is because you want Ikki to beat Dante, nothing more nothing less, but I won’t because that’s an appeal to motive, that’s not actually arguing against the points.
- 20,504
- 1,587
Look man, i gave up trying to explain to you how heat and freezing works long time ago. Leave it to the ppl Ant called to make the judgement.
Appealing to motive was never used to nullify your statements.
Either way, i won't discuss here anymore. I'll leave it to the ppl Ant trusts.
Appealing to motive was never used to nullify your statements.
Either way, i won't discuss here anymore. I'll leave it to the ppl Ant trusts.
- 165,240
- 72,283
- Thread starter
- #3,033
- 3,460
- 1,717
I suppose that justifies you lowkey lying in your complaint to AKM?
- 20,504
- 1,587
Which statement is a lie exactly?
- 14,917
- 12,434
Since this stuff's still going I'll give my take on Earl's situation.
Sometimes (not all of the time) Earl makes arguments that go against my standards of evidence or the site's standards of evidence. That's not to say that these aren't actual arguments, but there's just no real room for discussion there. Making that worse, sometimes (again not all of time time) Earl goes about these arguments in a way that I can only describe as incompatible with me. They become infuriating and stressful to engage in. Again I wouldn't say that his conduct is objectively deplorable, but on some occasions I have to choose between pushing back against Earl's points and keeping my sanity.
So I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of thing has lead to some negative sentiment accumulating against him, but I'm not sure what should be done, if anything, about that. The temporary ban on Medaka Box discussions could have been justified by him consistently going against the site's standards in regards to discussions of it, but I'm not sure if he's consistently doing that any more for other verses.
Sometimes (not all of the time) Earl makes arguments that go against my standards of evidence or the site's standards of evidence. That's not to say that these aren't actual arguments, but there's just no real room for discussion there. Making that worse, sometimes (again not all of time time) Earl goes about these arguments in a way that I can only describe as incompatible with me. They become infuriating and stressful to engage in. Again I wouldn't say that his conduct is objectively deplorable, but on some occasions I have to choose between pushing back against Earl's points and keeping my sanity.
So I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of thing has lead to some negative sentiment accumulating against him, but I'm not sure what should be done, if anything, about that. The temporary ban on Medaka Box discussions could have been justified by him consistently going against the site's standards in regards to discussions of it, but I'm not sure if he's consistently doing that any more for other verses.
- 20,504
- 1,587
Agnaa's points are fair actually. 1 thing though.
I don't think anything can be done actually. Cus sometimes when our standards meet we're on the same page, other times when they don't meet you get angry at a debate with me cus you have different personal standards, but the same can be said about me, i also get angry cus I have other standards so your argument/points do not meet my standards. But who's at fault here? Who's right and who's wrong? It's just a disagreement. If we start taking measures against people disagreeing with each-other it'll all start going downhill real fast.
- 11,065
- 13,766
The fact that you did it 3 years ago is exactly why you are not permabanned but only received a 3-month block for an offense that results in a permaban, just like everybody else who was found out to have done the same thing.
I heavily disagree with restricting Earl from going into DMC CRTs. Banning him from CRTs of a particular verse because he has different opinions regarding it than many others is absurd. Anybody should be free to voice their opinions and disagreements about a verse, even if they go against the majority of the fans' notions, as long as it is done reasonably and politely.
The problem with Earl is not DMC-related. It's just that he can be unreasonably biased and obstructive because, like Agnaa said, he tends to make arguments that sometimes go against the site's standards of evidence and is unwilling to back down. That's a more general problem, and there are several users who have developed resentment against him for this reason.
I think he should at least be given a strict warning to improve his behavior in that regard and not be overly confrontational when it comes to evidences he personally disagrees with but are acceptable by the site's standards. Not that he isn't allowed to voice his opinions in a respectful manner, but he shouldn't be unreasonably obstructive about it when everybody tells him otherwise. Of course, if his points are legitimate, some people are bound to agree with him, but he should develop a habit of backing down and not be confrontational when that doesn't happen.
- 14,917
- 12,434
I think he should at least be given a strict warning to improve his behavior in that regard and not be overly confrontational when it comes to evidences he personally disagrees with but are acceptable by the site's standards. Not that he isn't allowed to voice his opinions in a respectful manner, but he shouldn't be unreasonably obstructive about it when everybody tells him otherwise. Of course, if his points are legitimate, some people are bound to agree with him, but he should develop a habit of backing down and not be confrontational when that doesn't happen.
After discussing this part in particular with AKM and Earl on Discord, I think it deserves a little bit of clarification.
"Everybody" in this case doesn't just mean "everyone in that thread". Sometimes a bunch of people in one thread can disagree with a point that the site as a whole actually does agree with. In this case I have (and suggest Earl starts doing) presented the argument, even just a simplified/abstracted version of it, to people I know/trust and see who they side with. Even if they're not willing to join in and debate on the thread, doing this can tell you whether to back down or not.
After discussing this part in particular with AKM and Earl on Discord, I think it deserves a little bit of clarification.
"Everybody" in this case doesn't just mean "everyone in that thread". Sometimes a bunch of people in one thread can disagree with a point that the site as a whole actually does agree with. In this case I have (and suggest Earl starts doing) presented the argument, even just a simplified/abstracted version of it, to people I know/trust and see who they side with. Even if they're not willing to join in and debate on the thread, doing this can tell you whether to back down or not.
Similar threads
