Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To be honest, I don't understand the reason that was given, and it does not make any sense to me whatsoever. Maybe I'm just not well today or something.Two new members, @Meggan12345 and @MuTeLuBae , who post agreements to each other in the same content revision thread, were reported by our forum as using the same IP address on 5 respectively 13 separate occasions.
When I gave them instructions in this regard, they kept denying the evidence, thereby digging a deeper pit for themselves.
What do you all think that we should do here?
Okay, I understand. Well, I don't know how severe the punishment is for new users that create sock(s), but if the punishment is going to be applied, then I would usually treat this like the other similar cases (Where new users make socks, especially to agree to themselves).Well, quite a lot of our members have been caught creating multiple accounts, and although that is technically against our rules, in case they are productive members, we have usually been lenient and contacted them in private regarding which account that they want to continue using, and then banned the others, as long as they have not used the accounts in question maliciously or to circumwent preexisting blocks.
However, in this case the two accounts were used to back each other up in a content revision discussion thread, and then the person responsible repeatedly apparently lied about this being the case, rather than admitting it outright, and, given that it isn't a longtime member who has done anything productive for this community, just two new accounts that do not seem to make any sensible posts, it would likely set a very bad precedent if we just allow new members to constantly spam us with multiple accounts nonsense posts.
I agree this is a serious violation. I didn't see the detection on the approval queue and/or I thought I rejected one of them either due to not having a Fandom account or because one of their accounts were already active.Well, quite a lot of our members have been caught creating multiple accounts, and although that is technically against our rules, in case they are productive members, we have usually been lenient and contacted them in private regarding which account that they want to continue using, and then banned the others, as long as they have not used the accounts in question maliciously or to circumwent preexisting blocks.
However, in this case the two accounts were used to back each other up in a content revision discussion thread, and then the person responsible repeatedly apparently lied about this being the case, rather than admitting it outright, and, given that it isn't a longtime member who has done anything productive for this community, just two new accounts that do not seem to make any sensible posts, it would likely set a very bad precedent if we just allow new members to constantly spam us with multiple accounts nonsense posts.
It's even worse the dude tried hard to deny it honestlyTrue, making multiple accounts just to agree with yourself many times in with a CRT is consideringly cheating
Okay. How about a year then?
For what it’s worth, I think that situation has been mischaracterised as something it’s not. I’d personally be hesitant to even give a warning.Well, they are a longterm member who has otherwise behaved well as far as I am aware, so I think that a warning at most should be issued here.
Reporting the user @Iamunanimousinthat about this Thread.
They have started to stonewall it and derail it, such as ignoring evidence on the profiles and disgreading them as evidence against their opinions despite the CRT relies on the profiles' current take on the arguments.
I believe that they should be reported here as they're stonewalling and their takes contradict what's currently accepted on the profiles, and refuses to make CRTs to change those.
This is ridiculous. They are reporting me because I disagree with their arguments. I am providing sources, and backing everything I say. Instead of coming up with a good argument, they're trying to silence me by reporting me. I am not stonewalling or derailing anything.
The profiles say X and I use the profiles as evidence for my arguments
You say Y
I say that Y is not accepted and that X is instead.
"It's not an argument"
@Starter_Pack @GyroNutz @SamanPatouReporting the user @Iamunanimousinthat about this Thread.
They have started to stonewall it and derail it, such as ignoring evidence on the profiles and disgreading them as evidence against their opinions despite the CRT relies on the profiles' current take on the arguments.
I believe that they should be reported here as they're stonewalling and their takes contradict what's currently accepted on the profiles, and refuses to make CRTs to change those.
I asked for a source. And you linked the vs battle profile. The profiles aren't direct sources, everything has to be backed tangible evidence. You refused to provide that tangible evidence and decided that just linking profiles is enough.Come the **** on, is all you've been doing.
If I ask for something specific and a you just link the profile, it's bad debate skills. And the pokemon profiles are huge with tons of information. Am i supposed to go through every link, when they can just link the direct source that supposedly exists?As long as the information exists on the profile, I'd say it's fair game to use it, as that means it's accepted for use. That's how I see it, at least. You can't really just pretend it doesn't exist
While it would've been better for Strym to actually link the scan alongside the profile rather than just the profile which has the scan in question within it, it doesn't mean he's incorrect or wrong for linking only just the profile.If I ask for something specific and a you just link the profile, it's bad debate skills. And the pokemon profiles are huge with tons of information. Am i supposed to go through every link, when they can just link the direct source that supposedly exists?
The profiles are indexing the abilities that characters have, so they're based on what has been accepted prior. It's typically not preferred to just link the profile, but it's even worse to pretend the profile doesn't exist as a source
While it would've been better for Strym to actually link the scan alongside the profile rather than just the profile which has the scan in question within it, it doesn't mean he's incorrect or wrong for linking only just the profile.
Especially since the scan in question is in bright blue hyperlinked coloring on their speed category, which is extremely visible for anyone to see, if i, someone who isn't knowledgeable at all on Pokemon can clearly see the scan he's referencing, than someone like yourself who is knowledgeable about the verse would also be able to see the scan just as, if not better than me as well.
Hell even Strym basically re-stated what was the justification for Giratina's speed in that exact same thread.