• 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)

Should I change the following text:

There is no exact time limit as long as the characters in question are not outdated.

To this instead, for better clarification?

There is no exact time limit as long as the characters involved in a versus thread are not mismatched, due to their statistics being outdated.
 
This proposal has the potential to be effective. Additionally, it does not require the creation of a separate thread for staff discussion, as it is a straightforward and unequivocal solution that can be implemented.
 
I still don't see why you can't just request that a new thread be made ( if the match is not a stomp/mismatch and everyone is still interested in it ) instead of trying to revive the old one.
 
ImmortalDread said:
No, the current rule is fine, it is explicitly stated

As long as the versus thread remains current, there is no violation of rules. This is precisely why an exception was made for versus threads, as characters can still be updated even if they have been inactive for an extended period of time. Therefore, instead of creating a duplicated thread, you may engage in debate within the existing versus thread.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Should I change the following text:

There is no exact time limit as long as the characters in question are not outdated.

To this instead, for better clarification?

There is no exact time limit as long as the characters involved in a versus thread are not mismatched, due to their statistics being outdated.
Click to expand...
Do other staff members here think that this seems acceptable?
 
This still doesn't account for very old threads which aren't outdated by stat mismatches. I thought the whole point of this was to deter people from bumping old threads because people don't wanna see pings on threads that were made years ago. Would it not be better to have them make new threads?
 
Just asking (thought asking here is better because it's RVR thread)

If someone creates a account just to disagree with a thread then they haven't participated in any other threads from the moment the account got created and they keep Stonewalling the thread with same repeated Arguments and disagreeing with personal belief and for them only goal is participating in that thread & disagreeing.

Is this report worthy? Or we just leave these accounts to thier own basis?

Any staff can delete this comment later.

I just wanted to know. If this considered as trolling or something?
 
EldemadeDityjon said:
Just asking (thought asking here is better because it's RVR thread)

If someone creates a account just to disagree with a thread then they haven't participated in any other threads from the moment the account got created and they keep Stonewalling the thread with same repeated Arguments and disagreeing with personal belief and for them only goal is participating in that thread & disagreeing.

Is this report worthy? Or we just leave these accounts to thier own basis?

Any staff can delete this comment later.

I just wanted to know. If this considered as trolling or something?
Click to expand...
Do you mean they like, made an alt to do that ( as in they have a main account that they use to also disagree with the thread and made an alt to help their self )? Or they just made an account to troll/harass people on a thread?
 
DivineAura44 said:
This still doesn't account for very old threads which aren't outdated by stat mismatches. I thought the whole point of this was to deter people from bumping old threads because people don't wanna see pings on threads that were made years ago. Would it not be better to have them make new threads?
Click to expand...
You are misunderstanding something here:

Here, the rule is to generally avoid reviving old threads, as it may annoy those who have been following the thread but have no energy to participate. However, an exception is made for versus threads, as the statistics of the character in question may still be relevant.

There is a distinction between any thread and a versus thread where the characters are still up-to-date statistically (possibly).

While you may choose to start a new thread instead of debating on an old one, it is better to address any unresolved arguments in the original thread, in my personal opinion.
 
TheMonkeMan said:
Do you mean they like, made an alt to do that ( as in they have a main account that they use to also disagree with the thread and made an alt to help their self )? Or they just made an account to troll/harass people on a thread?
Click to expand...
A account was created the same day my thread was created and it's been 3 days that account hasn't participated in any other threads it seems they are trying to Stonewall my thread only. And refutes given by them doesn't make sense. Even many people Pointed out. That guy doens't seems to think his POV is wrong even after many people Disagreed with him. Also I feel like he created the account just to disagree with my thread only (it's just my feelings though knowing he is only Fixed on my thread only and created the account same day as my thread was created). But I feel it is too much of an thing to consider as some coincidence.

More like he is spamming random things which doesn't make sense. Looks like a troll to me.

I wanted to confirm before reporting him.
 
EldemadeDityjon said:
A account was created the same day my thread was created and it's been 3 days that account hasn't participated in any other threads it seems they are trying to Stonewall my thread only. And refutes given by them doesn't make sense. Even many people Pointed out. That guy doens't seems to think his POV is wrong even after many people Disagreed with him. Also I feel like he created the account just to disagree with my thread only (it's just my feelings though knowing he is only Fixed on my thread only and created the account same day as my thread was created). But I feel it is too much of an thing to consider as some coincidence.

More like he is spamming random things which doesn't make sense. Looks like a troll to me.

I wanted to confirm before reporting him.
Click to expand...
Have you had any bad encounters with other members beforehand? May be someone making an alt to get revenge on you for something in the past.
 
I don't wanna start anything so I won't say why I want this but I feel there should be some kind of button that lets you block obnoxious people out, like they can respond to you and what not but you won't get any notifications and have to choose to see their message.
Like the Discord block button or the Ignore button from Worstgen.
 
TheMonkeMan said:
I don't wanna start anything so I won't say why I want this but I feel there should be some kind of button that lets you block obnoxious people out, like they can respond to you and what not but you won't get any notifications and have to choose to see their message.
Like the Discord block button or the Ignore button from Worstgen.
Click to expand...
The idea of allowing members to block others may seem attractive, however, I am concerned about its potential negative impact on the community. Granting such power may foster an environment of avoidance and ostracism, reduce accountability and even silence diverse perspectives. Instead of relying on the ability to block, I think it would be more effective to focus on fostering respectful and productive communication. This goal can be accomplished by setting straightforward standards for appropriate conduct, imposing consequences on those who engage in harmful or disruptive behavior, and providing better access to resources that help resolve conflicts.
 
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
The idea of allowing members to block others may seem attractive, however, I am concerned about its potential negative impact on the community. Granting such power may foster an environment of avoidance and ostracism, reduce accountability and even silence diverse perspectives. Instead of relying on the ability to block, I think it would be more effective to focus on fostering respectful and productive communication. This goal can be accomplished by setting straightforward standards for appropriate conduct, imposing consequences on those who engage in harmful or disruptive behavior, and providing better access to resources that help resolve conflicts.
Click to expand...
I understand. I see to it that while this can be a good idea at first, it can lead to a ton of trouble and people misusing it for their own benefits.
I won't go further with my request.
 
Just_a_Random_Butler said:
The idea of allowing members to block others may seem attractive, however, I am concerned about its potential negative impact on the community. Granting such power may foster an environment of avoidance and ostracism, reduce accountability and even silence diverse perspectives. Instead of relying on the ability to block, I think it would be more effective to focus on fostering respectful and productive communication. This goal can be accomplished by setting straightforward standards for appropriate conduct, imposing consequences on those who engage in harmful or disruptive behavior, and providing better access to resources that help resolve conflicts.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it can also significantly disrupt content revision threads if several of the members who participate ignore each other.
 
ImmortalDread said:
You are misunderstanding something here:

Here, the rule is to generally avoid reviving old threads, as it may annoy those who have been following the thread but have no energy to participate. However, an exception is made for versus threads, as the statistics of the character in question may still be relevant.

There is a distinction between any thread and a versus thread where the characters are still up-to-date statistically (possibly).

While you may choose to start a new thread instead of debating on an old one, it is better to address any unresolved arguments in the original thread, in my personal opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes, pretty much, although we need to make very clear that unfinished old versus threads should only be responded to if the character statistics still match each other, and not under any other circumstances.
 
EldemadeDityjon said:
A account was created the same day my thread was created and it's been 3 days that account hasn't participated in any other threads it seems they are trying to Stonewall my thread only. And refutes given by them doesn't make sense. Even many people Pointed out. That guy doens't seems to think his POV is wrong even after many people Disagreed with him. Also I feel like he created the account just to disagree with my thread only (it's just my feelings though knowing he is only Fixed on my thread only and created the account same day as my thread was created). But I feel it is too much of an thing to consider as some coincidence.

More like he is spamming random things which doesn't make sense. Looks like a troll to me.

I wanted to confirm before reporting him.
Click to expand...
Well, I personally think that it would likely be a good idea to write a rule that states that single-issue accounts, that were registered solely to stonewall very specific revision threads, are not allowed.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I personally think that it would likely be a good idea to write a rule that states that single-issue accounts, that were registered solely to stonewall very specific revision threads, are not allowed.
Click to expand...
Okay. Thanks!

But can someone investigate this account @Georredannea15 . I mean can any Staff ask what's his purpose for creating an account in wiki? (Just a request though.)

I don't see this guy participating in any other CRTs and it's too much of an coincidence he created the account on same day as my thread was created. It's already been 3 days still it doens't seem he is interested in anything else. Also he is just ignoring the context and not even properly addressing whatever arguments given in my thread.

Otherwise I am fine with what @Mr._Bambu suggested.
 
Don't delete, just give him a very stern warning and a temp ban
he's usually fine, ive never seen him act even remotely close to that, he is generally chill and just asks questions about stuff
 
EldemadeDityjon said:
Okay. Thanks!

But can someone investigate this account @Georredannea15 . I mean can any Staff ask what's his purpose for creating an account in wiki? (Just a request though.)

I don't see this guy participating in any other CRTs and it's too much of an coincidence he created the account on same day as my thread was created. It's already been 3 days still it doens't seem he is interested in anything else. Also he is just ignoring the context and not even properly addressing whatever arguments given in my thread.

Otherwise I am fine with what @Mr._Bambu suggested.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with creating an account to participate in a thread that you're interested in. I don't recall there being a rule about how active you need to be.

On top of that, you have no legitimate reason to report him. He hasn't trolled or harassed you or your thread, he's just offered arguments for why he disagrees with the thread. It's fair if you don't agree with his arguments, but there's no ill intent in them.
 
MaxLevel_King said:
There's nothing wrong with creating an account to participate in a thread that you're interested in. I don't recall there being a rule about how active you need to be.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Well, I personally think that it would likely be a good idea to write a rule that states that single-issue accounts, that were registered solely to stonewall very specific revision threads, are not allowed.
Click to expand...
^^^
MaxLevel_King said:
On top of that, you have no legitimate reason to report him. He hasn't trolled or harassed you or your thread, he's just offered arguments for why he disagrees with the thread. It's fair if you don't agree with his arguments, but there's no ill intent in them.
Click to expand...
Beside I didn't reported him. I asked staffs to take a look at his account because of it being too much of an coincidence & suspicious. Well I don't care at this point if he is biased enough to create a account to disagree with my thread or not. The case already closed don't start unnecessary things.

I already said if they are not willing to take a look it i am fine with that so drop the topic.
EldemadeDityjon said:
Otherwise I am fine with what @Mr._Bambu suggested.
Click to expand...
 
EldemadeDityjon said:
^^^

Beside I didn't reported him. I asked staffs to take a look at his account because of it being too much of an coincidence & suspicious. Well I don't care at this point if he is biased enough to create a account to disagree with my thread or not. The case already closed don't start unnecessary things.

I already said if they are not willing to take a look it i am fine with that so drop the topic.
Click to expand...
If you're willing to drop the topic then I will as well. I'll just say one thing before that however; You presented @Georredannea15 to this thread as if he deliberately created his account to be obnoxious and stonewall your thread. That's not what happened. He offered his arguments and you disagreed with those arguments. That's not a case of stonewalling and it would be unfair to try to report him for that.
 
MaxLevel_King said:
If you're willing to drop the topic then I will as well. I'll just say one thing before that however; You presented @Georredannea15 to this thread as if he deliberately created his account to be obnoxious and stonewall your thread. That's not what happened. He offered his arguments and you disagreed with those arguments. That's not a case of stonewalling and it would be unfair to try to report him for that.
Click to expand...
EldemadeDityjon said:
Beside I didn't reported him. I asked staffs to take a look at his account because of it being too much of an coincidence & suspicious. Well I don't care at this point if he is biased enough to create a account to disagree with my thread or not. The case already closed don't start unnecessary things.
Click to expand...
EldemadeDityjon said:
I already said if they are not willing to take a look it i am fine with that so drop the topic.
Click to expand...
 
Tllmbrg said:
Do I need to explain?
Someone delete and ban this dude
Click to expand...
Chariot190 said:
just give him a very stern warning and a temp ban
he's usually fine, ive never seen him act even remotely close to that, he is generally chill and just asks questions about stuff
Click to expand...
@Seventy96

Since you haven't behaved badly previously and have been a member here for several years, I am giving a severe warning to not do anything like this again, but if you do, we will be forced to give you a quite long ban.
 
Both Abstractions and Glass gave him warnings on the thread and he stull doubled down by the looks of it. I propose a thread ban a minimum and possibly a short ban from the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
9 10 11
Replies
413
Views
26K
omegabronic
omegabronic
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Regarding the Rule Violations Report Thread
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
H3110l12345I20
IRL Paper has a profile.
Replies
28
Views
993
JustANormalLemon
JustANormalLemon
DarkGrath
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Rules Revision
2 3
Replies
93
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top