• 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)

I have a question regarding a user who has been recently banned and approached me on Discord because of that. I don't know the exact details regarding his situation and decided to ask about it here because of that. ZENZUYA has apparently referenced **** sites, committed vandalism and was supposed to be banned months ago based on a message that I could see on an image from the forum that ZENZUYA showed. According to him the vandalism was because he was still getting used to FANDOM and he did all of that stuff accidentally somehow and posted an apology thread about it though it was in the wrong place. He'd like to know why he is now being banned for something that happened in 2022.
 
Nehz_XZX said:
I have a question regarding a user who has been recently banned and approached me on Discord because of that. I don't know the exact details regarding his situation and decided to ask about it here because of that. ZENZUYA has apparently referenced **** sites, committed vandalism and was supposed to be banned months ago based on a message that I could see on an image from the forum that ZENZUYA showed. According to him the vandalism was because he was still getting used to FANDOM and he did all of that stuff accidentally somehow and posted an apology thread about it though it was in the wrong place. He'd like to know why he is now being banned for something that happened in 2022.
Click to expand...
ZENZUYA was indeed blocked on FANDOM for vandalism and linking to pornography websites. He was supposed to have been banned on the forum as well, naturally, but it was brought up a few days ago that he hadn't been banned from the forum - so, the mistake was rectified.

From what I can see, he hadn't done anything contentious on the forum in the months between the website ban and his forum ban. As such, I could believe that his rule violations were legitimately unintentional and that his apology was sincere. It's also clear that his involvement with the forum and website did matter to him if he went out of his way to contact staff off-site regarding the matter.

He doesn't seem to be malicious, and it also appears he knows what he did wrong and wouldn't make the same error again. I wouldn't have an issue with unbanning him.
 
DarkGrath said:
ZENZUYA was indeed blocked on FANDOM for vandalism and linking to pornography websites. He was supposed to have been banned on the forum as well, naturally, but it was brought up a few days ago that he hadn't been banned from the forum - so, the mistake was rectified.

From what I can see, he hadn't done anything contentious on the forum in the months between the website ban and his forum ban. As such, I could believe that his rule violations were legitimately unintentional and that his apology was sincere. It's also clear that his involvement with the forum and website did matter to him if he went out of his way to contact staff off-site regarding the matter.

He doesn't seem to be malicious, and it also appears he knows what he did wrong and wouldn't make the same error again. I wouldn't have an issue with unbanning him.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. If he hasn’t done anything wrong on the forum between that and his ban, I think he deserves a second chance
 
Hello. I would like to report an abuse on the discussion rules. This is not a serious offense, nor do I plan to portray it as such, but these rules are to be reinforced as they guarantee fairness for a otherwise overwhelming majority that might be biased. Please do pay attention.

Based on these following general rules:
  • Content Revision Threads need to be supported by scans, quotes, video clips, accepted calculations, or any other direct proof that claimed events actually happened in the source material. In the absence of this evidence, CRTs may be closed without notice.
  • To reiterate, when creating content revision threads, it is best to keep your suggestions as structured and simple to understand as possible, so the staff will have an easier time evaluating the text. Avoid writing upgrade threads mainly based on assumptions from a limited amount of information, with no additional context or evidence to support them.

Please read it carefully. These rules are breached. You do not need to be knowledgeable on the verse of Undertale, I will explain things fairly throughly.

The situation is as it follows; @StrymULTRA made a content revision thread on Undertale, where they give a list of new additions for the character, Hax, tiers, etc. And a great portion of them is backed up by a great deal of evidence.

The problems arrives when Ultra proposes the upgrade of the Regeneration hax for the character Frisk. They propose the Mid Godly level for the character. Let me read what it requires.

Mid-Godly: The ability to regenerate from the complete erasure of body, mind, and soul.

On the original post of the CRT, Ultra provides no instance or indication that Frisk's body, soul or mind is being completely erased. Through the entire game, on fights, or any example where the character Frisk dies, we play from a first-person point of view, so in no situation, do we ever have any information on what's the state of the body when death arrives to the player who controls the character.
I asked for the original post, Ultra, evidence or any support for them to assume the body is completely destroyed from existence. They refused to, and stated they will still add it if it gets enough agreements regardless of this contradiction I've pointed out.



The game does show the state of the soul as the player dies.


The soul shatters in pieces. As you can see, this also does not classify as "complete erasure". This is the only way the soul breaks when the death animation plays.
I have asked for evidence or support on Frisk's soul suffering this kind of damage, complete erasure, they keep referring to the instance of the soul shattering which does not satisfy the requirement.
They refuse to give a valid instance, and keep pretending that the animation above is enough.
Again they insist that they will add the hax to the profiles if it gets enough agreement even after I present the logical contradiction because the majority, including one staff who is a supporter, are on par with them!

This is again the appeal to majority that the discussion rules try to prevent.



Finally, when it comes to the mind, the major problem comes around. The mind, the consciousness of the character Frisk is never harmed during the game.
In fact, they are able to resurrect after they die and make conscious decisions after death and the destruction of their soul. This is what's currently accepted on the profile.

Please refer to the regeneration page:
Low-Godly: The ability to regenerate from the complete physical destruction of the user's body, instead restoring it from their disembodied consciousness, whether that be their soul, mind, some other nonphysical aspect of themself, esoteric or metaphysical energy, or something else.


This limits the max capability of Frisk's regeneration to "Low Godly", I again ask Ultra that they have to prove Frisk's mind is completely erased from existence!

They just said they disagree that regenerating through the mind is Low Godly regeneration despite the description on our official pages.

Then they just walk through the contradictions and say they will add it anyway.



This is unreasonable doubt coming from them.
This breaches the rules on indexing information without meeting the requirements for it. I'd like for anyone to possibly inform Ultra of this rule, and reinforce that adding information that has objective lack of evidence is against the rules.

I cannot fight the majority as Ultra produces behaviors that are similar to stonewalling. They are stonewalling the opposition.
 
Adem_Warlock69 said:
The CRT hasn't even been accepted nor added yet, so I don't really see the point to this
Click to expand...
It's inappropriate to wait for a mistake to happen or a rule to be broken when the user states clearly that they will break the rule regardless of what I say.

If it can be stopped, it's necessary. It's also inappropriate to walk over the standards set by the forum.
 
I would say that your concerns are well-founded and that it would not constitute Mid-Godly regeneration. The CRT itself isn't worthy of a report, I think, and although Strym could substantially tone down the aggressiveness, debates are bound to get heated when parties are passionate. I will voice my agreement with your point of view in the thread, though.
 
StrymULTRA said:
This is ridiculous, you just want to shut me down because you disagree with something. If you care that much just call people who know about Regeneration Standards who are listed here.

You are just trying to silence me about an argument agreed from a majority of staff without issues.
Click to expand...
Ultra. If the majority is agreeing that 2 plus 2 equals 5, and there is a rule in place that states that objectively inaccurate information, the majority is simply wrong.

I am new here. I don't know where I could have gone to ask for help.
ImmortalDread said:
This is not report worthy, you just need to contact any thread moderator who is rational to moderate the thread.
Click to expand...
Mr._Bambu said:
I would say that your concerns are well-founded and that it would not constitute Mid-Godly regeneration. The CRT itself isn't worthy of a report, I think, and although Strym could substantially tone down the aggressiveness, debates are bound to get heated when parties are passionate. I will voice my agreement with your point of view in the thread, though.
Click to expand...

I am immensely sorry about voicing my concern on the wrong thread then. Mr. Bambu, could I ask for advice on what I should have done to stop an objectivity from being ignored?

I am new to the site, so I did not where else to go besides here. Please forgive me.
 
Sans015 said:
Ultra. If the majority is agreeing that 2 plus 2 equals 5, and there is a rule in place that states that objectively inaccurate information, the majority is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Right*
Sans015 said:
I am immensely sorry about voicing my concern on the wrong thread then. Mr. Bambu, could I ask for advice on what I should have done to stop an objectivity from being ignored?
Click to expand...
This is quite an arrogant take lmao.
 
I am immensely sorry about voicing my concern on the wrong thread then. Mr. Bambu, could I ask for advice on what I should have done to stop an objectivity from being ignored?
Click to expand...
Voicing concern about a rule violation on the Rule Violation Report thread is perfectly acceptable, actually, it's just that sometimes in fringe cases you'll find that the consensus says that this is not a reportable issue. It's not really a problem to make the report itself unless it's spam.

If you want more voices on CRTs in the future, we do have a Content Revision Promotion thread. Additionally, many staff members do not particularly mind being called upon directly, although do respect their wishes if they would just rather avoid a given CRT.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Voicing concern about a rule violation on the Rule Violation Report thread is perfectly acceptable, actually, it's just that sometimes in fringe cases you'll find that the consensus says that this is not a reportable issue. It's not really a problem to make the report itself unless it's spam.

If you want more voices on CRTs in the future, we do have a Content Revision Promotion thread. Additionally, many staff members do not particularly mind being called upon directly, although do respect their wishes if they would just rather avoid a given CRT.
Click to expand...
I understand, I will avoid committing unnecessary reports. I apologize for any mistakes along the way.
Thank you for your advice.
 
DarkGrath said:
ZENZUYA was indeed blocked on FANDOM for vandalism and linking to pornography websites. He was supposed to have been banned on the forum as well, naturally, but it was brought up a few days ago that he hadn't been banned from the forum - so, the mistake was rectified.

From what I can see, he hadn't done anything contentious on the forum in the months between the website ban and his forum ban. As such, I could believe that his rule violations were legitimately unintentional and that his apology was sincere. It's also clear that his involvement with the forum and website did matter to him if he went out of his way to contact staff off-site regarding the matter.

He doesn't seem to be malicious, and it also appears he knows what he did wrong and wouldn't make the same error again. I wouldn't have an issue with unbanning him.
Click to expand...
If there aren't any issues with unbanning him, what needs to happen for him to get unbanned? Also, when could he reasonably expect to be unbanned in this case?
 
I do not endorse the decision to lift the ban on the user in question. Their actions of inserting pornographic links into private profiles, which is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth by the fandom, cannot be justified by any logical means.
 
Nehz_XZX said:
If there aren't any issues with unbanning him, what needs to happen for him to get unbanned? Also, when could he reasonably expect to be unbanned in this case?
Click to expand...
An administrator would need to handle it. However, beyond the comments we've made, there has been no other staff input on the matter. It may be best to have more staff look over this issue.
ImmortalDread said:
I do not endorse the decision to lift the ban on the user in question. Their actions of inserting pornographic links into private profiles, which is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth by the fandom, cannot be justified by any logical means.
Click to expand...
By what we have seen, this was a mistake on his part - one he acknowledged was in error, one he did not intend to do, and one which he will not do again in the future. Bans are not an arbitrary standard punishment for bad behaviour; we ban people specifically because their actions indicate that, were they allowed to continue participating in the community, they would do harm. This isn't the case here. I won't endorse upholding a ban against a harmless person.
 
DarkGrath said:
ZENZUYA was indeed blocked on FANDOM for vandalism and linking to pornography websites. He was supposed to have been banned on the forum as well, naturally, but it was brought up a few days ago that he hadn't been banned from the forum - so, the mistake was rectified.

From what I can see, he hadn't done anything contentious on the forum in the months between the website ban and his forum ban. As such, I could believe that his rule violations were legitimately unintentional and that his apology was sincere. It's also clear that his involvement with the forum and website did matter to him if he went out of his way to contact staff off-site regarding the matter.

He doesn't seem to be malicious, and it also appears he knows what he did wrong and wouldn't make the same error again. I wouldn't have an issue with unbanning him.
Click to expand...
I've just woken up, I was the one who banned him. If he genuinely isn't a troll, I will unban him as he was continuing harmlessly under the forum for the duration of time when we just didn't have him banned.
 
Reporting @Hellscream for their overall toxic behavior surrounding many threads.

He essentially just insults, stonewalls, derails, and is generally very unproductive in many of the threads he participates in as well as being generally pretty hostile.

here are some examples:




 
LuffyRuffy46307 said:
He also did this on the Zamasu CRT thread he created, and it was on a wall one of the moderators once insulted us.
Click to expand...
His condescending tone continues in the Bleach thread as well and he has falsely accused me of trying to agitate/piss him off here when I've barely made contact with him since the Zamasu thread. I've tried reasoning with the man nicely multiple times on multiple occassions but his behavior has officially pushed my buttons today. Hell, he even sent Planck messages about the Zamasu thing which we both eventually brushed off wanting nothing to do with him or that godforsaken thread, but alas, here we are.
 
KLOL506 said:
His condescending tone continues in the Bleach thread as well and he has falsely accused me of trying to agitate/piss him off here when I've barely made contact with him since the Zamasu thread. I've tried reasoning with the man nicely multiple times on multiple occassions but his behavior has officially pushed my buttons today. Hell, he even sent Planck messages about the Zamasu thing which we both eventually brushed off wanting nothing to do with him or that godforsaken thread, but alas, here we are.
Click to expand...
Exactly, he called us henchmen and said he would finish us off, in addition to accusing us of having attacked him, this has happened on several CRTs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
99K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Extremely important announcements for our community
Replies
31
Views
5K
Agnaa
Agnaa
  • Locked
Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
21
Views
2K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
AThe1412
Can you restrict a character's Standard Equipment if it gives them a different tier?
Replies
2
Views
547
TheGreatJedi13
TheGreatJedi13
Back
Top