Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

That's not what he meant by that. You can go back one page and see that he said I was applying accepted edits.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/rule-violation-reports-new-forum.107529/post-5768733

Now stop with the false accusations.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Well, maybe a two or three months ban would be enough for Lindsay? And a one month ban for Nostredam? Or would that be too lenient?

I think that proposal sounds fine.

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx

It is very important that you follow and bookmark this thread and visit and try to continuously help out here.

I do have the thread followed and try to view it regularly unless I'm either busy or dealing with RL necessities such as a being at RL work or trying to catch up on sleep or sometimes spending quality time with RL family or friends.

And yeah, Sans is definitely Godly Charmander given the connections Styrm pointed out are quite face value + AKM sama clearly confirmed there is an IP Address overlap.

 

[Deagonx]

Deagonx has apparently said in the MG thread just now that he is not sure if the things being claimed are true or not, which is kind of obvious as he is not knowledgeable in the series and so his previous answers in the thread

Reiner, this is a misrepresentation of what I said and meant by that, as you've removed the context. I wasn't claiming that I wasn't sure, I was saying that Fuji's purported guilt in this matter does not excuse earlier inflammatory comments they made towards Fuji on the thread.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I am not sure. Did Deagonx and Theglassman12 confirm here that they accepted Fujiwara's changes?

It seems best to call all of the staff members who evaluated the thread in question to comment here.

Isn't staffs also need to do a thread to apply changes to the profiles?

Even I have seen @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality doing a seperate Downgrade thread before changing anything in the Profiles. I don't see how this is an exception case. Even if Staff agrees to remove the ability or not it should be done via Downgrade CRT not that you ask them and they would approve it to remove them.

This is clearly done without a Downgrade CRT. I still don't see how this thing is acceptable especially I warned Fujiwara 4-5 times that she should make a downrange CRT to remove whatever in the profile not that she has any rights to do it without any Downgrade thread.

Unless of course if we are going to let it off saying staffs who approved Fujiwara to change something without Downgrade thread has some exceptional authority sure I don't mind.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody link to the thread in question so it turns easier to evaluate please?

 

[Deagonx]

This is clearly done without a Downgrade CRT. I still don't see how this thing is acceptable especially I warned Fujiwara 4-5 times that she should make a downrange CRT to remove whatever in the profile not that she has any rights to do it without any Downgrade thread.

I don't really understand. You're claiming that the changes are invalid because they received staff agrees as part of a counter-argument in an upgrade thread, rather than being assessed within in a separate downgrade thread? That's kind of ridiculous.

I am not sure. Did Deagonx and Theglassman12 confirm here that they accepted Fujiwara's changes?

It seems best to call all of the staff members who evaluated the thread in question to comment here.

I took a closer look at the thread and Fuji's changes.

The claim seems to be rooted in the notion that Anos' resistances to Law Manip & Concept Manip had a basis beyond resisting the time stop spell, and thus, the fact that a staff consensus was reached that the time stop resistance should not confer law or concept manip does not justify removing the resistance because the basis for it outside of time stop was not subject to a staff consensus.

Looking at the profile before and after Fuji's changes, the explanation for the resistances is very short, and doesn't include any scans. It simply says "Can resist abilities that stems purely from Order"

My assessment was that simply because a spell is cast by a being who is powered by Order, and Order itself is rated as being Law/Conceptual, does not mean that resisting such a spell should scale to resisting that concept or law. They seem to be contending that there is a basis for believing Anos directly and overtly resisted Order itself, but that's not what the justification says and there are no other scans to support this.

So my final conclusion is that Fuji's removal of the resistance was appropriate based on what was in the thread. If the supporters of the verse seek to reinstate it on a basis other than the Time Stop spell, I believe that should be handled in a separate CRT.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Ca somebody link to the thread in question so it turns easier to evaluate please?

Here

First LN profile Upgrade for MGK

If anyone don't understand why order is CM type 1. @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless will clarify further. Order is Concept, Laws and Fate/Providence of the World. There are many order in the World like time , Creation and destruction. Order is unbound by the concept it governs. For example. Jerga is...

vsbattles.com

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I don't really understand. You're claiming that the changes are invalid because they received staff agrees as part of a counter-argument in an upgrade thread, rather than being assessed within in a separate downgrade thread? That's kind of ridiculous.


I took a closer look at the thread and Fuji's changes.

The claim seems to be rooted in the notion that Anos' resistances to Law Manip & Concept Manip had a basis beyond the time stop event, and thus, the fact that a staff consensus was reached that the time stop resistance should not confer law or concept manip does not justify removing the resistance because the basis for it outside of time stop was not subject to a staff consensus.

Looking at the profile before and after Fuji's changes, the explanation for the resistances is very short, and doesn't include any scans. It simply says "Can resist abilities that stems purely from Order"

My assessment was that simply because a spell is cast by a being who is powered by Order, and Order itself is rated as being Law/Conceptual, does not mean that resisting such a spell should scale to resisting that concept or law. They seem to be contending that there is a basis for believing Anos directly and overtly resisted Order itself, but that's not what the justification says and there are no other scans to support this.

So my final conclusion is that Fuji's removal of the resistance was appropriate based on what was in the thread. If the supporters of the verse seek to reinstate it on a basis other than the Time Stop spell, I believe that should be handled in a separate CRT.

The Resistance was not come from time stop spell stop trying to twist what was in Anos profile.

There are countless orders in MGK not just time. My thread only got rejected for time stop not for other orders.

Anos Resistance come from resisting different Order not time stop. You are literally misinterpreting things here. I suggest you take a look at the thread once more and the profile resistance once more. It was Never about Time stop.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't really understand. You're claiming that the changes are invalid because they received staff agrees as part of a counter-argument in an upgrade thread, rather than being assessed within in a separate downgrade thread? That's kind of ridiculous.

I took a closer look at the thread and Fuji's changes.

The claim seems to be rooted in the notion that Anos' resistances to Law Manip & Concept Manip had a basis beyond resisting the time stop spell, and thus, the fact that a staff consensus was reached that the time stop resistance should not confer law or concept manip does not justify removing the resistance because the basis for it outside of time stop was not subject to a staff consensus.

Looking at the profile before and after Fuji's changes, the explanation for the resistances is very short, and doesn't include any scans. It simply says "Can resist abilities that stems purely from Order"

My assessment was that simply because a spell is cast by a being who is powered by Order, and Order itself is rated as being Law/Conceptual, does not mean that resisting such a spell should scale to resisting that concept or law. They seem to be contending that there is a basis for believing Anos directly and overtly resisted Order itself, but that's not what the justification says and there are no other scans to support this.

So my final conclusion is that Fuji's removal of the resistance was appropriate based on what was in the thread. If the supporters of the verse seek to reinstate it on a basis other than the Time Stop spell, I believe that should be handled in a separate CRT.

Can somebody link to the thread in question so it turns easier to evaluate please?

Here

First LN profile Upgrade for MGK

If anyone don't understand why order is CM type 1. @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless will clarify further. Order is Concept, Laws and Fate/Providence of the World. There are many order in the World like time , Creation and destruction. Order is unbound by the concept it governs. For example. Jerga is...

vsbattles.com

The Resistance was not come from time stop spell stop trying to twist what was in Anos profile.

There are countless orders in MGK not just time. My thread only got rejected for time stop not for other orders.

Anos Resistance come from resisting different Order not time stop. You are literally misinterpreting things here. I suggest you take a look at the thread once more and the profile resistance once more. It was Never about Time stop.

Are any of our staff members willing to help evaluate this please? You can also take a look if you wish, @ImmortalDread .

 

[Deagonx]

The Resistance was not come from time stop spell stop trying to twist what was in Anos profile.

I'm not twisting anything. I never suggested time was the only order. I am going off of what was in the profile, the justification given, and the discussion we had in that thread.

I am not going to debate MG in the RVR. If you have scans and an argument for this resistance that amounts to something other than "a spell cast by a God" then you should make a CRT.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I'm not twisting anything. I never suggested time was the only order. I am going off of what was in the profile, the justification given, and the discussion we had in that thread.

The claim seems to be rooted in the notion that Anos' resistances to Law Manip & Concept Manip had a basis beyond resisting the time stop spell, and thus, the fact that a staff consensus was reached that the time stop resistance should not confer law or concept manip does not justify removing the resistance because the basis for it outside of time stop was not subject to a staff consensus.

You didn't claimed what???

Also this where Anos Magic Resisted Nosgalia Order is literally in the profile. Not to mention it's your or Fuji burden to make a Downgrade CRT.

I am not going to debate MG in the RVR. If you have scans and an argument for this resistance that amounts to something other than "a spell cast by a God" then you should make a CRT.

Isn't it the Burden to make a CRT falls on you or Fuji if you want to remove an ability.

There were this much order which are already introduced in the series so far.

• Order of Creation
• Order of destruction
• Order of Order/HFG
• Order of time

Anos Resisted 3rd one. My CRT was regarding 4th one. Why would you remove 3rd one without a Downgrade CRT? Thats literally your Burden to make a Downgrade CRT.

So by your logic if fire manipulation gets accepted already in a profile and some CRT regarding water manipulation gets rejected you will remove Fire manipulation along with it even though there is no connection between them?

 

[Deagonx]

Isn't it the Burden to make a CRT falls on you or Fuji if you want to remove an ability.

The changes she suggested were accepted by staff in the thread. She does not need to make her own thread for that to be valid.

Also this where Anos Magic Resisted Nosgalia Order is literally in the profile.

Like I said, I am not going to debate MG in this thread.

Ant asked me to give my assessment of the situation and I have.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

The changes she suggested were accepted by staff in the thread. She does not need to make her own thread for that to be valid.

Can you link me where it was accepted by staff? There were 6 staff attended that thread. Isn't atleast 3-4 staff should agree with her to remove the ability? This is still rule breaking.

Can we all see where one staff accepting when 5 other staff didn't agreeing gets to fly here ? Also I am pretty sure you just agreed here to defend Fuji not in my thread regarding removal of law and Conceptual Manipulation. I may be wrong but i would like to see the proof if I am wrong.

Like I said, I am not going to debate MG in this thread.

I was showing the proof for scan already existing in the profile.

 

[Antvasima]

Can we all see where one staff accepting when 5 other staff didn't agreeing gets to fly here?

This is a relevant point if the claim in question is correct. There may be a misunderstanding regarding our procedures here.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

This is a relevant point if the claim in question is correct. There may be a misunderstanding regarding our procedures here.

Yes I would greatly appreciate if Daegonx points us where he and 3 other staff agreed with removing the ability. Otherwise this is clearly rule breaking thing. Because I checked the thread multiple times didn't find a single comment from other staff regarding removal of the ability.

 

[Antvasima]

Not rule-breaking, just a misunderstanding regarding how we should preferably handle such issues.

 

[Eminiteable]

Reporting user Eseseso for editing King's profile without a prior accepted content revision thread. The edit in question is applying anime only scaling justifications to the manga profile which to my knowledge goes against the verse's accepted standards on the topic:

Regarding the canon: In terms of canon material, this wiki deems the manga as the primary canon. The anime is considered secondary canon on a case by case basis. In the case of anime, it contradicts statements, feats, personalities, and abilities of characters in many cases. This happens with censorship, filler content in canon material, and pacing. Since we have confirmation that Oda approves certain scenes in the anime, we've decided to take the anime as canon in the areas where it perfectly or similarly represents the manga, and the scenes not shown in the manga that are represented in the anime will be deemed as filler. It was decided in this thread.

• Please note, the anime is not allowed to be used if the manga gives a perfect alternative for a feat. For example, the shockwave caused by Luffy and Doflamingo's clash was not shown in the manga, and should not be used to scale the manga characters. The anime is mainly used for timeframes, clarifications for feats, etc. If the manga is clear enough, the anime should not be used.

I initially removed the edit for these reasons, however, he undid my edit stating the manga was unclear which unless I'm mistaken would need to first be discussed and accepted in a CRT prior to just applying it to the profiles.

It also seems like he's been warned several times by staff in the past for similar if not the same behavior.
(Here, Here, Here and Here)

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Not rule-breaking, just a misunderstanding regarding how we should preferably handle such issues.

Then here is my suggestion. Revert the edit which Fujiwara applied. Law and Conceptual Manipulation resisted scan was already in the profile but it was posted in power modification section. We should just link that to that resistance that's all.

If Fujiwara really wants to remove that she should make a seperate Downgrade thread.

@DarkGrath @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Dereck03

Especially these 4 Never agreed with removal of anything from the profile. Fujiwara removing things literally gets out voted by these 4.

Ant do this we can just close this case here. Also Post a warning for Fujiwara for applying the changes which wasn't accepted by 4 staffs.

 

[Antvasima]

Then here is my suggestion. Revert the edit which Fujiwara applied. Law and Conceptual Manipulation resisted scan was already in the profile but it was posted in power modification section. We should just link that to that resistance that's all.

If Fujiwara really wants to remove that she should make a seperate Downgrade thread.

Especially these 4 Never agreed with removal of anything from the profile. Fujiwara removing things literally gets out voted by these 4.

Ant do this we can just close this case here. Also Post a warning for Fujiwara for applying the changes which wasn't accepted by 4 staffs.

I am not sure what I should change in the page exactly, so it would be better if you handle it in that case, but given that this is just a misunderstanding regarding proper procedure, I do not think that a warning message is necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

Reporting user Eseseso for editing King's profile without a prior accepted content revision thread. The edit in question is applying anime only scaling justifications to the manga profile which to my knowledge goes against the verse's accepted standards on the topic:


I initially removed the edit for these reasons, however, he undid my edit stating the manga was unclear which unless I'm mistaken would need to first be discussed and accepted in a CRT prior to just applying it to the profiles.

It also seems like he's been warned several times by staff in the past for similar if not the same behavior.
(Here, Here, Here and Here)

Well, it is a minor issue, Eseseso is a generally well-behaved member as far as I am aware, so a light warning instruction message should probably be enough.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I am not sure what I should change in the page exactly, so it would be better if you handle it in that case, but given that this is just a misunderstanding regarding proper procedure, I do not think that a warning message is necessary.

Sure I don't mind. Can you unlock the Anos profile please.

 

[Antvasima]

Which page do you need me to unlock for you?

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Which page do you need me to unlock for you?

Only Anos profile.

 

[Deagonx]

This is a relevant point if the claim in question is correct. There may be a misunderstanding regarding our procedures here.

Unfortunately, this claim is not correct. For that part of the discussion, all of the other votes were neutral, myself and Glassman agreed with removing it.

 

[Antvasima]

Unfortunately, this claim is not correct. For that part of the discussion, all of the other votes were neutral, myself and Glassman agreed with removing it.

Okay. Then it is probably fine, but it would help if you quote and link to the relevant posts.

 

[Deagonx]

Fujiwara removing things literally gets out voted by these 4.

It is extremely disingenuous to characterize neutral votes as "being outvoted."

 

[Deagonx]

Okay. Then it is probably fine, but it would help if you quote and link to the relevant posts.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/first-ln-profile-upgrade-for-mgk.152961/page-3#post-5768759

Type 1 CM

Agree: @Deagonx, @Dereck03, @Elizhaa
Disagree: @Theglassman12, @Qawsedf234
Neutral: @DarkGrath

Power Modification

Agree: @Elizhaa
Disagree: @Deagonx, @Qawsedf234
Neutral:

Fate Manipulation

Agree: @Dereck03, @Elizhaa
Disagree: @Theglassman12, @Deagonx, @DarkGrath
Neutral: @Qawsedf234

Resistance to Order via Resistance to Time Stop

Agree: @Dereck03
Disagree: @Deagonx, @Theglassman12
Neutral: @Qawsedf234, @Elizhaa, @DarkGrath

 

[Eminiteable]

Well, it is a minor issue, Eseseso is a generally well-behaved member as far as I am aware, so a light warning instruction message should probably be enough.

That seems fine with me, would you or another member of staff be willing to issue the warning instruction informing him?

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

It is extremely disingenuous to characterize neutral votes as "being outvoted."

Claim was staff agreed with the removal of abilities which I haven't seen a single link from you her from my thread. So I would greatly appreciate if you link it where it was accepted.

 

[Deagonx]

Claim was staff agreed with the removal of abilities which I haven't seen a single link from you her from my thread. So I would greatly appreciate if you link it where it was accepted.

Why did you just change the subject?

This isn't a small issue. Why did you tell Ant that the matter was "outvoted by four staff" when three of them were neutral and the one that wasn't can't vote on CRTs?

 

[Antvasima]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/first-ln-profile-upgrade-for-mgk.152961/page-3#post-5768759

Okay, but according to that tally, the staff vote seemed too split for anybody to be able to apply any new revisions based on it.

 

[Deagonx]

Okay, but according to that tally, the staff vote seemed too split for anybody to be able to apply any new revisions based on it.

I think 3 neutrals and 2 agrees for something minor like a resistance is acceptable. The objection was from Dereck but as far as I am aware Content Mods cannot vote on CRTs, no?

 

[Antvasima]

Reporting user Eseseso for editing King's profile without a prior accepted content revision thread. The edit in question is applying anime only scaling justifications to the manga profile which to my knowledge goes against the verse's accepted standards on the topic:


I initially removed the edit for these reasons, however, he undid my edit stating the manga was unclear which unless I'm mistaken would need to first be discussed and accepted in a CRT prior to just applying it to the profiles.

It also seems like he's been warned several times by staff in the past for similar if not the same behavior.
(Here, Here, Here and Here)

Well, it is a minor issue, Eseseso is a generally well-behaved member as far as I am aware, so a light warning instruction message should probably be enough.

That seems fine with me, would you or another member of staff be willing to issue the warning instruction informing him?

@Eseseso

Please avoid making these types of edits in the future. They are apparently not allowed according to our rules for this verse.

 

[Antvasima]

I think 3 neutrals and 2 agrees for something minor like a resistance is acceptable. The objection was from Dereck but as far as I am aware Content Mods cannot vote on CRTs, no?

Yes, and I seem to have misunderstood. I thought that "Resistance to Order via Resistance to Time Stop" was a suggested change that had been rejected.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think 3 neutrals and 2 agrees for something minor like a resistance is acceptable. The objection was from Dereck but as far as I am aware Content Mods cannot vote on CRTs, no?

Afaik verses with a significant following that are very controversial, such as MGK (and also Dragon Ball as another example) need a minimum of three staff approvals. See here from the Discussion Rules page:

"In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions."

 

[Dereck03]

@DarkGrath @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Dereck03

Oh no, let's go with the drama....

First of all I am very objective so I will go straight to the point of the problem.

I see a bit of dishonesty in the tally made in that thread. I already clarified it in this comment. OP used order (emphasizing to remove Law & Concepts based on order) instead of Law which was correct. Even the OP said she was aware and if there was a distinction she would change it which she didn't even more so when it was clearly Law stuffs and I had clarified it. So she left it as an order to remove the abilities directly.

And furthermore, Fujiwara is stuck saying that a specific feat that is the Time Stop feat being discussed is the one that gives the resistances to Anos, which is incorrect.

Then here is my suggestion. Revert the edit which Fujiwara applied. Law and Conceptual Manipulation resisted scan was already in the profile but it was posted in power modification section. We should just link that to that resistance that's all.

We have proof that the abilities (especially Nosgalia's) are said to exert the power of order with their words, meaning the one who resists the order gains the abilities based on the order = Cm & Law. But there we have everyone ignoring and DeagonX throwing warnings to everyone who tries to say something.

And yet, the tally does not indicate anything about removing any order-based resistance. It only rejects the possibility of Anos gaining resistance to Law Manip on a time stop basis.

I think 3 neutrals and 2 agrees for something minor like a resistance is acceptable. The objection was from Dereck but as far as I am aware Content Mods cannot vote on CRTs, no?

I mean, then I don't even have voting weight in my own verse that I've been supporting for over 3 years? then I'm done with this ****.

 

[Antvasima]

Afaik verses with a significant following that are very controversial, such as MGK (and also Dragon Ball as another example) need a minimum of three staff approvals. See here from the Discussion Rules page:

"In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions."

Thank you for helping out with valid information.

 

[Antvasima]

I mean, then I don't even have voting weight in my own verse that I've been supporting for over 3 years? then I'm done with this ****.

Please do not do anything rash here. You are an extremely good and helpful staff member, and I have been actively trying to convince AKM to allow me to give you a promotion to either thread moderator or administrator, and he seems to have agreed to ask our staff about a thread moderator position for the time being.

 

[Dereck03]

Please do not do anything rash here. You are an extremely helpful staff member, and I have been actively trying to convince AKM to allow me to give you a promotion to either thread moderator or administrator, and he seems to have agred to ask our staff about a thread moderator position for the time being.

What does that have to do with this? Just that this is a double standard? My evaluation is counted when I am on side with them, but then got nulled when I am against them? Nah. Done.

 

[Deagonx]

Afaik verses with a significant following that are very controversial, such as MGK (and also Dragon Ball as another example) need a minimum of three staff approvals. See here from the Discussion Rules page:

"In cases where the series verse has a significant following or a large amount of material has been published based on its content, it may be necessary to seek approval from a minimum of three staff members to ensure that all relevant parties are aware of and agree with the proposed revisions."

That doesn't mention controversial verses though, it says significant following or large amount of material. MG is somewhat popular but I'd say it's definitely still relatively fringe? The reason why we don't require three staff votes is because it tends to be hard to get people involved in such a niche verse.

There's also this rule from the same page:

In order to ensure that all revisions are thoroughly reviewed and approved, it is necessary for a minimum of two staff members to sign off on any proposed changes

I mean, then I don't even have voting weight in my own verse that I've been supporting for over 3 years? then I'm done with this ****.

I don't understand. What does that have to do with voting?