Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[ImmortalDread]

If I may step in, but if you see the response from him, he does not actually know this and thought it is only CRTs and VS threads (since Ant clarified this prior, when someone reported him for simply commenting on general discussions)

You can delete this post, but I believe the person who reported him, did not see the response or forget to mention it, so it is worth mentioning.

I haven't seen any clarification from any staff member regarding his punishment professionally without ambiguity, specifying exactly what he is banned from (there is no mention of it on his profile wall).

 

[Vapourrrrr]

Why should I be banned for making calcs on the verse, my behaviour problem was "stonewalling"

I swore sometimes but that isn't bannable since I've seen KLOL swear multiple times

If I'm banned from making TR calcs that's BS and to be frank just wrong, I defended calcs and got banned for 2 months ?! I wasn't even stonewalling that hard you can tell because I got banned when the thread was at like page 10 and now it's reached page 11 and is no closer to a conclusion, shouldn't this prove I shouldn't even BE BANNED ?

TR calcs are so immensly difficult because there's so much to analyse and so much to debate on, we can't reach a certain conclusion because there are multiple opinions, and when someone who hasn't even read the series comes in the debates get longer and longer, I don't even think I should be topic banned

 

[Agnaa]

Because stonewalling is something that can manifest in calc blogs. You'll also notice that you didn't stonewall in versus threads, yet the topic ban extended there too. Hell, I've seen some behaviour that seems stonewall-esque in some of your calc blogs (but not many). The topic ban extending there is reasonable.

TR calcs aren't noticeably more difficult than other verses.

 

[Vapourrrrr]

Because stonewalling is something that can manifest in calc blogs. You'll also notice that you didn't stonewall in versus threads, yet the topic ban extended there too. Hell, I've seen some behaviour that seems stonewall-esque in some of your calc blogs (but not many). The topic ban extending there is reasonable.

TR calcs aren't noticeably more difficult than other verses.

Sooooooo

We should ban RoggerReggor and Morrishatesyou for stonewalling too ? I mean it's not even that, you and Rogger have been debating over a class of the elite calc for 1 MONTH now, that is literally stone walling, and from BOTH of you, I "Stonewalled" for 7ish days and got banned for 2 months, to be frank the "stonewalling" in my calcs is me defending it because I WHOLE HEARTEDLY believe they are correct, when CGM'S give me good reasoning I back off

 

[Agnaa]

Perhaps we should, I don't really care about other people stonewalling so I don't report it.

If people think I shouldn't be trying to explain why a calc was rejected to someone stonewalling against that idea for a month, I can quite easily stop.

EDIT: Just got a notification that Vapourrrrr commented on another TR calc. This comment was made shortly after this post in the RVT; after Bambu and I had clarified that the topic ban extended to calcs.

EDIT 2: Another one.

EDIT 3: Make it a triple. This is all over stuff that I'd already extensively argued against and rejected earlier in that comment chain, which other CGMs agreed with.

 

[Vapourrrrr]

Perhaps we should, I don't really care about other people stonewalling so I don't report it.

If people think I shouldn't be trying to explain why a calc was rejected to someone stonewalling against that idea for a month, I can quite easily stop.

I think that's unreasonable (Topic banning reggor and morris) but since you know more then me whatever, I feel like the premise of debating shouldn't be considered stone walling, for example

I came to a conclusion with a person to use 31.3 for Souths calc and even morris agreed but then a new debate arose, I came to a conclusion with another person on the motion blur of Senju's arm, I came to a conclusion on changing the distance that Takemichi dodged, I came to a conclusion on multiple things but as new people joined the thread the more the thread got clouded and my debating began to be considered "stone walling", IMO its just unfair because I know that if I was stonewalling I wouldn't have come to any conclusions, I feel like its gotta be realised that that thread had like 10-20 people commenting, It was impossible for the thread not to stretch out

 

[RoggerReggor]

We should ban RoggerReggor and Morrishatesyou for stonewalling too

If that's ban-worthy and all the CGMs get so tired with the verse which I am debating on currently that they don't even evaluate the calcs of the verse (like TR). Then sure.

We aren't stonewalling. I and Agnaa are debating about a freaking interpretation and premises of the feat where literally both is possible. And it's not like I and Agnaa were arguing with one thing for the entire debate, new stuff was put on, countered on, accepted on or done on, you can see it if you take two different comments from different times. I am also not set on annoying Agnaa or something. I don't think he is biased and give him tags of being biased, and I still like to ask him for evaluating calcs, he puts on genuine and good debates. Calcs should be questioned and that's what happens. You stick on one thing for a lot of time, even getting on a high horse and thinking that you are the only one who's correct.

(Only coming here as I was specifically mentioned.)

 

[Vapourrrrr]

If that's ban-worthy and all the CGMs get so tired with the verse which I am debating on currently that they don't even evaluate the calcs of the verse (like TR). Then sure.

We aren't stonewalling. I and Agnaa are debating about a freaking interpretation and premises of the feat where literally both is possible. And it's not like I and Agnaa were arguing with one thing for the entire debate, new stuff was put on, countered on, accepted on or done on, you can see it if you take two different comments from different times. I am also not set on annoying Agnaa or something. I don't think he is biased and give him tags of being biased, and I still like to ask him for evaluating calcs, he puts on genuine and good debates. Calcs should be questioned and that's what happens. You stick on one thing for a lot of time, even getting on a high horse and thinking that you are the only one who's correct.

(Only coming here as I was specifically mentioned.)

I wasn't getting on a high horse I just said "stop debating this" because it was a dumb debate that had nothing to do with the CRT

Literally everything you just said is what I was doing in the thread, me getting topic banned for 2 months is diabolical especially if you think what your doing is fine, then what I was doing was fine because multiple new things came up, I don't know why you bought up biased and evaling calcs, I also ask him and I have never called him biased

The only time I call a CGM biased is when I have good reasoning for it, for example if you refuse to eval TR calcs but then participate in the downgrade threads, I also am pretty sure I apologised to DMUA if not then idk

 

[RoggerReggor]

(Again, I am uninterested in this.)

I wasn't getting on a high horse I just said "stop debating this" because it was a dumb debate that had nothing to do with the CRT

Some more information on that topic: In the first thread of the verse itself, you called literally everyone biased and accused them for "downgrading the verse only because the downgrades were biased and were only done because the people wanted their favorite verses to get higher than TR so they could solo it" and even called the people as Tokyo Revengers haters. While you certainly amended your behavior for that, I still think it is necessary to mention. And then only, the entire thread was derailed on went on a topic of people being biased and doing some "stupid debunks" (according to you).

And stop calling any downgrades or debates "stupid" or "dumb" if a person has literally put up a lot of points. A stupid debunk is a debunk which has some clear scientific problems. The entire thread was based on interpretations, so it is of course not "dumb". This was for the thread by Second. In the thread by Zefra as well, you were the one who was seriously the most disliked person. Both Morris and Corbin were also arguing, but it's not like people specially "dislike" them. If I recall correctly, most of the people were genuinely annoyed by you despite doing the same amount of debate as other supporters. There's a way in debating and you didn't know it, I don't know about now.

Edit: Check the threads for proofs of why people were seriously annoyed with you.

Literally everything you just said is what I was doing in the thread, me getting topic banned for 2 months is diabolical especially if you think what your doing is fine, then what I was doing was fine because multiple new things came up, I don't know why you bought up biased and evaling calcs, I also ask him and I have never called him biased

As I said, it's not comparable. You were doing it very differently.

The only time I call a CGM biased is when I have good reasoning for it, for example if you refuse to eval TR calcs but then participate in the downgrade threads, I also am pretty sure I apologised to DMUA if not then idk

CGMs only evaluated the threads because it was necessary, while doing calcs is their choice.

 

[Vapourrrrr]

(Again, I am uninterested in this.)

Some more information on that topic: In the first thread of the verse itself, you called literally everyone biased and accused them for "downgrading the verse only because the downgrades were biased and were only done because the people wanted their favorite verses to get higher than TR so they could solo it" and even called the people as Tokyo Revengers haters. While you certainly amended your behavior for that, I still think it is necessary to mention. And then only, the entire thread was derailed on went on a topic of people being biased and doing some "stupid debunks" (according to you).

And stop calling any downgrades or debates "stupid" or "dumb" if a person has literally put up a lot of points. A stupid debunk is a debunk which has some clear scientific problems. The entire thread was based on interpretations, so it is of course not "dumb". This was for the thread by Second. In the thread by Zefra as well, you were the one who was seriously the most disliked person. Both Morris and Corbin were also arguing, but it's not like people specially "dislike" them. If I recall correctly, most of the people were genuinely annoyed by you despite doing the same amount of debate as other supporters. There's a way in debating and you didn't know it, I don't know about now.

As I said, it's not comparable. You were doing it very differently.

CGMs only evaluated the threads because it was necessary, while doing calcs is their choice.

Okay

1. They bought up characters like Karma and Ayanokoji, its only fair to assume that there biased since they said things like "Karma > Mikey" and "Ayanokoji > Mikey"

2. I called them haters ? You linked an old thread that has nothing to do with my topic ban, anyways whatever

3. Zefra's post said to use Peak human for top tiers in the verse, I don't think I need to explain why that's dumb

4. People were annoyed by me because I was angry and was debating them for long times and debating multiple, I responded (when I was active) within a minute so the thread became focused on debating with me instead of morris and corbin who took longer to respond, I was literally arguing with like 5 people at a time, I was annoyed so I wouldn't expect my responses to be kind even though they weren't me going off the deep end

5. Differently how ? I was debating just like you

6. reading through calcs is literally the whole premise of their job, reading through threads is much less important then reading through actual calcs

 

[RoggerReggor]

Okay

1. They bought up characters like Karma and Ayanokoji, its only fair to assume that there biased since they said things like "Karma > Mikey" and "Ayanokoji > Mikey"

2. I called them haters ? You linked an old thread that has nothing to do with my topic ban, anyways whatever

3. Zefra's post said to use Peak human for top tiers in the verse, I don't think I need to explain why that's dumb

4. People were annoyed by me because I was angry and was debating them for long times and debating multiple, I responded (when I was active) within a minute so the thread became focused on debating with me instead of morris and corbin who took longer to respond, I was literally arguing with like 5 people at a time, I was annoyed so I wouldn't expect my responses to be kind even though they weren't me going off the deep end

5. Differently how ? I was debating just like you

6. reading through calcs is literally the whole premise of their job, reading through threads is much less important then reading through actual calcs

This is an RVR, not a regular verse thread. Leave it to the staff. I am not going to reply after this even if it questions anything. Come to the message wall for all of this. This shall not happen in a Wiki Management thread.

 

[Second22]

@Vapourrrrr You are saying that debates should not be banned from topic, and you believe that there are valid reasons for your arguments. Let's explore the reasons for your debates, for example...

I'm saying that we cannot assume Izana's running 7 meters, and Agnaa in the latest Downgrade thread also thinks the same way. And this is your counterargument.

Your assumptions are stupid and your reaching

Thats just stupid dude, You guys have the worst speculations

And here are some comments on your argument.

It just shows your bias and wanting to make Tokyo revengers weaker

He didn't even know what I was going to mean but he replied like this.

I may have completely misunderstood his point though, but if what I said is true then this crt should end because its stupid

More.

Your stupid debunks make no sense. Instead of waiting for the anime why don't you accept that the assumptions made make perfect sense

stop making stupid arguments please.

And many more, From where he was reported earlier.

Tbh, many times your arguments have no benefits other than leading to chaos, insulting others as being stupid, attempting to drag down threads with slow degradation, being straightforwardly annoying. I can report you in various ways because you don't care about the rules I've set in the OP, seriously. I don't think you should be banned just only in the TR topic.

 

[Vapourrrrr]

@Vapourrrrr You are saying that debates should not be banned from topic, and you believe that there are valid reasons for your arguments. Let's explore the reasons for your debates, for example...

I'm saying that we cannot assume Izana's running 7 meters, and Agnaa in the latest Downgrade thread also thinks the same way. And this is your counterargument.


And here are some comments on your argument.

He didn't even know what I was going to mean but he replied like this.

More.


And many more, From where he was reported earlier.

Tbh, many times your arguments have no benefits other than leading to chaos, insulting others as being stupid, attempting to drag down threads with slow degradation, being straightforwardly annoying. I can report you in various ways because you don't care about the rules I've set in the OP, seriously. I don't think you should be banned just only in the TR topic.

. Jesus, this Izana calc is so obvious, if were gonna be this nit picky over a calc NO calc will ever be accepted, I will literally create the largest downgrade thread because no calc needs to be this nit picky, the calc is simple and obvious

.Rogger has multiple calcs that he believes work and will debate them for weeks, these calcs also have assumptions that are infact much more reachy then TR calcs

. Why am I arguing over this anyway ? I was topic banned from the calc stacking thread, not the "BiGesT DoWnGRaDE ThrEad", calling a calc dumb or debate dumb or shit or bad isn't against the rules, KLOL has done it numerous times

. Report me then, If I get banned for saying something is dumb or stupid then KLOL should also be banned ? Makes no sense

 

[KingNanaya]

it would probably be best to let staff handle it instead of going back and forth like this

 

[Antvasima]

I am honestly uncertain if discussion thread topic bans automatically extend to calculation blogs. What do our administrators here think?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I am honestly uncertain if discussion thread topic bans automatically extend to calculation blogs. What do our administrators here think?

Calculations are highly relevant to this specific case, at least. I think in general, it ought to count as we're barring them from officially partaking in the verse- calcs seem pretty official to me. They represent proposals on par with a CRT.

I think they should count in general, they should definitely count for this specific case. Since it wasn't obvious I don't think action should be taken against Vapourrr, but the bickering felt pretty unnecessary.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that seems to make sense.

 

[Vapourrrrr]

Calculations are highly relevant to this specific case, at least. I think in general, it ought to count as we're barring them from officially partaking in the verse- calcs seem pretty official to me. They represent proposals on par with a CRT.

I think they should count in general, they should definitely count for this specific case. Since it wasn't obvious I don't think action should be taken against Vapourrr, but the bickering felt pretty unnecessary.

Why should I be banned for commenting on TR calcs and making calcs, seems a bit out of order, If a CGM comments on my calc I usually only @ them once or twice before I stop which majority of people do, I'm not pestering anyone I'm just making calcs for a verse I like and commenting on calcs

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Because you're topic banned for poor behavior on calcs in addition to on-forum shit.

I gave my two cents, we're not spamming the RvR. Vapourrr, you also will not carry on here- flooding RvR is in itself a rule violation.

 

[Vapourrrrr]

Because you're topic banned for poor behavior on calcs in addition to on-forum shit.

I gave my two cents, we're not spamming the RvR. Vapourrr, you also will not carry on here- flooding RvR is in itself a rule violation.

Well where else am I meant to debate this

I was topic banned for "stonewalling", I wouldn't call that poor behaviour, an before you bring up Second22's thread, that was not the reason for my ban so I don't think it should be used

 

[Deagonx]

Well where else am I meant to debate this

You aren't. RvR punishments aren't debates.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It's not up for debate, is the thing. You are topic banned.

Edit: instantly ninja'd by Deagon.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah like I said it's not up for debate. What is up for discussion is for staff members to weigh in on whether calcs should be covered by topic bans at large, and this specific one. @Deagonx I encourage you to speak on that, unless you did and I missed it. Other folk should too.

I'm giving a formal warning to Vapourrrr for behavior regarding this matter, too.

 

[Excellence616]

Krillin (Dragon Ball)

Krillin or Kuririn (クリリン, Kuririn?) is a former monk of the Orin Temple who ran away to train under Master Roshi, eventually doing so alongside Son Goku, who would grow to become his best friend. Tier: 8-C | 5-B, Varies, up to far higher with Kamehameha | At least 5-B, Varies, up to far higher...

vsbattles.fandom.com

This profile has been violated
The person have been previous warned by @Antivasima.

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

Krillin (Dragon Ball)

Krillin or Kuririn (クリリン, Kuririn?) is a former monk of the Orin Temple who ran away to train under Master Roshi, eventually doing so alongside Son Goku, who would grow to become his best friend. Tier: 8-C | 5-B, Varies, up to far higher with Kamehameha | At least 5-B, Varies, up to far higher...

vsbattles.fandom.com

This profile has been violated
The person have been previous warned by @Antivasima.

i have reverted the edits back to normal.

 

[Antvasima]

I blocked that user.

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

I blocked that user.

thanks ant

also shouldn't krillin's page be locked now? (it's been unlocked for a while and krillin is a very popular character)

 

[M3X_2.0]

What is up for discussion is for staff members to weigh in on whether calcs should be covered by topic bans at large, and this specific one.

As a CGM I’d say no. He can make calc blogs but he can’t do anything more with them.

However, other people can use his calcs, which is fine because he can just calc them off-site and other people can post them here anyway. If we could stop people from using his calcs, even if they post them here from off-site sources, I’d say we’re reaching at this point. Really, I don’t see how calcs could extend to that. Seems kinda a directorship move.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As a CGM I’d say no. He can make calc blogs but he can’t do anything more with them.

However, other people can use his calcs, which is fine because he can just calc them off-site and other people can post them here anyway. If we could stop people from using his calcs, even if they post them here from off-site sources, I’d say we’re reaching at this point. Really, I don’t see how calcs could extend to that. Seems kinda a directorship move.

Making calculations demands adding to the discussion, offering your own interpretation of feats, etc. That is why I would disagree. I think calling it a "dictatorship move" is in extremely poor taste but you're free to your interpretations, I suppose.

 

[Nierre]

But he can't actually do anything with the calcs because he's topic banned. He should be fine making calcs as long as he doesn't actively contribute to the topic discussion.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Even more: the only reason why topic bans exist is to get them to **** off for a bit. Policing what they can or can not do in their own blogs is actually insanity. It aint hurting anyone. And hell, if anything that just prevents actual productivity. If someone got topic banned from say Marvel, but they keep putting out quality and useful calcs, are we actually gonna say "hmm, even though the topic ban applies for completely different reasons, you arent allowed to actually do useful shit lol". There’s an example, say someone super knowledgable over a verse, who constantly updates stuff and is working on it to make it good and quality profiles and calcs and all that other shit. But they get into fights a lot in threads so they get topic banned. Are we REALLY gonna go "yeah you arent allowed to work on your blogs and sandboxes either lol".

> I think calling it a "dictatorship move" is in extremely poor taste but you're free to your interpretations, I suppose.

Just lack of better words, didn’t mean to offend.

 

[KLOL506]

dictatorship

 

[Armorchompy]

I am absolutely against topic bans extending to blogs. Many users just use them recreationally and policing that in my opinion would be going too far. Calculations are an extension of that.

 

[Damage3245]

I am absolutely against topic bans extending to blogs. Many users just use them recreationally and policing that in my opinion would be going too far. Calculations are an extension of that.

I agree. Topic bans should not extend to sandboxes or blog posts.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally do not mind if he only produces the calculation blogs themselves, but from what I recall he has been engaged in very extensive arguments with calc group members within those blogs about Tokyo Revengers, so it is a rather uncertain issue.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Making calculations demands adding to the discussion, offering your own interpretation of feats, etc. That is why I would disagree.

Yeah, but only if they're looked at, evaluated and accepted by CGM's. Meaning either

1. They don't get accepted so they don't add anything relevant.
2. They DO get accepted, meaning they're actually useful, helpful, and an active benefit to have.

And it wouldn't even be them adding it, it'd be someone going "hmm yes, I think that's useful", and taking it. Which would happen either way. Like if blud gives a calc to someone on discord to use, what are we gonna do?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yeah, but only if they're looked at, evaluated and accepted by CGM's. Meaning either

1. They don't get accepted so they don't add anything relevant.
2. They DO get accepted, meaning they're actually useful, helpful, and an active benefit to have.

And it wouldn't even be them adding it, it'd be someone going "hmm yes, I think that's useful", and taking it. Which would happen either way. Like if blud gives a calc to someone on discord to use, what are we gonna do?

Not only if they're looked at lol? Making the calc itself demands that you present your case. Being topic banned for a time means you are disbarred from this for poor behavior. We should not say "You are topic banned but as long as its on a calc and not a thread then you can say whatever you want". We should not afford an individual the means to bypass such a ban.

If someone on Discord wants to act just as poorly and be a mouthpiece then we'd topic ban them, too. If it's just presenting math, as long as the topic banned individual isn't involved on-site, then I don't really give a rat's ass.

 

[Deagonx]

I think calcs should absolutely be covered by topic bans. I'm surprised they aren't by default.

 

[Antvasima]

I trust Bambu's sense of judgement.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Not only if they're looked at lol? Making the calc itself demands that you present your case. Being topic banned for a time means you are disbarred from this for poor behavior. We should not say "You are topic banned but as long as its on a calc and not a thread then you can say whatever you want". We should not afford an individual the means to bypass such a ban.

If someone on Discord wants to act just as poorly and be a mouthpiece then we'd topic ban them, too. If it's just presenting math, as long as the topic banned individual isn't involved on-site, then I don't really give a rat's ass.

So? Case and point actually. You just said that as long as the math is fine you don't care, meaning the only actual issue at play here is "They had bad behavior that may or may not even be relevant to this specific context". If that's the only argument then yeah, this definitely dives into policing. Banning dudes from partaking in threads for bad behavior is to prevent that bad behavior and so others don't have to deal with that shit, but if they're doing their own thing, off forum mind because blogs and sandboxes aren't actually part of the forum, then so what? Yeah, they're presenting an opinion, we can just ignore it if it's bad, and if it's good, well why would we ignore it? The only issue is where it's coming from but if the info is correct, it's correct. Ultimately not of that matters though, it's on us to decide what we use, we can ignore him, we can choose to use whatever he spouts, and the only thing he needs to adhere to is that he is not allowed to actively participate in threads he's banned from. Of course, there was mention of him bickering with CGM's, in such a case the CGM's can choose to simply move on if he refuses to cooperate as we'd do with anyone who acts like that, topic banned or not. If a calc has a ***** and he refuses to fix it, we just don't accept the calc, if he fixes it, then even better. In the end we still shouldn't police blogs like that tho, worst case, we just do what we did with Butter and ignore his calcs unless he shapes up, but he should by all accounts be allowed to work on them, publish them, and do whatever he wants really as long as he stays out of threads that his ban actually covered. To put it simply if you want, think about it this way, if he makes a calc and isn't bothering dudes trying to enforce it, it should be fine. And if we or someone else wants to make use of it, like say a CGM looks at it, think's it's good and eval's it, that isn't him circumventing a topic ban, it's us interacting with him, not the other way around.